ICSTIS Adjudication

Eckoh PLC
06 July 2007


                                   Eckoh Plc
                           ('Eckoh' or the 'Company')

       Response to the ICSTIS Adjudication on the 'Richard and Judy show'

Eckoh acknowledges the ICSTIS adjudication on the breach of its Code of Practice
(the 'Code') relating to the 'You Say, We Pay' competition (the 'Competition')
on the 'Richard and Judy show' and provides the following response. .

Eckoh co-operated fully with the investigation. It made written submissions on 7
March 2007 and 23 March 2007 and appeared before an adjudication panel on 11
June 2007. The Company is pleased that the ICSTIS panel commented that 'Eckoh's
cooperation with the ICSTIS investigation in this case has been exemplary'.

Under the Code, the Service Provider (i.e. Eckoh) is the only party that can be
sanctioned by ICSTIS for any breaches of compliance, irrespective of who is
actually responsible or how this came about.

Information providers, in this case Channel 4 and Cactus, are outside the
jurisdiction of ICSTIS and it is unable to take action against them unless they
give their consent. Both Channel 4 and Cactus decided not to provide any witness
evidence at the hearing.

ICSTIS acknowledges that 'Eckoh had not had any direct control over the
broadcast of the Richard and Judy programme' and the adjudication states that
'the panel is aware that Ofcom (whose remit includes broadcasters) has
instigated an investigation into this Competition under the Broadcasting Code'.
The Company awaits the outcome of this investigation with interest.

Eckoh informed Cactus about the compliance problem on 26 January 2007, confirmed
this by email on 28 January, and then followed it up on 30 January and 12
February. For the period 29 January to 15 February 2007, the revenue generated
from calls was £176,536.37 of which £173,662.68 was paid to Channel 4 and Eckoh
received £2,873.69

Following is a summary of the adjudication:

   • For the purposes of deciding a sanction an ICSTIS panel must hold a
     service provider accountable for the actions of its information providers.
   • The panel consider that a fine of £150,000 is appropriate in this case
     but has stated that 'part of the purpose of the sanction is to provide an
     incentive to other service providers who may not have taken the steps which
     Eckoh have done to ensure compliance'
   • It is not in dispute that the final list of names was regularly being
     received by Cactus before further solicitations to ring in were made by the
     presenters of the television programme
   • Ofcom have instigated an investigation into this Competition under the
     Broadcasting Code
   • Eckoh has a good record in relation to compliance with the Code and is a
     reputable and respected provider of telephony services
   • Eckoh has introduced an extensive series of remedial measures, including
     commissioning its own audit carried out independently by KPMG

The Company has already made a sufficient provision in its 2006 accounts for the
fine levied. Consequently, there is no financial impact on the current year.

Nik Philpot, Chief Executive Officer of Eckoh said: 'We accept that Eckoh made
mistakes with ''You Say We Pay'' but it seems clear to us that all three parties
could and should have spotted the problem earlier. It was Eckoh who identified
it and tried to take action. We have put in procedures that set the benchmark in
terms of best practice and we are pleased that ICSTIS has described these as an
admirable and comprehensive range of measures to ensure compliance in the
future.

What this adjudication highlights is the important point that, in our opinion,
the regulations governing premium rate services linked to television programmes
are fundamentally flawed.

It is frustrating that, because ICSTIS can only adjudicate against Eckoh, we are
the only party to be sanctioned today whilst the fate of the broadcaster has to
wait for any Ofcom investigation to conclude. Furthermore, neither regulator
appears to have jurisdiction to deal with the production company. Only last week
Ofcom fined another broadcaster in a case involving premium rate telephony yet
there has been no action taken in that case by ICSTIS. This illustrates that
current regulation is unpredictable and inconsistent. In our view it would be
far better for the industry and the public in cases like these if the regulators
took a joined up approach and dealt with all the evidence and all the parties
collectively in a clear and transparent manner.

We regret the damage this particular case has caused to the general public and
to their perception of these types of services. We are extremely sorry for
anyone who entered the competition and were not dealt with appropriately. Eckoh
takes its responsibilities and good reputation extremely seriously and, in
conjunction with Channel 4, has already offered a refund to those affected in
the recent series.'

Eckoh plc
Nik Philpot, Chief Executive Officer
Adam Moloney, Group Finance Director
Jim Hennigan, Executive Director
www.eckoh.com                                        Tel: [phone]

Corfin Communications
Harry Chathli, Neil Thapar, Ben Hunt                 Tel: [phone]

Seymour Pierce
Jonathan Wright                                      Tel: [phone]


Notes to Editor

The Richard and Judy programme ran from 5pm until just before 6pm, and the
on-air competition concluded at approximately 5.42pm. The Competition, including
the relevant number to call was publicised on screen and on air by the
presenters during the course of the programme. The telephone lines were open
until about 5.38pm, and callers who called before this time would have heard a
recorded message asking them to answer a multiple-choice question and to leave
their name and telephone number.

Eckoh selected 24 participants (in four tranches of six) randomly from those who
had called and answered the question correctly and passed these names on to the
production company, Cactus. Cactus would then select a winner and telephone them
back to validate their details before they were heard on air. In practice, all
24 names had usually been sent to Cactus by about 5.15pm. However, the lines
would still be open for another 20 minutes or so, and the programme regularly
contained a second on screen solicitation from the presenters for viewers to
enter the Competition after the names had been selected, followed by a third
solicitation as part of the programme trail before the advertising break.

ICSTIS acknowledged that 'Eckoh had not had any direct control over the
broadcast of the programme'.

Whilst Eckoh acknowledges that the Richard and Judy service operated in a
non-compliant manner for a period of time, it was only in the latter stages that
Eckoh became aware that the service was non-compliant. The winner selection
process that Eckoh followed was one already in place when Eckoh took over the
account from the previous service provider. When Eckoh conducted a review of
broadcast services and ultimately realised that this process was non-compliant
it raised this problem with Cactus, prior to the new series beginning in January
2007. However, despite the seriousness of the issue and Eckoh following up on
this on two further occasions, Eckoh was unsuccessful in having the issue
resolved before the problem was highlighted in the press.

Since the Richard and Judy case became public Eckoh's processes have been
audited by Deloittes on behalf of ITV and it appointed KPMG to independently
review all of the services it provides to media clients. No significant issues
have been identified by either of these reviews.

Eckoh is also not being formally investigated by ICSTIS in any other cases.




                      This information is provided by RNS
            The company news service from the London Stock Exchange