the social media people net66 review: scam 850

Dear all, please read as this may be relevant to you.
As stated in my last post, I have taken some legal advice on this matter.
There were many points which I can go into in the future. The main one from my point of view is that I was advised that for the contract to be valid I have to have been made aware of, AND agree to their terms & conditions.
I hope this helps some of you & please let me know about the watchdog angle.
Regards uth

Call to the Customers.
If you agreed a deal, and got as far as exchanging emails with the company:
Do you have the emails on record?
It would be useful to compare certain information. This will enable us to begin to check the consistency of our experiences as supported by documentation as opposed to memory (which can be disputed).
NOTES:
1. Answering any of the questions does not involve revealing any personal information.
2. ‘ORDER’ – the document which details what has been agreed, and shows: What will be provided by the supplier. All the required details of the supplier. All relevant personal details of the customer. The price to be paid.

Questions:
1. Did you get an ‘ORDER’ email? If so compare the date on both the ‘ORDER’ and the email.
Then check whether it arrived in time, before you committed to the deal, and/or made a payment?
2. Did the ‘ORDER’ include ALL the correct details of you (name address, email, phone etc: and the correct details of what you’d agreed?
3. Did the ‘ORDER’ specify the price INCLUDING VAT? (What’s stated on the order verses how much went out of your bank?)
4. Did the ‘ORDER’ email specifically give you the means to check the Terms & Conditions?
e.g: Either written in/attached to the document, OR something like:
“ ...in accordance with our Terms & Conditions, which can be checked by viewing them at www.thesocialmediapeople.co.uk/terms.php ”
NOTES: (i) The above is NOT the same as: “ ...in accordance with our Terms & Conditions.”
(ii) If an invalid ‘link’ is provided in order to find them that also does not give you the necessary information.
5. If you received an initial VAT INVOICE did it include a correct reference to the Terms & Conditions? (Or a correct link to find them?)
(Some people have observed that the website link provided for them was not valid.
Is yours a usable link?)

Please respond by sending me a personal message via this site, or on this forum if you wish.
The more people that comment, the more reliable the conclusions can be about the shared experience.

These guys are a load of ###ers who should be locked up. They should be put on Rogue Traders so Neil McVey and Stephen Jackson can wriggle like little ### in front of the cameras.

thesocialmediapeople, nett66 was what they were when i had dealings with them, they are full of ###, i got my money back on my credit card in the end, they post lies and pretend to be happy customers. they try to scare you with threats of legal and libel action. my advice tell them to piss off and start a charge back action with your bank or credit card, if enough people do that the card companys will start to look at them!

Hi. I have been following all your comments for a while now. Just had to join! Yep they got me to! £142 worse off and no proof that the ad ever appeared on Facebook. I Sent a cancellation letter and got a confirmation email stating my account was cancelled when my months trial was up and no further payment would be taken from my card. I had another invoice yesterday for £99 & vat. Dont know what this is for, no doubt they will chase me for it because I cancelled my card after reading previous posts on this page. Just checked with my bank and yep they tried to take a payment from my cancelled card yesterday but they got nothing. They won't get another penny from me. You mentioned watchdog on previous posts. I have already sent my complaint to them. I am also going to seek legal advice.

I will join you too I already have an organisation investigating The Social Media People as we speak I think everything legally possible should be done to bring these people down.

Hi:
I will join you.
Can we all agree a title and/or headline to help it stand out?

If all of the Real Customers try to write to WatchDog this week, do you think we stand a chance of WatchDog putting Social Media People on the spotlight? I will like to seek some legal advice too.

And another thing...! No, TWO other things...!
1. In case the request should be overlooked in this melee of messages - for when the 'recent' change was made from the phone number [protected].
BT reports that the number has been 'Not in Service' since AT LEAST the end of 2010 - 5 months ago!
BT also revealed that there had been many complaints about the number.

2. I have visited The Customer Services Headquarters of The Social Media People at its Regent Street address.
The man who rents said offices was very helpful and informative, but assured me that no-one from The Social Media People Ltd (or any associated company) works there. The offices comprise 2 rooms, each roughly the size of a decent domestic sitting room.
The 'owner' and one member of staff fill one of the rooms. The other is, I believe, a boardroom.
The man running this business is not your enemy.
'Accomodation' or 'Virtual Office' address for The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd - yes. But no other presence, is what I was told.

In the recent response to my first 'post' the company stated that it is ‘pursuing this individual for legal reasons’.

