VAT fraud of 200,000 Euros, how to obtain a refund?

JoeB-

Hi

A mobile company, Meteor, incorrectly charged 21.5% VAT for billed customers in January, 2010, even though the correct VAT rate was 21%. The VAT rate is confirmed by Revenue, both verbally, and on their website, where they deal specifically with 'billed telecommunications services', and they state that the VAT rate for bills issued in January 2010 was 21%, not 21.5% as charged by Meteor.


The Head of Customer Service, a [SNIPPED], denies any wrongdoing, and denies that Meteor ever charged an incorrect VAT rate, even though Revenue contradict what he says, and the VAT rate is clearly printed on the bill. Meteor refuse to provide a refund. So [SNIPPED] is clearly delusional, this isn't an insult, it is merely an observation, and I'm using the word delusional in its correct sense.


What options are open to me? I have reported this as a VAT fraud to Revenue, a VAT fraud potentially amounting to between 200,000 Euros and 500,000 Euros, so hardly insignificant... Revenue are investigating.


If I go to the Small Claims court I can only claim the overcharged VAT itself back, is this correct? I was only overcharged by maybe 30c, but Meteor have 1.2 million customers so it adds up overall. But the point is, I'm not going to court for 30c... I want to go to a court that can direct that Meteor compensate me for the hassle and time spent in resolving this.. and for the indiginity and stress of being lied to and dismissed by a delusional Head of Customer Service.


So in short, I wish to have a case listed for hearing in a court that can award punitive damages, to be awarded to me or to charity... is the Small Claims Court suitable for this? If not, then would it be a District Court?, or possibly would it be a Circuit Court, or some other Court?


COMREG refuse to help with this, even though the facts are clear,and can't really be disputed, they are black and white,... unless of course you're the Head of Customer Service of Meteor, in which case everything changes. It's easy to prove my case, I have the bill showing the date and the VAT rate, I have documents from Revenue showing the correct VAT rate that should have applied, .. I have made several requests to Meteor asking for clarification and a refund, I have those letters and the responses,.. the responses are fairly silly to be honest and would help my case.. so I'm confident that I would win any case I take.

Any help on this would be great.

Cheers so,
Joe

Our man in Havana

Have you tried the fraud squad?

thecommander

So you're looking to pick a fight, and then be compensated for it?

jahalpin

This isn't fraud.

Did you check the amount of your direct debit to ensure that it exactly matched the bill? Depending on the billing date, some of the bil could be chargable at the old rate and some at the new rate

As long as Meteor pay the Revenue that amount of VAT that they actually charged, then they have done nothing wrong

JoeB-

I disagree with some of the comments.. I'll prove my case now.

The following page from Revenue deals with the changeover of VAT rates.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/vat-rate-change.html

In the page linked above Revenue say...

Revenue wrote:

8.2 Telecommunications services billed before 1 January are taxable at 21.5% and telecommunications services billed on or after 1 January are taxable at 21%.

So it's clear as day... what's important is the date of the bill, not the date of the provision of the services. The info on the Revenue website is very specific, dealing specifically with 'billed telecommunications services'... and it's also very clear that it's the billing date that matters.



Meteor don't deny that they charged 21.5% in Jan,2010.. how could they?, it's clearly displayed on their bill. It's also discussed on Meteors own forums, and they acknowledge that they did charge 21.5% in Jan2010 in the discussion.

Link.... http://forums.meteor.ie/index.php?showtopic=463


Meteor do refuse to provide a refund, and they deny any wrongdoing. But they are wrong on this, and in the end I will be vindicated and proven right.




Specific comments on peoples answers..
Thecommander, what do you mean? I'm not looking to pick a fight, I merely wish not to be overcharged, is that a problem? Should I roll over and allow myself to be abused? Am I wrong in principle? Anyway, I said I'm happy if Meteor must pay money to charity, not to me, either is acceptable. Do you think that companies should be allowed to wilfully break the law with no punishment at all? I didn't force Meteor to break the law, no-one had a gun to their collective heads.


