text: Missold and Mislead by Supanet | ISPreview UK Forum
  Thread starter robrhiw
  robrhiw
  My Brother in law had new Television system installed as his present broad band supplier couldnt meet his requirements, that was to link in with the SKY Q Boxes recently fittted
  On 30 Oct 2018, he telephoned who he thought was SKY , we now know they were COMMS BROKER apparently "a comparison site" They advertise throough
  Google Adds and two web sites
  http://www.opticsinternet.com/
  https://UK-ISP.COM this one actually has a number which is Supanet
  Comms Broker mislead him to believe that Supanet, an Internet Service provider would be able to help
  It is now known that Comms Broker "does not compare" but con people in to believing they are signing up with Talk Talk BT or Sky, instead they sign with Supranet
  COMMS BROKER and SUPANET are based in the same building along with the Debt Collecting Company QUICK COLLECT who have been harrassing my brother in law
  Brother in Law made it very clear, as in the telephone transcript that he expliciately wanted SKY Broad Band and Router
  At no time did COMMS BROKER say we are not SKY otherwise he would have terminated the call with them.
  Brother in Law was advised service would go live 15 November 2018, a SKY engineer was arranged for that day it was then discovered it was not the Sky Router
  Brother in Law cancelled contract on 15 November 2018 as it was not fit for purpose and made a n agreement with SKY
  16 November a text was sent from Supatel to Brother in Law saying that an outstanding balance of £556.50 on
  Harressment started from Quick Collect
  Supatel refused for the landline number to be moved to SKY as there was a debt on the account thus lost his telepne number of 40 years
  OMBUDSMAN decision found in Supanets favour even though
  they stated that BIL on 2 occassions said that he wanted to switch to SKY
  They also said that the COMM agent did not clarify on either occassion that you were not speaking to SkY and that they could not provide you with SKY broadband
  I therefore consider Agent negeligent by not being clear about services they could provide .
  increased to £619
  Advice please on next steps
  This comes down to contract law and best done by your brother posting directly. Second postings in these circumstances never work well along the lines of 'send 6 and happance we are going to a dance'.
  If it just with the debt collectors then nothing is going to happen claim wise as they cannot initiate proceedings, they get paid a cut but only if he pays them so they will want to hang on to it as long as they can. It is only an issue if it goes back to Supanet as they can raise a claim.
  The increases the debt collector adds on are fictitious and easily rebutted in a claim by requiring proof a real solicitor did any work other than renting out a letterhead.
  Reactions: robrhiw
  My bother in law handed all over to me as it has made him quite ill with the threats
  The Debt collection company have handed it back to Supanet who have issued a letter before action
  I have also taken case to Member of Parliament who are looking in the practises of this company Still not sue how to get rid of this debt as we cant take them to court
  Suggest you go back to legalbeagles and start a fresh thread and that should get a better response, alternatively go to pepipoo and post in the Flame pit as its not motoring related but the same arguments as private parking apply ie contract law.
  I have searched for claim history Supanet/supatel and court claim supanet/supatel, there are no hits showing they have ever taken raised a small court claim. There is a search facility somewhere on the small claims gov site that allows you to search for history of claims raised by companies but can't find it. As small claims is limited in what extra costs can be applied even a £600 debt will cost them more than to raise a claim and attend a hearing that they could recover, as a consumer it would need to be held at a court nearest you and they have to travel.
  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/83219/supatel_s96c_confirmation_d1.pdf
  Also the letter before action is subject to new rules since last year, so has to contain a lot of detail supporting the debt, if this is not included then one option is to ask them to reissue a proper LBA and force them to do some work. If they never update it then you add it to the defence.
  Also you can raise a subject access request to get all the info they hold on your BIL.
  Thankyou for that Most helpful
  Just received this Help anyne they have an answer for everything
  Thank you very much for the email dated 22nd August 2019.
  Within the email it is claimed the pre action protocol issued on the 7th August 2019 signed for recorded delivery on the 8th August 2019 at 11:38am requires to be reissued.
  Unfortunately no such document will be reissued as the previous pre action protocol presented adheres to Ministry of Justice pre action requirements.
  It is assumed the correspondence received has been located from the "Which" website, though detailed such requirements are not required within the issue of a pre action protocol.
  Please take the time to review the Ministry of Justice below link in which requirements of the pre action protocol are advised within point 3.
  It can be noted all requirements within the pre action protocol supplied supports the Ministry of Justice requirements.
  Though an email has been received it is noted the requirement for the Reply Form in Annex 1 is to be returned in your response in line with the pre action protocol..
  Supanet will never the less respond to the points raised in the email received on the 22nd August 2019 though both Supanet and our collection agent Quick Collect have previously provided the information required.
  A contract had been entered with Supatel Ltd t/a Supanet. Contractual terms have been broken by the account holder resulting an outstanding balance owed and liable.
  Please see the below breakdown.
  November 2018 invoice
  £30.00 - Set up fee
  £521.50 - Early termination fee
  £35.00 - Cease fee
  £18.99 - Line rental
  £7.96 - Line rental
  £14.99 - Hardware handing fee
  £9.00 - Unlimited fibre
  £3.77 - Unlimited fibre
  £36.95 - Call charges
  £678.16 - Total
  December 2018 invoice
  £18.74 - Call charges
  £18.74 - Total
  £678.16 + £18.74 - £50.00 (Ombudsman decision) - £30.00 (Set up fee payment) = £616.90.
  Please see the attached order confirmation, invoice & terms and conditions (Please be mindful the £50.00 credit from the Ombudsman decision is yet to be generated in our billing cycle on the 28th August 2019).
  Though the pre action protocol offered 30 days from the 7th August 2019 an additional 30 days will be granted due to expire on the 21st September 2019.
  Upon review of the Ministry of Justice document supplied a request for appropriate ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) channels are to be sought. You will be aware not only have Supanets ADR scheme been exhausted our governing body (The Ombudsman) has been approached to which a decision has been given in the favour of the business other than a £50.00 credit which has been issued against the outstanding balance as requested.
  Supanets customer service team will respond in due course to the Subject Access Request received.
  Should you look to speak with the Supanet Legal team please call 01282 214017.
  Supanet legal team
  Realistically if the Ombudsman found against you then you can appeal that decision but if that fails then your best recourse is to use the courts.
  Wondering how we can take them to court as we havent paid them anything or waiting for them them take us to court Who can I complain to about COMMS BROKER the supposed comparison website
  If you can afford to do so then I'd engage a solicitor. Granted it's a cost but they do give you some piece of mind and a correct legal opinion. Likewise ISPs tend to back down when faced with solicitors as the cost of a case usually isn't worth the effort.