Dipesh Gadher and James Ashton
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes

ITV is set to escape a seven-figure fine over a vote-rigging scandal involving Ant and Dec, its star presenters, because of a Channel Islands legal loophole. The network is expected to get away with a “derisory” fine for passing over the viewers’ choice of winner, the comedian Catherine Tate, so that Ant and Dec would receive an award from their friend the pop star Robbie Williams.
Regulators believe the incident warranted a penalty in line with the £2m levied against GMTV last year after viewers entered competitions they had no chance of winning.
Ofcom, the broadcasting watchdog, is understood to be furious that ITV has instead benefited from a licensing technicality that means any fine is likely to be a fraction of that amount.
Sources say the current system is “totally unacceptable”, and the regulator is braced for a public outcry when it announces its fine in the next few weeks.
The loophole allows ITV programmes to be registered for compliance purposes with a tiny franchise, Channel Television, based in Jersey and Guernsey.
About 40% of ITV shows – mostly made by independent production companies – are vetted in the Channel Islands to ensure that they do not breach broadcasting guidelines.
It means that Ofcom can levy fines against these programmes based on only the modest advertising revenue of Channel Television, rather than the £1.5 billion earned last year by ITV plc, which owns 11 of the 15 ITV regional franchises.
The regulator now wants the entire ITV network to be liable for any future cases of deception, a move that could result in the broadcaster facing enormous fines of as much as £75m.
If the loophole cannot be closed through a voluntary agreement with ITV, Ofcom will urge ministers to introduce new legislation to enforce the change.
Last week Ed Richards, Ofcom’s chief executive, told the Commons culture select committee: “The sanction system should be linked to where the real responsibility lies rather than attached to single individual licences, which has been an anomaly and a constraint in relation to our meeting the seriousness of the concern in this area.”
The full extent of the deception at the 2005 British Comedy Awards came to light only earlier this month after ITV published the findings of an investigation.
The independent inquiry by Olswang, a law firm, revealed that Williams was given an assurance that he would be able to present an award to Anthony McPartlin and Declan Donnelly. However, Ant and Dec had not won any of the awards determined by the jury. The only award they could have gone on to win was the People’s Choice award, which was to be decided by a premium-rate phone vote.
It transpired that voters favoured Tate for her BBC comedy show, yet Ant and Dec were announced the winners.
To make matters worse, viewers were encouraged to keep on voting even after the award had been presented by Williams, because part of the ceremony was recorded and then broadcast “as live”.
The Olswang report said Williams, McPartlin and Donnelly were all unaware that the vote had been fixed.
A regulatory source said: “This was one of the worst cases, if not the worst case, that have come to light.”
The programme was made by Michael Hurll Television (MHTV), an independent production company, and was shown across the country on ITV1. However, MHTV asked Channel TV, the privately owned ITV broadcaster in the Channel Islands, to handle compliance issues for the show.
This means that Channel TV – rather than ITV plc – is now being investigated by Ofcom, which can fine it a maximum of 5% of its advertising revenue. The biggest fine it could receive would be about £175,000, but it is believed the figure will be closer to £50,000.
Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat culture spokesman, said: “The public will see this as a derisory amount for the scale of deception involved. ITV is ultimately responsible for what appears on our screens so it should be held to account.”
ITV said producers were free to decide which licensed franchise they used for compliance. “We have serious reservations about the existing compliance structure and have raised these concerns with Ofcom.”
Articles from our sister site WSJ.com:
You may be asked to subscribe to read certain articles
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 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.
I have worked in the premium rate number industry for a while, and have done deals with many very large companies, including PLC's.
All I have to say is... they are all crooks. 100%.
I have been screwed, I have been involved in ventures where they ultimately screw their customers, etc etc...
Mike Knowles, sussex, uk
The stupid and their money are easily parted by fair means or foul... who but a intellectual gnat would phone in to these guys in the expectation of anything than a big phone bill? madness..
zugerman, zurich, switzerland
ITV, and whoever ran the phone-lines, solicited money - which they then kept - knowing that the phone lines were going to be ignored. I thought that would be obtaining money by deception. I thought obtaining money by deception was a crime. Forget about Ofcom. Call the police.
cliff r, berkshire,
I believe the ITV broadcasting licences should be revoked in the public interest.
Kiri, London, UK
It looks like the system was created to allow ITV to get away with such things.
mark, london,
Mr Grade talked the talk when these scandles began to emerge, now we wait to see if he has the courage to walk the walk.
This is the most brazen deception yet revealed , the scandle should be addressed by Mr Grade as well as the regulator.
robert everitt, wolverhampton,
Michael Grade has behaved and performed perfectly honourably in purging ITV of this malady. Perhaps he may, himself, now suggest how this issue may be brought to a just and honourable conclusion.
Mike L, Chippenham, Wilts
Then take away their license on the grounds they are not fit for purpose, ie run a TV channel without appropriating money from their viewers under false pretenses.
David Masu, Zürich,
This will probably mean the end of the phone-in vote, despite the revenue it generates for TV companies. The problem for producers is that the public can't be trusted to vote the 'right' way. Complete editorial control is far, far too precious to be jeopardized by allowing the public any real say.
Richard, Sussex,
Why is the Serious Fraud Office not investigating this and all the other massive TV phone scams??....maybe the threat of real criminal prosecution would be the most effective regulator.
sedgwick, London, UK