I’m confused. Does this refer to:
1st Accusation [protected]): When a ‘solicitor’ from a firm called ‘Adshead Goddard LLP’ telephoned me (number withheld), to test my response to an accusation of slander?
(Apologies if the firm’s name is not accurately spelt. I only heard it in the telephone call.)
The ‘solicitor’ promised to confirm details of the charges, and our conversation, in writing, but has failed to do so.
Neither I nor The Law Society can’t find any trace of the ‘solicitor’, and Mr Jackson has repeatedly refused to identify the firm or the individual.
Strange!

2nd Accusation [protected]): When Amanda Jacobson (Legal Team) emailed me AND Mr Jackson telephoned me to accuse me of libel for comments made on this website by ‘iockus’?
The company knows - and ‘iockus’ knows - and I know - that I am not ‘iockus’.
(But some of the ‘libellous’ statements made by him, are indeed true for my case, so wouldn’t have been libellous anyway!)
(Let’s be understanding though, Mr Jackson does sometimes make little mistakes.)

3rd Accusation: [protected]): When Mr Jackson telephoned me, followed by an email from Amanda Jacobson on 23-05-2011. Once again libel was alleged, now for different identities ‘Elemental’ & ‘Contributor 87’ ( http://www.boards.ie ).

4th: OR something else?

If things go to court will you tell us:
Will Tina Foster (Collections Department) give evidence?
Will Claire Collins (Head of The Collections Department) give evidence?
Will The Tooth Fairy give evidence?
Will Amanda Jacobson (Legal Team) give evidence?
Will Steven Jackson (Director, Customer Services) give evidence?
Will someone from The Cancellations department give evidence?
Will Caroline Stevenson give evidence?
Will The Man in The Moon (Night Skies Department) give evidence?
Will Jonathan Barker-Smith (Legal Agent) give evidence?
Will the solicitor from Adshead Goddard give evidence?
Will “an annoymous individual who knows Mr. Tom Faulkner” give evidence?
Will the “recorded telephone call” of me stating that I am ‘Elemental’ be played in evidence?

Will any of the aggrieved customers who have experienced the service and “honesty, integrity and ethical business practice” of The Social Media People, give evidence?

Nearly finally:
Mr Jackson also stated that sometimes he “may get frustrated with ignorance”.
Does anyone else ever feel like that?

Finally:
And by the way – the offer to ‘PUBLISH EVERYTHING’ still stands.

To adapt an expression used by a President of The U.S.A.: Mr. Jackson, you're no Richard Branson!
Possibly the one thing you’ve said with which anyone might agree is that people should study the facts and make their own mind up.
THAT is why so many customers are presenting so many FACTS.

My previous post presented several factual questions. It also stated:
"If these questions are answered (as opposed to us having our attention diverted by yet more new assertions by Steven Jackson) we may begin to get an insight into (quote) “the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice” of The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd trading as The Social Media People..." etc

Your response has helped all readers to further ‘reality check’ their opinion of The Social Media People.
You could have denied the points raised in the questions relating to legal matters. End of story.
You didn’t. Once again you tried to cast a smokescreen to obscure valid questions which deserve an answer.
Your synthetic indignation fools no-one. Your company would be better served if it did not respond at all.

Organisations like the government body ‘Companies House’ would rather go to great lengths to persuade an errant Ltd. company to comply with regulations, than go to court.
But that would negate the offence. Leniancy does not excuse or invalidate a charge.

Despite your rantings, all readers (and most are indeed real customers) already know the qualities of The Social Media People. Because most are honest people with little or no experience of dealing this sort of situation, it may take some time; but they will find a legal way to obtain redress. Or at least to end the misery of their association with your company.
It is to your advantage that they are naive in this setting, and present their case/fight their corner/defend themselves with logical argument and reason. In most walks of life people are reasonable. But an illogical response to reasonable and reasoned argument will confuse them.
A less than honourable company would know that and use it to its advantage.
You ARE dealing with reasonable, but frustrated, angry, egregious people who are trying to find a solution in a hostile environment. I am sure they will find their solution.

Finally, to comment on a new post from ‘Chickens 123’
I am sure that The Social Media People knows exactly who its real customers are. Have you noticed that Mr Jackson and his colleagues are anxious to attend to their NEW customers, and deny the possibility that ‘complainers’ have a legitimate case.
Q. What is the difference between a ‘NEW customer’ and a ‘long established customer’ like Chicken 123?
A. NEW customers don’t know what we know. Poor things.

Steven - You obviously haven't got any idea of who your 'REAL' Customers are. It shocks me to see people can actually defend this organisation. I also worry for the customers that have been mis sold this service and the staff that are working under the directors that are trying to make an honest living but have no clue of what is going on due to the structure of the company. In one month, how many different people did you all speak to? And how long did it take for someone to get back to your emails? I sent an email on the 4th to cancel my 'trial month' and it took my 'account manager' two days to reply...fantastic account management if you ask me! Suprisingly enough the date they replied was the date my next months payment was due...any coincidence?

