Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • An update to this case as I’ve not been on in a while.    I am still awaiting a charging decision in the case. The two police officers involved have said their personal belief is a section 47 ABH charge is the most likely outcome but this isn’t a sure thing of course.    The EA certificate from the issuing court has now lapsed. The court have refused to recertify him until they’ve had a hearing in to the case, and the district judge has issued orders to surrender all evidence, footage, photos etc.    I have done so promptly.    the EA, not so much . Equita have claimed they cannot provide his bodycam footage as the camera he was wearing is the EA personal one not one of theirs.   the EA has claimed he has asked Equita and the police for the footage as he claims he doesn’t have it.    the police have confirmed they didn’t seize his camera and they don’t have it.    so they are basically pointing the finger at each other all the while failing to comply with the district judges order to provide all evidence they intend to rely on at the rescheduled hearing.    The district judge has stated the hearing for his certification will NOT be the hearing for my complaint as there is no charge as of yet, and just as to whether he should be recertified or not.    I’m not 100% on why that can’t be done at the time, but I’m not about to question a judge…..      
    • Thanks FTMDave, I like the cut of your jib - I'll go with that and obtain proof of postage. Encouraging that NPE have never followed through and seem to blowing hot air, let's see where they go after this   Regards
    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

ziinga.com - Help Needed


andrewman
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4120 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

in december 2011 I visited an auction site called ziinga, I found it advertised on facebook.

 

I had a look around the site once i had signed up, i read terms and conditions. I did not place a bid at that time. A few days later a get an email saying i had won a canon camera, all i needed to pay was £1.00 to get item, i payed using my debit card. a week later 31st december 2011, i checked my bank, i was shocked to find £59.99 taken by ask-ziinga.com. I contacted ziinga and asked what it was for, they say it is for premium membership of their site, I challenged them on this as i did not sign up for membership. Platinum membership they say is what I had paid for as camera was a promotional item, there was no mention of this in the email at time, they say i will have to pay £59.99 a month for 3 months. Ziinga say this is in terms and conditions, it was not when I signed up. I now class this group as fraudulant and criminal. I asked for my money back, they keep dragging their feet with excuses of we need your user name, they was alreday given this in my email, they also say to get my money back i would have to pay £28.99. I have loged a complain with my bank, who are going to monitor my account and refuse to pay ziinga. I can not find an address for ziinga to write to, or to enable me to take court action. If anyone reading this knows the address, it would be appreciated, also if my post is in wrong section please help with moving my message to the right section. thanks.:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi andrew

 

Welcome to CAG

 

All sounds very suspect. Have a read of number 11 in my signature. Also if you paid by Visa Debt, contact your card provider, ask to do a Chargeback.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/chargeback-on-credit-and-debit-cards/

 

I'd lodge a complaint with Trading Standards.

 

Thread moved to correct forum.

 

11) DISTANCE SELLING-EDUCATE YOR RETAILERCLICK HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks I willgive it a go.

 

 

 

Hi andrew

 

Welcome to CAG

 

All sounds very suspect. Have a read of number 11 in my signature. Also if you paid by Visa Debt, contact your card provider, ask to do a Chargeback.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/chargeback-on-credit-and-debit-cards/

 

I'd lodge a complaint with Trading Standards.

 

Thread moved to correct forum.

 

11) DISTANCE SELLING-EDUCATE YOR RETAILERCLICK HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

common issue - peopel signing up but not realising they have signed upto a contract.

 

by the soudns of it they have misled you into signing up. i have read of others who just signe dup without reading the small print

 

report it to trading standards via consumer direct and just take whatever easy way out you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There,

I know what you are going through. I too, have had the same.

I was astonished when I saw the site and how cheap you could potentially get things for.

I got free bids and won a sensor coffee machine for £13

so in order to get it,

I had to pay which I did.

I then had £59.99 taken out of my account a week later

so I emailed them only to be told I had signed up to their premium service which was required to get the won item.

 

I told them I was not happy so refund and cancel the item.

They told me I could not and I would have to pay for 3 months £59.99 each month.

