the social media people net66 review: scam 850

If TSMP are so good at what they do, how come only 200 or so Facebook fans? That would be the ONLY litmus test for me that proves they have happy customers. We are a small business and have over 500 fans. They are so called experts in the field of Facebook advertising. I would reckon most of that 200 are disgruntled customers (I am 1 of them). and they don't allow you to post on their wall. ANY reputable company allows Facebook wall posts, to engage with their customers. I have just sent my cancellation letter recorded delivery with Royal Mail online tracking bar code. I will know if they have my letter or if they have refused to accept it. Either way I am cancelling the credit card just in case.

I have just had a look at the TSMP website - first time in a long time. Some of us have complained about the content on this site and gradually this has been removed. I notice that now the Review section which they were crowing about is no longer their.

Information about their clients went long ago, including the use of company logos without permission. Somebody must have had a word. The ASA are stil investigating this site - but you don't hear the TSMP banging on about that when they talk about the ASA.

Now I notice they have a jobs section. Again this is password protected area. Strange that you need a password if you were a prospective employee, or perhaps not, but there is nowhere to set up up an account to get one. Strange that. Perhaps this cutting edge company will change this now that I have pointed this out to them.

Now all this subterfuge is because, as they say on their website, they have to fear the actions of - potential customers - due to
'an extremely high level of contact, and attempted poaching of business
we are no longer displaying our existing clients to new customers' effectively closing down this part of the website.

It is very strange that if this company IS as good as they say why 'attempted poaching of business' would be a threat. If you are the market leader, which is kind of what they are suggesting, would this really be a problem? Can you imagine all the blue chip companies they have said they have on their books changing their advertising policies for this reason. Ridiculous. Another red herring.

Katrina, Tom McVey, Steve Jackson etc

Your comments and treatment of Tom Faulkner are absolutely despicable when considering the bile that you have aimed at him, and again insinuated in this post. The fact that you have removed these posts speaks volumes about your company's deviousness and that being channeled through a number of fictitious posters like Steve Jackson and others.

I and a number of others HAVE been in touch with you but, as said previously, you do not offer anything to our one main grievance regarding the 'enforcement' of the contract and the taking of moneys that were NOT agreed to. You give instead a repeated re-iteration that you have done everything you said you would but offer no proof of this whatsoever.

Yesterday I spoke with Peter Duffin, Manchester's Trading Standards Officer, as I had made a complaint. Now he said he has paid you a visit and has asked you to come up with some evidence regarding compliance calls (so called) and emails of confirmation of Terms & Conditions which you say you send, but he has not received. I think you have to make some alterations and that is all. Now surprise surprise he is still waiting for this to be sent by you and I wonder if you will. Furthermore, rather like the fact that you won't send your customers information requested for, even when legally requested to do so, this make it very difficult to pin anything on you because denying everything and not providing evidence makes it very difficult in cases like this, without going to court, to bring you to the table. He seemed to be of the opinion that verbal contracts are almost impossible to prove one way or the other in court sometimes because this evidence is abused and that is the crux of this whole problem - yet you threaten us with these so called recordings to keep us quiet when we say we do not agree with what was supposed to be said. But you can't produce them on request, even when people offer to pay good money for you to do so. Why is that?

I believe, according to Mr. Duffin, that you now longer introduce your sales call with the one month's trial speech - is that true, and why?

'and all we receive is daily threats, personal insuls and a tyrade of abuse.'
Is this really true? There may have been some personally insulting remarks made but really, you have been rather vile in the various postings made by yourselves and two posters have merely posted in retaliation. I think the rest of the posters on here have merely tried to restate their grievances so I think you are being economical with the truth. I wouldn't to call you liars.

Lastly you post this

'We urge all parties to ### the facts and neutral(l)y draw conclusion.'

In all your posts on this board you have not come up with one fact relevant the questions asked of you - not one.

