Ovivo still has our money

pdoherty76

redux wrote: »

The company might not have any money.

In that case they would have been trading while insolvent.

For one thing, we don't even know whether the payment for the SIM card went direct to Ovivo.

It might instead have gone to contracted suppliers of various back office facilities including billing systems, and Ovivo might have owed them money

I'm not saying this is the case - I'm saying we don't know, and have no way of knowing at the moment

Shouldn't we be told. Do you not find it quite disturbing that a company can just vanish with people's money and it is left up to the banks and paypal to refund them?

It really would be as well to stop making half-baked guesses on the spur of the moment, raking up incomplete information from articles, and making unsupported accusations of fraud

Congratulations on your appointment as moderator.

grayme-m

pdoherty76 wrote: »

So what about people who got the sims a few weeks before but had only just activated them?


Ovivo owe them money. No way around it.


Why you would be so keen to defend the closing down company, rather than the out of pocket consumer, on a site like MSE, is anybody's guess.

Stop misrepresenting me; you keep doing it, almost 'troll-like'.

pdoherty76

grayme-m wrote: »

Stop misrepresenting me; you keep doing it, almost 'troll-like'.

Do ovivo owe some customers money? Yes or no?


If you give a one word answer to that that completely unambiguous question then I cannot possibly misrepresent you.


If you avoid the question then I think it will become apparent who is trolling.

redux

pdoherty76 wrote: »

Where did I claim they were anything else? Hmm?


The use of the word "apparently" in my OP should have tipped you off.

If you are now suggesting some of your earlier posts were speculative, why did you even bother to argue with my comment that there was too much speculation?

By the way, the word apparently appears in your original post that starts the thread.

My comment that there is too much wild speculation is intended to be applied to several posts not just that one.

You may be viewing this as an interesting detective story to be solved. I's not useful coming up with a series of impulsive declarations now at last I've got the real answer.

redux

pdoherty76 wrote: »

I
Congratulations on your appointment as moderator.

I am not a moderator.

However, it is worth pointing out that if someone makes potentially defamatory comments about a person's or company's ethics or trading practices, then both this forum and the person making the comment may be legally answerable for those comments.

That is just a part of the reason why I have said stop coming up with half-baked guesses and declaring them as fact.

pdoherty76

redux wrote: »

If you are now suggesting some of your earlier posts were speculative, why did you even bother to argue with my comment that there was too much speculation?

By the way, the word apparently appears in your original post that starts the thread.

My comment that there is too much wild speculation is intended to be applied to several posts not just that one.

You may be viewing this as an interesting detective story to be solved. I's not useful coming up with a series of impulsive declarations now at last I've got the real answer.

I have made it clear since the beginning of the thread that there are only 2 options. They were either insolvent or solvent.


My point in this thread has not been to definitely pin down which option is true. My point has been to show that Ovivo are in the wrong, whichever option is the case.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

I don't know whether they were solvent or not. Before I started this thread, I thought they had gone bust. Then the article in the OP made me uncertain. As I say, it is what adults do. You adjust your view according to new evidence.

I still don't know for sure the circumstances surrounding this. All I know is that some customers have been shafted, either way.

grayme-m

pdoherty76 wrote: »

Do ovivo owe some customers money? Yes or no?


If you give a one word answer to that that completely unambiguous question then I cannot possibly misrepresent you.


If you avoid the question then I think it will become apparent who is trolling.

Yes they do. Definitely he person that paid the night they closed, definitely not those like me that have had my SIM many months; where the line is drawn between the two is not me say.

I never wrote they didn't owe any money to anyone.

pdoherty76

redux wrote: »

I am not a moderator.

However, it is worth pointing out that if someone makes potentially defamatory comments about a person's or company's ethics or trading practices, then both this forum and the person making the comment may be legally answerable for those comments.

That is just a part of the reason why I have said stop coming up with half-baked guesses and declaring them as fact.

Where I have declared a guess as a fact?


And where have I libelled Ovivo? Please quote me.

grayme-m

pdoherty76 wrote: »

Where I have declared a guess as a fact?


And where have I libelled Ovivo? Please quote me.

I already have, where you said they were clearly insolvent.

pdoherty76

grayme-m wrote: »

Yes they do. Definitely he person that paid the night they closed, definitely not those like me that have had my SIM many months; where the line is drawn between the two is not me say.

I never wrote they didn't owe any money to anyone.

We agree then.


So let's return to my original point. There are 2 options:


1) They were insolvent - hence trading while insolvent


2) They were solvent and hadn't paid the supplier - hence they have legged it with the money.


One of those options must be true.


So, rather than harassing paypal and visa, who haven't done a thing wrong, the out of pocket customers should be pursuing Ovivo.


That is all I am saying.