Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor
Free Elizabeth Arden gift and goodie bags to be won

A fine of £150,000 is to be levied on the phone company involved in the Richard & Judy phone quiz scandal – but the broadcaster, Channel 4, and the producer, Cactus Television, face a further inquiry to learn whether they will be punished.
The 28-page judgment, seen by The Times, concludes that the You Say We Pay competition was “fundamentally misleading in that entries were solicited from viewers at a time when the shortlist of possible winners had already been chosen”.
Undertaken by Icstis, the premium-rate phone-line regulator, it will reveal that 47 per cent of people calling in this year had no chance of winning because a shortlist of potential winners was selected before the quiz had ended. You Say We Pay generated £3.08 million in revenue between 2005 and its suspension in February.
Eckoh, the company that handled the phone calls, is liable for the fine, but the amount was reduced because it had cooperated fully once the problems became public. It also escaped demands for a six-month ban, suspended for a year, on running other competitions.
You Say We Pay began shortly after Richard & Judy went on air at 5pm and ended at 5.38pm, with the winner selected at 5.42pm. On most days a shortlist of 24 possible winners was drawn up as early as 5.11pm, and sent by Eckoh to Cactus Television. Calls cost about 75p on average.
The judgment reveals the limitations of the regulatory process, which has taken five months to reach this stage. Icstis does not, except with the agreement of the broadcaster, have the power to fine Channel 4 or the programme producer.
Eckoh alleged that it was put under pressure by Cactus to pick winners early, and said that had it exposed the practice earlier, it might not have been taken seriously by either the production company or Channel 4. Both claims are “keenly contested” by Cactus and Channel 4, and will form part of a separate inquiry by Ofcom, the regulator.
Channel 4 remains at risk of a serious fine because of Ofcom’s investigation. Last month Five was fined £300,000 after it was found that the production company Endemol had faked phone-in winners on five occasions this year.
In the case of Richard & Judy the early selection of winners happened every day and dated back at least into last year.
Channel 4 is in the process of offering refunds to viewers. Eckoh declined to comment last night.
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers

Overseas contacts and local business information

Find a course, arrange a game and save money
£129,500
Bentley Edinburgh
£79,850
Mercedes-Benz of Northampton
£26,995
Unit 1, Woodfield Business Unit, Kidderminster Road, Ombersley, Worcester.
Great car insurance deals online
90k + Bonus + Options
Confidential
London
£23,716 +
Highways Agency
National
£
£43,405 - £48,228 pa
Notting Hill Housing
London
£38k
Barclaycard
Various Locations
Live in One of London's Most Vibrant Areas
From £249,950
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
It is clear that Eckoh did everything within their power to ensure that they operated correctly. However if the customer asks the company for information at a certain time, surely it must have a legal obligation to provide it. It has been made apparent by Eckoh that it made the clients aware of the problem at an early stage, the company did everything in its power to make sure that it cooperated fully with the regulator. Further than this Eckoh went further by engaging KPMG to carry out an independent investigation of the matter. All of this was recognised by the regulator in their judgement, yet it seems unfair and inefficent that the broadcastor and the production company are not judged at the same time. Moreover that potentially the production company may never be held responsible.
I believe Eckoh acted ethically and correctly in this matter and many other companies could do well to take note of their corrective actions.
Peter Budgen, Maidstone, Kent
It is clear that Eckoh did everything within their power to ensure that they operated correctly. However if the customer asks the company for information at a certain time, surely it must have a legal obligation to provide it. It has been made apparent by Eckoh that it made the clients aware of the problem at an early stage, the company did everything in its power to make sure that it cooperated fully with the regulator. Further than this Eckoh went further by engaging KPMG to carry out an independent investigation of the matter. All of this was recognised by the regulator in their judgement, yet it seems unfair and inefficent that the broadcastor and the production company are not judged at the same time. Moreover that potentially the production company may never be held responsible.
I believe Eckoh acted ethically and correctly in this matter and many other companies could do well to take note of their corrective actions.
Peter Budgen, Maidstone, Kent