Katrina TSMP

Many thanks for your offer which I am considering.
Most posters main problem including myself seems to be that they weren't aware that they were being put onto a rolling contract. As a spokesperson for a company that you claim is ethical, what has been done/changed to stop future customers also feeling this way? Even if the customer had been told about the rolling contract during the compliance call, there seems to be too many with this opinion for an ethical company not to change the way they perform this part of their business.

Regards UTH

Morning all,

We have repeatedly tried to rectify any and all issues. But guys, you have to be willing to at least give us a chance to give our account. We have recently made an open offer to which is met with "This proves such disrespect for your customers it makes one speechless to come out with an offer you have no intention of fulfilling."
If you are trying to insult us as a company you have to be willing to base it on fact and if we make an offer you can not rubbish it immediately. Most of our attempts to co-operate fall on deaf ears and this is our main frustration. We appreciate it is far less than 0.5% of our clients that have issues but we value every customer and whilst we appreciate we can not satisfy everybody all of the time our aim is to make the best effort humanly possible.

If you wish to lodge complaints or to ask for answers you have to be willing to listen to our side and an offer to actuallty ### the facts should be welcomed. Or at least tolerated.

Also Mr Faulkner. We did not name you and did not wish to. Inspite of you mocking a company director who was tragically injured and refering to him as "daddy no thumbs" and repeated and consitant personal insults about Tom McVey and other family mermeber we have still shown you a level of compassion you would expect from a human being. I may be speaking on behalf of a company and personaly knowing a few people you have insulted I find it degrading and even shameful. Yet I(on behalf of the company) shown you the compassion/respect all human beings deserve. It would be nice if you did the same. Insult the company, tho logo the practices whatever, but personaly insulting employees especially mocking people with physical disabilities needs to stop from you. We have tried on numerours occasions to hold out the olive branch and to try to communicate over your frustrations. Although bluntly speaking, to make over 500 comments after trying amonths advertising and getting proof we done the advertising for you AND you claim to have had a refund. The amount of frustration and levels of personal insults do not equate to this "issues" you say you have had. Again, we have tried, and are still willing to try, to leave you with a good impression of our business but you need to be willing to listen.
Also we are receiving calls daily from clients who are wishing to know why they are bombarded with conatct and info sent to them about us in the hope they cancel with us. Mr.Faulkner you have to admit what you have done is not cricket. Especially after what you know yourself is out there about you on the internet. We have never mentioned this as we do not wish to make any underhand attempts to sway neutral opinions. After all this we have made regular attempts for you to make contact to clarify any issues and the offer still stands.

UTH - Again, I wish to invite you to make contact with us so as we can trace the contact mad eon our system and make sure that we delivered the level of service we pride ourselves on. There is a level of customer service defecit in every single company in the universe. Especially when you have a client base the size of ours, and if we feel we did not give the best impression of ourselves or we feel you walked away with out the level of service you shoul have received we are open minded in our efforts to come to a resolution.

Informer28 - You speach patterns and utilisation of the English language is very similar to a known scammer who origonaly graced this thread under the alias of "hobby horse" and proceeded to divert anybody poossible to his own site to get click on his googlke adsense campaign to line his pockets whilst all along pretending to care about the truth. If you are willing to contact us, do on a private message if needs be, then we are willing to investigate your case in maticulous detail and again, hopefully rectify any mis-understandings.

in summary we have repeatedly asked anybody who requires information or who may have an issue to make conatc with us and all we receive is daily threats, personal insuls and a tyrade of abuse. The abuse has got to an un-acceptable level and after all our attempts to offer evidence and to converse with regards to any issues we believe it is about time people start to give us a chance to give our side of the stary and help you to understand what we do and why it may work well for you with an open mind. With most complainants expecting an instant result through a 30day advertising campaign it is unfair to blame us for advertising that may not have been as succesful as hoped for you. It is still an effective and proven method and our client base speaks for itself.

