Dear all,

I suggest you check any standing orders or Paypal payments to Solonica - listed as Beoworld Connoisseur's Club Payment. Each one should be for about £15 (or whatever passes for your local currency). I've found that I've still been making payments since June 2007 even though this outfit did not own or maintain the Beoworld site from January 2007. They should have cancelled all the payments - but they certainly didn't!

The person responsible for taking the money is difficult to find, so don't expect refunds if this is the case - but please check that you haven't been caught out like me. This guy has nothing to do with the current owners of this site, and there could be a case for fraudulently passing themselves off.

Regards 

This is mentioned here from time to time. I f I remember correctly, the receiver can´t cancel the payments, only the sender. Don't think the receiver should spend time and effort to refund persons who missed the cancelation.

Daniel:

This is mentioned here from time to time. I f I remember correctly, the receiver can´t cancel the payments, only the sender. Don't think the receiver should spend time and effort to refund persons who missed the cancelation.

I disagree. The receiving account should have been cancelled back in 2007 and because it wasn't, the current owner has a moral obligation to refund the payments. As far as I was aware only the receiver can cancel the payment once made.

Frog, I suggest you ensure that no future payments can be made & take it up with Paypal

Daniel:

This is mentioned here from time to time.

And it should surely have been sorted?

Surely if you're commited to not taking people's money for something you haven't provided them with then it can be done?  If i kept seeing PayPal payments hitting my account in pretty large volumes, i'd do something about it.

Anyway - best i jump back in my box and shut the lid - it's not my place to pass comment or judgement i suppose. I just don't like to see BeoWorld members losing money.

Lee

Daniel:

This is mentioned here from time to time. I f I remember correctly, the receiver can´t cancel the payments, only the sender. Don't think the receiver should spend time and effort to refund persons who missed the cancelation.

Hardly. Inertia isn't a viable excuse. The title for the bill included Beoworld - so I thought I was paying for something else. Either way, your view is morally dodgy.

Here are some topics:

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/p/7453/55679.aspx#55679

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/p/3241/23829.aspx#23829

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/p/29063/229007.aspx#229007

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/p/18257/135103.aspx#135103

There is nothing wrong with my morally! If the transfer only can be stopped by the sender the action should be in that end. The receiver can not be held responsible to sending back money all the time if he can´t stop it. But if he can stop it by canceling the account, of course he shall do so.

Oh yes there is  - you believe that taking money by false pretences is quite OK - you'll find most (law abiding) people would disagree with you. I let these payments through as they were listed as Beoworld. I was being conned, and I'm sure he saw the payments coming in from me (and possibly others) but did he stop it? Did he hell.

He could have sent the money back and could have cancelled the transaction.

Not sure what your point about the other threads are anyway.... mine still stands - all members should be careful that they are still not paying this person/company for services that he is not delivering.

frog:

Oh yes there is  - you believe that taking money by false pretences is quite OK - you'll find most (law abiding) people would disagree with you. I let these payments through as they were listed as Beoworld. I was being conned, and I'm sure he saw the payments coming in from me (and possibly others) but did he stop it? Did he hell.

He could have sent the money back and could have cancelled the transaction.

Not sure what your point about the other threads are anyway.... mine still stands - all members should be careful that they are still not paying this person/company for services that he is not delivering.

Have to admit that I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think that if it's a 'Standing Order' you can stop it via your bank. If it's a 'Direct Debit' from your bank or credit card then the receiver of the funds effectively has control of the payments and if he abuses what's been agreed then you have to go through the the direct debit guarantee scheme (maybe only for major organisations who have subscribed to it) and also ask your bank to stop making further payments. If you've made a payment with a credit card (one-off or regular payment) and you haven't received the good or service paid for, then you should be able to raise a dispute through the credit card company and get a credit pending their investigations. If you've made payments indirectly through another intermediary like PayPal the prospects of a refund might be less clear (but they do have a complaints procedure and don't seem to hesitate to make refunds/ reverse payments when goods are not received.)

Graham

frog:

Oh yes there is  - you believe that taking money by false pretences is quite OK - you'll find most (law abiding) people would disagree with you. I let these payments through as they were listed as Beoworld. I was being conned, and I'm sure he saw the payments coming in from me (and possibly others) but did he stop it? Did he hell.

He could have sent the money back and could have cancelled the transaction.

Not sure what your point about the other threads are anyway.... mine still stands - all members should be careful that they are still not paying this person/company for services that he is not delivering.

Please read this:

Peter :

Apparently the account is dormant so he had no idea this was still happening. The problem is that the automatic debit actually comes from the donor account - so please check it is not happening to you!

Daniel:

There is nothing wrong with my morally! If the transfer only can be stopped by the sender the action should be in that end. The receiver can not be held responsible to sending back money all the time if he can´t stop it. But if he can stop it by canceling the account, of course he shall do so.

If the account is dormant (ie not required, defunct, no longer in use) and the account holder has been made aware payments are being made into it that are 'beyond his control' - then why on earth not just close the account down completely - thus eradicating this ongoing problem in one easy button-press?

Am i missing something here, or is the obvious solution confusing me..

Lee

9 LEE:

If the account is dormant (ie not required, defunct, no longer in use) and the account holder has been made aware payments are being made into it that are 'beyond his control' - then why on earth not just close the account down completely - thus eradicating this ongoing problem in one easy button-press?

Am i missing something here, or is the obvious solution confusing me..

Lee

 

Commenting from the viewpoint of someone who has dealt with a couple of estates of relatives as an Executor, I have to say that closing off payments from credit card accounts can be less than straight forward. In addition  I suspect that banks are quite happy to accept payments into what may appear to be closed accounts!

Graham