Anyway, I thought my dealings were over with the social media people until I received an email this morning saying that they hadn't received my cancellation letter on time (surprise surprise...seems a common trend) and for that reason I owed them TWO months payments as my last one didn't go through...THANK GOD! Apparently my letter took 6 days to reach the office whereas another letter I sent at the same time only took 1 day to arrive at it's destination...again what a funny coincidence?

Did anyone else see Watchdog last night? When is it next on?

Hey! How is THAT for action?
Both another post from Mr Jackson AND action on the website.

Regarding the website:
Earlier today there was no facility for clients to log in, but now – there is!.
One in the eye for doubters!?

But, if it works, how does it work? Imagine:
- I’m someone searching to advertise on Facebook.
- I search, and find this website. http://thesocialmediapeople.co.uk/clients.php
- I’m curious and want (website text) “to learn more about us, login to your account”
- How do I log-in to an account which does not yet exist?
True, there is the suggestion to phone in, but that conflicts with the instruction above.
(Website text)
“If you are interested in our services please contact our Sales Staff direct on [protected]”
Sales Staff? DIRECT? - [protected]?

So it now appears that the very busy ‘Customer Services Headquarters’, who’s phone number was so recently changed to [protected], will be inundated with telephone calls for the Sales Staff on its DIRECT LINE [protected]. (And Mr Jackson has described in eloquent terms that he and his Customer Services team are very busy.)
To see which department answers [protected] I telephoned earlier today.
The first time the phone rang for over 1 minute before I hung up.
The second time the phone was answered:
When I said “Is that The Sales Department/” The person who answered the call (to ‘Sales Staff direct’ line) responded, “ It’s not, no. They are actually in a different office. Can I take your name and number and get someone to give you a call back?”
So, it’s the DIRECT LINE to the Sales Staff, but The Sales Staff are in a different office?

Call me old fashioned, but in my experience a Direct Line goes to a specific person or department.
A line which serves Customer Services Headquarters, Sales Staff, General Enquiries, London Office, Manchester Office might be called (Ooh let’s think?) A SWITCHBOARD!

Earlier, someone wondered if I was supporting The Social Media People. Well, I may have been neutral, but now I think I have decided which version of the story I come down on.
It seems that the customers were right all along!

P.S: We still don’t know when the Customer Service Headquarters number was changed to [protected]. Notwithstanding his most recent contribution Mr Jackson promised to tell us. Any news Mr Jackson? 

I’m still not sure whether Hobby Horse is supporting The Social Media People (the only one who does!) – or whether there is a heavy dose of sarcasm in his ‘posts?!
However, by accident or design, he has posed some interesting questions; which should be answered.
This would clarify things for customers, and further support “the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice” of The Social Media People.
My interpretation of the situation is less positive than that of H.H. The result though, looks the same whichever side you take.

Is there, or is there not, a facility on the website: ‘For existing clients, or to learn more about us, login to your account’?
If not, the company’s very own website is further evidence of a dreadful level of planning/skill, in-efficiency or poor business practice.
If there is, the company has failed to help its customers easily find it.
Either way would any casual observer be impressed?

Let no-one forget that this company, and its sister organisation ‘Net66 Web Design Services Ltd’ trade on delivering high levels of skill and expertise with advertising, website design and operation.
Previously Steven Jackson has made important errors of fact (and good taste). Now, if the website is failing to offer the facility it directs customers towards, it can be seen that such ‘errors’ are endemic within the company.
‘Would you buy a used car from this ...’ - or indeed any advertising or other service?

Whoops - Yes, we do indeed 'all make mistakes'!
The closing question on the last line of my earlier message should be:
Finally – Mr. Jackson, don’t forget you promised to let us know when the telephone number changed from : [protected] to [protected]. What news?

Website changes - What an excellent idea!

I see that The Social Media People has removed the ‘Our Clients’ list from the website. ( http://thesocialmediapeople.co.uk/clients.php )
This will indeed protect their corporate clients from mischievous approaches by the disgruntled customers, and competitors.

It is a shame though, that The Social Media People is: ‘no longer displaying our existing clients to new customers’.
Existing customers will need no re-assurance as to the level of quality of services they receive. People who may be considering new business would have their confidence boosted by seeing an ‘A List’ of corporate clients.

A question: On the website I notice the statement: ‘For existing clients or to learn more about us, login to your account’
1. For existing clients: What facility is available for existing customers to achieve this ‘log-on’?
2. To learn more about the company: The reader would not have an account to log-in to. What do they do?