The lionk to the ASA ruling is: http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/7/the_social_media_people_scam, -d-, co, -d-, uk/SHP_ADJ_154984.aspx

Also the ASA is an advertising watchdog. Mocking their powers and credibility will not do you any favours. We appreciate people may feel no matter what they are right and may not wish to listen to anybody who says anything different but if your a grown adult and not so much into "he said" "she said" Then a neutral Governing Body responsible for Monitoring and regulating Advertising in the UK is a voice worth listening to.

With regards to people who have said that they have proof of us being a scam then if you send it to the ASA (whioch undoubtedly you have) then they will publicly state we are a scam. But to rubbish their decisions based on your own opinions only makes you look mis-informed.

To say because they havent seen evidence about us being a "scam" is fair enough you are entitled to your opinion. But please do not confuse your opinion with FACT. The ASA in relation to claims we are a scam said "we had not seen evidence to support that claim"

We are aware, as it has been stated on here, that all claims and evidence on this forum has been submitted to the ASA and they stand by their judgement that we are NOT a scam and did not deserve to have our business denigrated when doing a google search of our company.

We urge all parties to ### the facts and neutraly draw conclusion.

As always we do are not just inviting, but urging people to makoe contact with us.

Regards
Katrina
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People

The ASA ruling was based on no evidence being supplied at that time to confirm the allegation.

'..The ASA noted they had not seen enough evidence to suggest the Social Media People were a scam. It was also suggested that the ad had been created by a disgruntled ex-employee...'

What's the result of the ASA's adjudication? The ad may not run again in its current form.

In lay mans terms, the statements on the Adword campaign were not verifiable as NO evidence was submitted to back up the allegations. The ASA rightly upheld TSMP's case without any evidence being submitted against them!

Had the ASA been aware of all the issues and been presented with them, those raised on this and other sites, then the decision I feel would have not been in TSMP's favour.

The ASA jurisdiction is limited to legitimacy of an advert's claims with the evidence available. It is not the holy grail of morality, honesty or integrity!

Incidentally '...if the ad does run again in the current form the ASA does have Google's agreement to look into the case and potentially force it offline...'

The ASA can not enforce it's decisions! A real heavy player?

So for a company to refer all it's woes and criticisms that are made with regard to their integrity, honesty and morality etc to a ruling from the ASA which has no jurisdiction over such things as company legislation, inland revenue etc. It is an extremely weak argument to continually quote the ASA, who's jurisdiction is irrelevant in most of the criticism and questioning of TSMP/Net 66 / McVey empire's extremely questionable business practices.

P.S. The ASA!

TruthIsNowTold

I commend you on your current neutral stand.

I would agree with you entirely that if TSMP/Net 66/ and the rest of the McVey consortium were to be transparent and answer relevant and challenging questions about their business practices, then yes they would do themselves a credit. They have been asked on numerous occasions to explain themselves with regard to their questionable business practice and the result being either totally ignored or the particular enquirer then subject to verbal abuse with on occasion the threat of violence via telephone calls (which there are many recordings available). Also the continual use of smoking mirrors with regard to the companies trading location, which incidentally has always been in Manchester and not London, Paris etc. as claimed previously on their website. Likewise with the claims that they have an extraordinary number of clients (15, 000) in less than a years trading with only a dozen or so employees excluding the Directors Thomas and Neil (father) McVey plus the two other sons and daughter.

I genuinely hope that you get the reply from TSMP requested. Unfortunately, as has been seen on this site and others others, if you expectations are low then you will not be disappointed! Was it an ex-employee who placed the Adword campaign? Yes.

Was it me? No, but I give full praise for what he was trying to achieve.

Is there a conspiracy against TSMP? There has been no law breaking including perjury against TSMP, but quite the reverse! So No! (Tom McVey you might like to look up conspiracy in the Oxford English Dictionary before you accuse!)

TSMP
You certainly didn't try to help me the two times I called to question why my card had been recharged. In fact I was made to feel very threatened and no one was willing to look into my situation. I also felt the same way about the emails that I received. Why should I bother to call again?
You are correct that I post in the hope that others won't deal with you. This is due to my experience of dealing with your company, something that I wouldn't wish on others.
Hope you all have a nice day, UTH.

