Menu
Login
firstly they try to sell you either Google search engine optimization or Facebook advertising.. be warned you will not receive either ...what will happen is ...they sneakily attempt to get you on a rolling contract which takes 30 days written notice to cancel by then you've probably already paid a whopping £500 for something that might cost £20 to do your self . These people will then threaten you will all sorts of stuff including personal debt collectors and legal action if you should cancel your debit / credit card ...
these say they work in london have a po box address in london but are really a manchester out fit with 2 adresses
/removed/
more info on him to follow...
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
An suggestion to show its good faith was made to The Social Media People.
Let everyone remember that when I made my very first post on this forum (67 days ago at 13-07-2011, Page 2), it was a clear and measured offer, from a genuine but aggrieved customer, for them to demonstrate their open, honest, ethical credentials, and give them an opportunity to prove that I (as representing an unhappy, cheated customer) was in the wrong - by publishing all the documents and phone conversations relating to our dealings.
The Social Media People has been content to ignore that offer, and try to convince everyone that I, and they, are all in the wrong, by repeatedly throwing out accusations and smokescreens of irrelevancies.
My previous post was another publication of a genuine document, and an explanation of the FACTS relating to it.
There are more to add, on top of the many previously published - by me, not The Social Media People.
14-07-2011:. 1. Tom McVey proves – in his own words – his absence of comprehension of facts etc.
Please have a look at the attached image of a Personal Message I received via complaintsboard.com, on 12-07-2011.
As you will see it is from Tom McVey, Managing Director of The Social Media People – and I made reference to it in a post on that day.
He states/demands: QUOTE: “can you please send some information to us about you alleged "win" of bank charge as that will be used as evidence.”
I have already responded in detail to this comment, stating that following the bank’s investigation it accepted the validity of my ‘Chargeback’ claim, judged in my favour, and got my money back for me.
(For the benefit of Tom McVey: You lost. I won. The bank judged my claim as TRUE; therefore it judged your case as FALSE. These are not my opinions – the bank investigation judged in my favour. Do you get it now Mr Big Shot Managing Director?)
Remember, previously Tom McVey stated in his public post on this forum that, QUOTE: “Surely an investigation of the process from the bank carries more weight than your opinion?”
So – Tom McVey publicly states that a bank investigation is the definitive proof of whose version is true – mine or TSMP’s; yet in his Personal Message he states that such a finding, “...will be used as evidence.”
Evidence of what? That TSMP lied? (Because as Tom McVey stated – the bank investigation shows whose case stood up to scrutiny. I won. My opinion, AND the opinion of Tom McVey are irrelevant.
The logical conclusion from the bank’s judgement in my favour is that The Social Media People did not provide the agreed service.
If the readership of this forum was a jury, what verdict would they arrive at as to who tells lies?
14-07-2011:. 2. Tom McVey proves – in his own words – his absence of comprehension of facts etc.
Please have another look at the attached image of the Personal Message from Tom McVey.
He refers to a DSAR (Data Subject Access Request) in these terms,
QUOTE: ” Also you claims you have made a DSAR request but you have NOT. We will acknowledge when you pay as agreed.”
I will post more detailed information about a DSAR later, but you can check its purpose and mechanisms by consulting the government website of the Information Commisioners Office (http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/personal_information/how_manage/access_info.aspx )
Suffice to say in this post, that:
1. I did submit correctly constructed and delivered DSARs. (Copy of request available to anyone desiring proof.)
2. TSMP (and its associated companies) each received the DSARs – as proved by ‘Recorded Delivery’ receipts.
3. I did send the companies the appropriate, statutory, fee of £10.00 per request.
4. They failed in their legal obligation to provide the required information. (More on that in another post.)
(More on DSARs at a later time/date.)
14-07-2011:. 3. Tom McVey proves – in his own words – his absence of ethics.
Please have a final look at the attached image of the Personal Message from Tom McVey.
