The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website
Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In / wrongfully debiting my bank account

1 England, Yorkshire, United Kingdom Review updated:, and internet Wunderkind Ralph Dummermuth of United Internet AG

Ralph Dummermuth's influence on UK web hosting since taking over the UK's leading web host in 1999 has been nothing if not disastrous for the consumer in its philosophy of total disregard for and steamrollering over UK law.

I had my bank account wrongfully debited by a webhosting company,, that refused to cancel a three-month trial period then sneakily took a one-year premium hosting package cost from my account - I tried to indict for contravention of the Theft Act, but the Chief Constable of the area of the offence passed it to a subordinate who in turn passed it on to the Derbyshire Trading Standards Office and my money was bounced back into my account - it is illegal, a criminal offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison to wrongfully or deceitfully debit an account (and using steamroller pressure can be termed a form of deceit if use of the law becomes forcefully intimidatory and is unfounded: it is also illegal to use the law in pursuance of an offence, and the law comes down on it like a ton of bricks.

I now know that were sellers-on of the talents of who bought's customer base last May/June. I now know that sold out to United Internet AG for 90 million euros (£61mill) in 1999, or more to the point, sold out to Ralph Dummermuth, the German internet billionare who founded '1 und1' and who is the main shareholder of the owning company United Internet Ag.

Today I sent emails to the board members of, Andrew Michael CEO (the founder), Michael Hogan Finance Director, Mark Cowne Sales & Marketing Director, Steve Holford Press, and Billing, and Support, informing them of my intention to apply for their indictment and the indictment of the actual instigators, for theft if they do not return money continually taken from my bank after I had cancelled my Distance Selling contract with them due to their poor support. Google the Distance Selling statute and you will see just how the steamroller these companies use is a cover, a camouflage for their ignoring the demands made on them by the Distance Selling statute and just how they have drifted into dangerous ground given the Theft Act - google this as well!

I also sent a copy of the email to [protected] [protected] [protected] [protected] (the board) [protected] [protected] [protected] [protected] [protected] .

The greater the number of the more detailed type of emails the board and their minions receive from disgruntled customers that suffer because of the 'robust' methods for making a billion or two he seems to have exported into the UK the US and not forgetting the poor sods in Germany who my research tells me have had it harder for a lot longer, the more Herr Dummermuth might come to realise the role that good old honest customer relations might play in him keeping a euro or two.

What say you?

If you need help to make up your mind type into Google either ', legal' 'Andrew Dollamore, legal' 'Dollamore Ltd, legal' or ', legal' and check the forums for a sense of the human suffering caused since Herr Dummermuth's appearance on the scene, and check German legal advice forums if you want a hint of the affect that this man has had on his own people and just how bad it it is going become for us all if his philosophy of the most cash taken before the smallest courtesy of support given goes unchecked.

Sort by: UpDate | Rating


  • Zi
      10th of Dec, 2008

    One Way To Get Your Money Back From An Obdurate

    Or how a German billionaire's diktat succeeds in cheapening the laws of England &Wales and himself.

    A letter that forced the return of money wrongfully taken from my account and the deserved follow-up letter after return of my money, and submitted in the hope that it may help sufferers of a similar fate.


    For - Mr Andrew Michael, CEO und Herr Ralph Dommermuth, CEO United Internet AG, and all officers of the linked companies : under UK law ‘where an offence occurs, all businesses are counted as one’


    I received a ‘phone call Friday 14/11/2008 on your behalf Mr Andrew Michael, seeking ‘communication’ with me. I have to assume this meant ‘communication’ regarding my attempts to claw back money wrongfully and continually taken, even after warnings not to, from my bank account after I cancelled my ‘Distance Selling’ contract with the company you run due to unacceptably poor support. But I have made myself perfectly clear on this subject continually : I do not ‘communicate’, deal in any way or form whatsoever, with thieves - as Mr Andrew Dollamore of will attest. So I informed the caller that I had no interest in communicating, asked for money wrongfully taken to be put back into my bank account, and I put the ‘phone down.

