But there’s no indication yet of how many customers were affected by that conduct. Do you recall that?I agree with you it’s not in this letter, yes. But was an indication about some other aspects of this, because ClearView acknowledged that some of the customers whose details it had bought from Greater Data and Value-Ad had not received a lead generation call, and ClearView told ASIC that that was about 5500 customers in that situation. Do you recall that?The 5500 – I’m just trying to confirm in my mind whether the not getting a lead gen was the point. But, yes, I will agree, yes. And it help if you look at the second paragraph on the right-hand side: None of the customers provided by the Bradford Exchange were subject to a lead generation call. A small number of customers, approximately 5500, provided by Value-Ad and Greater Data were also not subject to a lead generation call. ?Yes. yes. In addition on the next page, 1370, the letter dealt with your Bupa customers?Yes. I don’t think we have that on the screen just yet. I will wait till it comes up. Do you see the reference to the Bupa customers in the second half of this page under the dot points?Yes. What I want to put to you is that ClearView didn’t explicitly acknowledge a breach of the anti-hawking provisions in relation to its Bupa customers but instead acknowledged that its processes for getting consent from those customers who had received mail or email packs may potentially have fallen short of what ASIC expects in respect of receiving positive, clear and informed consent?Yes, I agree that’s what the letter says. And over the page at 1371, in the top paragraph: Whilst the customers are advised that they may be contacted by Bupa’s business partners, we acknowledge that may not be enough to render these clients solicited based on ASICs guidance in RG38. ?Yes. So by this letter, ClearView acknowledged that it had made unsolicited to customers as part of multiple campaigns, and that it had not complied with the provisions in respect of those calls?Yes. But apart from identifying the 5500 customers that I took you to earlier who were called because their details had been purchased from Greater Data and Value-Ad,
But there’s no indication yet of how many customers were affected by that conduct. Do you recall that?I agree with you it’s not in this letter, yes. But was an indication about some other aspects of this, because ClearView acknowledged that some of the customers whose details it had bought from Greater Data and Value-Ad had not received a lead generation call, and ClearView told ASIC that that was about 5500 customers in that situation. Do you recall that?The 5500 – I’m just trying to confirm in my mind whether the not getting a lead gen was the point. But, yes, I will agree, yes. And it help if you look at the second paragraph on the right-hand side: None of the customers provided by the Bradford Exchange were subject to a lead generation call. A small number of customers, approximately 5500, provided by Value-Ad and Greater Data were also not subject to a lead generation call. ?Yes. yes. In addition on the next page, 1370, the letter dealt with your Bupa customers?Yes. I don’t think we have that on the screen just yet. I will wait till it comes up. Do you see the reference to the Bupa customers in the second half of this page under the dot points?Yes. What I want to put to you is that ClearView didn’t explicitly acknowledge a breach of the anti-hawking provisions in relation to its Bupa customers but instead acknowledged that its processes for getting consent from those customers who had received mail or email packs may potentially have fallen short of what ASIC expects in respect of receiving positive, clear and informed consent?Yes, I agree that’s what the letter says. And over the page at 1371, in the top paragraph: Whilst the customers are advised that they may be contacted by Bupa’s business partners, we acknowledge that may not be enough to render these clients solicited based on ASICs guidance in RG38. ?Yes. So by this letter, ClearView acknowledged that it had made unsolicited to customers as part of multiple campaigns, and that it had not complied with the provisions in respect of those calls?Yes. But apart from identifying the 5500 customers that I took you to earlier who were called because their details had been purchased from Greater Data and Value-Ad,