If you refer to the closing remarks in Tom McVey’s personal message, ”... we will be letting your local community know of your malicious ways.”
How honourable and ethical would you – the ‘normal, rational reader - judge such comments to be?
(We can predict that The Social Media People will say that it would indeed be honourable and ethical, but as we know, they are very active with their smokescreen and diversionary tactics.)
So – over this series of 3 posts, what do we conclude from the questions/ information conveyed by the words of the Managing Director of The Social Media People, Mr Tom McVey?
(a) Tom McVey (and his companies) flout the law.
(b) Tom McVey defines his ‘acceptable level of proof’ (bank investigation) then forgets that the judgement was AGAINST him and his company.
(c) The Social Media People’s business practices are rubbish.
(d) Tom McVey, and his company, have: NO honour and NO ethics. No comprehension of FACTS. No regard for law. No credibility.
I've been receiving similar ridiculous threatening emails from The Social Media Company. Shall I just ignore them I take it they haven't really got a fraud team etc and it's just a scare tactic to make us pay up? If the police and ASA are involved do they have a leg to stand on law wise or can they actually get debt collectors out to you as they claim? Quite worried and at my wits end with the endless emails since I had to cancel my bank card. Any advice would be much appreciated.
Why would a small tin-pot outfit have a fraud team. It's cheaper and easier to invent one when you need to put the frighteners on. There's also a Legal Team - full of fictitious characters.
(fran687: I have sent you a personal message.)
fran687 Dont let them worry you, they did the same to me, if you have stopped them from taking your money they try to scare you with threats of legal action and fraud . Tell them to piss off!
Thank you for the advice I have since emailed them and told them to get lost. How do these people sleep at night!
16-07-2011: The Social Media People threats of legal action. 1
If, by some remote chance, anyone with a qualification in Law should read the posts on this forum, they would be in a position to comment on the (attached) pathetically inept attempts at ‘Notice of Legal Action’ sent by email to me - from the pathetically inept ‘The Social Media People’.
This one [protected]) accused me of libel – in a post on this forum written by someone else.
Just like the one that follows it was sent to me by the fictional Head of Legal Team, ‘Amanda Jacobson’, whose childishly laughable attempts at a ‘legal notification’ are self evident.
-
16-07-2011: The Social Media People threats of legal action. 2
This document [protected]) was published a few days ago, but wasn’t very readable.
Overall, this joke of a ‘legal notification’ is even more difficult to comprehend, but does show them conceding to a very serious ‘mistake’ in the previous one; they accused the wrong person!
In the 1st threat (20 April) it states: “We have solid proof it is yourself...”
In this 2nd threat (3 May) it states: “After further investigations it turns out 'iockus' isn't you.”
Whoops!
Not obvious from the attached documents is the fact that the fictional ‘Amanda Jacobson’ adds a FALSE (i.e. incomplete, unusable) email address as part of her sign-off at the end of the messages.
Contained within the text of both documents there are several other errors (of both fact and logic) and schoolgirl ‘howlers’.
-
Again this reiterates the competence of TSMP and the McVey empire and their complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of what is in the 'public domain' and what is not.
Knowing that a company is based in an old run down mill at the back of Piccadilly railway station, Manchester with their various registered addresses being 'postal addresses' where they are not resident gives anybody a real feel of a 'legitimate' and above board company?
Integrity and honesty are two words which are definitely not associated with the McVey's and their businesses.
"...school girl howlers..." is a an apt description for all their correspondence, whether it be one of the McVey's or one of their fictitious employees who is the author! All of which have an inability to construct a logical argument or express a coherent view!
What legal advice has been given to people who are victims of this awful company. I have had the same experience and want rid of them.
To quote a switched on 'cookie' please read the following as a starter, and then look at www.badbiz.co.uk and follow the forum for The Social Media People:
'...Firstly they sell the products as clicks as depicted as on most invoices I have seen.
This is i misrepresentation.
Law for this is the Missrepresentation Act 1967. posted below section 7 which says.