 

I called my bank, Barclays, and told them.

 

They sent me a form and I completed it and sent it back.

that was about 5 weeks ago.

 

I have now had another statement and they have taken another £59.99 from my account.

Not even my Bank Barclays, who are totally useless could stop it even though I have the dispute going on.

 

I told Ziinga that I have not even recieved the item I won

and paid for and they then told me I have to supply them with a copy of my credit card,

drivers licence or passport and a utility bill.

 

That in its self is ridiculous.

 

Who asks for that when purchaing online.

Anyway, in answer to your question, the only details I have are as follows: This website is owned by Flamingo Intervest Ltd., OMC Chambers, P.O. Box 3152, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands and partly managed by Auction Management Ltd., Suite 238, Vincenti Buildings, 14/19 Strait Street, Valletta VLT 08, Malta

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will be making a fortune out of people who think they can get expensive items for free/cheap.

 

They are probably making a fortune. If they have no UK prescence then there is little the UK authorities can do as far as I can see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do a chargeback

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/

dont take NO for an answer!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoudl add, that there is probably nothign the UK authorities can do to close them down.

 

Yo ucan probably do a chargebakc as recommended above. presumably you can only do a chargeback if the company have done osmething wrong? not sure they tecnically have here - from a civil poitn of view - all of their terms are freely available on their website, they just take advantage of the fact that no one reads them

 

be interested to hear peoples sucess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in december 2011 I visited an auction site called ziinga, I found it advertised on facebook.

 

I had a look around the site once i had signed up, i read terms and conditions. I did not place a bid at that time. A few days later a get an email saying i had won a canon camera, all i needed to pay was £1.00 to get item, i payed using my debit card. a week later 31st december 2011, i checked my bank, i was shocked to find £59.99 taken by ask-ziinga.com. I contacted ziinga and asked what it was for, they say it is for premium membership of their site, I challenged them on this as i did not sign up for membership. Platinum membership they say is what I had paid for as camera was a promotional item, there was no mention of this in the email at time, they say i will have to pay £59.99 a month for 3 months. Ziinga say this is in terms and conditions, it was not when I signed up. I now class this group as fraudulant and criminal. I asked for my money back, they keep dragging their feet with excuses of we need your user name, they was alreday given this in my email, they also say to get my money back i would have to pay £28.99. I have loged a complain with my bank, who are going to monitor my account and refuse to pay ziinga. I can not find an address for ziinga to write to, or to enable me to take court action. If anyone reading this knows the address, it would be appreciated, also if my post is in wrong section please help with moving my message to the right section. thanks.:-x

 

Hi I was caught out by the same company something needs to be done - how can they get away with this. Unfortunately their address is in Malta (Ziinga is a product of Auction Managements Ltd, c/o Vincente Buildings, 14/19 Strait St, Valletta VLT 08, Malta)

Link to post
Share on other sites

read the thread!

 

chargeback

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

and start your own thread!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.actionfraud.org.uk/report_fraud

https://secure.consumerdirect.gov.uk/reportascam.aspx

 

Hi I was caught out by the same company something needs to be done - how can they get away with this. Unfortunately their address is in Malta (Ziinga is a product of Auction Managements Ltd, c/o Vincente Buildings, 14/19 Strait St, Valletta VLT 08, Malta)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have managed to recover part of the £59.99 ziinga stole from me. They took £28.99 as a charge for re-paying money. I had already written to my banks head office, asking for a charge back against ziinga's bank. I will wait and see what happens. Do not give up. I have also notified microsoft that I beleive ziinga is a con.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you write to do the Chargeback?, you should have phoned, then backed up with a letter.

