GCs PCs - DO NOT BUY FROM [Removed]

Cleo_

dacouch wrote: »

Its quote apt they chose Basingstoke to locate their assault on [Name removed by Forum Team] Empire as its known locally as Doughnut City on account of the amount of round abouts. Which is quite apt as [Name removed by Forum Team] is going round and round chasing those pesky nigerians.

I was always told you could not scam a scammer but those nigerians really must be on the top of their game

Thanks to digitalspy's markfoster...

"Originally Posted by MarkFoster
The moment the contents of gcspcs.co.uk were moved to the domain impulsetechuk.com I placed a mock order on the site; after registering my address details I eventually got to the bit where I was prompted to pay by card; rather than being transferred to some card provider such as Protx or PayPal I arrived at a page where I was asked to telephone a number to pay by card over the phone. I rang the number and this is what happened:

Mark (me!): Oh hello, is that ImpulseTech UK
Voice: Yes, it is.
Mark: I want to buy a Nokia N92, went through your shop registration process and was asked to phone this number. Bit unusual, I thought
Voice: Yes, sorry about that our secure card merchants are down and this is just temporary
Mark: No problem, but I am not really happy giving a card over the phone, can I send a cheque.
Voice: Yes, but we can't send the Nokia until your cheque has cleared.
Mark: That is OK, how do I proceed.
Voice: Just send us a cheque.
Mark: Where to?
Voice: You need to make it out to ****
Mark: Thank you so much.

Anyone still believe the site was hijacked? [Name removed by Forum Team] registered it at the Basingstoke address so that people wouldn't think it was him.

Oh, yes, I recorded this call on my mobile phone."

MORPH3US

This thread is a definite candidate for MSE Gold....

Keep up the good fight guys!!!

sarahg1969

Cheques made out to him personally, too? I think HMRC might be very interested in that.

Brooker_Dave

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Cheques made out to him personally, too? I think HMRC might be very interested in that.

It's becoming a witch hunt now, innit.

The website is closed, TS and the police are on the case, no real need for internet vigilantes to harass the hapless [Name removed by Forum Team] and his dad.

magic8ball

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

It's becoming a witch hunt now, innit.

The website is closed, TS and the police are on the case, no real need for internet vigilantes to harass the hapless [Name removed by Forum Team] and his dad.

Hmmm. TS, the Police, and HMRC are only involved because of the investigations by 'internet vigilantes' and a few dedicated investigative journalists. I don't know why the site has gone down, but it disappeared about the same time that [Name removed by Forum Team] stated on Digital Spy that the whole thing had gone too far (just after his percorsof1.co.uk company was discovered).

It was also about this time (February 4th or thereabouts) that Essex TS finally got around to emailing me back about the fact I had alerted them to the potentially illegal Terms and Conditions on the site on 19th December 2008.

So I'm not sure whether the recent removal of [Name removed by Forum Team] site is actually due to intervention by the authorities (not before time - a lot more victims could have been scammed in the one and a half months it took to stir them into action), or the steady pressure applied by these 'internet vigilantes'.

One thing I am sure of however, is that the authorities would not have been aware of the alleged intention to move the whole scam over to the new impulsetechuk.com site, as quickly as they were, unless alerted to it by 'internet vigilantes' who identified it within a day or two of the new domain being registered.

Likewise, should GC's PC's suddenly reappear on the web, under a new name it will probably be those 'internet vigilantes' that will identify it first and prevent more potential victims.

I suggest you research the tale of an Ebay user called 'Zippymilk' from a few years back, for an example of how total reliance on the official authorities to take timely, decisive and punative action against online scammers is not always the best policy. (To save you reading, the guy allegedly scammed thousands from Ebay users, for hundreds of DVDs he didn't have - after months of official investigations nothing happened due to 'insufficient evidence' despite a clear history of the original Ebay auctions, records of payments, correspondence with a long list of excuses and fob-offs, etc. The only people that got their money back were those that took action independently)

vikingaero

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

It's becoming a witch hunt now, innit.

The website is closed, TS and the police are on the case, no real need for internet vigilantes to harass the hapless [Name removed by Forum Team] and his dad.

I sincerely hope that the "Vigilantism" continues and that [Name removed by Forum Team] and his father get normal jobs and never have the opportunity to scam another person. The scale of the worry, misery and scamming may never be known.

