Mercury Telecom

[The Ombudsman]

No longer wish to disclose information

Edited April 7, 2010 by The Ombudsman

[buzby]

I thought there weren't members of CISAS, or do they not have to be?

[The Ombudsman]

No longer wish to disclose information

Edited April 7, 2010 by The Ombudsman

[buzby]

Useful ifo, thanks!

[davethorp]

Are we allowed to discuss them on here now??

 

I'm having fun with my case with them failing to comply with a directions order from the court anyway. Their solicitors are trying to deny the order even exists even though they included a copy of it in the bundle they supplied in their response to my defence and counterclaim

[davethorp]

Complaint made to CISAS. Complaint going to OFCOM tomorrow since I wasn't told I could complain to CISAS

[Thermometer]

??

[buzby]

One could also take the view that the registration would prevent anyone else trading as a similar entity and using any residual goodwill....

 

However I don't think the trading name has anything like the kudos it once had, and imagine someone trying to set up a mobile network as Cellnet or One 2 One (or even Rabbit). Time is a great healer, and if it's only the +40 & 50s that remember it as a public telco, the benefit of the name is already a spent force.

[cobraint]

Mercury Telecom (Mercury Telecommunications Ltd) has owed me money since July 6th last year when my mobile was cut off.

 

I asked Mercury Telecom for money back on line rental when my mobile was cut off for no reason, but that failed to pay me. I wanted to get my money back via OTELO but Mercury Telecom were kicked out of OTELO because they owed OTELO money and did not abide by OTELO decisions.

 

OFCOM insisted that Mercury Telecom join a DRB (Dispute Resolution Body) so Mercury Telecom became members of CISAS. Before I took my complaint to CISAS, I asked Mercury Telecom for my money again but Mercury Telecom’s managing director (Ian Burrow) wrote to me saying he was contacting his solicitor to report me to the Police for extortion!!!!

 

I then took my complaint to CISAS. Mercury Telecom submitted no defence whatsoever. CISAS awarded me what I was owed. Mercury Telecom should have paid that money by now, but have not done so.

 

It looks like I won’t get my money now if Ian Burrow has created a ‘Phoenix’ company. Anyway, I will tell CISAS and OFCOM that Mercury Telecom did not pay me and that Ian Burrow has set up a new ‘Mercury Telecom’ that OFCOM and CISAS knows nothing about.

[buzby]

Did you consider raising a Small Claims action in the name of the company (and trading names)? As it would make sense to do so under both company registrations, on the basis that if one wasn't in business, the other one might still be,

[Thermometer]

??

[buzby]

Quite so, but the directors of Mercury Telecom Ltd would have to disassociate themselves from Mercury Telecommunications Ltd, and with the same directors and post-town for the enterprise, I think any court - whether it was for telecomms, double glazing or laundry services would be hard-pressed to prove there was no connection, allowing the action to proceed based on likelihood of one company being a front for the other. As I recall the DTI was pretty hot on stopping firms doing this, provided - of course - it was brought to their attention.

[Thermometer]

??

[buzby]

Back in 1987 I was in Glasgow Sheriff Court when a case concerning a Glasgow cash and carry business was defending itself - I cannot remember the exact trading titles involved, but the creditors of (say) Hamlet Textiles Ltd became aware that after a serious fire that effectively wiped out the firms warehouse premises reformed as Hamlet Textiles (1987) Ltd, discovered that the 'new' company with the same directors was recommencing trading, found that insurance settlements in respect of the fire (which was considered suspicious) was paid to the benefit of the new entity. The argument was that the firm was one and the same, and the insurance money should not have been paid to the new venture. The sheriff found that the act of the insurance company paying the new entity didn't just lift the corporate veil, it removed it completely. and the actions of the directors were seen as a ploy to defraud the creditors. I recall it was to go to appeal but didn't get that far.

 

As I noted previously, the DTI can happily ride roughshod over such niceties if they become aware of the 'system' being abused in this way, the only problem is in getting them to act!

[Thermometer]

??

[buzby]

Neither do I (for that matter). How does the OFT grab you as an alternative?

[Thermometer]

??

[buzby]

Let me see, putting them on notice? As if - in the scale of things - this has any worthwhile relevance to the matter being discussed.

 

Let us remember, it was CISAS who rejected a complaint from an Orange user who was charged an 80% hike on his mobile bill when roaming due to the fact he should have 'expected' the charges. (See Orange user loses battle over roaming bill - ZDNet UK ).

 

After results like these, CISAS is no champion of the consumer, quite the opposite. With OTELO not being much better, you alone appear to be the only person taking any notice of what these lacklustre so-called 'dispute resolution' services offer. Could you satisfy my curiosity by explaining why?

[buzby]

No, you misunderstand. Not the relevance of the post, but the relevance of CISAS/OTELO to actually do anything useful, given their previous and lamentable track record. From memory, there still has been no legal challenge to the relevance of either organisation, which is a great pity. I doubt whether this is because everyone is satisfied with the way things are currently run, but when you consider many don't bother and just take on the company directly without wasting time with a lacklustre 'arbitration' service that can't even publish its cases or decisions, it is purely window dressing.

[Thermometer]

??

[buzby]

And you can reach this conclusion because of....? In fact, what's this got to do with he thread under discussion? Either respond to the point or stop wasting bandwidth.

[Guest Russian]

..........

[The Ombudsman]

No longer wish to disclose information

Edited April 7, 2010 by The Ombudsman

[The Ombudsman]

No longer wish to disclose information

Edited April 7, 2010 by The Ombudsman

[The Ombudsman]

No longer wish to disclose information

Edited April 7, 2010 by The Ombudsman