Tuesday, June 17, 2008
An Open Letter to the owners of Expo-Guide
Dear Sir/Madam,
Having studied the forms currently being mailed by expo-guide and done comparisons with the forms formerly mailed by Construct Data Verlag (CDV) I have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible that your forms were contrived without reference to Construct Data’s mailings
I fully accept that you may have accepted the design in complete innocence, that they it have been presented to you by a third party, and that as such this letter may represent your first warning of the problems these forms can cause.
A little history
CDVs forms were widely criticised, for over a decade the company profited from the fact that people would sign the forms in error, mistaking them for a communication from an exhibition organiser. CDV suffered numerous adverse rulings, both legal and from self regulatory organisations. When faced with such rulings they would amend the form slightly, but the aspects of the form which mislead were always maintained.
In early 2007 after a prolonged legal tussle with the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb CDV found it necessary to modify their forms once again and the latest layout, (the layout to which expo-guides forms correspond) was conceived. I was in no doubt that the new form would mislead and I published an open letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO of CDV telling him of my concerns and offering to assist in the design of a form that would not mislead
The letter went unanswered and the forms were indeed signed in error, in very large numbers. In November 2007 I was forced to publish a second open letter in which I concluded that Mr Valvoda was either remarkably inept or had set out with the intent to decieve, again he chose not to respond. Eventually the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb forced deeper concessions from CDV who are now barred from mailing new forms from Austria.
Because CDV made concessions out of court the forms were never subjected to detailed scrutiny by a judge, which does not mean that they are legal!
The Forms you are mailing
So there you have it, expo-guide are in the position CDV found themselves in back in April 2007, you are mailing a form that I predict will be signed in error, you can fully expect that many who sign the new form will refuse to pay you.
You have clearly invested considerable money in this new project, with phone lines in six countries and a substantial website at http://www.expo-guide.com but your business model could be fatally flawed if you persist with the forms you are mailing at present.
Another Free offer
So once again I am willing to offer my time and experience to help your company design a form that cannot mislead, this offer comes with two provisos:
Jules Woodell - 16th June 2008
See StopECGs Advice page regarding expo-guide
Having studied the forms currently being mailed by expo-guide and done comparisons with the forms formerly mailed by Construct Data Verlag (CDV) I have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible that your forms were contrived without reference to Construct Data’s mailings
I fully accept that you may have accepted the design in complete innocence, that they it have been presented to you by a third party, and that as such this letter may represent your first warning of the problems these forms can cause.
A little history
CDVs forms were widely criticised, for over a decade the company profited from the fact that people would sign the forms in error, mistaking them for a communication from an exhibition organiser. CDV suffered numerous adverse rulings, both legal and from self regulatory organisations. When faced with such rulings they would amend the form slightly, but the aspects of the form which mislead were always maintained.
In early 2007 after a prolonged legal tussle with the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb CDV found it necessary to modify their forms once again and the latest layout, (the layout to which expo-guides forms correspond) was conceived. I was in no doubt that the new form would mislead and I published an open letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO of CDV telling him of my concerns and offering to assist in the design of a form that would not mislead
The letter went unanswered and the forms were indeed signed in error, in very large numbers. In November 2007 I was forced to publish a second open letter in which I concluded that Mr Valvoda was either remarkably inept or had set out with the intent to decieve, again he chose not to respond. Eventually the Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb forced deeper concessions from CDV who are now barred from mailing new forms from Austria.
Because CDV made concessions out of court the forms were never subjected to detailed scrutiny by a judge, which does not mean that they are legal!
The Forms you are mailing
So there you have it, expo-guide are in the position CDV found themselves in back in April 2007, you are mailing a form that I predict will be signed in error, you can fully expect that many who sign the new form will refuse to pay you.
You have clearly invested considerable money in this new project, with phone lines in six countries and a substantial website at http://www.expo-guide.com but your business model could be fatally flawed if you persist with the forms you are mailing at present.
Another Free offer
So once again I am willing to offer my time and experience to help your company design a form that cannot mislead, this offer comes with two provisos:
- I would expect you to accept that your initial mailshots were a mistake, and where people state that they signed in error you should offer them the opportunity to rescind the contract.