Jahalpin, you are mistaken on all the points you make I'm afraid, but no problem. As explained above (by Revenue) the lower VAT rate should have applied to the whole bill, it's not done in parts. The Direct Debit matched the bill.
On your second point, Meteor are wrong to overcharge VAT even if they submit it to Revenue. It's not Revenues money, it's Meteors customers money, and should be returned to the customers. For example, if Meteor charged 1000% VAT should customers be obliged to pay it, just so Revenue can get a windfall gain they don't deserve?
Am I wrong in principle? Its also correct to describe this as fraud, defined by Websters as..

Websters Dictionary wrote:

deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.

Meteor have perverted the truth in order to gain, and to cause people to part with money, which is considered valuable... so it's fraud. Their denial of any wrongdoing after the fact, when made aware of Revenues specific instructions, makes them more culpable.
Revenue also agree that the overcharged VAT should be returned to customers, not to Revenue.


Haddockman, many thanks for your suggestion, I will follow up on it.


Cheers so, Joe

Our man in Havana

Do let us know what happens Joe.

445279.ie

JoeBallantine wrote: »

is the Small Claims Court suitable for this? If not, then would it be a District Court?

(slightly off topic) the Small Claims court is part of the District Court

prinz

JoeBallantine wrote: »

But the point is, I'm not going to court for 30c... I want to go to a court that can direct that Meteor compensate me for the hassle and time spent in resolving this.. and for the indiginity and stress of being lied to and dismissed by a delusional Head of Customer Service.

IMO your case would be dismissed as a frivolous attempt at gaining a nuisance value settlement, you'd probably end up covering your own legal costs which would be a lot more than 30c.

Leave Revenue do their job.

JoeB-

I think you're wrong.

Meteor know the law, and they know they overcharged.

However they deny it, which is quite unbelieveable... given the weight of evidence against them.

So this can be correctly described as a deliberate case of overcharging, and then Meteor deny any wrongdoing, which is totally unfair on customers..

So it's a case of deliberate and wilful overcharging, by the Management of a large company with over a million customers... why should this be tolerated? Why would a judge dismiss this as frivilous? How else, other than going to court, could a customer obtain satisfaction in this case?, given the continuing denials by Meteor? Why should a customer accept and pay an overcharged bill?, because the amount is small, is that it?

I'd expect a judge to be totally disgusted as Meteors behaviour and lies, and to throw the book at them. Can you think of or imagine any justification at all that Meteor could offer for their deliberate lies and overcharging?.. I certainly can't and so I'd expect their actions to be viewed with disgust by any judge.

prinz

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Why would a judge dismiss this as frivilous?

Simply because it's not worth you taking a case against them tbh. What you want is not your 30c back but sounds like compensation for taking the case etc and some sort of 'emotional distress' element.

Our man in Havana

Meteor will never allow such a case see the inside of a courtroom. These big companies are slow to allow their internal affairs be discussed in a court of law.

jahalpin

It was very unfair of the Revenue to give so little notice about the changeover in VAT, especailly considering that December is, by far, the busiest month of the year for most businesses.

As stated before, if an item is vatable at 0% or 13.5% and the supplier mistakingly charges 21% or 21.5% then they must give the VAT that they actually charged over to the Revenue.

In this case Meteor, charged 21.5% when they should have charged 21% and they would have given the total VAT charged to the Revenue, therefore, no fraud has been committed

If you were to try to sue Meteor over 30c, which has been paid to the Revenue, they would be within their rights to sue you for deformation and slander and to pass any legal costs onto you.

I would be very interested to know where you actually came up with your original figure of 200k. Assuming 100,000 bill pay customers at an average of 20euro the difference is only 6,802. (100k bill pay customers for Meteo is probable a bit generous as well)

Technically, you have actually suffered no adverse financial consequences as a result of the change, as under your contract you agreed to pay a specific amount per month for your basic contract eg 20euro and that is what they have charged you.

Our man in Havana

If you were to try to sue Meteor over 30c, which has been paid to the Revenue, they would be within their rights to sue you for deformation and slander and to pass any legal costs onto you.

I don't think so somehow.

thecommander

Do you know if Meteor payed over 21 or 21.5% to the Revenue. If they paid over the full 21.5 then its the Revenue that have you're money not Meteor.

Either way, I can't see this being entertained in court for "the indiginity and stress of being lied to"

JoeB-

Jahalpin

It was the Government which gave little notice of the VAT changeover to Revenue and the people of Ireland, by producing a late budget.


