It is amazing that there were no other posts on this topic.
Aggrieved customers should complain - AND take appropriate action to protect themselves.
'The Marketing Giant' tells a familiar story. Let’s hope his/her money is returned as promised.
1. On the matter of whether or not the cancellation is accepted there is a key point which ‘The Marketing Giant’ might have in his/her favour. I’ll discuss that in private through ‘Personal Messages’ here on the forum, or email.
2. ‘The Marketing Giant’s’ experience echoes several elements of my own (& of others). To reclaim the 1st month’s charges (or others) it is worth considering a ‘chargeback’ claim through the banking system. Several people I have worked with have been successful.
3. To any other recent ‘victims’ here are some points to consider:
* Immediately cancel/lose your credit/debit card and get a replacement. (Usually within 3 or4 days. A replacement card on the same account has different ‘security’ details). Don’t wait till you’ve sent cancellation. This action should isolate your bank account from unapproved withdrawals.
* IF, after calm consideration, you subsequently decide to make a payment it is easy enough to arrange – under your own control: and not just because TSMP believes it is entitled to take your money. If TSMP has a legitimate reason to require further payments, ask it to explain and submit a proforma invoice. (Take expert (or legal) advice if you need to.)
* Depending on the situation consider making a ‘chargeback’ claim through your debit/credit card if you believe the service was not provided and/or TSMP fails to provide independently verifiable proof.
Recent successful claims demonstrate that banks agree with some customers’ claims.
The issue on this thread is the appalling business practices of Net66, The Social Media People.
Despite TSMP’s attempts to smokescreen out criticism with irrelevant rants, the evidence of Net66 and The Social Media People’s litany of misdeeds stands as a testament to its absence of ethics and integrity.
* The evidence in recordings (which it has acknowledged as genuine) proves it told premeditated lies to threaten & attempt to silence criticism.
* The evidence of its documentation (which it produced itself) shows it has lied to banks, as well as customers.
* The evidence of its own words on this forum proves it is willing to lie to anyone and everyone in attempts to escape the truth. (‘Never investigated’ – says TSMP; but ASA publication and Trading Standards investigation prove, yet again, that TSMP lies. And by ‘quoting’ comments of Trading Standards it further confirms the truth that an investigation is underway.)
* The evidence of broken promises on this forum proves it is not to be trusted. (TSMP promised to answer questions then skulked silently away.)
* Even in launching a revamped website – surely the ‘shop-window’ of a website design and development company – it makes errors and omissions, and parts are non-functioning. It even gets the names of companies whose ‘testimonials’ it uses WRONG: how flattering to a client company whose name its supplier can’t be bothered to get right!
* And now, when changing its Registered Office Address it provides Companies House with inaccurate details.
Fantasy people telling fantasy stories – whilst greedily banking the hard earned money of its victims – until victims win it back via their banks.
TSMP’s smokescreens, fantasies and insults won’t make the facts of its misdeeds go away.
The Social Media People – Invoice at the centre of an argument.
The attached VAT Invoice has been published before, but recently gained new and greater significance when it became the centre of a puzzle/dispute between TSMP, me and Manchester Trading Standards (TS).
The NEW ‘dispute’ centres on the fact that when TSMP and I both provided copies of VAT Invoices to TS to support our cases, the documents differed: which meant that one party was not telling the truth.
The version supplied by TSMP included a ‘link’ to its Terms and Conditions, and the entry ‘Local Clicks £99.00’
As you can see, my version does not include those details.
I was able to offer TS access to my email server where the original email and attachment still reside (secure from tampering) to satisfy TS that I hadn’t altered mine.
Previously the VAT Invoice had been significant because TSMP insisted it included a link to T&Cs, even going so far as to make that claim on its ‘Final Demand’ - despite being repeatedly told there was no T&Cs link. For good measure, TSMP also included a lie about WHEN I received it.
So on its 'Final Demand’ TSMP lied to me. (On that topic, and several others too!)
And in the document it provided to Trading Standards, TSMP lied to them.
No honesty. No integrity. No ethics. No good business practices.
Net66 and The Social Media People - businesses reflecting the appalling ethics, morals and practices of the family which owns them.
Ramelle hasn't done his/her homework.
Tom Faulkner is already acknowledged by Net66 - the very company under fire - to be a dissatisfied customer, and not a competitor (a driving instructor?! So there can be no doubt that Ramelle got his facts wrong.
IF Ramelle has any genuine interest in the appalling business practices of Net66 he/she might care to weigh the evidence. He/she may not like what I write - that's his/her privelage - but the truth revealed by the genuine, but highly flawed documentation of Net66 is there for all top see.
Isn't Ramelle at all concerned about Net66 telling premeditated lies to readers and customers?
They are there on this forum, and in the documents, and in the recordings.
EVEN IF competitors were commenting here, it doesn't change the facts that Tom McVey, Neil McVey and Grace McVey run a dishonest enterprise..