- That in accepting a new design you take it in its entirety and do not modify it or alter the meaning when translating into other languages
Should Expo-guide continue to mail the misleading forms and/or demand money from those who have signed in error it will be hard not to conclude that it is your intent to mislead people. In that instance stopECG will campaign against you with the same zeal CDV experienced.
Should you wish to reply to any part of this letter, please let me know, your reply will be published here for all readers to see.
Jules Woodell - 16th June 2008
See StopECGs Advice page regarding expo-guide
Labels: Construct Data Verlag, contract, Expo-guide, misleading, Open Letter, StopECG, www.expo-guide.com
Thursday, November 29, 2007
A Second Open Letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO, Construct Data (Fairguide)
Firstly for new readers of this blog, a little background.
Construct Data Verlag (CDV) has traded from Austria since around 1991, in those years the company has been the subject of consistent complaints that it’s advertising communications are misleading, indeed in 2004 a German judge ruled that the offers formulated by Construct Data AG are formulated in such a way that an intention to deceive in the sense of code 263 Par. 1 St GB German Criminal Code (Fraud) See:
http://www.vertikal.net/en/stories.php?id=1266
CDV has repeatedly modified the contracts it mails but again and again they have failed to remove the misleading aspects that lead to so many complaints. Finally, on 13th February 2007, faced with a comprehensive lawsuit from the Austrian Schutzverband CDV signed a far-reaching accord before the Austrian courts. The objective of this agreement was to prevent the problems caused by Construct Data’s mailing of misleading contracts and to assist those who had signed them in error in releasing themselves from any claimed obligation to CDV.
The Court case was not heard in order to marginally clarify the layout of the documents mailed by CDV, the case had been brought to put an end to a problem so serious that the Judge accepted it could be of harm to Austrian commerce in general.
So it would be an understatement to say that StopECG and others were frustrated when Construct Data started mailing new forms, which although different in layout were, in our opinion still very misleading, In April this year I published An Open Letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO, Construct Data in which I stated my concerns about the new form and offered to assist in the design of an entirely different document that could not mislead. That offer was never accepted and the new misleading forms have been mailed in vast numbers to people all over the world.
The predicted has happened, my inbox is now full of messages from people who have signed the new document in error and are disputing payment, CDV for their part are insisting that the new forms are legal and contractually binding and are attempting to put the blame for this continuing farce onto those people who have signed in error, claiming (sic) that as businesspeople they should have paid closer attention before signing.
Worse, when people reply referring to the cease and desist undertaking as suggested by the Shutsverband and distributed by stopECG, Construct Data are replying with letters describing the messages as fallacious, out of date and coming from a “known internet source”. (Its nice to know you have noticed us).
It is clear from the volume of mail that I am getting that the atmosphere in Construct Data’s offices can hardly be pleasant. Staff must spend much of the day pedalling the same tired arguments, arguments I cannot believe they themselves have total faith in; manning the phones when angry and frustrated ‘customers’ call in, reading a bulging mailbag of complaints and answering similarly hostile emails. Indeed I am aware that many emails to Construct Data simply go unanswered. So both Construct Data’s staff and its so-called customers are being put through considerable stress… why?
The reason for this second open letter is that I have thought long and hard about the possible reasons for people allowing this situation to arise, I can think of 2 possible explanations which are outlined below, neither paints a pretty picture of the activities at CDV and I am hoping Mr Valvoda will respond to this post with a better explanation.
The first explanation goes like this… Wolfgang Valvoda and his merry band of staff in Modling are so inept, that, after a court case which nearly finished their company, they could not muster the common sense between them to design a form that would not deceive. That when told their new creation might mislead they were as myopic in outlook as to believe that they were right and others wrong. That when people started stating that they had signed the document in error the blindness got worse! Rather than take them at their word CDV staff insisted on payments claiming that considerable costs had been incurred as a result of the (other parties) mistake. That rather than examine the new document again and try to rectify what is clearly a critical problem they have blundered on, demanding payments and insisting the document is in order and that they are STILL sending out more copies of the contract even though they must now know that people will dispute it and will refuse to pay!