 

I have managed to recover part of the £59.99 ziinga stole from me. They took £28.99 as a charge for re-paying money. I had already written to my banks head office, asking for a charge back against ziinga's bank. I will wait and see what happens. Do not give up. I have also notified microsoft that I beleive ziinga is a con.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote because I had already spoken with my bank in person. They did not know what to do, new rules had just been introduced by government. Writing was best way to explain my problem and what I need, talking on phone can cause problems with misinterpretation of what is beeing said. Phone calls can be ignored or something important could be writen down wrongly. Writing a letter is more important than a phone call, letters are offical and evidence, phone calls are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ziinga have today 31/01/2011 taken another 59.99 from my account. went to speak with bank about this problem re-occurring. i was told it was with dispute team who are awaiting a reply from ziinga. British phone number for ziinga does not work, bank advisor tried to ring them. due to this problem i have asked for a new card. very dissappointed in co-op banks lack of help to recover my money. bank not interested in charge back, they do not know what it is.i am now forced to change direct debit for sky tv or incur penalties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

co-op

 

used them several times on chargeback now.

 

08457 212212

 

go through the log in

hit # twice

 

tell them there is fraud going on on your account and can you action an urgent chargeback please

this is the second time

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this will help with the Ziinga problem... I found it whilst seeking data about the mamangement company..

 

Board approval of acquisition of Flamingo Intervest Ltd and listing of new shares

 

12 Dec, 2011 06:50 CET

 

 

Reference is made to the stock exchange notices on 19 October, 21 October and 16 November 2011 and the Equivalent Document dated 15 November 2011, regarding Nio Security, Inc.'s ("Nio") share purchase agreement to acquire Flamingo Intervest Ltd ("Flamingo") controlling the entertainment shopping internet site with settlement in new shares. After completion and review of due diligence reports, the Board of Nio has resolved to complete the acquisition of Flamingo as described in the Equivalent Document dated 15 November 2011. Nio has engaged legal advisor, financial advisor and technical advisor to conduct legal due diligence, agreed upon procedures on the financial information sourced from management accounts and technical due diligence on Flamingo's internet site and related IP rights. The legal advisor has performed a due diligence review of certain documents disclosed by Flamingo and issued a report summarizing the legal assessments of the documents received. Further, the legal advisor has coordinated legal due diligences on information and documents disclosed by Flamingo and its subsidiaries subject to foreign laws. Law firms on the British Virgin Island, Malta, the Philippines and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines performed legal due diligences on information and documents subject to the laws of the British Virgin Island, Malta, the Philippines and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The financial advisor has performed agreed upon procedures on the unaudited historical financial information for 2010 and the period 01.01.2011 to 30.06.2011 sourced from management accounts and issued a report summarizing the financial assessments of Flamingo and its subsidiaries. The financial advisor has not carried out an audit or a limited audit. The technical advisor has performed technical due diligence and issued a report summarizing the technical assessment of Flamingo and its subsidiaries, hereunder a technical assessment of the following: (i) technical platform and IP rights, (ii) development practice and (iii) solution performance. The due diligence investigation and agreed upon procedures have not revealed any material matters affecting the valuation of Flamingo or the feasibility or execution of the acquisition. Flamingo's financial historical information has not been audited and has been sourced from management accounts as described in the Equivalent Document dated 15 November 2011. Some weaknesses in reporting routines and within the accounting procedures for the periods covered have been identified during the due- diligence, with Flamingo's invoices and records being to some extent incomplete. These issues have in all material respect already been rectified by Flamingo, and the Board will further improve and implement appropriate accounting and reporting procedures and routines as soon as practicably possible following the completion of the transaction. The subsidiary of Flamingo, Auction Management Ltd has not timely submitted audited financial statements to the Company Registry on Malta. This does not hinder the subsidiary from carry out its activities, and Flamingo has made a provision for taxes payable of DKK 40,000 that covers the expected liability to the tax authorities on Malta. Nio will conduct an audit on Auction Management Ltd and report to the Registry of Companies on Malta. Flamingo's management accounts have been compiled based on Danish GAAP. Nio will for the fiscal year 2011 change its accounting principles to IFRS which may impact the financial statements of Nio including the pro forma financial information included in the Equivalent Document dated 15 November 2011. In connection with the transaction, the sellers of Flamingo that received the new shares as settlement has entered into lock-up agreements, where the sellers of Flamingo has agreed not to sell any shares in Nio for a period up until 31 December 2013. The ultimate owners (sellers) of Flamingo, Masih Nikdar, Dennis Mikkelsen and Thomas Madsen will be employed by Flamingo with effect from 1 January 2012. Pursuant to the SPA the employees (in their capacity as ultimate sellers) are subject to a non-competition restriction until 31 December 2013. Further, Flamingo is entitled to impose an additional six months' non- competition restriction on each of the employees following the termination of the employment agreements against a compensation for of EUR 20,000 per month. Nio confirms that the 60,000,000 new shares issued as settlement for Flamingo have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action and that the shares have been fully paid and validly issued. After the issue of new shares, the number of outstanding shares in Nio is 105,634,309, each with a par value of USD 0.10. The 60,000,000 new shares will be registered with ISIN US 459 378 1051 and listed on Oslo Børs on or about 12 December 2011. For further details please refer to the Equivalent Document dated 15 November 2011. For further information, please contact Tore Formo, CEO, Telephone +47 91 66 86 78. This information is subject of the disclosure requirements acc. to §5-12 vphl (Norwegian Securities Trading Act