    I have found that dealing with such people is simply a way for them to propagandise their rationale for thievery, no matter how feeble or unlawful. A perfect example of this was communicated to me by one of the four people from around Europe currently in contact with me (there have been many) regarding money taken wrongfully from their accounts by both and – one person has been told that the communications regarding the cancellation that should have stopped the money being taken from his account was not made by him to the correct department nor in the correct manner (the person does not agree with this assessment, but how do you make progress against the obdurate?) But Distance Selling legislation is clear and distinct on this matter : the onus lies with the company to internally communicate the customer’s cancellation – even to the extreme of the customer simply ‘communicating’ to the company’s last known address and being able to prove this (emails do this rather well) the onus still lies with the company to institute the customer’s cancellation.

    So what can be made of such an excuse, such a perverse and unlawful rationale for taking money from a customer’s bank account without neither the customer’s knowledge, nor permission, nor expectation? The obduracy with which the position is held, namely ‘we have your money and you are not getting it back’, speaks volumes. And it is absolutely pointless to engage in any ‘communication’ where such obduracy is displayed.

    But in my case you have gone even further than law ignoring obduracy!

    You have ignored the Distance Selling legislation, you have ignored The Theft Act, and not only have you taken money from my account, but you have continued taking my money even after I had pointed out and several times that you were in fact contravening the law, and, even further, on the last occasion, and when my bank refused you payment, you used subterfuge to extract the payment.

    I expect the money wrongfully taken from my account to be repaid into my bank account within the week or I will indeed proceed with seeking indictment of all company officers of ‘all the businesses that are one business’.

    Dear Sir,’s return, under threat of indictment for contravention of The Theft Act of money wrongfully taken from my bank account, after their repeated contraventions were adumbrated to the board members of (buyer of, incorporated in 2002 at the same address) and owner Ralph Dommermuth’s United Internet AG, Germany.

    Thank you for your email informing me that all the money wrongfully taken from my account has been returned.

    But you seem to have detached yourself somewhat from reality in your email : you state that you are returning all payments taken from my bank account as an act of goodwill, and by saying I had not complied with the conditions of the contract that existed between us you imply that you had no need to return my money, thereby conveniently ignoring the fact that had I not bombarded the 16 email addresses of United Internet AG and, I would A] still be without my money and G] you would still be trying to wrongfully take money from my bank account – ‘where there is an offence, all connected businesses are to be regarded as one’ The Theft Act

    You act continually on the basis that contracts have an unquestionably inviolable validity – a diktat from above, without doubt. And this is patently nonsense! Because according to the related law of England & Wales, a non-compliance with Distance Selling law invalidates a contract ‘it is as though no contract had existed’ (I have mentioned you should check out ‘best practice’ and by, for example, buying something from ‘distance sellers’ Marks & Spencers.) As does a customer’s cancellation negate contract where services are ‘not fit for purpose’ – a door-to-door non-distance selling salesman would get a boot up the backside as he was shown the gate if he tried some of the stunts me and your customers complain about. So it is patently obvious that this nonsense is the product of diktat from above in its reflection of your constant need to continually ignore the related laws of England & Wales in the enforcement as inviolable of contracts the law can render non-inviolable contracts, and that can be seen reflected in’s wealth of irate customers. But it is by the laws of England & Wales that is governed and to which and its connected companies will be answerable.

    Herr Ralph Dommermuth may indeed proudly have 7.3 million contracts to wave about as the basis for a 2007, 1.372 billion euro turnover, and his billionaire worth. But if the standard of the diktat contract is a reflection of the standard of a Herr Dommermuth diktat contract, then he’s not worth a toss!


    0 Votes
  • Zi
      10th of Dec, 2008

    Herr Dommermuth's diktatis anything but welcome in the UK.

    0 Votes
  • St
      5th of Mar, 2010

    Please help support the unofficial customer complaint website here:

    Together we can make a difference.

    0 Votes

Post your comment