Does that sound unfair? OK, let us for a moment consider the alternative, an option far more disturbing and one which I have to state I find it hard to believe so many people would wilfully partake in.
The only alternative I can see is that following the court case a new form was cleverly and deliberately contrived WITH THE INTENT to deceive, both the layout and text have misleading aspects so this form would possibly be the work of several people, possibly lawyers and other experts would be consulted to affirm that it might sidestep the wording of the agreement signed before the courts.
The perpetrators would know that any new legal process would time and in that time those who signed the new form in error could be told they had no protection under the Feb 13th agreement and then be bullied into paying before any new restraints were placed on Construct Data to stop. Could it be that the perpetrators signed the agreement before the courts in the full knowledge that it could be flouted? Rather than hold out for a formal judgement on the legality of the previous forms and face the possibility of an injunction that would be hard to defy?!
I.e. the second option would indicate that the staff at CDV had deliberate and flagrant disregard for Austrian law, that they had wilfully created a document in the hope that they could con people, then scare them into paying up with bogus threats of legal action. How sickening would that be?
It is possible that I have missed something here… So Mr Valvoda, the stage is yours! Please feel free to respond and I will publish your comments.
Jules Woodell.
People in dispute with Construct Data Verlag AG can find advice on stopecg.org
Construct Data Verlag (CDV) has traded from Austria since around 1991, in those years the company has been the subject of consistent complaints that it’s advertising communications are misleading, indeed in 2004 a German judge ruled that the offers formulated by Construct Data AG are formulated in such a way that an intention to deceive in the sense of code 263 Par. 1 St GB German Criminal Code (Fraud) See:
http://www.vertikal.net/en/stories.php?id=1266
CDV has repeatedly modified the contracts it mails but again and again they have failed to remove the misleading aspects that lead to so many complaints. Finally, on 13th February 2007, faced with a comprehensive lawsuit from the Austrian Schutzverband CDV signed a far-reaching accord before the Austrian courts. The objective of this agreement was to prevent the problems caused by Construct Data’s mailing of misleading contracts and to assist those who had signed them in error in releasing themselves from any claimed obligation to CDV.
The Court case was not heard in order to marginally clarify the layout of the documents mailed by CDV, the case had been brought to put an end to a problem so serious that the Judge accepted it could be of harm to Austrian commerce in general.
So it would be an understatement to say that StopECG and others were frustrated when Construct Data started mailing new forms, which although different in layout were, in our opinion still very misleading, In April this year I published An Open Letter to Wolfgang Valvoda, CEO, Construct Data in which I stated my concerns about the new form and offered to assist in the design of an entirely different document that could not mislead. That offer was never accepted and the new misleading forms have been mailed in vast numbers to people all over the world.
The predicted has happened, my inbox is now full of messages from people who have signed the new document in error and are disputing payment, CDV for their part are insisting that the new forms are legal and contractually binding and are attempting to put the blame for this continuing farce onto those people who have signed in error, claiming (sic) that as businesspeople they should have paid closer attention before signing.
Worse, when people reply referring to the cease and desist undertaking as suggested by the Shutsverband and distributed by stopECG, Construct Data are replying with letters describing the messages as fallacious, out of date and coming from a “known internet source”. (Its nice to know you have noticed us).
It is clear from the volume of mail that I am getting that the atmosphere in Construct Data’s offices can hardly be pleasant. Staff must spend much of the day pedalling the same tired arguments, arguments I cannot believe they themselves have total faith in; manning the phones when angry and frustrated ‘customers’ call in, reading a bulging mailbag of complaints and answering similarly hostile emails. Indeed I am aware that many emails to Construct Data simply go unanswered. So both Construct Data’s staff and its so-called customers are being put through considerable stress… why?
The reason for this second open letter is that I have thought long and hard about the possible reasons for people allowing this situation to arise, I can think of 2 possible explanations which are outlined below, neither paints a pretty picture of the activities at CDV and I am hoping Mr Valvoda will respond to this post with a better explanation.
