Why do some wacko customers f*ck up decent suppliers?

[android mike]

It's nice to see a bit of proactive publicity from an excellent and highly recommended online shop for printer refills (Consumable Cafe).

On the web site it shows this:

Invoice 3185 from 29th July 2005 of £216.18 -

Philip Jones, Mercia Management Limited, Gainsborough House,

59-60 Thames Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TX.

Mobile: [phone]

and now

c/o 11 Aragon Court, Shoppenhangers Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 2QA telephone [phone] email: [e-mail]

------------

Philp Jones should stump up if he got the goods. And knowing Consumable cafe as the happy customer that I am, then he most probably did get the goods.

[cupra]

Did he get the goods? Were they correct? Did they work? Were they of satisfactory quality? Has he withheld payment for any of the above reasons? etc...

[dom]

It's a potentially powerful technique to publicly list debtors, I wonder how it stands legally?

If its use was widespread on the internet it would be a very neat way of checking out a company before doing business - much like an ebay rating. 1 or 2 bad references are possibly just issues where both sides believe themselves right - lots of bad references mean they probably treat their customers as badly as their suppliers.

[meow2222]

This is surely not legal wrt the data protection act. A company that flaunts illegal behaviour is not one I'd be encouraged to do business with, as one illegal act tends to go with another and another, and implies either disregard for the law or inability to follow it. I also would not be encouraged to do business with a company that might possibly put my personal details online for every wacko to find if they f-ck up and fail to figure out what went wrong, and this is something that can and does happen.

Happy trading

NT

[Lobster]

Has to be an error on the site, surely?

David

[Tom Anderson]

[Weatherlawyer]

Except that competitors will be at each other's throats with joejobs. Which is why newspapers steer clear of them. A newpaper has a job to check out stories that it runs if it wants a long term readership. Not counting legalities.

The internet is more ananrchic so gets away with more. But by and large I would not like to see the spam the OP posted proliferating.

When it is a large consumer product and not OT for the newsgroup, people can get together to compare notes but even so they are pretty ineffective if what people say about Tiscali and Talk Talk for example, is anything to go by.

Why are people still using Windows and even IE when better and moe secure alternatives exist? Or do they?

But small firms are out in the cold with regard to international discussion as a small pool of interest is involved.

[milou]

They are reporting another business for not paying its bill.

If this is illegal, how about all the consumer complaint websites? How about all the complaints in this NG about retailers? Must be illegal, no? Never seen such a post ? : "I bought [insert gizmo] from [insert name and address of firm] 3 days ago, they debited my card and I received nothing, I phoned on [insert phone no] and spoke to [insert name of person] who transfered me to [insert name of other person] etc etc ..."

[dom]

Except that businesses don't tend to do business with their competitors. This was a contract between 2 companies, one of which is in the wrong (we don't know which). If however several suppliers pointed at the customer - we would have a fair idea.

As far as the DPA goes - they (might) have a contractural clause pointing out that defaulters will be made public. Remember also this is B2B not B2Consumer.

[David]

In news:Xns98005AFF620FF74C1H4@127.0.0.1, android mike spake thus : | It's nice to see a bit of proactive publicity from an excellent and | highly recommended online shop for printer refills (Consumable Cafe). | | On the web site it shows this: |

| ------------ | Outstanding Invoice 3185 from 29th July 2005 of £216.18 - | | Philip Jones, | Mercia Management Limited, | Gainsborough House, | 59-60 Thames Street, | Windsor, | Berkshire, | SL4 1TX. | | Mobile: [phone] | | and now | | c/o 11 Aragon Court, | Shoppenhangers Road, | Maidenhead, | Berkshire, | SL6 2QA | telephone [phone] | email: [e-mail]

They can't even be bothered to file annual returns and accounts :

Company Details

Name & Registered Office: MERCIA MANAGEMENT LIMITED PALLADIUM HOUSE 1-4 ARGYLL STREET LONDON W1F 7LD Company No. 04747913

Status: Active Date of Incorporation: 29/04/2003

Country of Origin: United Kingdom Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC(03)): 7414 - Business & management consultancy Accounting Reference Date: 30/06 Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2004 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL) Next Accounts Due: 30/04/2006 OVERDUE Last Return Made Up To: 29/04/2004 Next Return Due: 27/05/2005 OVERDUE Last Members List: 29/04/2004

Next step is strike-off, dissolution or liquidation ....

[Andy]

I guess that might translate as ... I don't want to do business with a company which might reveal me for refusing to pay.

As we know, Consumable Cafe was one of the top 50 web traders in a recent survey. Everyone I speak to thinks they are good. I also think they are good.

[Mike H]

"David" wrote

Funnily enough, I used to work at 59-60 Thames Street a few years back. However, that was in the days when it was part of Lloyds Bank and then subsequently Bradford & Bingley Building Society.

Nowadays it is one of those multi-occupancy "rent-an-office" places - need I say more!

- Mike

[dom]

I think the value of posting the details of non-payers is proving itself right here - we now also know the business concerned has failed to complete its legal obligations in relation to its accounts, and occupies (or occupied) short-lease office space.

[Tiddy Ogg]

It may well put honest people off, fearing a c*ck-up. And in the event of such a c*ck-up, and wrongful accusation, damages could well be sought, and the subsequent publicity would be very damaging.

At first sight trying to shame non-payers seems a good idea, but it could easily backfire.

Tiddy Ogg.

[Reece Bythell]

It appears to be available to purchase as a bad debt, the kind of thing a company would normally do to sell their debt to a collection agency. I've never seen this done so publicly before though.

Surely this isn't legal?

Reece

[Andrew Gabriel]

Actually, what I suspect they are doing is offering his debt for sale to any debt collector who want to buy it.

[Dave]

The line starting 'outstanding' is data that belongs to the company that has the grudge. As for the name, address, post code and telephone number, they are freely available in the public domain.

I can't see a problem with it.

Dave

[Paul Blarmy]

It's probably just there to make it easy for the debtor to make payment in full at some point! Or, anybody else could pay the debt for him, not take it over, just pay it up.

Not that that's likely of course!

[meow2222]

no, as has already been stated and explained.

I guess this thread is changing that. Its a nice idea on the surface, but when looked at with more care its a recipe for more harm than good

- unfortunately.

NT

[meow2222]

thats a fair point. Trouble is its personal information thats printed there rather than just business.

Also I doubt such clause exists, simply because it would put some buyers off.

Also its open to abuse in a competitive market.

NT