Sky cards from XL Trading

XLTradingUK

underlay_guru wrote: »

I never mentioned your website, or that those particular comments related to your website....

Read the smallprint..

Read the quote you put above:

Also, the website registrant has 'opted to have their name and address details omitted from the register.....which sounds to me like the seller does not wish to be geographically located or identified by anyone...I wonder why...?

Which part of the thread dedicated to a product on OUR SITE, have you NOT managed to indicate to the whole mass of people visiting this forum, make us sound like a 'dodgy site'

Change the post or we will have MSE do it for you as this is against the forum terms and conditions.

You have NO substantial information, nor does anyone on here, to prove that we are a) dodgy or b) doing anything illegal.
If we did, we would be shut down by now.
And lets leave it at that shall we...... have a good day though mate

underlay_guru wrote: »

Details you supply to your buyers after they have purchased is completely irrelevant.

1. Any website selling goods (exc auction sites) where you have to pay in advance has a legal obligation to abide by the Distance Selling Regulations. The regulations state you must provide a full company name and geographical address of your company/business within your website.

2.There is no address on your website, therefore the DSR's have not been abided by. Simple. Without a geographical address (whether it is pending/being looked into or not), the selling of goods will be deemed unlawful.

It's not difficult to add your geographical address to your website, is it?

No it's not at all... we have to provide proof that the items are sent and that their payments are safe.. which in both cases, they are (tracking fully provided + we use fully verified accounts for PP and GC)

As we are moving premises, would you like us to print misleading information of our last location on the site just to make you happy? Of course not. We can be contacted by a wide variety of means at the moment (the phone system is being installed at the moment at the way!!) so this is not a problem at all.

Not an excuse at all we find.
If we could not be contacted, then that would be illegal.

Inactive wrote: »

Well you have come up with lot's of excuses for the omissions on your site, until they are fixed I consider the site to be " dodgy " and I do not accept your word for it that it is not.

Come back when you have put matters right, then I may reconsider my opinion.
Until then I would advise anybody to avoid any website that has no physical address showing.

And that is your opinion, not shared by our very large customer base.
It is not excuses at all, it is just how the site is run at the moment - but we are looking to improve on the site as a whole whenever we can.

Comments taken onboard, and I am sure we will improve the site as time goes on.
It is NOT however illegal or 'dodgy' not to have a address showing on the site - a lot of sites do not however.

underlay_guru wrote: »

...Then if you are providing a 'backup service' (which you legally can do), I suggest that your item descriptions are amended so they are not encouraging customers to break your terms and conditions.

And another completely stupid comment - where do we openly encourage customers to break our terms and conditions?

Clients are legally obliged to read and agree the terms and conditions for the site AT ALL times - hence the tickbox which must legally be applied when placing an order with the site.

Our descriptions are accurate - but many thanks for your comments which we have already addressed before setting up the store. Again, because you are a professional who deals with the law (lol!) you will know this of course.
OR not as the case maybe.

Again people.. unless you are not someone who deals with the law, don't quote what you don't fully understand.
Because that is just stupid.

halifaxflea

XL Trading, IN MY OPINION appear to be a very dodgy company.

Why would someone pay for a back up card which they need to replace every 2/3 months, when they could just contact Sky and get a long term replacement off them?

The fact that the seller from XL Trading says -

"We are still not going to go into details of how and why .. or how it works.
Again, legally we are not obliged to - again, this is a totally legal product - we would not list it on the store otherwise."

regarding the cards stopping working after such a short period should be ringing alarm bells to everyone. Of course, XL Trading reserves the right to not say anything, but I would hardly say it is good business practice to do so. If they had nothing to hide, why would they not be transparent?

For me, my theory (note I am not presenting this as fact), is that either the cards run out because they have not been legitimacy set up with Sky (IE the card may have come from Sky, but just like my card, if I stopped paying my bill, it would stop working), or the XL Trading company stops the card from working themselves after every 2/3 months to get people to buy another one - thus going against what they say when they claim a one off card will get them unlimited access.

The website, in my opinion, is very clearly misleading, and in violation of the law in that it promotes illegal behaviour (look at how the wording to pay per view channels is).

The sellers from XL Trading constantly say two things -

1) Its legal
2) We don't have to say anything more on how/why the cards work and for the period of time they do.

Well, I don't ever recall Sky or Virgin, or any other media provider having to put up several disclaimers to promote the service they offer as legal. This sends alarm bells ringing straight away.
Point two is correct, they don't have to say why the cards stop working, or explain anything themselves, however, its not good business practice, and with this in mind people should think what the company is hiding. If everything was above board then surely this company would come out and explain.

As to the website - no working phone number, no address for the company, and deliberate misleading information - well I would advice people to avoid it.

XLTradingUK

OK.. had enough with all of this now.
I will be speaking to our legal team to demand MSE close this thread as this is libelous, and just basically, people throwing accusations when they have no clear legal point to them.

You do not have any kind of right to attack what we do or label us dodgy - when you have no clear evidence that we take part in such things... the evidence is NOT there because there is nothing dodgy going on.

People have no legal right to say that we are doing anything illegal at all - because we are not.
We are NOT going into how, why and who our suppliers/what happens with the procedures are because the simple reason is, we do not have to.

