Ovivo still has our money

pdoherty76

I mentiomed this in another thread but I think it deserves it's own.

This is the real reason, apparently, that Ovivo closed:

http://www.mobilenewscwp.co.uk/2014/03/20/exclusive-dispute-with-cognatel-led-to-ovivo-mobile-closure/

Ovivo Mobile was terminated by MVNA Cognatel following an alleged dispute over network software that would have allowed the MVNO to uniquely identify each user, Mobile News understands.

It is believed that Cognatel was contractually obliged to deliver the software but had failed to do so. Uniquely identifying each user was essential to the operator’s service which provided free airtime, texts and data in exhange for agreeing to being targeted by marketing materials.

Furthermore, it also understood that Ovivo Mobile had been withholding cash from the Vodafone MVNA as part of the dispute and it was this that led to the plug being pulled at short notice yesterday.

So, it wasn't financial, in fact they withheld payments from their network so they still have our money.

Also bear in mind that the CEO said they were in the black.

So why aren't they offering credit refunds? Or at least refunds of £20 to people who bought a sim recently?

moneysavingkitten

Isn't a better question, why didn't Cognatel deliver on the obligation to provide OVIVO with software. Then they wouldn't have withheld payment and the service would still be up and running.

I would much rather have OVIVO back up and running. It seems like they've been put in an unworkable position.

redux

What do you mean, it wasn't financial?

That says they didn't pay the supplier, what can be more financial than that?

The alleged reasons, whether accurately leaked or not, and by whom and why, are just incidental really, and just a matter of making excuses for negotiation that failed.

pdoherty76

redux wrote: »

What do you mean, it wasn't financial?

That says they didn't pay the supplier, what can be more financial than that?

The alleged reasons, whether accurately leaked or not, and by whom and why, are just incidental really, and just a matter of making excuses for negotiation that failed.

Do I really have to explain this?

The CEO said they were doing well and were in the black. They withheld money over a contractual issue.

So the money is still there.They must have had thousands signing up over the last few weeks, each paying £20. That money is still available, unless somebody has taken it.

If it isn't then the CEO was lying.

Most business folding involves them actually going bust and having no money. There seems to be no suggestion of this with Ovivo. They folded because there was a software contract issue.

There is no way around it. Either Ovivo were doing well and our money should now be given back to us, or the CEO was lying and this story is false.

Techhead_2

pdoherty76 wrote: »

Do I really have to explain this?

The CEO said they were doing well and were in the black. They withheld money over a contractual issue.

So the money is still there.They must have had thousands signing up over the last few weeks, each paying £20. That money is still available, unless somebody has taken it.

If it isn't then the CEO was lying.

Most business folding involves them actually going bust and having no money. There seems to be no suggestion of this with Ovivo. They folded because there was a software contract issue.

There is no way around it. Either Ovivo were doing well and our money should now be given back to us, or the CEO was lying and this story is false.

There are a couple of non-sequiturs there. You don't know how much money was withheld, so you can't say how much has been retained.

Just because a business WAS in the black doesn't mean it WILL be in the black.

You don't know what their other outgoings were so you can't say whether they have any cash in hand.

Also you base your argument on a guess that thousands of people must have signed up. That's just a guess.

So there is a "way around it" and you are just guessing like a lot of people.

pdoherty76

Techhead wrote: »

There are a couple of non-sequiturs there. You don't know how much money was withheld, so you can't say how much has been retained.

Does it matter? If they aren't paying the network then all the extra sign up money should still be available. Where is it?

Just because a business WAS in the black doesn't mean it WILL be in the black.

Right, so if it has gone bust due to finances then where is all the details about administrators? Who are creditors meant to contact?

Ovivo have not said they have gone bust, they simply said they closed down. But it appears they have done a runner with all the lovely £20 notes that they and MSE persuaded people to part with in the last few days.

You don't know what their other outgoings were so you can't say whether they have any cash in hand.

Gee, if only some administrators will tell us. Where are they?

Also you base your argument on a guess that thousands of people must have signed up. That's just a guess.

Just a guess? Martin Lewis emailed a deal for FREE mobile phone use to 9 million people and then went on national TV to recommend it.

So there is a "way around it" and you are just guessing like a lot of people.

Doesn't it trouble you that we are forced to guess? Why, it's almost as if the company has vanished without saying anything.

NFH

An article in the Guardian suggests that Ovivo had a negative net worth of £414,000 before securing crowd-sourced funding.

The article (at the end) quotes paragraphs 6.3 and 6.6 from Ovivo's terms and conditions and suggests that those who port their number away will not get their money back. I disagree. Provided that the event triggering 6.3 (Ovivo terminating the service) occurs before the event triggering 6.6 (customer porting number out), then there is no reason for termination under 6.6 to be invoked because termination has already been carried out under 6.3. If Ovivo intended 6.6 to override 6.3 (and the wording doesn't suggest that it could), then this would breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

redux

pdoherty76 wrote: »

Do I really have to explain this?

The CEO said they were doing well and were in the black. They withheld money over a contractual issue.

.

He said he wasn't going to discuss any numbers.

He didn't say then about any alleged contractual issue.

The article doesn't quote a source for its understanding of the position alleged, but does seem to say it didn't come from any of the three companies involved.

In other words, perhaps you are making one or two more assumptions than can be proved yet.

Alex2011

if you paid using credit card, simply contact them and you will get your money, I have called yesterday and already refund appeared in my online statement, to support my case I have sent 6 pages of evidence to support my case.

pdoherty76

Alex2011 wrote: »

if you paid using credit card, simply contact them and you will get your money, I have called yesterday and already refund appeared in my online statement, to support my case I have sent 6 pages of evidence to support my case.

That is good and, in fairness to ovivo, they did let everyone port out.

But I think Ovivo should be held responsible for what was clearly trading while insolvent.

If they were solvent then they should be refunding. They have just vanished and the accountant for the company has now taken his profile off linkedin. They have gone to ground without any mention of why they actually closed.

grayme-m

pdoherty76 wrote: »

That is good and, in fairness to ovivo, they did let everyone port out.

But I think Ovivo should be held responsible for what was clearly trading while insolvent.

If they were solvent then they should be refunding. They have just vanished and the accountant for the company has now taken his profile off linkedin. They have gone to ground without any mention of why they actually closed.

Could you please share the proof they were insolvent.