Topic: Alpha Technology Litecoin (Scrypt) ASIC Miner Order Batch 1 Now! - page 113. (Read 529107 times)

I stand corrected. I thought the resignation as director was his father, not his brother. Indeed there is only one appointment.

Anything goes !!!!

Just sent my registered letter.

Here you go Alpha:  RR767320495ES   

Hash now has always been proven to be better than hash later, regardless of power consumption. 44mh from here till oct would be better than 44mh oct-infinity.

Or, at this point for most Alpha customers, just spend $799 on the coin you wanted to mine, and hold it.

There is currently only one appointed director: AKRAM, MOHAMMED MUBASHER (MR) - is that who you mean?

Freezing bank accounts is hardly an option, not least because the company has had ample time to move any money out of company accounts. Legal action, bailiffs and otherwise can only take what the company has.

They are not comparable since the parameter are different even if the price is higher.
The miner price of $799 for 44Mhs miner consumes 1000Watts.
But the 50Mhs Alfa-T miner, if they deliver, consumes only 375Watts.
The lower power consuming miner can also be run for many more difficulty cycles that the counter part.
So the final out of both are different after deducting electricity expenses.
All depends only if they delivery at least in the next delivery date.

So, for 50Mh/s I made a 30% deposit of 405 pounds  = 681.674 USD (as of right now) that I wont see until probably until Oct/Nov

Now I can buy a 44Mh/s for $799
http://zoomhash.com/collections/top-sellers/products/44mhs-scrypt-asic-miner-1000w-delivery-within-10-days-or-it-is-free

Hmmm.

I don't think they will do anything unlawfully with the funds or with closure / insolvency process - whichever comes first!

As I understand it one of the directors (not the father) is a practicing accountant, for which he has spent many years studying. If they were to do anything unlawful on exit then he would not be able to a) be a company director for a number of years, or b) lawfully practice as an accountant ever again.

I think if anything these guys will close down legitimately, however that said I don't believe there will be any funds/assets left to distribute to creditors as any cash they did have has been spent at Dexcel/Foundry.

I think they will file for insolvency soon anyways. Shuffle funds/development off to another company and/or flee the country. it would not surprise me if they are out of the country right now, and all last week was a ruse to give them time to "legitimately" transfer funds and board plane. My feeling is we have lost everything anyway. I do not expect to see a penny back but they need to be brought to account for their failure to adhere to UK regulations.

I would love to know where the MD got his Masters from. Everything now stinks.

the only way to secure anything is to get an injunction on the company and i don't have enough money for that. We would need Baristers (£500 per hour) and solicitors (£250 per hour) and with all the evidence and people involved it would be a huge task sifting through the information. this is what they are relying on. so only the authorities can deal with them properly.

I didnt explain this to the end. Lock their bank accounts, commit access to dat accounts to authorities or custodians, and they have to pay out the debts based on verdict.

That will make sure that they go bankrupt and you pre-ordered guys loose money.
They may not have nothing for you to liquidate than the worthless rented ugly office shown in that picture.
It seems they are trying to deliver but a lot of other factors including their lack of capacity and experience
being a manufacturer of think kind of a hardware killed their intention.
So, I don't think they are trying to scam. They will finally deliver if you are not going for legal action and hit them.
The resultant will be filing bankruptcy if possible.
Never think of getting your money back since they have nothing in bank to give you or the legal system can take and give.

The possible option is to group all the pre-ordered customers and send some representative to discuss in person with the company owner. Understand the real problem and help them by helping you to sort it out by setting a new date.
Adjust the price & hash power as per the date. And black&white it with the help of some advocates.
This will only give you some return for your pre-order otherwise nothing going to get back than a small % refund of your pre-order, that too if you are extremely lucky.
You guys have no other choice than sorting it out like this.

Lock their bank accounts. You can do this with friends of Putin, you can do this with Alpha.

Send it via registered mail with return receipt. That will get their attention and likely will sign for it too.
[/quote]

Just about to walk to the post office with it.

Have been on to the Police in the UK and it seems that they will only take note if there is a large enough group involved

SO!

Everyone please start making complaints to
http://www.actionfraud.police.uk

please be clear about the regulatory offence under the Companies Act and the possibility of the Management at AT being a flight risk

Also do the same with
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_protection_for_the_consumer_e/consumer_citizens_advice_consumer_service_e/if_you_need_more_help.htm

We need as many people to make complaints for this to be take seriously. Even you guys who are outside the UK. Cisizens advice are a portal to Trading Standards and they can refer the case to regulatory authorities about the shares offer.

Alpha T setup in the UK. this is why i was confident about dealing with them because if they shafted us then they would have multiple agencies investigating them.



REMEMBER - EVERYONE NEEDS TO MAKE A COMPLAINT!! Get on the links above.

This is true, they do - but this is another process that takes time to implement but even with the best bailiffs in the world, what assets can they take? Answer: Only those belonging to the debtor (in this case the company itself).