The first explanation goes like this… Wolfgang Valvoda and his merry band of staff in Modling are so inept, that, after a court case which nearly finished their company, they could not muster the common sense between them to design a form that would not deceive. That when told their new creation might mislead they were as myopic in outlook as to believe that they were right and others wrong. That when people started stating that they had signed the document in error the blindness got worse! Rather than take them at their word CDV staff insisted on payments claiming that considerable costs had been incurred as a result of the (other parties) mistake. That rather than examine the new document again and try to rectify what is clearly a critical problem they have blundered on, demanding payments and insisting the document is in order and that they are STILL sending out more copies of the contract even though they must now know that people will dispute it and will refuse to pay!
Does that sound unfair? OK, let us for a moment consider the alternative, an option far more disturbing and one which I have to state I find it hard to believe so many people would wilfully partake in.
The only alternative I can see is that following the court case a new form was cleverly and deliberately contrived WITH THE INTENT to deceive, both the layout and text have misleading aspects so this form would possibly be the work of several people, possibly lawyers and other experts would be consulted to affirm that it might sidestep the wording of the agreement signed before the courts.
The perpetrators would know that any new legal process would time and in that time those who signed the new form in error could be told they had no protection under the Feb 13th agreement and then be bullied into paying before any new restraints were placed on Construct Data to stop. Could it be that the perpetrators signed the agreement before the courts in the full knowledge that it could be flouted? Rather than hold out for a formal judgement on the legality of the previous forms and face the possibility of an injunction that would be hard to defy?!
I.e. the second option would indicate that the staff at CDV had deliberate and flagrant disregard for Austrian law, that they had wilfully created a document in the hope that they could con people, then scare them into paying up with bogus threats of legal action. How sickening would that be?
It is possible that I have missed something here… So Mr Valvoda, the stage is yours! Please feel free to respond and I will publish your comments.
Jules Woodell.
People in dispute with Construct Data Verlag AG can find advice on stopecg.org
Labels: Austria, CDV, construct Data, contract, deceive, error, misleading, Modling, Schutzverband, signed, Wolfgang Valvoda
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Misleading forms alert: The UK Internet Register
Today I started getting emails about a new form that was arriving at UK companies via Fax, those who examined it felt it was misleading and so sent me copies, I am always happy to see forms and contracts that you get, please email them!
The UK Internet Register is new, however it is simply a variation on a form that has been used in many countries, the layout of the form ensures that the cost is hard to spot. Like so many other forms, companies have noticed that their details are inaccurate, drawing them away from the small print and into the process of correcting their data.
What is on offer is an inter-professional directory that appears to be published online only and where signing will cost you £639 Per Annum for a minimum of 3 years, interestingly you are already fully listed if get sent the form, all you gain by signing is 3 keywords in their search engine. I checked their website on Alexia and the traffic is currently so low that it cannot be evaluated. Looks like those 3 keywords might not be a very good buy at £213 each!
The form arrives by fax with a freephone faxback number of 080 82 38 02 31. I checked this number on on ICSTIS. They note that they do not regulate freephone numbers, but they do tell you that this number is provided by MCI WorldCom Ltd.
If you receive a form and consider it misleading you may wish to contact MCI WorldCom Ltd. and voice your concerns about the usage of this freephone number
MCI Wordlcom Ltd, Barnards Inn 86 Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1EN
Ph 0207 6754496
So is The UK Internet Register really new? Well a closer examination reveals it is actually sent by a company well known to stopECG
DAD Deutscher Adressdienst GmbH
This company has indulged for years in the mailing of misleading contracts, like so many other guides StopECG features, DAD will claim that the forms they send are clear, yet like the other guides DAD fail to amend the forms and fully remove the ambiguities their 'customers' complain of. Swiss newspaper Tagesanzeiger exposed links between DAD and other Ludenbach guides, it appears likely that they are part of his empire. You will notice that director Inga Kruskop has a long association with Lüdenbach
In the dreaded small print a website is noted where the directory can be found
http://www.uk-internet-register.com/
A whois confirms that this domain is owned by DAD and was only set up in January this year, a reverse DNS on the server shows it hosts other very similar domains such as:
American-internet-register.com
Belgisch-internet-register.com
Canadian-internet-register.com
I wonder where DAD’s misleading Faxes will be going next?