You can tell from the postings made by [Name removed by Forum Team] and his father that they are thick skinned, ignorant of basic common law and basic trading etiquette. They've conned people by buying secondhand goods and reselling them as new. They've stolen money from peoples card accounts. They've lied non stop and you seek to defend them?

[Name removed by Forum Team] is not some super intelligent wonder boy business man. He and his father are crooks and this thread deserves to continue to protect others and inform people of how this family behaves.

dacouch

I'm thinking perhaps we could all through in a quid each and sponsor an advertising board at southend (Preferably next to his) it must only cost about £300. Or how about right next to the goal and then hope Southend go far in the FA Cup next year and get on tv!

Does any one have any ideas on what we could put on it?

P.S is [Name removed by Forum Team] a communist? I only say this as he has the ethos of redristributing everyone elses wealth...

yorksrabbit

I can see where BrookerDave's coming from: there's a difference between prosecution and persecution. I can also see how the phrase 'Internet vigilantes' can be perjorative rather than descriptive when vigilance gets corrupted by witch-hunt blood-lust.

(magic8ball (fabulous post at #296) with his / her eBay experience will, like myself and many others here, be familiar with the way eBay community forums often start off with well-intentioned efforts to beat a scammer but then degenerate into unwarranted viciousness.)

This thread and its DS sister have though been hallmarked by vigilance in its truest form, and that both threads became so extended was not due to anything or anyone other than GCPCs' Managing Director himself.

(My own annoyance was actually triggered by the reported treatment Dinah Greek received from [Name removed by Forum Team] -- an act of crass stupidity, considering that Dinah is a superb journalist, able to open doors and access agencies and authorities no non-journalist can emulate.)

And then, of course, it became clear that all GC's posts seemingly had the self-serving aim of insulating the existing business from consequences whilst simultaneously re-launching it under another name with a different website.

However, as GC has now stopped, or been stopped, from carrying on regardless, and is no longer featuring here or on DS, then I've nothing more to contribute. I prefer to leave GCPCs' fate to the appropriate agencies.

What I will say though is that this MSE thread and the DS thread, featuring many of the same posters, came to comprise a collection of individuals with some pretty impressive skills.

Hopefully all those posting IDs -- whoever they are, wherever they may be -- will come together again the next time there seems cause for vigilance. I also hope that, if it is IT related, Dinah will also be around.

A big "thank you" then to those key posters here and on DS. Sadly, there's never going to be a shortage of scammers, so I look forward to seeing 'em all again. After all: it's not highly paid bureaucrats, Government Ministers, or even statutory watchdogs that keep the consumer world safe, but unpaid and unknown Internet forum posters united by one thing alone:

A sense of fair play.

Good luck to y'all. :j

A^S

tom_devon wrote: »

Why not move the action to [Name removed by Forum Team] dad, if it hasnt been already, as it seems his name is mentioned in all the places of importance, ie on the cc gateways.

Forget about the son, as if any alledged criminal activity was proven the father would be in a better place to pay fines, compensation etc. Im sure the limited company loophole wouldnt matter if he was found guilty.

It is the dad in big trouble re director disqualification / prosecution for fraudulent activities of the company etc.
Being a company director is a serious matter - it is your responsibility to ensure that the company is trading legitimately. No such thing as 'sleeping' directors, same law applies to anyone registered as a director (exec , non-exec or 'on paper only' ). So setting up a company and having no knowledge due to leaving 16 year old son to run it is no defence.

dinah_greek

Hi - well [Name removed by Forum Team] is now under investigation by both the police and Trading Standards. I have posted an update which includes Paypal's comments as well
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/2236362

It is a joint investigation and DS Dovaston is emailing me the details later this afternoon and I will post these online on the forums at his request.

Now the police are involved anyone having trouble getting either their credit card issuer or their bank if they used a debit card should have an easier time getting a refund. Fraud has not been proved but having the police investigate means it should be easier for people to make a claim if they used a debit card under the Banking Code of Practice; credit card users also have section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.

Dinah Greek
News Editor
Computeractive
[EMAIL="dinah.greek@incisivemedia.com"]dinah.greek@incisivemedia.com[/EMAIL]