Misrepresentation Act 1967
1967 CHAPTER 7
An Act to amend the law relating to innocent misrepresentations and to amend sections 11 and 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893.
[22nd March 1967]
1 Removal of certain bars to rescission for innocent misrepresentation.
Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him, and—
(a)the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract; or
(b)the contract has been performed;
or both, then, if otherwise he would be entitled to rescind the contract without alleging fraud, he shall be so entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, notwithstanding the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
2 Damages for misrepresentation.
(1)Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true.
(2)Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him otherwise than fraudulently, and he would be entitled, by reason of the misrepresentation, to rescind the contract, then, if it is claimed, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, that the contract ought to be or has been rescinded, the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party.
(3)Damages may be awarded against a person under subsection (2) of this section whether or not he is liable to damages under subsection (1) thereof, but where he is so liable any award under the said subsection (2) shall be taken into account in assessing his liability under the said subsection (1).
Avoidance of provision excluding liability for misrepresentation.
If a contract contains a term which would exclude or restrict—
(a)any liability to which a party to a contract may be subject by reason of any misrepresentation made by him before the contract was made; or
(b)any remedy available to another party to the contract by reason of such a misrepresentation,
that term shall be of no effect except in so far as it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness as stated in section 11(1) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977; and it is for those claiming that the term satisfies that requirement to show that it does.
I can conclude on the above basis that no contract written by The Social Media People will be binding.
Link http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/7 ..'
In other words you have sadly been scammed!
Contact your bank / credit card company and claim a 'cash back' ! Ignore any of their pathetic attempts to get further money from you. (Incidentally there is currently a Civil Court Action placed against them for 40 or so grand plus legal expenses and costs! which they are going to lose due to the mountain of evidence against them!)
Thank you informer 28. When does the CCA take place?
18 July 2011: For anyone new to the forum_
You are probably here because you are unhappy, but possibly unsure whether your experience was 'unfortunate' or something more sinister and worrying.
Listen to this YouTube recording of 2 telephone messages:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNDvXf1jcqM
These 2 genuine recordings show that The Social Media People is willing to invent fake identities of Directors and Legal Reperesentatives in order to threaten customers.
The Social Media People has repeatedly declined to explain these genuine recordings or to demonstrate that the 2 'fake' individuals are real people.
Strangely - both voices sound very similar to that of someone at The Social Media People who rants regularly on this forum.
-
Have a look at this company sm-da.co.uk, look at the terms and conditions... seem familiar ... look at where they are based.
Unbelievable Steve! :o I'm in utter shock of this!
They appear to be based at:
39 Freston Gardens
Cockfosters
Barnet
EN4 9LY
United Kingdom
I would hazard a guess that 'somebody else' is jumping on board the 'McVey Scam'?
Oh sorry, that's where their domain name is registered. Are there any pickie sites there? LOL
Perhaps McVeys have 'rented' a flat? The address refers to a flat is located at 12 Blackfriars Street Manchester M3 2EQ.
I've used that company and they are a fantastic company to work with. What gives you people the right to pass judgement against companies they know nothing about. You all think your some kind of internet police, but in reality, I myself see no reason to take any of your opinions seriously. If there was any business acumen between you, you would use it, not make claims about companies. SMDA are a fantastic company, look at their website and their clients.
There are many companies that provide advertising services that get a bad name by credible sources, but people on forums at 2AM as some of the recent comments are, are not the people to listen to.
Be warned I will inform this company of your slander and expect a call if you are man/woman enough to identify yourselves.
lol market user you must be having a laugh... Surely after 18 pages on this forum alone and a google search full of warnings on youtube/badbiz/grumbletext etc etc they must have irked quite a few people? Plus 'expect a call if you are man/woman enough to identify yourselves' sounds awfully familiar... Almost threatening. ;)
Im simply stating a view point, I have had dealings with one of the companies mentioned and feel some of the comments are unfair, if not untrue.
