Supanet

[valeriej43]

Just wondering if anyone knows anything about this company, my daughters boyfriend has beeb trying to get in touch with them for quite a while, he had internet with them, when he cancelled he obviously forgot to cancel his DD with therm, and they have been taking money every month,
Silly of him not to cancel DDs, and sillier even to have only just realised
He has tried to get in touch but they are not responding, he wants to see if he can get back what they have been taking every month
Thanks in advance

[bluebottle]

Re: Supanet

If Supanet knew he had cancelled the contract and they weren't entitled to draw money from his bank account, they are committing the offence of Fraud by False Misrepresentation each time they order debits from his bank. With a Direct Debit, it is the payee who is in control, not the person whose bank account it is.

I have just been on their website and their Billing contact telephone number is 0845 1204473 which is available 8.30 am - 5.00 pm, Monday to Friday. If they try to blame your daughter's boyfriend, all he needs point out is, "You knew I had cancelled and you knew you weren't entitled to draw any further payments from my bank account." That normally shuts them up. If they try to offer a cheque, the answer is, "That is an offence under Section 2, Theft Act 1978." If they try to say it is "company policy", all he has to say, "I would refer you again to Section 2, Theft Act 1978. It is an offence to offer a cheque for payment. The refund must be by the same method of payment." If they won't back down, I find that adding 25% of the refund on top of what they owe sometimes "persuades" them to pay up promptly.

If your daughter's boyfriend doesn't have any joy, come back onto this thread.

[valeriej43]

Re: Supanet

Thank you ,i will pass the message on, will update when i know what the outcome is

[teaboy2]

Re: Supanet

If Supanet knew he had cancelled the contract and they weren't entitled to draw money from his bank account, they are committing the offence of Fraud by False Misrepresentation each time they order debits from his bank. With a Direct Debit, it is the payee who is in control, not the person whose bank account it is.

I have just been on their website and their Billing contact telephone number is 0845 1204473 which is available 8.30 am - 5.00 pm, Monday to Friday. If they try to blame your daughter's boyfriend, all he needs point out is, "You knew I had cancelled and you knew you weren't entitled to draw any further payments from my bank account." That normally shuts them up. If they try to offer a cheque, the answer is, "That is an offence under Section 2, Theft Act 1978." If they try to say it is "company policy", all he has to say, "I would refer you again to Section 2, Theft Act 1978. It is an offence to offer a cheque for payment. The refund must be by the same method of payment." If they won't back down, I find that adding 25% of the refund on top of what they owe sometimes "persuades" them to pay up promptly.

If your daughter's boyfriend doesn't have any joy, come back onto this thread.

Thanks for that bit of info Blue bottle. i have a situation on going where a company took payment from my card after committing an act of fraud by misrepresentation and they refused to refund to the card and instead made me wait 7 days for them to issue a cheque which to their credit arrived the day after it was issued. Problem was it was not a standard cheque but more like a giro payment thing. I.e. it was attached to the bottom of a letter! When i went to pay it in the bank yesterday morning i was told because of the type of cheque it would take 7 working days to clear, which they, the company in question, failed to inform me off.

I now after reading what you put above mate, have sent them an email telling them that if payment is not refunded to my card by 5pm tuesday 25th April 2012 with a reasonable amount of compensation not less than 8% of the original amount that i will begin proceedings against then whilst reporting them for their criminal acts in breach of section 2 the theft act 1976 (which i also copied and pasted into the email to them highlighting the relevant parts). I also told them they should seek legal advise from their solicitors prior to deciding what action to take.

Obviously i can not name names here due to the potential legal action that may well follow and same due to any potential criminal investigation that may well follow too.

But all the same, mate that bit of info was very usefull - Cheers mate!

What they also don't know, is i have never lost a legal case, but then most companies back down after i throw them my legal arguements and rip theirs to pieces, showing that their defense or claim would not have any chance of success anyway!

[bluebottle]

Re: Supanet

Thanks for that bit of info Blue bottle. i have a situation on going where a company took payment from my card after committing an act of fraud by misrepresentation and they refused to refund to the card and instead made me wait 7 days for them to issue a cheque which to their credit arrived the day after it was issued. Problem was it was not a standard cheque but more like a giro payment thing. I.e. it was attached to the bottom of a letter! When i went to pay it in the bank yesterday morning i was told because of the type of cheque it would take 7 working days to clear, which they, the company in question, failed to inform me off.

I now after reading what you put above mate, have sent them an email telling them that if payment is not refunded to my card by 5pm tuesday 25th April 2012 with a reasonable amount of compensation not less than 8% of the original amount that i will begin proceedings against then whilst reporting them for their criminal acts in breach of section 2 the theft act 1976 (which i also copied and pasted into the email to them highlighting the relevant parts). I also told them they should seek legal advise from their solicitors prior to deciding what action to take.

Obviously i can not name names here due to the potential legal action that may well follow and same due to any potential criminal investigation that may well follow too.

But all the same, mate that bit of info was very usefull - Cheers mate!

What they also don't know, is i have never lost a legal case, but then most companies back down after i throw them my legal arguements and rip theirs to pieces, showing that their defense or claim would not have any chance of success anyway!

PC World, tried that with me and after keeping me waiting six weeks and lying to me, what would have been an £8.50 refund ended up costing them £20.00 in interest, expenses and costs. The little madam and her manager in their Credit Control Department who strung me along got it in the neck when I wrote to their CEO. The staff at the local PC World were, I have to say, good as gold and were disgusted by the way their head office had behaved.