"When your salesperson is told quite clearly, when they are making the so called compliance call to take details and explain the deal, that the month trial is all that is wanted and you are certainly not interested in a rolling contract it is your salesperson, who misunderstands or chooses to misunderstand and then ignore what is said to them. The fact that this transaction is verbal actually means that you tend to ignore ANY disputed version of the sale that isn't in your favour."

If you are a customer please get in contact and we can sit down and listen to your call together. We also converse and establish why you are so unhappy and hopefully rectify the situation.

Indeed I am a customer. This proves such disrespect for your customers it makes one speechless to come out with an offer you have no intention of fulfilling. Indeed I, like others on here, have asked you for details of the call, a transcript (that's when it is in writing by the way) or recording, and other emails you say you have sent us because that is what your response is - you will just say that that is what we agreed to and 'and we have all the conversations recorded'. Yet you have never produced one in response to a request.

So your offer above is meaningless.

The customer on this forum who's made most comments is me. Check for yourself and you will see that the total is less than 300. so there seems to be an inaccuracy in the figures presented by TSMP. Not a new phenomenon.
I have frequently published easily verifiable facts - as in this post - but TSMP seems to have difficulties presenting facts and cohesive arguments.
If TruthBeTold wants any facts - along with evidence to support them - I will gladly oblige.

Morning All,

We have repeatedly asked customers to get in contact as customer service is iomportant to us.

With regards to:

"When your salesperson is told quite clearly, when they are making the so called compliance call to take details and explain the deal, that the month trial is all that is wanted and you are certainly not interested in a rolling contract it is your salesperson, who misunderstands or chooses to misunderstand and then ignore what is said to them. The fact that this transaction is verbal actually means that you tend to ignore ANY disputed version of the sale that isn't in your favour."

If you are a customer please get in contact and we can sit down and listen to your call together. We also converse and establish why you are so unhappy and hopefully rectify the situation.

This is something we have done with all unhappy customers. We have repeatedly invited people to contact us to gain a resolution if they have a problem. However, it seems people are more interested in defaming our name as one individual has made over 500 negative comments about us and gone as far to ring around customers to try to put them off using our services. Luckily enough as we provide a good service they have ll been contacting us and explaining what an underhand unethical and to be blunt shameful tactic. You would have thought that in 2011 people would have had a bit of decency.
Obviously we are not going to name this individual and we have no doubt he will have no remorse for his actions as in his own mind he may see his actions as acceptable. Whilst we prefusely object to any insinuationbs that we trade unethicaly we appreciate frustration suffered and can only invite all parties to contact us direct.

It is with regret we have been forced to repeated the ASA ruling in our favour. But we find defending our integrity is met with dis-belief, personal insults and even threats. if not personal threats certainly threat of reporting us to authorities and trading bodies etc. Which is something we agree with. This is why wer have refered to an investigation by a governing body. We resperct and adhere to the law. As the company is ran by human beings there have been experiences that we have learned from.

We respect companies and individuals rights to be di-satisfied with a product or a service but there is a lot of claims on this forum which are unfair. Company directors have been subject to personal insults and the whole companies ethics have been attacked. If we were genuinely a scam then we would not still be trading and would be under investigation from almost every single trading body.

The reason these claims are repeatedly made is to put off would be customers from spending any money with us. This is why we repeatedly refer to the ASA as people will believe an impartial governing body over an aangry opinion all day long.

Having said that we are still keen to receive feedback and opinions from customers and have repeatedly requested unhappy customers to get in contact.

Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People

i would call scammer guard. They are reputable company that helps with these exact situations! [protected]

Katrine

'The ones we have had issues with have misunderstood what they have agreed to.'

However you wish to present yourself this is utter rot.