Yes, companies are obliged to hand over to Revenue the VAT that they actually charge... however this doesn't mean that they can charge whatever VAT they like as long as they hand it over to Revenue... the reason for the handover rule is to prevent companies deliberately charging the wrong VAT, i.e 21% say, and then after a year or two, saying.. 'oh gosh., that should have been 13.5% all along, lets claim back all the extra VAT and make a profit off our deliberate overcharging'... . .. Revenue aren't stupid... so they make a rule that all VAT charged must be handed over, even if charged incorrectly. This is about 'windfall' gains.. a technical term.

This isn't that same as saying that companies are free to charge whatever VAT they want as long as they hand it over. Revenue will only accept the extra overcharged VAT if the customers who were overcharged can't be identified and so the VAT can't be refunded to them... if the customers who overpaid can be identified then Revenue will want the overcharged money passed back to the customers, not to Revenue.


This is fraud, according to the definition I posted above... regardless of handovers of money or not. Consider if Meteor charged 1000% VAT,... what then?, should customers be forced to pay it?



To say that Meteor could sue me for seeking a refund of an overcharged amount is totally silly and quite wrong.


Where did you get your assumption of 100,000 bill pay customers? Meteor have approx 1.2 million customers... if they have 500,000 bill pay customers and each was overcharged by 40c then that would be 200,000 Euro.



How have I not suffered a financial loss? I have been overcharged by 30c... it's simple.. .I can't understand how you can say that isn't a loss. I accept it's a small amount... but it can't be described as 0.00... how can 30c be described as 0c?



The commmander.
I can't find out if Meteor passed over the VAT or not?.. how could I do that? The Revenue Investigation will find that out.. I can't. As explained above, even if it was passed over it should still be refunded to the overcharged customers, and if Revenue decide that the overcharged customers can be identified they will likely insist on that. Revenue have no desire to keep overcharged amounts for themselves.


We'll have to disagree on whether or not being lied to deliberately by a large company is acceptable or not... I feel it's unacceptable, you obviously think it's ok.

Cheers so,

JoeB-

jahalpin

Incidentally, using the figures you gave... 100,000 customers paying 20 euro each, the overcharged VAT would be between 8,230.45 and 8,264.46, depending on some necessary choices that must be made, ... not 6,802

Cheers so

thecommander

Probably the best thing for you to do is go talk to some legal people in person and start the process. I'd advise getting the most expensive team you can muster and see how you get on. Dying to know the results and if the judge throws or laughs you out of court.

JoeB-

Thanks for that advice, much appreciated. I was unsure whether or not I should employ 25 to 30 barristers or just some yellow-pack solicitor... I reckon now I'll go for the 25 to 30 barristers, and maybe a retired judge or two as well if possible.

Cheers so, :cool:

thecommander

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Thanks for that advice, much appreciated. I was unsure whether or not I should employ 25 to 30 barristers or just some yellow-pack solicitor... I reckon now I'll go for the 25 to 30 barristers, and maybe a retired judge or two as well if possible.

Cheers so, :cool:

Thats the spirit.

MagicSean

Just so I am clear. Is 30 cent the total they owe you or is it 30 cent per call?

JoeB-

yes, it's 30c in total.

So it's a small amount.. I agree.

It's the attitude of Meteor that's the problem. They have over a million customers, so taking a small amount off each of them adds up. Even if they pass it onto Revenue it's still wrong.

dermot_sheehan

Have you considered writing to Revenue's enforcement division?

30c is far too de minimis an amount to cahse through the courts system, but revenue would be interested as to whether that money was remitted to them.

JoeB-

Yes, I have informed Revenue, the Investigations Branch, over the phone,.. just recently. I gave Meteor four or five months to sort it out... they failed to do so and they still deny any wrongdoing.. so I had no choice but to report it. I'm going to follow that verbal complaint up with a written complaint to Revenue. Comreg as well are unprepared to help, although they have helped other people in similar circumstances.

I wouldn't take the court case unless punitive damages could be awarded.. either to me or to charity. The point is I shouldn't have to accept being lied to by Senior Management within Meteor.. which is why I'd consider the Court Case.