And while website things are in mind, will Steven Jackson update us of when the promised ‘blog for clients’ will be on the website. It is now getting on for a month since this great facility was promised.

Finally – Mr. Jackson, don’t forget you promised to let us know when the telephone number changed from : [protected] to [protected]. What news?

If you are a members of the Federation of Small Business (FSB) They have a free legal advice line.

Hi all,
I have read all your stories with great interest as I have also been a victim of this company's dubious practices.
I too was cold called & agreed to take out a one month trial advert for facebook advertising at a cost of £99 + £20 for artwork copied from my website.
At this point I was happy with the artwork & the service that I had received.
During the time that the advert was hopefully? shown, I found out that I could advertise directly with facebook for far less so decided not to continue after the end of the trial period.
The next time that I heard from the company after the monthly report was to inform me of a payment confirmation.
I contacted my accounts manager (Ashleigh) to inform her of their mistake. This is where it all started to turn nasty. I was informed that I had in fact taken out a monthly rolling contract & that I had to give 30 days written notice to cancel this.
I explained that I only had the one month advert & have e-mails to confirm this but they don't seem to think this matters. I explained that I will be taking this further to be told that this would be fraud etc etc & that the rolling contract was explained to me during a compliance call that was recorded. I recall this call but certainly not that I was agreeing to a rolling contract which I wouldn't have agreed to had I been aware of it. I have asked for a copy of this call but have been told that I would have to pay a charge of £10 for this which at the moment I am unwilling to pay.
On advice I have stopped them taking further payments from my card & given The Social Media People the written notice.
The next time that I had contact from them was a month later when Morgan from the cancellations team e-mailed to inform me that they are unable to complete the cancellation due to my account being in arrears & that I have 7 days to clear the arrears or my account will be passed onto the collections team.
I called Morgan today who said the same as Ashley & that the account wouldn't be closed until the arrears are paid.

I plan on getting some legal advice tomorrow & would really appreciate any advice that any of you may have.
Regards to all

Speak to Grace,
She supposedly works in the legal department for the company, although why a reputable and honest company selling honest goods or services should have need of a legal department i have no idea!
Her telephone number is [protected] (more smoke screens - you might think it is a London based number and it is, but its on a redirect back to the north of England - Manchester I suspect).
Yes suellen I am amazed that Mr Jackson holds the post of Director, this is a great achievement for somebody who is illiterate. Elemantal as for your comment about Mr Jackson claiming that he was tired and emotional as an excuse for his illiteracy I think the phrase he used was 'tired and running high on emotions' which sounds more like a lyric from a Chris De Burgh song than the response from a high flying corporate executive.

I see Mr Jackson dare not rise to my challenge of declaring their account manager with Facebook, because Facebook have never heard of them.

O Mr Jackson, my account manager, "Lauren" has quit her job at your company without informing me, she didn't even border to tell me her last name... hence I have no chance to make my formal complaint. I phoned to query about my account on 4 May 2011 but was told that my account has been cancelled and they cannot pull up my details. So why am I still being chased for 2nd month of payment, for an account that doesn't exist? I also received email to chase for payment today, after 1 month of cancelling my contract with you, business must be good so the team took a month to email me... I'm a bit confused... Should have gone to specsaver before reading your company's Terms and Conditions, that doesn't exist following the link on the invoice your company has sent me...They also asked me to send in my complaint letter to Complaint Department, Suite 2412, PO BOX 6945, West End, London W1A 6US. So, is this a real office, strong advertisement team in Albany House or this address? Any dedicated personnel I can speak to in person?

Having read the earlier post from little76 I though it might help if people could see a report.
The posted image shows enough detail to be useful, but if anyone needs a better quality, please let me know.

NOTE: The image shows exactly what the report contained. There has been no editing.

1. The Report should have been sent 3 days before the end of the period. It only arrived after the end, and after being requested.
2. The Report is from Facebook Ads Ltd. - the defunct name of the company now known as ‘The Social Media People Ltd.’
3. The wrong post code is used.
4. The website link at the bottom is a ‘broken link’ ie no website linked to it now nor when received.
5. The email address of the sender is a ‘no-reponse email’ so no-one can be contacted by that route.

Comment:
a. Does the use of the heading ’Facebook-Ads Ltd’ contravene s 1197 Companies Act 2006.?
b. Does the omission of: full company name, company number, registered office address, place of registration contravene Section 82-84 Companies Act 2006 (in conjunction with Statutory Instrument 2008/495?
c. As the document is composed ‘in-house’ it provides no independent verification of performance.
d. When questions were asked, and a report ‘as provided by Facebook’, requested. I was told that Facebook does not allow its report to be re-distributed to the client.