When your salesperson is told quite clearly, when they are making the so called compliance call to take details and explain the deal, that the month trial is all that is wanted and you are certainly not interested in a rolling contract it is your salesperson, who misunderstands or chooses to misunderstand and then ignore what is said to them. The fact that this transaction is verbal actually means that you tend to ignore ANY disputed version of the sale that isn't in your favour.

So trying to dress this up as a misunderstanding together with your faux offers of help when you mean nothing of the sort is just more of the same.

I too have sent a Personal Message to TruthIsNowTold. He/she may or may not publish it, but it was an offer to provide any available information from my (a customer's) perspective.
It looks like TruthIsNowTold has been nominated as Grand Jurer or Judge, which is amazing for such a recent recruit.
Perhaps his/her interest will move things on.

i received text message from [protected] and tall me that i won 250.000 pound from nokia MEGA JACKPOT NOKIAPRO42@LIVE.COM +[protected] FOR CALL

Good morning Tom McVey

You and your companies are being investigated by Trading Standards, do you not remember the visit you had from them?
Your Bank has circulated questionnaires with regard to the 'service' you provide to existing and previous clients?
The ASA advised you to remove ficticious blue chip clients that you had on your web site as 'references'.

The list goes on and on, but you Tom will as always be in denial, placing your head in the sand and being the obnoxious individual that you are.

Good Morning All,

It appears after hundreds of comments from the same individuals that they will not rest until we close the business. Well unfortunately for you, we have no intention. We provide a fantastic service and can confirm contrary to ridiculous insinuations, we are NOT under investigation from any authorities. If half of the accusations made on this forum were true then we certainly would not be trading. Comments are only made on here to unfairly discourage people from spending money with us, and seen as we have well known credible references then it doesn't affect us in the slightest.

Anybody who is unsure after reading personal insults at employees of our organisation and questions against our ethics can answered by reading the ASA's conclusion:

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/7/the_social_media_people_scam, -d-, co, -d-, uk/SHP_ADJ_154984.aspx

Thank you for ongoing support from all of our clients, very much appreciated. We have had several questions and enquiries from clients. This is something we appreciate, and invite. Please be careful of what you might read from un-verified sources and annonymous people online.

The reason we are repeatedly posting the ASA's conclusion that: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS WE ARE A SCAM.

Thats The Advertsing Watchdog, not a ring of criminals!

We stand by our ethics and to call us a scam is basically calling the ASA a LIAR or Incompetent! -

We know who we'd believe!
________________________________________________________________________________
We would incourage any genuine customers to not give out personal data to any "data poachers" on this or any other site. It transpires some of the people on here who are claiming to "offer assistance" are under investigation form various organisations and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.
________________________________________________________________________________

We have OVER, YES OVER (More than) 25, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are conducting in despicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
If you are a genuine customer who is unhappy or wishes to lodge a complaint, please get in contact. Due to the amount of lies from non-customers & competitors please have your customer details ready.

________________________________________________________________________

Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.

________________________________________________________________________

Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
________________________________________________________________________

With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.

We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.

We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.

________________________________________________________________________

So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?

Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:

There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:

ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk

Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”

Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.

Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.

Assessment
Upheld

The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).

Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:

I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.

Please read these details:

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"

Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.

*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************

We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:

Tel: [protected]

Email: publicrelations@thesocialmediapeople.co.uk

We are happy to deal with enquiries, and answer any questions or queries you may have.

Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People

04-09-2011: All you need to know - Correction! Telephone Message lies in this post; Anonymous caller in previous post.
These are the links for the telephone messages. The previous post relates to an 'Anonymous' telephone call.

1a. Paste this URL into your browser: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats/2-message-aliases-plus-anon-clip-20april13june-20-08-2011-v2-64kbps/
1b. Then click on the ‘link’ title: ‘The Social Media People threats in telephone messages. 20-04-2011’.

2. OR, paste this URL into your browser and the audio should be directly accessed:
http://badbiz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2-Message-Aliases-plus-ANON-clip-20April13June-20-08-2011-v2-64Kbps.wma

04-09-2011: All you need to know about The Social Media People premeditated lies - in just 2 minutes.

