One Way To Get Your Money Back From An Obdurate Fasthosts.co.uk

Dec. 10, 2008 - PRLog -- A letter that forced the return of money wrongfully taken from my account and the deserved follow-up letter after return of my money, and submitted in the hope that it may help sufferers of a similar fate.
---

1]

For - Mr Andrew Michael, CEO Fasthosts.co.uk und Herr Ralph Dommermuth, CEO United Internet AG, and all officers of the linked companies : under UK law ‘where an offence occurs, all businesses are counted as one’

Sirs,

I received a ‘phone call Friday 14/11/2008 on your behalf Mr Andrew Michael, seeking ‘communication’ with me. I have to assume this meant ‘communication’ regarding my attempts to claw back money wrongfully and continually taken, even after warnings not to, from my bank account after I cancelled my ‘Distance Selling’ contract with the company you run due to unacceptably poor support. But I have made myself perfectly clear on this subject continually : I do not ‘communicate’, deal in any way or form whatsoever, with thieves - as Mr Andrew Dollamore of streamline.net will attest. So I informed the caller that I had no interest in communicating, asked for money wrongfully taken to be put back into my bank account, and I put the ‘phone down.

I have found that dealing with such people is simply a way for them to propagandise their rationale for thievery, no matter how feeble or unlawful.  A perfect example of this was communicated to me by one of the four people from around Europe currently in contact with me (there have been many) regarding money taken wrongfully from their accounts by both streamline.net and fasthosts.co.uk – one person has been told that the communications regarding the cancellation that should have stopped the money being taken from his account was not made by him to the correct department nor in the correct manner (the person does not agree with this assessment, but how do you make progress against the obdurate?) But Distance Selling legislation is clear and distinct on this matter : the onus lies with the company to internally communicate the customer’s cancellation – even to the extreme of the customer simply ‘communicating’ to the company’s last known address and being able to prove this (emails do this rather well) the onus still lies with the company to institute the customer’s cancellation.

So what can be made of such an excuse, such a perverse and unlawful rationale for taking money from a customer’s bank account without neither the customer’s knowledge, nor permission, nor expectation? The obduracy with which the position is held, namely ‘we have your money and you are not getting it back’, speaks volumes. And it is absolutely pointless to engage in any ‘communication’ where such obduracy is displayed.

But in my case you have gone even further than law ignoring obduracy!

You have ignored the Distance Selling legislation, you have ignored The Theft Act, and not only have you taken money from my account, but you have continued taking my money even after I had pointed out and several times that you were in fact contravening the law, and, even further, on the last occasion, and when my bank refused you payment, you used subterfuge to extract the payment.

I expect the money wrongfully taken from my account to be repaid into my bank account within the week or I will indeed proceed with seeking indictment of all company officers of ‘all the businesses that are one business’.
---
2]

Dear Sir,

Fasthosts.co.uk’s return, under threat of indictment for contravention of The Theft Act of money wrongfully taken from my bank account, after their repeated contraventions were adumbrated to the board members of fasthosts.co.uk (buyer of streamline.net, incorporated in 2002 at the same address) and owner Ralph Dommermuth’s United Internet AG, Germany.

Thank you for your email informing me that all the money wrongfully taken from my account has been returned.

But you seem to have detached yourself somewhat from reality in your email : you state that you are returning all payments taken from my bank account as an act of goodwill, and by saying I had not complied with the conditions of the contract that existed between us you imply that you had no need to return my money, thereby conveniently ignoring the fact that had I not bombarded the 16 email addresses of United Internet AG and fasthosts.co.uk, I would A] still be without my money and G] you would still be trying to wrongfully take money from my bank account – ‘where there is an offence, all connected businesses are to be regarded as one’ The Theft Act

You act continually on the basis that fasthosts.co.uk contracts have an unquestionably inviolable validity – a diktat from above, without doubt. And this is patently nonsense! Because according to the related law of England & Wales, a non-compliance with Distance Selling law invalidates a contract ‘it is as though no contract had existed’ (I have mentioned you should check out ‘best practice’ and by, for example, buying something from ‘distance sellers’ Marks & Spencers.) As does a customer’s cancellation negate contract where services are ‘not fit for purpose’ – a door-to-door non-distance selling salesman would get a boot up the backside as he was shown the gate if he tried some of the stunts me and your customers complain about. So it is patently obvious that this nonsense is the product of diktat from above in its reflection of your constant need to continually ignore the related laws of England & Wales in the enforcement as inviolable of contracts the law can render non-inviolable contracts, and that can be seen reflected in fasthosts.co.uk’s wealth of irate customers. But it is by the laws of England & Wales that fasthosts.co.uk is governed and to which fasthosts.co.uk and its connected companies will be answerable.

Herr Ralph Dommermuth may indeed proudly have 7.3 million contracts to wave about as the basis for a 2007, 1.372 billion euro turnover, and his billionaire worth. But if the standard of the fasthosts.co.uk diktat contract is a reflection of the standard of a Herr Dommermuth diktat contract, then he’s not worth a toss!

Sincerely