More soon!

Hi. As Mr Jackson hasn't actually reply to me directly, I think... As a customer who paid £99 + VAT, £20 + VAT for activation, can I request a proof of my advertisement on Facebook. Facebook Advertisement will send confirmation to customer when we placed the advertisement. Can I have the proof send to me then? I'm happy to enclose my company name here if you can confirm you will publish this information on this website. Full analytical report that I have received from Social Media People is as follow:

The Social Media People would like to thank you once again for choosing us to be part of your marketing
strategy. Below, please find the amount of adverts (impressions) you have received during the course of this
month.
If the amount of adverts (impressions) is greater than what was given at the beginning of your month, no
extra cost has been incurred.
* Facebook is the second most viewed site online.
* 1/3 of the whole UK population is on Facebook.
* 50% of Facebook users return daily.
* Facebook advertising is the most targeted advertising platform online.
* Your clients, customers, employees and recruits are all on Facebook.
Your advert generated 7, 924 impressions to your targeted demographic.

Is this just a make-up piece of information? I received 102, 539 impression for less than £9 for running the ads myself and I got lot more information than just his. Have you just paid £0.01 from the £99 I paid you to do so?

O...why does Social Media People keep on getting delayed post from customer when it comes to cancellation, Joe54, I have got the same experience as you did. Maybe due to the fact that they are using POBOX address in London, but office in Manchester? Surely there is not so many coincidence of delayed 1st class mail by ROYAL MAIL.

Does anyone know, what is the legal way of claiming back our honest money, if Social Media People failed to provide customer with the promised service (any sort of proof...)?

Having been re-introduced to this debate by the company spokesman, let me address some facts, and pose some questions. This should satisfy him and the company, which wants facts not falsehood; and Hobby Horse who also seems to want facts (in very fine detail by the look of it!). I won’t argue with the idea that facts will indeed enable others to judge for themselves.
In the earlier posts I mentioned that Steven Jackson had errors in his own company name, address and phone number. This is now confirmed as a fact.
It is not a trivial fact.
(Keep in mind that in his posts Mr Jackson, represents his company as a Director - not the new office boy - and makes serial errors of fact - not just grammar! His excuse is that he was, to coin a phrase ‘tired and emotional’. Not good enough.)
1: Is the company or Steven Jackson registered to use the company name ‘The Social Media People UK Ltd’? Yes/No.
1.1: Will the company confirm whether it is legal or illegal to use a Ltd company name without being registered to do so? (Companies Act; Section 1197) Yes/No.

I also previously referred to changes in the company’s registered office address and website.
2.1: On or near 17 March 2011 did the company change the registered office address from Burnage, Manchester M19 1AJ to the new one at Regent Street, London W1B 3HH? Yes/No.
If this is true, it may or may not be relevant, but it is legal to do so.
2.2: Within 1 week of that change, did the company make changes to the website to include the new Registered Office Address, and Place of Registration (England and Wales)? Yes/No.
2.3: Is it a fact or a fallacy that to be within the law a Ltd company must disclose the full company name, company number, registered office address and place of registration on its website? (Section 82-84 Companies Act2006 (in conjunction with Statutory Instrument 2008/495)) Fact/Fallacy.
2.3a: Prior to the changes on the website, was the company complying with the law, or not? (Before the changes the registered office address and place of registration were not included.) Yes/No.
2.3b: Even after the changes there is a mistake [protected]) in how it presents the information. (A small, but telling point given Mr Jackson’s recent, serial, ‘little errors’.)
Between 28 February 2011 and before the first changes to Registered Office Address and website, did Companies House contact the company to raise any matters related to the subsequent changes? Yes/No.

If these questions are answered (as opposed to us having our attention diverted by yet more new assertions by Steven Jackson) we may begin to get an insight into (quote) “the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice” of The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd trading as The Social Media People, and all its associated companies run by the same Directors.
If we ARE diverted, and the questions are not answered will people make any judgement as to the reasons?
There are many more questions to ask – and facts to introduce - but I’m sure everyone has had enough for the moment.

Mr Jackson has responded to my proposal in colourful, if irrelevant terms.
He has proved that I speak the truth - I'm not popular with the company! (The feeling is mutual.)

And he has done me a great favour!

Mr Jackson has made many statements - but I think he's missed a trick! The most effective, conclusive, 'proveable' method to destroy the credibility of someone he infers is as 'nasty' as me, is to take up my proposal to PUBLISH EVERYTHING.

Apparently there is a recording of me identifying myself as 'Elemental' - PUBLISH THAT TOO. (YouTube would do.)
(I don't know why it would be so terrible to be Elemental. I've read the 'posts' and they seem quite mild to me.)