Recordings of telephone messages.

1a. Paste this URL into your browser: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats/4-anon-13-06-201110minedit-only-28kbps/
1b. Then click on the ‘link’ title: ‘Mr Anonymous on 13-06-2011. The Social Media People 10 min edit’.

2. OR, paste this URL into your browser and the audio should be directly accessed:
http://badbiz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/4-ANON-13-06-201110minedit-ONLY-28Kbps.wma

03-09-2011:
The issue on this thread is The Social Media People and it's appalling business practices, dishonesty, and non-existent ethics and integrity.

www.b.co.uk.S: I have received your personal message and am considering the matter. In the meantime why not deal with your issues on the appropriate thread. (Which I'll keep checking over the next few days.)
As you seem to be a 'neutral' on this thread (title: the social media people net66 - Complaints scam), why not listen to the recordings of telephone messages, and give us your objective assessment as a detached 3rd party, of the lies and threats made by The Social Media People.
(The links were posted by me earlier today, about 8 posts before this one.)

I guess people will be interested to see how you assess things.

03-09-2011: To - TruthIsNowTold

You're right to try to take up the 'offer' from TSMP, which repeatedly makes that promise. I hope that you get a satisfactory response.
If you do I hope that: a. It answers your questions. b. You will share any information you can about what you learn. c. You'll let us know if TSMP does not live up to its promise.

In your 'post' you haven't asked TSMP any questions to be answered, but perhaps you're going step-by-step. (Certainly many others HAVE asked questions which remain unanswered.)

Judging by past experience you won't get the answers on this public forum, but let's hope that TSMP can break new ground and do that too.

Good luck.

03-09-2011: The reputation of The Social Media People with banks.

Where do multi-national banks turn for verification of companies' status etc?

I recently made a successful reclaim of The Social Media People charges through my bank - Barclays.
I'd also asked the bank to explain the set-up and links between TSMP and Net66 (which was the payment route for my money).
I wanted to understand how/why companies could take payments in certain ways, and how 'dodgy' this case might be.

What method do you think Barclays used to demonstrate the shady side of The Social Media People/Net66s set up?

Barclays Bank PLC, multi-national corporation sent me a 'proof source' to explain things.
Barclays Bank PLC sent me a 'link' which would explain everything I needed to know.
Barclays Bank PLC sent me the following link as the 'proof source' (have a look yourself): http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/07/net-66-web-services-ltd-mixed-up-in-scam/

Some may remember that a while back The Social Media People stated that the verdict of a bank is a reliable judgement on the truth or otherwise of customers claims for refunds; and that the ‘opinions’ of customers on this website were less trustworthy.
So if Barclays gets my money back for me, AND Barclays sends me a 'proof' that TSMP and Net66 is a scam – it must be true.

TSMP / Tom McVey appears to have a new incarnation 'www.badbiz.co.uk SCAM' where Tom McVey pens all irrelevances in an attempt to side track people from the real issue on this site:

The appalling business practices of TSMP / Net 66 who are an unethical, unprofessional, dishonest scamming group of companies who are currently being investigated by their own bank due to the question of association with a scamming company, have had visits from Trading Standards, contravened Copyrights, claimed to be trading from London, Paris, New York (sounds like a 'Trotter' to me) when in fact they are and have always been trading from their offices in Manchester. Claimed to be trading as a business for 11 years and are at the cutting edge of technology. There written English is less guttural than their spoken English, although flawed in content, logic and flow.

Openly breaking the law with regard to data handling, copyright infringement and up until last week they were illegally billing all their customers from a company which was at arms length from TSMP and on the face of it had no association, namely Net 66 (which their bank advised them that the portal they were using would be closed unless they rectified the situation - hence the now 'open' association with Net 66 on their site and T&C's)
What does this mean to all TSMP's previous and current clients? Well they can legally claim all their monies back from TSMP/Net 66! I will post over the weekend how you all can do this!