I'm actually seriously thinking of having a case listed.. even if only in the Small Claims for the 30c... I reckon Meteor might wish to settle out of court.. if they did I would be asking for about 20K, if there was a confedeniality agreement, or maybe 3K to 5K if there was no confidentiality agreement and I was free to publish the details... otherwise I'd be happy to go to Court., apart from having to take time off work.

Cheers so

prinz

There is no punitive damages for you in this case as far as I can see.

dermot_sheehan

You would not be entitled to punitive damages,

look for a case called Rookes v. Barnards

Robbo

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I'm actually seriously thinking of having a case listed.. even if only in the Small Claims for the 30c... I reckon Meteor might wish to settle out of court.. if they did I would be asking for about 20K, if there was a confedeniality agreement, or maybe 3K to 5K if there was no confidentiality agreement and I was free to publish the details... otherwise I'd be happy to go to Court., apart from having to take time off work.

Cheers so

I'm slightly curious as to how in this (Isaac) Wunderful case of yours, a confidentiality agreement would work given that you've already informed us all here on Boards?

Other than that, by all means go ahead and claim your 30c in the Small Claims. If you win, it can cover the bank charges for lodging the cheque...

JoeB-

Well, that case (Rookes v. Barnards) is an English case.

Wikipedia wrote:

The only three situations in which damages are allowed to be punitive, i.e. with the purpose of punishing the wrongdoer rather than aiming simply to compensate the claimant, are in cases of,

1. Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government.
2. Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself.
3. Where a statute expressly authorises the same.

Number 2 would apply to me, if Meteor have not passed the extra VAT to Revenue.


Even if the VAT was passed over Number 2 could still be said to apply, as Meteor did have the use of the overcharged money for a period of time, until they handed it over to Revenue.


Thanks for all the input, it's quite useful.

Prinz. Could you explain that a little more please?


Are people basically saying that companies with huge customer bases can overcharge all the customers a little, and there's very little an individual customer can do?


Maybe several of us should take a class action suit...

thecommander

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Are people basically saying that companies with huge customer bases can overcharge all the customers a little, and there's very little an individual customer can do?


Maybe several of us should take a class action suit...

Nah, they're saying let the Revenue do their job first.

JoeB-

Robbo wrote: »

I'm slightly curious as to how in this (Isaac) Wunderful case of yours, a confidentiality agreement would work given that you've already informed us all here on Boards?

Other than that, by all means go ahead and claim your 30c in the Small Claims. If you win, it can cover the bank charges for lodging the cheque...

Well, the confidentiality agreement would cover the details of the settlement itself. If Meteor wanted to settle out of court it would likely be to avoid public embarrassment.. so if I was free to shout about the case from the rooftops then there'd seem to be little point in settling.

But maybe they'd also want to avoid a judgement against them in a court, in which case a settlement would work, even if not confidential.


I reckon I can lodge cheques for free, so that's alright eh? Easy 30c.

I checked the bill... it's actually 33c.. so even more reason to go ahead, an extra 3c of a reason.



:o:rolleyes::):mad::(:eek:P:cool::pac:

prinz

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Prinz. Could you explain that a little more please?

Explain what?

There are no grounds for you to receive punitive damages given the facts you have presented so far. You have outlined two reasons behind your argument so far in order to get Meteor to pay you off for taking the case - which is not a legitimate legal action, and your 'problems' at dealings with the company - which again do not IMO present grounds for a claim for damages due to emotional distress.

Keep complaining and get Meteor to knock 30 cent off your next bill.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Maybe several of us should take a class action suit...

Maybe you should put the Ally McBeal boxset away.

JoeB-

if you search for 'Meteor Vat Fraud' on Google this thread in number 2... , and I also posted on AskAboutMoney, which is number 1... but the thread on AAM was deleted by the moderators.


If you search for 'VAT fraud' then the deleted AAM thread is number 2. :rolleyes:

JoeB-

prinz wrote: »

Keep complaining and get Meteor to knock 30 cent off your next bill.

33c

thecommander

JoeBallantine wrote: »

if you search for 'Meteor Vat Fraud' on Google this thread in number 2... , and I also posted on AskAboutMoney, which is number 1... but the thread on AAM was deleted by the moderators.


If you search for 'VAT fraud' then the deleted AAM thread is number 2. :rolleyes:

You should be in SEO.

JoeB-

prinz wrote: »

... which is not a legitimate legal action ...

