Supanet

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Supanet

in the case of a LUL transfer it is possible for 2 companies to run the same like, a MAC code transfers ownership. You do need to make both sides aware you are movng, plus request disconnection, that being said if the D.D was stopped by the account holder they should not have paid it.. i will ask my friends in the 02 b/band dept for advise.

[valeriej43]

Re: Supanet

The DD was only stopped in January when he realised Supanet were still taking money,so partly his fault
Apologies by the way to the men on the forum, i should have said SOME MEN,lol
I cant see how they wouldnt know if someone wasnt using their internet, as if they were not getting paid a bill would be sent out or they would be cut off
So what next?

[bluebottle]

Re: Supanet

The fact that Supanet continued taking money they knew themselves they were not entitled to take is sufficient. Yes, they will spout bovine excrement in order to avoid action being taken or being held liable and that is standard practice.

What determines whether the police become involved in fraud cases is the amount of money loss incurred by the complainant. The police rarely get involved in cases where the amount of money lost is small.

In a case such as this, the police would refer the complainant to Trading Standards in the first instance. This is to determine whether the case is a Trading Standards issue or not. If, after carrying out an investigation, Trading Standards find there is a case to answer under the Criminal Law as distinct from Trading Standards or Consumer Protection Law, they will call in the police. This is because TSOs do not have statutory powers of arrest. Sometimes, TSOs will refer the complainant back to the police.

However, offering a refund by cheque in order to delay payment is an offence under the Criminal Law. And, yes, Peter, you have interpreted Section 2, Theft Act 1978 correctly. In layman's terms, where a trader is liable to make a refund, they become the debtor and the customer becomes the creditor.

[Guest]

Re: Supanet

The fact that Supanet continued taking money they knew themselves they were not entitled to take is sufficient. Yes, they will spout bovine excrement in order to avoid action being taken or being held liable and that is standard practice.

What determines whether the police become involved in fraud cases is the amount of money loss incurred by the complainant. The police rarely get involved in cases where the amount of money lost is small.

In a case such as this, the police would refer the complainant to Trading Standards in the first instance. This is to determine whether the case is a Trading Standards issue or not. If, after carrying out an investigation, Trading Standards find there is a case to answer under the Criminal Law as distinct from Trading Standards or Consumer Protection Law, they will call in the police. This is because TSOs do not have statutory powers of arrest. Sometimes, TSOs will refer the complainant back to the police.

However, offering a refund by cheque in order to delay payment is an offence under the Criminal Law. And, yes, Peter, you have interpreted Section 2, Theft Act 1978 correctly. In layman's terms, where a trader is liable to make a refund, they become the debtor and the customer becomes the creditor.

HI BB

I think this would be a cilvll issue, could be wrong of course but i have never heard of the poice being involved with the refund of a direct debit.

Peter

[bluebottle]

Re: Supanet

HI BB

I think this would be a cilvll issue, could be wrong of course but i have never heard of the poice being involved with the refund of a direct debit.

Peter

As it currently stands, I would tend agree with you, Peter. However, when I was a CID officer, I was involved on a case, in collaboration with Trading Standards, where a company ignored a cancellation notice for a DD, kept taking payments they were not entitled to take or receive, and a certain High Street bank kept paying them, despite having been given written instructions by the account holder to not make any further payments. Strangely, when we, the police, got involved, the bank suddenly offered an immediate refund of all unauthorised payments out of the account. Banks do not like the police crawling all over their records or interviewing their staff about dodgy transactions. Another police force effected the arrest of the employees of the company taking the unauthorised payments. The company was subsequently closed-down by the courts on the grounds of it being used as a vehicle for fraud. The total amount involved exceeded £250,000.

