Search portmangroup.org.uk

Close

Informal Resolution/Fast Track

If a complaint raises a clear breach of the Code, and fulfils other criteria stipulated in the Code, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) may give the producer an opportunity to make immediate changes to their product without going through the full investigation process.  This is called Informal Resolution and it allows the complaint to be addressed more quickly.

Under the informal process, producers work with our Advisory Service to agree on action to resolve the complaint.  In the interest of transparency, we publish details that we received a complaint, including the name of the company, the category of complainant, the date and the type of activity.

Under earlier editions of the Code, we offered a different process called Fast Track.  This was similar to the informal process but required producers to put their proposals to the ICP Chair for a decision.  The details of complaints resolved under that process are also reported below.

FAST TRACK CASES

Producer: Some Young Punks

Complainant: The Portman Group (acting in lieu as part of 2012 Code Compliance Audit)

Code Rule(s): 3.2(f) and 3.2(h)

Product: Monsters Monsters Attack

Type of activity: Packaging

Case Resolution: February 2014

Producer: Hall & Woodhouse Ltd

Complainant: The Portman Group (acting in lieu as part of 2012 Code Compliance Audit)

Code Rule(s): 3.1 and 3.2(h)

Product: Tangle Foot

Type of activity: Packaging

Case Resolution: February 2014

Producer: Campari

Complainant: The Portman Group (acting in lieu as part of 2012 Code Compliance Audit)

Code Rule(s): 3.1

Product: Campari

Type of activity: Packaging

Case Resolution: February 2014

Producer: Mahou San Miguel

Complainant: Member of the public

Code Rule(s): 3.1

Product (s): Alhambra Reserva 1925

Type of activity: Packaging

Case Resolution: March 2014

Producer: William Grant & Sons

Complainant: Specialist interest in the alcohol industry (Non-governmental organisation)

Code Rule(s): 3.2(d)

Product: Sailor Jerry Rum

Type of activity: Promotional Material

Case Resolution: June 2015

Producer: Heineken

Complainant: Non-governmental organisation

Code Rule(s): 3.2(h)

Product: Bulmers Cider

Type of activity: Promotional Material

Case Resolution: September 2015

Producer: Union Black

Complainant: Specialist interest in alcohol industry

Code Rule(s): 3.2(f)

Product: Union Black Cider

Type of activity: Packaging

Case Resolution: October 2015

Producer: Babco Europe Ltd

Complainant: Member of Public

Code Rule(s): 3.1, 3.2(b), 3.2(f) and 3.2(h)

Product: Mickey Finn’s Raucous Raspberry and Kick Ass Apple

Type of activity: Packaging

Case Resolution: November 2016

Producer: Younger in Spirit

Complainant: Member of the public

Code Rule(s): 3.2(j)

Product : Anti-AGin

Type of activity: Packaging

Case Resolution: July 2016

Producer: Manchester Drinks Company Ltd

Complainant: Member of Public

Code Rule(s): 3.1 and 3.2.(h)

Product (s): Shuda Test Tubes

Type of activity: Packaging

Case Resolution: May 2017

Producer: Lilley’s Cider

Complainant: Member of the public

Code Rule(s): 3.2(h)

Product (s): Lilley’s Bee Sting Cider, Lilley’s Crazy Goat Cider and Lilley’s Cheeky Pig Cider

Type of activity: Packaging

Case Resolution: September 2018

Producer: Brookfield Drinks Limited

Complainant: Member of the public

Code Rule(s): 3.2(a) and 3.2(f)

Product: Kestrel Super Premium Lager

Type of activity: Packaging

Case resolution: February 2018

INFORMAL RESOLUTION

Producer: Gravity Drinks

Complainant: Member of the public

Code Rule(s): 3.2(h)

Product: Dream Chaser – Cotton Candy Gin Liqueur

Type of activity: Packaging

Informal Resolution: November 2020