Re: Jim's not the only one
- From: Jim Lesurf <jcgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:59:50 +0100
In article <b52bb9894d.paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Beverley
<paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Morning all
> After Jim had had the courage to go public with his tale of woe as
> regards Microdigital, "Fred" rang me up to say "exactly the same thing
> happened to me".
I suppose I should start by making clear I am not the "Jim" who's
experiences have been reported earlier. I've not had any dealings with
Microdigital so far as I can recall.
> He too paid the full amount up front and then waited for months before a
> computer was delivered.
To be fair, we don't know if "Fred" is accurately reporting the events in
his case. However what comes out of the threads on this to me are an
impression that:
1) Microdigital seem 'unresponsive' in ways that do not seem to me to make
them look good.
2) That no-one seems to know of any new or alternative trading address. Or
at least, anyone who does is declining to state it for some reason.
So for me the questions remain:
1) Are they still trading?
2) If so, from what address?
3) If they are no longer trading, when did they cease, and why are the
court, etc, unaware of this? Would not receivers or similar have been
appointed? I assume that a registered limited company can't simply be ended
by the owners walking away and chucking the keys in a hedge - particularly
if there are outstanding court proceedings or judgements.
Not being burdened by having any education as a lawyer[1], I would -
perhaps niavely - assume that limited liability status is given in exchange
for the directors/owners acting in accord with a set of specific legal
requirements. Failure to comply may mean that the director/owner either
becomes personally liable, or has broken the relevant laws. Perhaps also a
contempt of court, or a criminal offence. I have no idea if any of these
are relevant or correct here. However it does seem important to determine
the answers to the questions above as a starting point for anyone involved
who may want to take any matters further.
In addition, not being knowledgeable about these things I would have
assumed the court, etc, would have initially tried to contact them by
simpler and cheaper means than sending baliffs.[2] If this is correct, then
the visit of baliffs implies that previous letters/communications produced
no response to a court order/judgement.
[1] Nor, indeed, anything about this situation beyond what I have read.
[2] When I had a dispute with an entirely unconnected company some years
ago, one of the first steps was a letter by post that had to be signed for
upon delivery. The refusal of those at the address to accept the letter and
sign for it, even though they did not know who it was from, was, I think,
an indicator in itself.
> One wonders if there are others who, like Fred, have had the same, or
> similar, experience but who didn't dare speak up for fear of the flak
> they would receive from people who genuinely thought Microdigital were
> getting unfair criticism.
Perhaps the obvious course here for anyone who has such problems would be
to contact Paul, who can then put them in contact with one another. They
may then be able to share experiences and co-ordinate any decisions, etc.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
TechWriter http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/TechWrite/Tips1.html
Compo http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Compo/clues.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Jim's not the only one
- From: John Cartmell
- Re: Jim's not the only one
- References:
- Jim's not the only one
- From: Paul Beverley
- Jim's not the only one
- Prev by Date: Re: Jim's not the only one
- Next by Date: Re: Where are Microdigital?
- Previous by thread: Re: Jim's not the only one
- Next by thread: Re: Jim's not the only one
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