If you have signed this form in error and are now disputing the matter, please visit the stopECG page on DAD.
Labels: contract, Deutscher Adressdienst GmbH, misleading, UK Internet Register
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Construct Data (Fairguide) in full blown retreat
Construct Data (CD) who trade as Fairguide have profited for years from the mailing of misleading contracts. To spite rulings against them in individual states they have cynically exploited the loophole which makes it hard for law enforcers in individual countries to prevent cross border business to business scams. Now things are changing.
In February 2006 StopECG reported on a court case in Austria where the Austrian Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb (Protective Association against Unfair Competition) were seeking not only to prevent Construct Data from mailing more contracts but also to prevent them from profiting from previously mailed contracts. CDs initial defense was that the Schutzverband represents Austrian commerce and could therefore not act on behalf of companies outside the country, the Schutzverband for their part argued that CDs activities were so damaging as to constitute a cause for concern to all Austrian businesses. They won this important argument and at this point CD settled out of court, essentially acceding to all the Schutzverband’s main demands.
See the Schutzverband website (In German)
CD have agreed not only to cease the mailing of misleading contracts to the EU, Switzerland and EWR (affiliate States of the EU like Liechtenstein) but also to cancel their demands for money against companies who dispute the contracts.
An out of court settlement avoids a definitive ruling on CDs tactics by an Austrian judge, however it would be hard for CD (who claim that their contracts are governed by Austrian law) to now pursue any so-called debt through the courts.
The wording of the settlement is such that CD has a loophole whereby if a company does not notify them that they signed the form in error, CD can technically continue to demand money.
StopECG therefore recommends that ALL companies who feel deceived by CD should write to them noting that they signed the form in error. There is no need to quote the settlement or stopECG, the simple act of notifying them should be enough to finish this for good
Proof of post is not proof of delivery! Send by registered mail to:
Construct Data Verlag AG,
Ortsstraße 54,
2331 Vösendorf,
Austria
CD has a number of emails. It may be best to send to
accounts@cdnet.at
other possible addresses include
info@cdnet.at; info@fairguide.com; info@fair-guide.com
Fax to: +43 1 / 699 40 77 - 40
We will monitor closely CDs compliance with the settlement and update the Construct Data Page on stopECG.org if needed. If you have notified CD that you signed in error and continue to recieve demands, please let me know
I cannot overstate the importance of this development, it is really important that everyone in dispute with CD is notified quickly. For that reason I ask that anyone with the time goes to CDs website
http://www.fairguide.com/
and contacts companies listed in their area, Use email or fax or post, and let them know that if they signed in error they must notify CD and that should be the end of the matter. You need only contact those companies that have a bold ‘Integrated website’ listing.
Finally, a brief note on the part that was decided in court, it appears that the judge accepted that to have a company like Construct Data trading from your country could be harmful to the national interest. Bravo! Let’s hope the authorities in other countries playing host to Ludenbach guides pay heed.
In February 2006 StopECG reported on a court case in Austria where the Austrian Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb (Protective Association against Unfair Competition) were seeking not only to prevent Construct Data from mailing more contracts but also to prevent them from profiting from previously mailed contracts. CDs initial defense was that the Schutzverband represents Austrian commerce and could therefore not act on behalf of companies outside the country, the Schutzverband for their part argued that CDs activities were so damaging as to constitute a cause for concern to all Austrian businesses. They won this important argument and at this point CD settled out of court, essentially acceding to all the Schutzverband’s main demands.
See the Schutzverband website (In German)
CD have agreed not only to cease the mailing of misleading contracts to the EU, Switzerland and EWR (affiliate States of the EU like Liechtenstein) but also to cancel their demands for money against companies who dispute the contracts.
An out of court settlement avoids a definitive ruling on CDs tactics by an Austrian judge, however it would be hard for CD (who claim that their contracts are governed by Austrian law) to now pursue any so-called debt through the courts.
The wording of the settlement is such that CD has a loophole whereby if a company does not notify them that they signed the form in error, CD can technically continue to demand money.
