MBS Bill

  niki31 16:12 29 Oct 2006
Locked

I know that this has been discussed but i can't find the thread. I keep getting the pop up every time i log on to the internet asking for money for a site i haven't been on - how do i get rid of it.. Please help

  Forum Editor 17:25 01 Sep 2007

My courtroom scenario wasn't intended to resemble reality, and I'm surprised you didn't realise that. It's called an illustrative analogy, and was intended to highlight one of the problems facing people who think that this is a straightforward matter.

If you read the terms and conditions on the website in question - and you obviously haven't - you would see that there is indeed agreement to them when someone chooses to enter the site.

There are many examples of successful prosecutions where the person being prosecuted claimed that someone else was using the machine at the time. People have been prosecuted for copyright theft by the music industry, and on more than one occasion the defendant has claimed that another person was responsible for the illegal downloads - one father claimed that his young son was to blame, thinking that the court would find in his favour. It was ruled that he, the person who paid the ISP charges was liable, and he was fined as a consequence.

If something is legal (just) - to use your terminology - it's legal, there aren't degrees of legality. Whether or not the MBS payment demands would be enforced by a court is debatable, but so far as I'm aware it hasn't been tested, so nobody knows.

  Miros 09:08 02 Sep 2007

Ashley Bateup, managing director of MBS.
Says.
"Our 'view now, pay later' model is unique," said Bateup. "Consumers don't have to go through lengthy registration and enter credit card details, and this provides a great consumer benefit for preventing fraud given that they don't need to supply their financial details and are able to pay by cheque, postal order, electronic transfer or over the phone,” said Bateup."
Extracted from. click here

This reminds me of I time I'm not proud of when years a go I worked for a company selling door to door. Commonly known at the time as 'live now pay later'. Personally I thought that it was taking advantage of customers who were ill able to find cash to pay for essential items for their kids and I very soon left.

I note that in the same article Bateup is quoted as saying " MBS is prepared to “take legal action” against forums and companies promoting solutions to remove its software."

Not good news for PCA if he does, but will they?

What does really surprise me is the stance that Trading Standards have taken in this. My Impression was always that they were established mainly for the benefit and protection of the consumer rather than that of the seller/merchant or whatever.

  Forum Editor 10:29 02 Sep 2007

We're not "promoting solutions to remove its (MBS)software." so I see no cause for concern. In any event, I hardly think the trading reputation of a company is going to be enhanced if it litigates against a consumer-oriented magazine forum. If thousands of people weren't being subjected to incessant pop-up bills it wouldn't be necessary for anyone to post 'solutions'.

As far as Trading Standards is concerned, your impression is wrong - the organisation doesn't exist solely for the benefit and protection of consumers, it's there for both businesses and consumers. The organisation protects both consumers and businesses from illegal or unfair trading practices and products. It does this by enforcing over 60 Acts of Parliament and 500 Regulations and Orders.

Many people think that Trading Standards is a government department, but it's not, The Trading Standards Institute is a company, limited by guarantee.

  spuds 10:40 02 Sep 2007

The problem with trading standards is how committed each area is to certain consumer rights and the law. Trading standards are usually funded by local council's who are unwilling to pursue complaints in a law court due to expense and the final outcome.

A few years ago, the was the Kodak and Hoover saga's, and in each case people were given conflicting advice by different trading standards officers working in different area's of the country. In both the cases mentioned, it was all due to 'untested grey areas of law'. In the case of Kodak, the whole affair turned out to be a shambles, because even the top legal teams and representatives working for Kodak were giving different conflicting statements to the media and the public.

Whether trading standards are now more uniform in their methods through the government Consumer Direct approach, I really could not say.

What we have been told, is that MBS have always been working with trading standards throughout.

  Miros 11:02 02 Sep 2007

I'm happy about you first sentence and trust you are correct, I am on your side. As to enhancing their reputation (MBS's) that's why I think they are unlikely as I said, "but will they" I also have said it before in other postings I don't think a court case would be in their best interest.

We live we learn, you have enlightened me regarding Trading Standards. But why then does it have an address ending in .gov,uk or .gov.org
who then finances it? My money is on we, us the people?

The whole name would suggest to me that it was to uphold good trading practices certainly not bad trading practices. This is why I'm surprised at it's roll in this matter when apparently they have had hundreds of complaints about MBS at the Yorkshire branch alone.

  Miros 11:05 02 Sep 2007

I did forget.
I have read again the terms etc of PCA and it seems I did push my luck, and I do apologise to you for any problems that I may have caused you.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 11:08 02 Sep 2007

Trading Standards have to uphold the law but irrespective of what anyone thinks, MBS are not breaking the law. To some their practices seem dubious but not illegal according to the law. If they were so dubious I'm sure a case would have been brought against them. As of yet there has been no case which makes me believe that those who know the law professionally can only see one outcome. No one has ever been convicted of dubious actions.

G

  Forum Editor 11:15 02 Sep 2007

Apology not necessary, but thank you anyway.

  Forum Editor 11:27 02 Sep 2007

A company limited by guarantee is an alternative type of incorporation used primarily for non-profit organisations that require corporate status. A guarantee company does not have a share capital, but has members who are guarantors instead of shareholders. The guarantors give an undertaking to contribute a nominal amount towards the winding up of the company in the event of a shortfall upon cessation of business.

It's complex, and the best way to view Trading Standards in England, Scotland and Wales is as a function of Local Government. Trading Standards departments are funded locally, although the DTI has provided central funds amounting to £1.5 a year so that Trading Standards can 'modernise' its services. It's a pitifully small amount when you consider the work they do.

  Forum Editor 11:45 02 Sep 2007

It runs to 21 pages, and I for one find it unwieldy.

I've opened a new thread in Consumerwatch (a more appropriate location) with a link to this one, so you can continue on a nice clean sheet of virtual paper.

You can reach the new thread if you click here

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

Awful clip art from 1994 is being tweeted every hour by a bot

iPhone X vs Samsung Galaxy Note 8

Les meilleurs navigateurs internet 2017