I have no problem doing that.One of the people who has complained about Supanet is considering whether to hire a solicitor in order to help defend their position. As part of that I'd like to ask if any of those trying to defend against these demands, assuming you genuinely had no knowledge of any outstanding balance when cancelling / switching all those years ago, would be interested in sharing or helping the defense (even if only to provide a written statement of your experience)?
If so then please drop me a short email so I can at least keep those with an interest informed about developments and options, should such a need arise.
I have no idea but here is the letter and one of the invoices. I can't remember how many times I told them to cancel and they just would not do it. If they did manage to take £75 from me without knowing, could I claim it back from credit card company? Its less than 6 years!!!Isn't a chargeback often the terminology of a credit or debit card company clawing the funds back (usually only when a customer contests a charge)?
Have they refused your deadlock letter. They refused mine. looks to me like they are just making stuff up to get money. If they did take £75 from me in 2013 then why doesn't their so called invoice say -£75. I think holes could be picked in any of QC or supanets demands.i wondered if anybody has refused to pay quickcollect - i had a demand for the unreturned router and have gone the route of asking for a deadlock letter and also complained to Ofcom. I would recommend anyone on this thread complaining to Ofcom because it will raise the profile of the company and make Ofcom aware of their practices. I went on LBC s Clive Bull consumer affairs programme the other night and the adviser seemed to think that Ofcom would not be impressed by their demands for money after 5 years of not being with that ISP.
When you use a MAC when it was in service the using it BT sent them the notice you were leaving and it is impossible to supply two services on one telephone line.Another Update.
I hope I am not taking over this thread but find it therapeutic to write it down and de-stress. It might also help others in future.
Received a letter from QC today stating that the balance owed is not statute barred because of a payment made in Nov 2013 of £75. They had made many attempts to take money from my credit card during 2013 but all blocked so will have to check that up. They sent me invoices again and in them is not one that says payment received £75 or a reduction from the balance so I'm thinking that it could be bull again.
It says a MAC was requested Nov 2012 but because they had not received an official cancellation, supanet continued to supply a service. Up to October 2013 a number of chargebacks were received for payments made which were invalid due to no official cancellation. Not sure what chargebacks are and what type of service they were supplying down a BT line.
The time of deadlock is also up so may ask for that again on Monday.
The fight goes on.
I tried to use the online ADR and it wouldn't let me get too far into the process as it said it had to be over 8 weeks over the first complaint. I could be doing it wrong of course.And remember, if you use ADR (which you're entitled to do), it costs Supanet regardless of the outcome - and if enough people do it they might rethink this strategy.
Many thanks. I hadn't thought of that. Because I put the date back to 2013 I have now lodged my complaint with the ombudsman. I attached evidence and hopefully they will get off my back. I checked my credit card statements carefully and they managed to take two lots of £30.24 and a £75.99 in 2013. I don't know how I didn't spot these deductions so I have asked for reimbursement of these monies as they were taken illegally. Hopefully the ombudsman can make sense of what I put down and it wasn't too garbled.Try taking a different approach. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the dispute technically started years ago, according to Supanet. In that sense this is a case that, by the ISP's own admission, has gone unresolved for that length of time. Well over 8 weeks.
Hi Mark, I seem to remember that if you left and wanted to keep your email live, they charged for it.Better to talk about that one in a separate topic as I don't want to take this one off-topic, but TT/Virgin's old accounts are generally of the free type and they are not the sort of companies that will backdate charges for them.