Section 2, Theft Act 1978 is very useful for dealing with late payers or firms who try to fob you off with cheques in order to delay payments.

[Guest]

Re: Supanet

2 Evasion of liability by deception
(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person by any deception—
(a)dishonestly secures the remission of the whole or part of any existing liability to make a payment, whether his own liability or another’s; or
(b)with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment, or with intent to let another do so, dishonestly induces the creditor or any person claiming payment on behalf of the creditor to wait for payment (whether or not the due date for payment is deferred) or to forgo payment; or
(c)dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment.
he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)For purposes of this section “liability” means legally enforceable liability; and subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a liability that has not been accepted or established to pay compensation for a wrongful act or omission.
(3)For purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person induced to take in payment a cheque or other security for money by way of conditional satisfaction of a pre-existing liability is to be treated not as being paid but as being induced to wait for payment.
(4)For purposes of subsection (1)(c) “obtains” includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain.

HI have i got the right section?
This seems to refer to the debtor avoiding to pay his liabilities and is actionable by the creditor.
Do i have it wrong?

Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Supanet

Yep that sounds very much like what i was told, though i was originally told it would take 30 days to issue the refund - Balls to that. I told them if the money was not back in my account by the close of the same day, i would commence proceedings. They called me and i repeated what i had said before, e.g. fraud by misrepresentation, they said they will explain the refund procedure i said i didnt want to know, as am not waiting 30 days for a dam refund when you could refund it back to my card. Anyway eventually we compromised and agreed to give them till friday on the assumption it would be a normal cheque not a dam giro slip thing that takes 7 working days to clear - Hence why i sent email last night advising them to refund the amount to my card by 5pm today, as i was not happy about having to wait another 7 days for what is a fair amount of money!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

2 Evasion of liability by deception
(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person by any deception—
(a)dishonestly secures the remission of the whole or part of any existing liability to make a payment, whether his own liability or another’s; or
(b)with intent to make permanent default in whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment, or with intent to let another do so, dishonestly induces the creditor or any person claiming payment on behalf of the creditor to wait for payment (whether or not the due date for payment is deferred) or to forgo payment; or
(c)dishonestly obtains any exemption from or abatement of liability to make a payment.
he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)For purposes of this section “liability” means legally enforceable liability; and subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a liability that has not been accepted or established to pay compensation for a wrongful act or omission.
(3)For purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person induced to take in payment a cheque or other security for money by way of conditional satisfaction of a pre-existing liability is to be treated not as being paid but as being induced to wait for payment.
(4)For purposes of subsection (1)(c) “obtains” includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain.

HI have i got the right section?
This seems to refer to the debtor avoiding to pay his liabilities and is actionable by the creditor.
Do i have it wrong?

Peter

I think thats the right one Peter, its the one i highlighted - And in my case they owe me so they are the debtor and i the creditor.

[Guest]

Re: Supanet

HI Teaboy

Yes i see what you mean , i wa refering to the OP.

But it is an inersting approach, how would you commence proceedings for a criminal action?

The usual thing is to make a report to the police isnt it? Would hey be intersted?

Can you enforce yourself, i know the oft have powers to enforce criminal samctions, would they be intersted?

Perhaps BB earlier suggestion re obaining a warrent for the arrest of the purpetrator would be the way to go?

Peter
I

[teaboy2]

Re: Supanet

Well that bit would be reported to the police, though civil proceedings will be for damages (False misrepresentation resulting in finanical detriment e.g. unlawfully withholding my money from me at my deteriment) and reclaiming the money plus any interest and/or compensation - Basically along those lines. The criminal aspect will be reported to and handled by the police!

[Guest]

Re: Supanet

HI
Yes i see what you are saying , but to be hones i wonder about the practicality of this course of action.
#If you rang your posice staion and said PC world had not refunded my money would hey act?

You could of course start a civil action for damages, be intersting to se how tha turned out.
Peter

[teaboy2]

Re: Supanet

Well we shall see what the response i get from them today is, and go from there. Though i will start my own thread for it if it progresses to legal action. So then this thread is not hijacked by it.

[valeriej43]

Re: Supanet

UPDATE; MY daughters boyfriend has rung supanet,and they say it was never cancelled,
As far as he knew the next ISP were supposed to cancel supanet when they took over, which was AXIS, He is now with TALKTALK, and they have done the changeover
He is now going to ring AXIS to check that they did that
Supanet say they didnt know he was not with them anymore,they have no way of checking

[teaboy2]

Re: Supanet

Thats bull****, they know when a person is connected to the internet by the data usage.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Supanet

did your son in law request disconnection or just transefered, I know it sounds dumb but there are companies who will use whats known as a LUL transfer ( I dont know what lul means but I know we were able to take over a line with that alone) instead of issuing a MAC code.

I would suggest contacting OFCOM regarding this, especially if your son in law got a "sorry your leaving" letter.

[valeriej43]

Re: Supanet

He only got a letter after cancelling the direct debits, but nothing about leaving,just offering him a better deal
Also spoke to Axis who say he only had a phone line with them,not broadband, but say they would have notified Supanet anyway, the question IS who did Talktalk take over from, he is going to ring them to check
Axis were charging him £30-73 a month, plus he has been unwittingly paying Supanet £20-48
All this because when paper billing stopped he didnt check his account online [ MEN] lol, i cant see how two companies can use the same phone line as they would both have been rented from BT, talktalk have their own lines now
RE; did he request disconnection or transfer, he didnt do either because the next ISP said they did it all,
I am with talktalk,and they did it without a MAC code
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
After cancelling DDs recently when he realised they were still taking money