There was no threat. Although there seems to be threats from both sides of one company mentioned. If there is evidence of some of the claims then fair enough. But some of the statements and references seem extreme. and no I am not having a laugh I take my business seriously and do spend a lot of time on forums, although I am aware of some of the untruths out there. I have informed my marketing manager and rightly, they are concerned why would they not follow up a claim do you think you can bad mouth a company and not expect a response, are they not also entitled to their say!
Hi Market User
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. So is everyone else.
My experience with The Social Media People has been shocking. I have never experienced anything similar and the very best I could possibly call it is appalling business practice with no regard at all for the customer.
Regards UTH
It appears that SM-DA have links to Top Spot Marketing who have lots of discussion on Money Saving and other forums... Alto Platform F (look at their clients) seem to be linked as well.
Market User, if you have genuinely had a pleasant experience with the McVey 'empire' congratulations! You are as rare as the Dodo!
Most businesses and individuals who are discontented with the McVey's business practices, and there are numerous examples, actively search online for various blogs relating to their companies to see if their experience is a 'one-off'. 18 pages on this blog alone should tell a story, try following the thread from page one.
Have comments been unjustly stated? Taking into account that there have been threats by the Mcvey, s and their supposed solicitors and others to previous clients (http://badbiz.co.uk/2011/05/the-social-media-people-harassment-and-complaints-part-1/ Incidentally the voice is that of Tom McVey.) No!
If you are a real client of one of their, now many, shadow companies of net 66 why are you on a complaints board trying to defend them? Not a criticism, just very curious!
Sadly Mcvey's have/had the opportunity to explain themselves, but avoid any answers to direct questions; something which will cost them dearly in the current court action against them with the counter allegations against one particular questioner!
i have had call from the social people today allmost 3weeks after first qestioning them. i haveseen stuf on here an rang em day after day but hav onli had call back today. istill get jobs off my advert so dont think thyre ripin me of. i am unsur who to beleve. every day new stuf is ritten an im unsure more an more. is ther any proof they ripp offf people i have seen stuff on herebut letters that arr postes dont proof they ripp of people. i am happy too cary on with them untill im sure to stay away.
at leaste we seem to have seen the bak of badbiz on her i cant seee why peopl ar postin links to his siteif yu read his site you can see he is always getin debt leters and compianing and calin everythin he dusnt agre with a ripp of. im al for opinons that why am here but wont listen to people what talk pony like that geyza.
i hav had chat with someone social media toddya and they assur me and iam gettin jobs, is there a reeson to thinktheyre riping loads of peple off if anyone can help let me now. gal
Damp Man
How do you monitor that the adverts you are placing are getting you business? What type of business are you in?
Damp Man,
What kind of business do you run?
I would be very interested as to whether Dam Man and Market User are, lets say, stoogies of TSMP aka McVey empire?
Seems very strange that McVey's have been very quiet over the last few days, after such bravado online, then suddenly '2' contented(?) clients start placing comments?
Am I missing something? Umh
You do not know what to believe?
You either accept that you have been scammed or you don't!
If you haven't why are you on this blog?
"Do you think I am stupid" unquote. Yes Thomas your card is marked!
I never made any claim to be a client of the social media people. It seems this has been concluded without my own input. Kind of fitting with some of the other attitudes on here by the looks of it. I can see various accusations from both sides in relation to that debate. Having said that my issue was not with any use of that companies name or any allegations against them. Frankly I could not care less. I was simply diverted to this forum as a company we have, and still do for that matter was used and personal details were disclosed. This I find distressing if I am totally honest. As I work closely with a network of private investigator as part of my business, and due to my suspicious and cautious nature, I felt I had to inquire and contribute. It now seems my honesty is being questioned. Strange seen as though I have had no contact with anybody on here and there is no way of anybody coming to an informed conclusion to that particular matter. Thank you indeed for the dis-honest implication. However, I feel informer28 may be somebody who is refered to on various occasion on this forum.