What does that mean? Want to explain that so it makes sense?

prinz

JoeBallantine wrote: »

What does that mean? Want to explain that so it makes sense?

It would be a nuisance claim. Threatening legal action in the hope a company settles/compensates. Basically you would be blackmailing the company into settling while threatening them with court which could cost a lot more in the long run... and that's not what the courts are there for.

Our man in Havana

They would just hand over the 30 cent and be done with it.

JoeB-

prinz wrote: »

It would be a nuisance claim. Threatening legal action in the hope a company settles/compensates. Basically you would be blackmailing the company into settling while threatening them with court which could cost a lot more in the long run... and that's not what the courts are there for.

I think you've misunderstood both my purpose and my intentions. Have you read my posts?

I'm not threatening legal action, I'm considering it. If you or the other party see this as a threat then so be it, but I didn't use those words, nor would I.

I'd be taking the action in the hope that I'd win, and that the property stolen from me would be returned.


Hmmm... a nuisance claim... how can you possibly think that? I have been illegally overcharged.. isn't that what the courts are for? If not that, then what?


What action do you suggest,.. roll over and take it up the ass? What other option but court is there? Meteor know full well what they were doing and they've chosen to f**k their customers over,... that's no-ones problem or no-one elses fault but Meteors.

prinz

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood both my purpose and my intentions. Have you read my posts?

Yes, I have. You've made your intentions quite clear. See this...

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I'm actually seriously thinking of having a case listed.. even if only in the Small Claims for the 30c... I reckon Meteor might wish to settle out of court.. if they did I would be asking for about 20K..

First you say you'd go to court even if only for your 30c back, but you also said..

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I want to go to a court that can direct that Meteor compensate me for the hassle and time spent in resolving this.. and for the indiginity and stress of being lied to and dismissed by a delusional Head of Customer Service...

..and..

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I wouldn't take the court case unless punitive damages could be awarded..

Basically says to me your hoping that if you initiate legal proceedings, Meteor would offer to settle, and you'd ask for your idea of 'punitive damages' i.e. a lot more than 33c?

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I'd be taking the action in the hope that I'd win, and that the property stolen from me would be returned...

No, you said you'd want 20K, 3-5K, etc. Not 33c. Looking for 33c is fine if you are willing to bear the costs involved of going to court and all that entails, and compensation, and awards for the 'stress' of being 'lied to'.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Hmmm... a nuisance claim... how can you possibly think that? I have been illegally overcharged.. isn't that what the courts are for? If not that, then what?...

As above.

JoeB-

so you'd just take it up the ass then and like it?

eth0_

Please tell me this is a joke.

Don't waste the time of the legal system dealing with a hissy fit over 30c. You are (potentially) right about it on a larger scale. I would suggest you approach a newspaper and let them print a story about it. If it's true.

Tom Young

Am beginning to think this thread has run its course.

JoeB-

I'm amazed and surprised at the attitudes expressed..

People seem to think that large companies can deliberately overcharge customers, then deny it into the ground, and walk off into the sunset 200,000 Euros richer..

Well, I'm sorry, I think that is criminal, and should be addressed or punished. So many weak weeping willows on Boards it seems, who after being abused would simply say, yes please, do it again please.

Does anyone know anything about slippery slopes, and lack of regulation, .. and deliberate law breaking??? In other countries this would be taken seriously, not dismissed as a joke and a 'hissy fit'. [SNIPPED]

I'm now more determined than ever.. I think I'll have the case listed in the Small Claims court in Bray. Someone has to keep people in line, and if the government or regulators won't do it then it falls to me it seems.

Meteor stole from me, as surely as if they had broken into my house and stolen my jewellry... why do people think accounting crime isn't a crime?

Our man in Havana

Well, I'm sorry, I think that is criminal, and should be addressed or punished. So many weak weeping willows on Boards it seems, who after being abused would simply say, yes please, do it again please.

That is typical of most Irish people. Quick to complain but then do nothing about it.

Tom Young

We are done with this topic now. Good luck with your action OP.

In terms of the allegation of Crime, mistake, etc. There is no formal proof on this thread in relation to same, save for the remarks of one poster.


The 2007 Communications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, amending the 2002 Principal Act section 44 and 45 which deals with overcharging by Communications Undertakings.