03-09-2011: ‘Mr Anonymous’ shows concern about Trading Standards interest in The Social Media People.

Although the voice sounds familiar in this recording, there are no 'Credits' available as this caller is 'Anonymous'!
The anonymity is also used to make further threats and insinuations.

1a. Paste this URL into your browser: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats/4-anon-13-06-201110minedit-only-28kbps/
1b. Then click on the ‘link’ title: ‘Mr Anonymous on 13-06-2011. The Social Media People 10 min edit’.

2. OR, paste this URL into your browser and the audio should be directly accessed:
http://badbiz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/4-ANON-13-06-201110minedit-ONLY-28Kbps.wma

Blog: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats//
-

03-09-2011: The Man With 3 Voices at The Social Media People gang – in under 2 minutes.

These recordings give a powerful insight into the absence of ethics and integrity of The Social Media People – Net66.
They are particularly valuable as TSMP has admitted on this forum that they are genuine – so there should be no arguments about the genuine nature of them.
It seems like TSMP isn't keen on people hearing them, so instead of YouTube, try this:

1a. Paste this URL into your browser: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats/2-message-aliases-plus-anon-clip-20april13june-20-08-2011-v2-64kbps/
1b. Then click on the ‘link’ title: ‘The Social Media People threats in telephone messages. 20-04-2011’.

2. OR, paste this URL into your browser and the audio should be directly accessed:
http://badbiz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2-Message-Aliases-plus-ANON-clip-20April13June-20-08-2011-v2-64Kbps.wma

In 2 short telephone messages there are at least 9 premeditated lies spoken by TSMP’s Director.
Threats and harassment are the 'meat' around the lies.
The messages last approximately 108 seconds; so there is about 1 lie every 12 seconds.

No honesty (Lies). No Integrity (Pretends to be other people.) No ethics (Intimidates customers.) No accuracy (intimidates the WRONG customer). No ‘guts’ (Hides behind ‘withheld’ phone numbers & aliases.)

Blog: http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/09/the-social-media-people-aliases-in-telephone-threats//
-

02-09-2011: The Social Media People states: "We post facts NOT opinions riddled with unethical comments..."

No - The Social Media People posts opinions (its own, obviously) and ONE fact (misquoted).

Others post statements from their own experience and often backed up with documentary evidence. That combination equals evidence, proof and FACTS (in the pleural).
TSMP is so ASHAMED of the documents it produces, so EXPOSED by them, that it can't even bare to comment on them. So why should they complain when others come to their own conclusions - which are usually that TSMP is patently avoiding the issues.

One issue is the recorded telephone messages which TSMP has acknowledged are genuine. Have a listen and assess them for yourself. The FACTS in the recordings are that the characters AND the statements are virtually ALL lies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7qgNVBFff8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2LafoXZ274
-

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!

What happens if TSMP needs some authoritative content for its website?

TSMP trawls the internet, finds an article with some quality about it, replaces the author’s name with its own ‘signature’ and copyright attribution, and publishes it on http://thesocialmediapeople.co.uk (‘Links’ pages).

Did someone say honesty, integrity, ethics, ASA?

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘BIG Mistakes’!

What happens when TSMP decides it wants to ‘put the frighteners on’ out-of-line customers?
It fakes-up a Customer Service Director, a ‘Legal Agent, and a ‘solicitor’ to phone customers as a method of frightening, harassing and subduing them.
The ‘characters’ are lies; and what’s said is lies.

Listen to 2 minutes worth, which tell such a powerful story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XVv4_Ewl4M
-

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!

What happens when TSMP prepares a VAT Invoice for another customer?
TSMP decides that even though it IS registered for VAT, it will claim not to be. (Naughty!)

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!

What happens when TSMP prepares a VAT Invoice for a customerin Glasgow?

TSMP doesn’t know what currency is legal tender in the UK.
TSMP gets the customer’s address wrong.
TSMP can’t fit all its information on the page, so the customer doesn’t get the T&Cs link which TSMP claims is on every invoice.