But what's the favour he's done me?
I paid for an advert for which there's been no verifiable evidence it ever appeared. Now he has at least provided me with some 'complimentary' free advertising, by publicising my website. Driving lessons anyone?

Things ARE hotting up aren't they.

But I am pleased that Steven Jackson has now promised to tell us when the number changed.

Quote: "PS. Hobby Horse, I will enquire to the exact date as to when our number was changed. It is a central switchboard number. As customer service agents we have direct line's and departmental numbers we usually give to clients."

Yes, yes, yes - I know it is just a detail - but he will tell us. That is great

How low can you go. It seems you could happily walk under a caterpillar while carrying an umbrella.
Your post is beneath contempt. If The Social Media People provided the service it promised, and we paid for, none of us would have made any statements against you.
PS. Have you ever considered taking a course in basic grammar, punctuation and spelling?

I am sure Mr Jackson is a busy man, but he has managed to correct some of the earlier errors of telephone number and the correct name of his company. (One cheer for Mr J?)
[But he's not yet answered the question of how long ago his telephone number changed. (Subtract half a cheer!])
Things would be much neater if he also corrected the address of his own Customer Service Headquarters.
You'd have thought that as he goes in and out of that office every day, or very regularly at least, he would realise that it is Albany House - not Albana.
Have none of his staff noticed and pointed it out? And an earlier 'post' on this forum highlighted that there was a mistake.
Small details, yes. But people's confidence in the company will be influenced one way or the other by such attention to detail from a Director of the company.

Facts, facts, facts.
Yes that would be nice.
It is good to see that the company is keen to concentrate on facts.

Something to consider for everyone: If you were running a business,
and wished to demonstrate to customers that your business is well run;
for how many days or weeks would you provide 'your old number' - a 'Not in Service' telephone number?
Surely you'd quickly notice that the number of telephone calls was lower than it had been a while before?

Quote: ..."WE HAVE CHANGED THE CUSTOMER SERVICE NUMBER RECENTLY, WE CAN NOT GET THE SAME NUMBER, BUT WE HAVE GOT IT TO BE JUST 1 DIGIT DIFFERENT"

Here is a very simple question which the company should have no difficulty with, so let's give it a go:
Please will Mr Jackson tell us how recently the number changed from [protected]?

The precise date would be nice, but if that's not available, let's not be too demanding:
it should be easy enough to say roughly when it changed:
e.g. Was it at the end of April or early May?
Was it a week or so before 19/20 April when Mr Jackson made his first 'post'?
Or would it have been in March, which I don't think is particularly recent, but perhaps others might also say 'recent' for something which occurred 6 to 10 weeks ago?
But I'm getting off the point: Was it 'recently changed' in May, April or March - or when?

The answer would help re-assure any sceptics that the company wants to rely on facts;
AND that as a provider of a "fantastic, direct targeted marketing at its best", it has the facts at its fingertips in such a demanding and dynamic marketplace. That certainly IS something customers and prospective customers desire.

I spoke to Facebook and they said that they do not advocate any third party resellers of their ads. If the service that the Social Media People is genuine then why doesn't Steve Jackson put us in touch with their account manager, because surely if they have as many clients as he has claimed, the social media people would in turn be a massive client of Facebook itself, and thus surely Facebook would advocate on behalf of a genuine client?

Let's go for this. I can post the abusive email from Caroline Stevenson threatening police action. I can also post a transcript of the voicemail message from another of their silver tongued operatives threatening libel.
And let's ask The Social Media People to post proof that their Facebook advertising campaigns do exist and have been displayed on Facebook pages.

Hello everyone, my name is Tom Faulkner.
I have been watching the site for some time and now wish to make my contribution.

I am a customer of ‘The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd trading as The Social Media People’ (Registered Address since 17 March 2011: 4th Floor Office 404, Albany House, 324/326 Regent Street, W1B3HH).
The company will not dispute that I am a genuine (if not a popular) customer.
Some visitors/contributors to this forum will recognise me, as I have been in touch with several of you for a while now.

I ‘signed up’ (with The Social Media People) on or about 5 January 2011, so my ‘case’ is continuous from then until now. This seems to be a longer time span than many who’ve posted here.
As most of the relationship between the company and me precedes the comments made on this site (& others) it hasn’t been influenced by the views expressed here.

I feel that my experience could be described as ‘typical’ of dissatisfied customers (or near customers); but it does not represent a ‘typical HAPPY customer’.
It would be better for others to judge. I am obviously biased.

I wish to offer a suggestion to enable all interested parties to view ‘real’ information, rather than forming their conclusions from the ‘comments’ of others, and of the company.