Using a tactic know as "linguistic pattern recognition" we have matched a high score to a poster by the name of "badbiz" and the website that both of those characters repeatedly post is down. I for one am not convinced and would discredit anything said by you. The fact I have been immediately called a liar, as such, displays some strange tenancies and people who are as quick to point the finger are generally hiding something them self. A quick search on this chap informs me he is quick to make accusations against some of the largest companies in the world. One to ignore by the looks of it.
Back to my original post, before I was rudely interrupted, smda seem to be a bona fide outfit after investigation, Top Spot marketing do however have complaints, having said that, from experience, when you provide a service you will inevitably not satisfy every client and their reaction and actions can be unpredictable.
The long and short of it is, I will not be made to look as if I am vouching for anyone and after investigation, although there are some valid points raised there seems to be a hyena culture on here, a group of people, or people posing as alias' grouping together to assassinate company reputation. I can forward anybody unsure about there dealing with a company to one of my network of private investigators to conclude with sense as apposed to speculation if there are any interested parties who would like to hear a review from credible sources. I have now just wasted 30mins of my day responding to these personal accusations and am less than happy. I am however glad to have my say as I am entitled to it. I am happy to speak to any people who would like info companies and will provide honest factual information.
Gilbert Crown
Hi Market User
Why go to all that trouble about something that isn't particularly important to you?
Regards UTH
I reiterate the post from another blogger:
Listen to this YouTube recording of 2 telephone messages:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNDvXf1jcqM
These 2 genuine recordings show that The Social Media People is willing to invent fake identities of Directors and Legal Reperesentatives in order to threaten customers.
The Social Media People has repeatedly declined to explain these genuine recordings or to demonstrate that the 2 'fake' individuals are real people.
Strangely - both voices sound very similar to that of someone at The Social Media People who rants regularly on this forum
Market user; your private investigator? bit intimidating I think! Tom McVeys' using a differing login? Similar innuendos but the same bollocks; as stated Tom your card has been marked, see you in court (you know the place that you are familiar with) with all your different pseudo names that you use such as as being a solicitor, non existent company director etc.
Tom you and your 'empire' are clutching at straws, sad! I am not an administrator, or own other complaints sites that decry your ineptness.
UTH says it all; do you think we are all as stupid as a coke hungover paranoid ###? Think again, you are a little boy who has been caught with his pants down, and daddy no thumbs with the rest of the McVey empire are equally as bad. Continually trying to reinvent themselves and place smoke around the 'core business' Net 66!
Incidentally my comments on this particular blog have only recently occurred due to the abysmal way in which I was treated by your company! Am I being detrimental and extremely critical? Dead right I am, and I wonder why?
im in damp prrofin edsarn, and do some building aswel. damm good i am beter than at spelin anywya. lol! and i ask people wher they got my number form on every call evre as i use googol as well.
an infromer28 i know you was that steve jone guy. why jus think im ling becaus i dont agree with you.
i hav come to shar my opinians not get insulted jst becaus i didnt share sam view doent make me lik somone whos against you. why preteend to be somone else then admit itis you. i can imagin pretendding to be somone elso to complain, ive done it in th past but dont ad mit it. lol!