StopECG therefore recommends that ALL companies who feel deceived by CD should write to them noting that they signed the form in error. There is no need to quote the settlement or stopECG, the simple act of notifying them should be enough to finish this for good
Proof of post is not proof of delivery! Send by registered mail to:
Construct Data Verlag AG,
Ortsstraße 54,
2331 Vösendorf,
Austria
CD has a number of emails. It may be best to send to
accounts@cdnet.at
other possible addresses include
info@cdnet.at; info@fairguide.com; info@fair-guide.com
Fax to: +43 1 / 699 40 77 - 40
We will monitor closely CDs compliance with the settlement and update the Construct Data Page on stopECG.org if needed. If you have notified CD that you signed in error and continue to recieve demands, please let me know
I cannot overstate the importance of this development, it is really important that everyone in dispute with CD is notified quickly. For that reason I ask that anyone with the time goes to CDs website
http://www.fairguide.com/
and contacts companies listed in their area, Use email or fax or post, and let them know that if they signed in error they must notify CD and that should be the end of the matter. You need only contact those companies that have a bold ‘Integrated website’ listing.
Finally, a brief note on the part that was decided in court, it appears that the judge accepted that to have a company like Construct Data trading from your country could be harmful to the national interest. Bravo! Let’s hope the authorities in other countries playing host to Ludenbach guides pay heed.
Labels: construct Data, fairguide, misleading, scam
Monday, February 05, 2007
Adverts that could be mistaken for invoices
Today I got the following Email, (Personal details removed)
=========================
I have today received a ‘renewal advice’ invoice for £84.99 + VAT from the Directory of Businesses: www.Directory-of-Businesses.com
The website gives the address as:
Directory of Businesses Ltd
45 -157 St John Street
London EC1V 4PY
There is no telephone number given.
The ‘renewal advice’ gets my business name completely wrong (details removed) and includes a box for the recipient to correct the entry.
It gives no useful information about the directory (how many copies are printed, who it goes to, when it was established…), or about the publishers or anything else.
I have never given any information to the publishers or previously ordered an entry in the directory, so this is certainly not a renewal.
===================
The sender included a scan, again their personal info has been removed
-------------------
The Attached form certainly seems misleading to me, the bold RENEWAL ADVICE at the top would suggest that the business already had a contractual agreement with the directory, a suggestion compounded by calling the document an invoice and by the provision of a Business ID and password.
The trouble with documents like this is that some firms have lax accounting, if an advert is mistakenly seen as an invoice it goes to accounts and gets paid, Unless all invoices are properly documented and authorised this can easily happen and many mailshots, particularly from overseas, seek to exploit this weakness.
Have you checked that this could never happen in your company?!
SERIOUSLY! Some years ago I investigated a misleading mailshot from the Czech Republic that masqueraded as an invoice for an existing listing in a directory and found that approx 1% of UK firms receiving the document were paying. Most of these were medium to large companies where the action of placing an order had become devolved from the process of payment. Those I phoned in my hometown were mostly too amorphous to even be bothered with an outside caller checking if their accounting procedures were allowing them to be scammed, however one haulage firm I contacted were very grateful, they had been paying the bogus invoices and were glad of the saving.
If your accounting is lax you are wide open to scams. In the 80s and 90s companies based abroad would simply invoice big firms for products they had never shipped. I would not be in the least bit surprised if such scams still exist.
-------------------
Back to the Directory of Businesses Ltd.
The sender reported that an additional page sent with the form gave no information as to how many copies of the directory were distributed or usage of the website.
There was also no phone number, unusual for a company attempting to build a business relationship....
I tried to find out more.
According to Companies house there is a DIRECTORY OF BUSINESSES LIMITED
Registered address:
98 WINSLEY HILL
LIMPLEY STOKE
BATH
SOMERSET BA2 7JL
Company No. 04910912
Until the 9th May 2006 this company traded as
TERRIK CONSULTING LIMITED
There the trail goes cold, there are no phone numbers or directory listings for either firm that I could find on the WWW.
A Whois reveals the domain name was registered by
Martin Bealey of Amersham, Bucks. Phone and email contacts are given but I did not attempt to contact him. Domain name registrants may play no part in a company, as the job is often undertaken by third parties.