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!

What happens when ICO checks to see if TSMP/net66 should have complied with their legal obligation on requests to comply with DSARs?

ICO finds that they should have, and tells them to get their finger out.
-

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!

What happens when the ICO checks whether TSMP and Net66 are properly, legally registered as a Data Controllers?

It finds they are NOT, and ‘advises’ them to register; which TSMP and Net66 promptly do.

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens when a bank asks TSMP to prove it provided the agreed service, or risk having Lloyds TSB (TSMPs bank) pay the money back to the customer because TSMP failed in its contractual duty?

TSMP tells lies.
When the deal was set up TSMP agreed to distribute the advert ‘within a 5 mile radius of BN41 2TE’
(See para 5 in email from Nicola)
When TSMP told the bank about the deal it claimed distribution to people ‘that live in Hove’ (which is NOT the same)
Facebook systems have a minimum radius of 10 miles.
So – NOT Hove; and NOT 5 miles – so NOT true.

How many ‘little mistakes’?
How much honesty? How much ethics? How much integrity? How good are the business practices?

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!
What happens when TSMP sends a ‘Final Demand’ 3 weeks after it’s been notified that the deal was cancelled?
TSMP tells lies.

TSMP clearly stated that the link to Terms and Conditions was on ALL invoices. (You can see in earlier posts in this series that T&Cs link WAS NOT on the invoices.)
The company had previously been advised (and it had acknowledged) that certain information had not been provided at the right time. On the ‘Final Demand’ it lists items against dates which it knew were false.

TSMP knew various things had been delivered late, or information wasn’t where it should have been, but insisted the opposite in the Final Demand.
How many 'little mistakes' are allowed before you small a rat?

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!

What happens if you make a request for information about the company, which it has a legal obligation to provide within 5 days?
Absolutely nothing!

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’! (Legal Dept 2)

What happens if you become a bit ‘uppity’?
More unconvincing legal crap.

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’! (Legal Dept 1)

What happens if you become a bit ‘uppity’?

TSMP sends you ‘heavy-duty’ emails, supposedly from its ‘Legal Department’.
The Head of the Legal Department gets facts wrong and writes in a style so un-businesslike – so unlike any legal notification you’ll ever see – that it is clear that the emails are just meant as threats.
And the ‘Head of Legal Team’ is a fictitious character.
TSMP doesn’t have the courage, the ‘guts’, the ethics or integrity to send an email in the name of a real person.

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!

What happens when you agree to a deal with The Social Media People?

TSMP completes the details of the Order- but gets your address and email address wrong! (As well as various additional errors.)
You have no way of knowing this because (despite the law insisting otherwise) TSMP doesn’t send you the Order.
Mine was obtained a couple of weeks AFTER I had cancelled the deal, when TSMP wanted to prove me wrong about some points.
All it proved was that TSMP made ‘little mistakes’.

02-09-2011: The Social Media People – ‘Little Mistakes’!

What SHOULD happen when a VAT Invoice is ‘spoiled’ (produced with errors)?
VAT regulations say that if a VAT Invoice is ‘spoiled’ it should be kept on file (for possible inspection when VAT requires). A ‘new’ (replacement) VAT Invoice should be issued to the customer, with a new sequential number.

And - What happens if you ask TSMP for a VAT Invoice for the amount it claims you owe?
TSMP produces it 4 times (before giving up) –
- ALL with the same VAT Invoice number.
- ALL with different mistakes.
- On the final version it changes the amounts and total to come up with the WRONG Total.
- Also on the final version it magically changes it to a ‘Pro forma’ invoice.
- On early versions Brighton is in Bristol?!
- Even TSMP’s own address changes?!
- And ALL that after asking ME for advice on how to do it, and having been provided with (most of) the information.

How many mistakes is O.K?
When would a ‘reasonable’ customer, or objective observer, decide that there was something seriously wrong in the company?