[Guest]

Re: Supanet

Yes i can see the similarity

Peter

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Supanet

urthJust spoken to my friends in the broadband dept,

They say if no disconnection notice was given, and the direct debit was not cancelled, technically the compan was due the money as the contract was still in operation, and they are not responsible for the use of broadband as this is up to the user.. HOWEVER (before everyone hates me) the non usage of the of the broadband can be used as a reason for a refund of the monies paid. Check the terms and conditions of the contract he had, and they are pretty sure there is a notice period he has to serve (normally 30 days) so that money would be owed as per contract.
If they refuse, complain to Ofcom regarding it, and pass the reference number to the company. Sometimes this is enough to spur on a refund, but it is unlikely you will get the 30 days notice money back.

If you do not get satisfaction from Ofcoms intervention, request a letter of stalemate and contact the Ombudsman (but you must have followed the complaints proceedure first).

If your son in law has not cancelled the direct debit until this january, the bank are technically in the right to pay it. if they were unaware that the payments should not have been paid they acted in good faith.

My friends are going to look in to this further in to this, and see if there are any loopholes they can advise you of

[valeriej43]

Re: Supanet

Thank you puffrose, the amount they have taken now is over £1500, and as teaboy said, their data usage should have shown that the internet wasnt being used, also if someone wasnt paying they would soon send a bill, and since going with talktalk, he hasnt had any money taken by Axis, as talktalk notified them,as axis notified Supanet
I will tell to look at his contract

[bluebottle]

Re: Supanet

If Supanet was notified by Axis, they have not, in my considered judgement, any grounds for argument or trying to blame the OP's daughter's boyfriend.

The argument Supanet has put forward is a very tenuous one and I will repeat that if Supanet knew the daughter's boyfriend had left, they also know or ought to know they are not entitled to any further payments. Taking into account the amount they have purloined, I would be inclined to ask for an immediate refund of the full amount plus statutory interest at 8% pa. Supanet would be ill-advised to try arguing their way out of this one.

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Supanet

eThe Boys (as they are known) say that it maybe possible to claim under the direct debit gaurentee, if your son in law complains to Ofcom and gives the reference number to the bank in and explains that the bill should never be paid, but to the best of their knowledge he MUST pay the final 30 days (IE 6 months overpayment = 5 months refund) however there is a cut off point, and the banks can argue he should have checked his statements.

again they are making sure there is nothing else they have overlooked.

[valeriej43]

Re: Supanet

Just a short update on Supanet, rang again today and they have given him an address for complaints Dept,the lady at Supanet agreed that £1500 plus is a lot of money to have paid out for no service, but still said another ISP couldnt cancel ,
I will update again when i know more

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Supanet

Val,
i think its important to check if Axis were providing him with landline alone and supanet didnt continue to provide his broadband, if that is the case the billing is correct, and the company would not have known as he would have been receiving a service, are talktalk definatly providing his broadband too, as legally company can insist on hearing from account holder first, its called an Anti Slamming Objective, its to stop Joe Bloggs Telecommunications from taking over Mrs Ladys internet and phone "on her behalf" and her having no knowledge of it.

IF this is the case, unfortunatly Supanet is in the right to take the payments, and so are Axis and Talktalk.

[valeriej43]

Re: Supanet

Talktalk are definitely providing phone and broadband, and when they took over from axis ,the DDs to axis stopped,
I also have talktalk,and i didnt need to do anything, i am very happy with them, and costs a lot less than most
I think Axis , were providing phoneline only, but whether supanet were still providing broadband i dont know, dont think he does either tbh
TBH hes a bit lax at checking things, so i have also suggested he checks who was providing his internet,, he thought it was Axis,

[Hurricane Puffrose]

Re: Supanet

if supanet were providing his broadband until talktalk took over then they are due for payment until talktalk formally took over. its an awkward siuation with a LUL transfer as there is no real transfer of ownership like with a MAC code, it is literally down to the account holder informing both parties of their intentions. Legally supanett telling him they cant disconnect for another company is correct, however if he now has no use with them, he should get a refund for the time talktalk took over, less 30days (so if hes been with talktalk for say.. 5 months he should get 4 months back).
this may however been a good will gesture on their part, as no formal cancellation was ever made.. I'll see if i can find my old papers on the disconnection process for phone and bband, and PM you them if i can.. then at least it wont happen again!