Feel free to investigate this company yourself, please send me the findings.
-------------------
STOPPING MISLEADIG MAILSHOTS
Good news for the recipient of this mailshot, the sender is in the UK so there are bodies that can act if they deem the advert misleading
First port of call is the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a self regulatory body that polices the rules laid down in the advertising codes. The ASA is effective and does keep UK advertisers in line
File a complaint online with the ASA
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
Second, if you feel the advert is sufficiently misleading to be a criminal matter please contact your local trading standards office
They have the power to prosecute companies that deceive.
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/
put your postcode in to find your local office. Alas you will need to take the time to file a complaint in person or by post.
=========================
I have today received a ‘renewal advice’ invoice for £84.99 + VAT from the Directory of Businesses: www.Directory-of-Businesses.com
The website gives the address as:
Directory of Businesses Ltd
45 -157 St John Street
London EC1V 4PY
There is no telephone number given.
The ‘renewal advice’ gets my business name completely wrong (details removed) and includes a box for the recipient to correct the entry.
It gives no useful information about the directory (how many copies are printed, who it goes to, when it was established…), or about the publishers or anything else.
I have never given any information to the publishers or previously ordered an entry in the directory, so this is certainly not a renewal.
===================
The sender included a scan, again their personal info has been removed
-------------------
The Attached form certainly seems misleading to me, the bold RENEWAL ADVICE at the top would suggest that the business already had a contractual agreement with the directory, a suggestion compounded by calling the document an invoice and by the provision of a Business ID and password.
The trouble with documents like this is that some firms have lax accounting, if an advert is mistakenly seen as an invoice it goes to accounts and gets paid, Unless all invoices are properly documented and authorised this can easily happen and many mailshots, particularly from overseas, seek to exploit this weakness.
Have you checked that this could never happen in your company?!
SERIOUSLY! Some years ago I investigated a misleading mailshot from the Czech Republic that masqueraded as an invoice for an existing listing in a directory and found that approx 1% of UK firms receiving the document were paying. Most of these were medium to large companies where the action of placing an order had become devolved from the process of payment. Those I phoned in my hometown were mostly too amorphous to even be bothered with an outside caller checking if their accounting procedures were allowing them to be scammed, however one haulage firm I contacted were very grateful, they had been paying the bogus invoices and were glad of the saving.
If your accounting is lax you are wide open to scams. In the 80s and 90s companies based abroad would simply invoice big firms for products they had never shipped. I would not be in the least bit surprised if such scams still exist.
-------------------
Back to the Directory of Businesses Ltd.
The sender reported that an additional page sent with the form gave no information as to how many copies of the directory were distributed or usage of the website.
There was also no phone number, unusual for a company attempting to build a business relationship....
I tried to find out more.
According to Companies house there is a DIRECTORY OF BUSINESSES LIMITED
Registered address:
98 WINSLEY HILL
LIMPLEY STOKE
BATH
SOMERSET BA2 7JL
Company No. 04910912
Until the 9th May 2006 this company traded as
TERRIK CONSULTING LIMITED
There the trail goes cold, there are no phone numbers or directory listings for either firm that I could find on the WWW.
A Whois reveals the domain name was registered by
Martin Bealey of Amersham, Bucks. Phone and email contacts are given but I did not attempt to contact him. Domain name registrants may play no part in a company, as the job is often undertaken by third parties.
Feel free to investigate this company yourself, please send me the findings.
-------------------
STOPPING MISLEADIG MAILSHOTS
Good news for the recipient of this mailshot, the sender is in the UK so there are bodies that can act if they deem the advert misleading
First port of call is the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a self regulatory body that polices the rules laid down in the advertising codes. The ASA is effective and does keep UK advertisers in line
File a complaint online with the ASA
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
Second, if you feel the advert is sufficiently misleading to be a criminal matter please contact your local trading standards office
They have the power to prosecute companies that deceive.
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/
put your postcode in to find your local office. Alas you will need to take the time to file a complaint in person or by post.
Labels: Directory of Businesses Ltd, Lax accounting, misleading, TERRIK CONSULTING LIMITED