EDIT:
If we are going on why something is dodgy on here.. why does the report post function not work as it should?
Thats 'dodgy' for starters - the forum system should work as per VBulletin set it up as and not to be edited so people cannot report posts.

halifaxflea

XLTradingUK wrote: »

OK.. had enough with all of this now.
I will be speaking to our legal team to demand MSE close this thread as this is libelous, and just basically, people throwing accusations when they have no clear legal point to them.

You do not have any kind of right to attack what we do or label us dodgy - when you have no clear evidence that we take part in such things... the evidence is NOT there because there is nothing dodgy going on.

People have no legal right to say that we are doing anything illegal at all - because we are not.
We are NOT going into how, why and who our suppliers/what happens with the procedures are because the simple reason is, we do not have to.

EDIT:
If we are going on why something is dodgy on here.. why does the report post function not work as it should?
Thats 'dodgy' for starters - the forum system should work as per VBulletin set it up as and not to be edited so people cannot report posts.

Im not accusing the company of anything dodgy. I am giving my opinion, which I am entitled to do.

I am just saying to me, certain things don't sound right, and give possible reasons as to why that might be the case.

I am at no point saying this company is breaking the law, but IN MY OPINION I would stay away from them, as they APPEAR to be dodgy.

That website IS illegal, as it omits certain seller info - that is a FACT, and has been reported to the relevant authorities by myself due to that.

The wording in the website may not be illegal, but it is certainly misleading, and again, as a result has also been reported to trading standards as a result.

If your company has nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, do you.

XLTradingUK

If you have no fear, then you will have no problem in our solicitors requesting your IP details from MSE will you then as we will be passing the thread details onto our solicitors to follow this up on.

This thread is basically an attempt to gain negative press about our service and site as a whole. And as such, you will all not mind then that we can start legal proceedings against:

a) this site
b) users posting such libellous comments when they have no factual evidence to hand

halifaxflea

Can you show me what part of my post is libellous.

I can assure you nothing I have put is.

XLTradingUK

halifaxflea wrote: »

Can you show me what part of my post is libellous.

I can assure you nothing I have put is.

If you can put onto a public forum - such rubbish about a site that you cannot legally prove then we can ask MSE to release your contact details and other posters on here making such posts up.

If we are being reported to Nominet and Trading Standards then we can legally defend ourselves if necessary and MSE is not above the law where it cannot NOT release people posting incorrect information on here.

We have also, a legal right when this does prove to be in accurate to sue for openly admitting that you wish to cause our site harm to our business where possible. We will be contacting our legal team to discuss the purpose of damages in court for this purpose also.

The law swings both ways mate - it works for us as well.
Even on here.

SEE HERE: The definition of Defamation: via the Wikipedia site.

In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Are you now declaring that you have not stated any of the above - indeed the part that clearly states.. communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

OR do you deny doing that?

halifaxflea

XLTradingUK wrote: »

If you can put onto a public forum - such rubbish about a site that you cannot legally prove then we can ask MSE to release your contact details and other posters on here making such posts up.

If we are being reported to Nominet and Trading Standards then we can legally defend ourselves if necessary and MSE is not above the law where it cannot NOT release people posting incorrect information on here.

The law swings both ways mate - it works for us as well.
Even on here.

Again, I ask you to show where I have said something libelous.

You admit yourself that the website omits company info due to a move to new offices - so you agree that it fails in providing what is required. The site is reported due to lack of info. Nothing incorrect in that.

The website wording may not be illegal, but COULD be seen as misleading, and is reported as such. Should trading standards disagree that would be the end of it. You will see I never said the wording was illegal.

Again, I would request you to show me where I have put something libelous, or retract your claims that I have, as I have now had 3 of my work colleagues (I work in law btw) look over what I have put, and we are all in agreement that I have not libeled your company.

If you don't retract your claim however, that could well be seen as slander against myself

XLTradingUK

halifaxflea wrote: »

Again, I ask you to show where I have said something libelous.

You admit yourself that the website omits company info due to a move to new offices - so you agree that it fails in providing what is required. The site is reported due to lack of info. Nothing incorrect in that.

The website wording may not be illegal, but COULD be seen as misleading, and is reported as such. Should trading standards disagree that would be the end of it. You will see I never said the wording was illegal.

Again, I would request you to show me where I have put something libelous, or retract your claims that I have, as I have now had 3 of my work colleagues (I work in law btw) look over what I have put, and we are all in agreement that I have not libeled your company.

If you don't retract your claim however, that could well be seen as slander against myself

See the above post - or do your 'work colleagues' tell you something different to that as well?
Again:

SEE HERE: The definition of Defamation: via the Wikipedia site.

In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Are you now declaring that you have not stated any of the above - indeed the part that clearly states.. communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

halifaxflea

Look at my posts. It clearly says in BOLD that it is opinion, and not fact I am giving.

I have also clearly posted in brackets that what I say COULD be happening is just theory, and not fact.

Tell me what part of that is libel.

I have made no claims against your company. I have stated by opinion based on what has been said by yourself and from what I have seen. At no point have I said the company is illegal, or dodgy. You admitted the company failed to comply to the law regarding making it clear who is selling - I didn't accuse you of that, but reported it.

Now again, please show me where I accuse the company of breaking the law (Note - expressing an opinion on HOW THEY COULD OF isn't the same as accusing them), or retract your claim.

Also, remember you are representing your company here, and in my opinion your threats of legal action hardly sell your company in a good light, do you not think?