I was called today from this absolute disgusting excuse of a business. I unfortunately after much persuassion said I would go for the "one of " £99 plus vat (Im sure it was for 3 months but I got the call Feb and deferred til June). I am a struggling independent business with NO money and they have taken money out of my account for 2 months. I am so busy working all the hours god sends to survive and they called me today just because their payment hadnt gone through! I was totally shocked they had been taking money and they prob not been paid as I probably have no money in the account! The woman was a total ### and obviously now reading this realise I have been totally conned. I told her I would NEVER have signed up to anything more than that one payment and it was only the "treasures" they promised my small business and in fact the demographic I chose includes loads of people I know and not one, including myself have ever seen the ad. Its a con. Total con. I now have to gp through the stress and onconvenience of what appears to be now the norm.. threatening letters and the like. Something I really need when I am at breaking point anyway. I hope you can sleep at night Social Media Group, as I wont be. I am thinking your sales people are on commission.. you talk through the "scripted wording that EVERYBODY READS) and then they probably record you from her saying, right I have gone through the terms and you accept and you say yes.. WHEN YOU PROVIDE ME THE TAPE WITH ME AGREEING TO £120 A MONTH GOING OUT MY ACCOUNT AND ME SAYING YES, i WILL GLADLY PAY THE REST. UNTIL THEN I WILL BE LOOKING TO TAKE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST YOU. If it one mere sales person in the wrong, then you need to get that sales person into HR for failing to disclose imperative details! And you need to follow up with a contract of sorts! You could have just finished me and my business! EVIL COMPANY
Lady 1000; On your bank / credit card statement, who does it say took your money? If it does not say TSMP (The Social Media People) but another company contact your Bank / Credit Card and demand a 'Cash Back' as you are not contracted to anyone, and the t & c's that they refer to, you could run a steam engine through and they would not hold up in court.
A lot of hassle, but that is what TSMP are hoping, but you will get your money back; Yet another satisfied customer!
Morning all,
Lady1000, can you please contact me with your customer number and I will immediately look into your case and get s speedy resolution. Might I add, we are NOT a con, you 100% will have had the full terms explained to you. I am happy to provide any call START TO FINISH so you can understand clearly. You will have also been sent the terms and forwarded to them on our website. I am sorry if you have miss-understood any will work with you to come to an amicable result but, why jump to conclusion about our ethics without contacting us first?
We now know informer28 is steve badbiz jones yet again pretending to be other people to scaremonger a good business, a lot lot lot more on him to follow. badbizforum.co.uk is down & has been for days and there are some rumours going around about what is happening to him. Perhaps all the lies posted on here by him may have caught up with him.
May I add that we come here to listen to our customers, but we are fully aware of one individual logging in as multiple identities & making up lies.
Lady1000: Either contact me through here, or give us a call and we can speak about your deal in details and get a resolution as quickly & efficiently as possible.
Tom McVey you are ###, you are a scam, no one in there right mind would want to speak to such a loser as you, go and crawl back under the stone you come from, you disgust everyone, Everyone avoid this company like the plague they are they are a desease of modern day rip offs conning you all the way. You threaten people Tom and you don't even know it, its like your on Crack Cocaine or Heroin. You can say what you like about other people Tom it won't take away the fact that your nothing more than a drug addict that shags his sister. Yes everyone Tom McVey ###ed his sister when she was 12 years old, That makes him a Peadofile you bad little ###er you. Your friend died in vain in a drug war it should have been you, as your nothing more than a desease this planet should be rid of. I have been watching you ### for a long time. and when the time come you going to get it right where it hurts just like your doing to other people that are repectable.
I think all the business people reading this forum can see we are the victim of vicious competitors & what appears to be somebody with exactly the same writing patterns making insult after insult. I actually pity people who are that bitter & twisted in life. We provide a fantastic services with now, 13500+ clients & will continue to do so. The repeated personal attacks insinuations & lies prove how low some individuals will stoop to to try to bring a good thing down.
Most pf the comments on here could actually seam feasible if you did not read every single one & understand the pathetic vendetta some people seem to have developed against us. Apologies to any people with a bit of decency that they have to read such horrible comments from such horrible individuals.
We continue to be keen to assist our customers and provide our market leading services to business' across Europe.
Kind Regards
Tom McVey
Tom Mcvey
I have read this forum with interest and have to admit things are difficult to follow at times. As someone pointed out, there are 19 pages of stuff which no doubt has an affect on your company's reputation.
If you are being unfairly critiscised as you say you are I would invite you to this forum to put your side of the story:
http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/threads.php3?symbol=FREE
Please let me know if you are in agreement and I can set up a thread to discuss. One thing I have observed is the confusion regarding in house solicitors and what seems to be an identity issue concerning your directors. Therefore perhaps you could address this point first.