What does ‘The Social Media People’ have to gain or lose from what I propose?
There is nothing to lose, and everything to gain for the company, as this will be hard evidence of a real case – just what Mr Jackson so strongly desires.

What do I have to lose?
I might be exposing myself to the world as a complete idiot, naive businessman, and dishonourable individual.
What do I have to gain? I guess that even if people agree with my side of the discussion, I’ll still look like an idiot! So I don’t gain much at all.
I am willing to risk that; to enable others to judge the ‘rights and wrongs’.

So what do I propose?
Both I and The Social Media People will ‘publish’, for public scrutiny, EVERY communication which has passed between us.
The company records telephone calls – so they can be included for people to listen to. (Although it’ll be very boring listening to me droning on & on!)
The company has all the emailed and posted letters from me, and their responses.
Here, on this forum, I urge, and grant them permission to ‘publish’ all documents/recordings relating to my case.
If there is anything they don’t have, I will supply my copies where they exist.
Others can then assess for themselves what conclusions to draw.

What a great way for the company to launch its proposed forum for customers.
– As long as it is very soon. (Or we might need to use a different forum.)
The company uses the terms ‘openness, honesty, integrity, fairness, good business practices’ etc. Here is a chance to put those things into practice.
If the company feels that this proposal would be too expensive, or too technically difficult for them to undertake it should let us know.
I am prepared to do it if they won’t.

What do readers think about this?
What does The Social Media People think?

To Steven Jackson - After being very upset about the way your customer service/cancellations department have treated me I decided to look up other complaints on the internet and have found this site. How surprised (or should I say not suprised) I was to find that other customers are being treated in exactly the same way as myself ! I feel I have been conned out of £218 plus VAT, I have not had a single click back from the advertising onto my site when I cancelled with 10 days to spare I was told you had not received the letter in time and therefore I owed another £99 + VAT, the mistake I made was that I sent the letter first class post and I did not send it by recorded delivery. Will you be in the office on Monday, I would very much like to speak to you?

So.
1. Has anyone tried phoning Mr Jackson on the number he gives - [protected]?
I did. I tried several times - and it is 'Not in Service'.
Why would an executive of the company give us the wrong number?

2. Has anyone looked at Companies House Records?
I did. It seems that 'The Social Media People UK Ltd' does not exist, and never has!
So the statement: “The Social Media People UK Ltd was established by a Father & Son partnership over 12years ago and the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice is as prominent today as it was then.” - is a bit puzzling?
If you were very charitable, as I am, you might think that perhaps it was a small mistake in the company name. (The executive gets his company name wrong? Derrrr!) So I had a look at similar sounding companies for the answer.

The Social Media People Ltd. - Ah, that might be the one we are looking for!
No! Although owned by the same directors THAT was only Incorporated on 23-09-2010 (as FACEBOOK-Ads Ltd); with the name changed to 'The Social Media People Ltd. on 29-11-2010 - a whole 5+ months ago.

Or what about 'The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd. (trading as The Social Media People)'?
Nope. That one was Incorporated 14-10-2010. 7 months - things are looking better! You've guessed it - same directors.

Ah, but there is Net 66 Web Services Ltd. to save the day! Incorporated 15-10-2009! Wow. That one has now been there for 18 months or so; but not 12 years. Same directors - anyone surprised?

O.K. then, but is it a father and son partnership?
Well, it might be, since both male directors share the same surname. Hooray! Something that (might be) correct.

Funnily enough, yet another company also has a director with that surname.
Net 66 Ltd. Incorporated on 22-02-2011, has a female director with the same surname as the ones above.

Not looking too good for the 'customer service Director's credibility on this evidence. Perhaps he was having a bad day?!

He stated " ... honesty, integrity and ethical business practice is as prominent today as it was then..."
Perhaps it is. Perhaps we shouldn't question such things.
But did he say 'HIGH LEVELS of honesty, integrity etc...?
No. So perhaps he wants us to insert our own adjective, ranging somewhere between 'superlative' and 'non-existent'.
And cleverly, Mr Jackson made no claim for 'accuracy' at that point.

Does anyone have any news from the 'Client' companies with which The Social Media People is 'affiliated'?
I'm a bit tired after all my investigations and I can't do that - today.

O...did the search HobbyHouse suggested, the have another company registered number...

THE SOCIAL NETWORK MARKETING COMPANY LTD
4TH FLOOR OFFICE 404 ALBANY HOUSE
324/326 REGENT STREET
LONDON
ENGLAND
W1B 3HH
Company No. [protected]

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 14/10/2010

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied
Accounting Reference Date: 31/10
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 14/07/2012
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 11/11/2011

Hi Runaway6, they haven't got that nasty to me yet, but I suspect soon. Not sure what I should do now, but already typed up a formal letter to complaint to them and ask them for proof of advertisement. Anything else I can do?