Link to post
Share on other sites

Company: Flamingo Intervest Ltd. Name: Nikdar Masih Address: OMC Chambers, Road Town City: Tortola Country: VIRGIN ISLANDS, BRITISH Postal Code: P.O. Box 3152 Administrative Contact: Company: Flamingo Intervest Ltd. Name: Nikdar Masih Address: OMC Chambers, Road Town City: Tortola Country: VIRGIN ISLANDS, BRITISH Postal Code: P.O. Box 3152 Phone: +35625572557 Fax: Email: Technical Contact: Company: Flamingo Intervest Ltd. Name: Nikdar Masih Address: OMC Chambers, Road Town City: Tortola Country: VIRGIN ISLANDS, BRITISH Postal Code: P.O. Box 3152 Phone: +35625572557 Fax: Email: Original Creation Date: 2009-09-30 Expiration Date: 2015-09-29 Status: clientTransferProhibited

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have recived a letter today from my bank co-op, i am informed they have repaid the money taken by Ziinga from my account. I am very concerned that a bank does not listen to it's customers, and re-pays money after a recharge was made against a fraudulant company. Banks sent me paperwork from ziinga outlining it's terms and conditions showing charge of 59.99, bank paid ziinga 61.94 against my wishes. I have written to the co-op bank and asked for a recharge, but I do not expect to get a satisfactory outcome, i am very annoyed. Anyone who has any idea what to do next would be appreciated. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks...

 

After Ziinga admitted by email that my account had been cancelled, but then took money from my bank account.. I contacted both Ziinga and the Co-Op bank as they are my bank... I requested that they put a prevention case forward to stop Ziinga.com from taking the money fraudulently.. This has happened and nothing has been taken from my account since...

 

You must contact the Fraudulent tranactions team at the Co-Op Hq and they will take action..

 

If you need anymore help please contact me..

 

regards

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I am another falling for the belief that I could get things really cheap on Ziinga. I didn't know until I had read the "Terms and Conditions" that my stupidity would cost me not far off £200 in charges. I signed and cancelled within 30 mins. They kindly charged me £28 for breaking the contract. I called my bank and they would do nothing because I had used my debit card. I am a pensioner and can't afford to loose any cash, but I've been caught out here. My advise to anyone visiting this site is to stay well away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi There,

I have also been scammed by ask-ziinga.com on the 13th Feb 2012 I paid £2 shipping fee for an old style iPod which I have never received and on the 21st Feb they took £59.99 from my Vanquis credit card. Then on the 24th March the tool £1 followed by £58.99.

 

I have contacted Vanquis and they say its a site subscription fee and can only be cancelled by telling ask-ziing.com to do so, after looking on the web I see hundreds of people with the same issues and ziinga just seem to be getting away with it :(

 

All Vanquis said was if ziinga dont sort it out to get back in touch with vanquis to see if they can do anything, I ask what is the point on card insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...