Administration and direct debit due

tightauldgit

pinkshoes said:

tightauldgit said:

I'm not quite sure where the 'trading while insolvent' line falls but I'd certainly not be happy if (and it's only an if because I'm not clear on the timing) they were taking 12 month subs from one set of customers while not taking them from others because they aren't sure they can fulfil them. 

I think it's more that because I was an existing customer so they didn't renew my subscription as they couldn't fulfil it (e.g. it was up to them to take the money as per the contract), but in the case of @Compo23 they handed over the money themselves by signing up. 

I think they have been running on skeleton staff so had kept the website running to sell off all remaining stock, but didn't disable the bit preventing any new subscriptions. 

No, I don't think that would be a useful legal distinction. If they genuinely felt they wouldn't be able to honour 12 month subs then they shouldn't have been selling them. Nor is a staff shortage any kind of excuse not to be legally compliant. Of course none of that will get a customer a refund anyway but I certainly think you would have a right to be angry about it.

born_again

tightauldgit said:

born_again said:

Compo23 said:

Glad they did the decent thing for you!

Very interesting to see this, as only I signed up in May - for full price for a year - and they took the whole payment. Whilst I am sorry for them (it was a good product! I had an expired sub a few months back) and the people who have lost jobs, it seems like fraud/misrepresentation for them to take a year's subscription knowing there "may" be issues.

I assume the money hasn't been ringfenced as their email didn't say anything useful about refunds etc.

I've done a chargeback but as it's via Curve who knows what success I'll get, they've typically not been the easiest to deal with either.

Also I raised the dispute on the basis that NO goods were received... now it seems they've dispatched a box with some "extra goodies", so that presumably means they can rebuff the "goods not received" argument... seems very sneaky to me.

Out of interest - if by some miracle my chargeback is successful, who pays?? Mastercard? It was on a debit card (if I'd have realised this was a possible issue, I'd have paid direct with a credit card for S75!!).

They are trying to save the company at that point. Which only a select few people may know about. (staff are the last to know) So they carry on as normal. 
If every company that had issues, stopped taking bookings etc then they would fail even quicker, as no one would want to bail them out. Knowing they have a good order book.

If you have charged back the whole amount then it could well fail, if they contest on the basis they have sent goods this month.
Which sadly means you have lost the chance if they do fold later to chargeback again. As you only get one chance.

I'm not quite sure where the 'trading while insolvent' line falls but I'd certainly not be happy if (and it's only an if because I'm not clear on the timing) they were taking 12 month subs from one set of customers while not taking them from others because they aren't sure they can fulfil them. 

I get what you are saying. 
Look at it from this point of view.
All the holiday co's that went bust the other year. Were taking bookings, many for the next year, right up till the administrator stepped in to the building & pulled the plug.
If the public knew of their problems, would they book with them? 

Compo23

Well I finally got my refund/chargeback after some chasing!!!

While I do appreciate the point about "trying to trade on" - who would buy if they knew there were serious doubts is a valid point. I just feel for them to have made the decision to only take 1/12th of a existing customer DD prior to 30th April is pretty disgusting to then take the entire 12 months from a new customer. They could've just limited it due to "capacity issues" and it wouldn't cause the equivalent of a bank run. Even taking 6 months I could maybe understand, but 12!?

Nice (correct!) way to treat an existing customer, but disgraceful way to treat others. Legally they may get away with it, but I hope the administrators look into it in some detail.

FWIW, my subscription was paid for late in the evening on 1st May.

I see another company have now bought their IP etc, but creditors are having to go through the administrators (and presumably will get next to nothing) - not taken on the staff either (which of course they don't have to do).

After all this I'll give the new lot a swerve I think (and Curve!)

Quick look on companies house and £107k owed to consumer creditors (hopefully most got a chargeback!), quite a bit owed to employees. I assume the £88k and £64k are the directors, but 3 other employees owed in excess of £10k!