Clarity- so important in company information, so lacking in your contact with me. First a female salesperson stated, not inferred, that she was from Facebook and making a one off advertising offer to people in my region. I bought one month's advertising for approximately £100.00. But the advertisement, if it ever existed, did not make its way to Facebook or to my email account. When I tried to cancel the agreement, I was threatened with fraud, police and bailiffs. Oh, I forgot libel. But Mr Jonathan Barker Smith, who claimed in a telephone message to act as legal counsel for The Social Media Group, is very difficult to locate.
Me, I'm off to the Advertising Standards Authority. This is not an inference. It's a fact.

I did not intend to infer a 'spokesman from Companies House. The comment refers to the 'company spokesman' - of the company under discussion. I am sorry if that was not clear. Or is runaway6 having a joke at my expense; naughty!

I was approached by these people. The call made me think they were Facebook. Indeed now that I have learned that they were calling themselves Facebook-Ads Ltd they seem very fishy to me. Anyway I was told by someone called Shane Pearson that the company was legitimate, and to prove it I just had to look at their client list. I spoke to someone at the head office of TaxAssist Accountants, who said they have never advertised with the Social Media People and that they have asked them several times to remove their logo from their website. I decided not to have anything to do with this company.
Thank you for your warnings, these people do not seem to be very nice at all.

What a very unusual comment from the spokesman at Companies House, which normally provides financial information only about British companies. It is odd that the spokesman could vouch for the honesty and integrity of The Social Media People. Or perhaps he knows them personally?

I have been looking at these messages for a while. Call it a hobby!
This one’s a mess! But it is unusual for a ‘bad-mouthed’ company to respond, and it means we can see both sides of the argument.
The ‘complainers’ give a bad impression of The Social Media People.
The Social Media People defends itself against unwarranted attack.

Form your own opinion by checking things out.
1. The company spokesman says:
“In fact, if you visit our website you can see the clients we currently have on board, in line with the ASA regulations, it is illegal to claim affiliation with any companies that may not be associated to you. Ask yourslef this:
DO YOU THINK A COMPANY THAT IS A SCAM WOULD HAVE CLIENTS SUCK AS: SUBWAY, REVOLUTION, BAIRSTOW EVES, MENKIND LTD, BAGUETTE EXPRESS & EURO DEBT? NEITHER DO WE, THATS WHY WE LIST THEM!”
The Social Media People is proud to show its list of corporate clients as evidence of its credibility.
And I guess that the clients would be pleased to confirm their satisfaction with the services of The Social Media People. After all, they allow the use of their logo on its website.

So its easy - Contact companies listed as clients of The Social Media People and let them know that their supplier is under attack. Ask them to lend their good name and company reputation to fend off unjustified claims against the company they are ‘affiliated’ with.
(Usually it would be the Marketing or Legal Department which is in charge of the use of its Intellectual Property [Trade Mark].)

2a. The Advertising Standards Authority, as mentioned by the company spokesman, will be able to confirm how the rules governing use by one company of another company’s Registered Trade Mark is allowed, and not misleading, as long as owner of the Trade Mark has given its permission.
2b. Additionally there is The Intellectual Property Office at:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-lawpractice.htm .

3. Trading Standards, Manchester will not take action concerning companies which are undertaking their business activities in a legal, professional way. So there is no point in contacting them at:
Tel: [protected].45am to 5pm)
Email: trading_standards@manchester.gov.uk
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/manchester/

4. Another source of factual information is Companies House at: www.companieshouse.gov.uk
Example:
The spokesman says:
“The Social Media People UK Ltd was established by a Father & Son partnership over 12years ago and the honesty, integrity and ethical business practice is as prominent today as it was then.”

You’d like to check that? - And it would factually support the spokesman’s claim about how long the company has been established.
At no cost you can look at the relevant documents on the Companies House ‘Webcheck’ section:
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/bd020129d0170fb3ca05c5e87d633e5f/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo,
Search for The Social Media People UK Ltd. (Or any other company name.)
Click on the number at the left hand side of the chart.
You will see the details of the company, including the ‘Date of Incorporation’.
Additional info can also be seen by clicking on the ‘Order Information’ tag at the right; some more info can be purchased at very low cost.
(Note: Only properly ‘Incorporated’ companies are shown. If a company is not ‘Incorporated’ it can’t use the ‘Ltd’ tag.)

You could check out lots of things if you’ve got the time –
OR you could phone the spokesman on the telephone number he has given, and ask him about it all.