fraud and incompetence by Plusnet

[#1]

You are quite wrong here - fraud is taking a benefit with no intent of providing the agreed service.  Unless you can show an intent prior to contract to take money and never provide a service, then your repeated articulation of "fraud" or "fraudulence" is libellous...
What you have here is at best a tort of neglect..

Quote from: http

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

...I cannot see any intent to harm though, a mistake has been made and it is being dealt with...
or a breach of contract - if you can show that time was of essence...

Quote from: http

Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. If the party does not fulfill his contractual promise, or has given information to the other party that he will not perform his duty as mentioned in the contract or if by his action and conduct he seems to be unable to perform the contract, he is said to breach the contract.

[#2]

Quote from: TORPC

..wooden spoon contenders / winners ...

TIme this forum consider having one of these for stirring with...

[#3]

Im quite right here, thanks.  
"Misrepresentation is a concept in contract law referring to a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation"
"Fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly".
Plusnet confirmed to me in writing that an engineer would install the line on a set date - this was misrepresentation.  They then told me they would refund me within 7 days - again this was misrepresentation.  They have gained my money under false pretences and kept onto it fraudulently.  Hence fraudulent behaviour and fraud by negligent or reckless misrepresentation.
When I contacted Plusnet and asked why no engineer had called when I had an email confirming attendance dates the agent categorically stated that I had not received an email confirming attendance but merely an informational message.  This is despite the email containing the words order confirmation and "We won't need to contact you if your preferred appointment date is available".  This is negligent at best and a deliberate lie at worst.
Plusnet have read and responded to this thread and have it within their power to remove it if they feel it's libellous.  They won't because it isn't.
Additionally and FYI;  as an individual user of a forum stating an opinion, this is not regarded as libel whether it is true or not, at best its slander as per the High Court ruling in 2009 by Justice Eady.

[#4]

Quote from: unhaapy1000

Ive just received another email from these idiots saying they wont be refunding the money I paid as I threatened to charge back.

Threatened?

Quote from: unhaapy1000

I did offer a full refund of your first payment but you advised you are going to conduct a charge back this afternoon as you do not wish to wait for up to 10 working days for this to return. "

They offered a refund, you said you were going to charge back.  If they refunded you and you proceeded with a charge back you'd get your money back twice.  Perhaps you should have made it clear that a refund was acceptable and that you would not contact your bank?

Quote from: unhaapy1000

Absolutely disgraceful.

Perfectly reasonable to me...  PN have called your bluff and you're not going to lose out because you've claimed from your bank haven't you

[#5]

Plusnet have "called my bluff"?  Dear oh dear.  People like you cause so many problems because companies like Plusnet think  its OK to treat customers like dirt as fools like you think its "reasonable". No, Plusnet havent "called my bluff" as it was charged back this morning and will now cost them £40 merchant fee.  If Plusnet behaved "reasonably" they would pay the refund today and my bank wouldnt honour the charge back because I had already received the refund.  They could have saved me some delay and administration but no, they will not even do me that courtesy.
You seem to think 20 days is OK for a refund for a service that was never provided - I do not.

[#6]

Quote from: Townman

TIme this forum consider having one of these for stirring with...

Indeed as that would make for some rather interesting post(s) / Thread(s)
I wonder if PlusNet would adopt that suggestion ?
In a where anything goes (so long as it is the truth the whole truth & nothing but the truth) approach