Bailiffs are not the answer here. It will take months before they get into any premises (original court ruling + initial bailiff notice + initial rubbish bailiff + high court ruling + more bailiffs + `last resort' forcing entry) and once they are inside the company premises all they can take are assets that belong to company - I don't know what people are expecting those to be but I somehow doubt the company haven't thought about this already. I'm not sure what the rules are about bailiffs and company debts - the assumption here seems to be that the bailiffs can go round to companies as they can individuals.

Just sent this:-


Mr Mohammed Mubasher Akram
The Managing Director
Alpha Technologies Ltd
66 Dickenson Road
Rusholme
Manchester
M14 5HF
England


4st August 2014

RE Invoice 12677 as part of Invoice 5023  -total amount £7898.88

Dear Mr Akram,

I paid my “full payment” via bank transfer on or before the 22nd of May 2014. It has now been ten weeks since that payment and as per your terms and conditions where you stated very clearly that shipping would begin “8 to 10 week” there after. Your amended Terms and Conditions did not make any reference to this or change this and can only be regarded as still applying in the original implied distance contract.  You applied pressure to by saying there was a time limit to this to which we adhered. You have since extended this time limit a number of times to others and have attempted to allow credit card payments that have since been refunded. Moreover, you stated you increased the performance of the machine to make it more attractive. Since there is no prototype it is impossible to verify.

We are now at the ten-week threshold and your “newsletter” dated 28th of July clearly lays out that there have been developmental delays of your product.  Also it states you have had funding issues which I can only assume you have solved, most likely with payments like mine, and loans from investors or banks.

I suggest to you that you were fully aware of these developmental delays when you were applying deadlines for payment, and therefore, I suggest Alpha Technologies has deceived me and gained a pecuniary advantage over me through the use of such tactics. Moreover you manipulated my financial decision by informing me they you had increased the units performance. Not only that but it is a clear breach of any implied contract. Effectively, when we made payment, you were agreeing to supply the product no more than ten weeks hence. You have not, nor are you likely to in the next ten weeks. I am not an investor in your company I am a customer.  I dread to think of the approach Trading Standards would take and how Distance-Selling Regulations would be applied. Contrary to your assertions that mining is a business activity, I would be confident that the authorities would take a very different view, for the majority of customers they would be consumers and this is not their main business activity.

Further your estimation of “end of September” I believe is unrealistic and I do not expect you to ship before the end of the year. I would estimate from your own road map you are stalled at least four months from shipping.

I further note you “offers to increase performance” of said Viper Miner and your latest desperate offer of shares. I can only assume this is an attempt to stave off insolvency. I am concerned this is a breach of the rules of public offerings of shares.

But that is all moot. As per the 8-10 weeks delivery failure I require full refund of the total amount paid to you, both the deposit and the “full payment”. As you have breached you own terms, willfully and deceptively.  If you do not respond with a refund to this letter in the next 14 days I will take it you are unwilling to discuss terms or make a refund.

However, I am happy to seek mediation to this matter if you so prefer and would be pleased to make the arrangements necessary. Please let me know if you wish to use this route.

As you have made clear on your forums in official ”posts” your unwillingness to refund under any circumstances, here for your information I refer you to the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Reg. 3;4;5;6;7;8;9;10;17  and Amendments(2014) Reg. 2Para 3 Reg9(1A); part 4A, regs. 27B and 27H.  Please also refer to schedule 1 S6(b);S7;S14;S20;S26

Also Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013, Reg. 19;20;38 and 34.

Finally the Companies act 2008, and Distance Selling Regulations 2000


 Yours sincerely

You get the claim sent to the high court for £60. Then High Court Sheriffs have much more powers.

Your other points are the same as my concerns. Hence why i am writing to the Police Fraud unit to ask them to investigate and suspend their right to flee the country. I am also concerned they have illegally offered shares in the company as they seem to have done and under UK law this sort of canvassing/offering is illegal. They are essentially trying to get everyone to pay up through deception. This is not good business practice.

I would consider stopping my claim if they have a word with Dexel and make the miner useful for another algo, they missed the boat for this one.

How about:

"There's a sucker born every minute?"  -P.T. Barnum

The law firm they have used in the past is Gately LLP (tel 0161 836 7700), contact name is Leigh Whittaker http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/leigh-whittaker/28/417/108 at
Ship Canal House
98 King Street
Manchester
M2 4WU

You also cannot just `appoint private bailiffs' and expect to get results in this kind of case. They aren't above the law and without going through court they have no more rights to get money back than anyone else does - they can't expect to gain entry to any private premises and certainly cannot steal things. The cases they tend to get results for are those where there is an indisputable debt and neither party would argue about the validity of the claim. This isn't the case with AT and they would more-than-likely just tell the bailiffs to leave.

I don't quite understand the mentality of this thread, which seems to be clogged up almost-daily with arguments demonstrating something which has already been done-to-death. If you paid by credit card, then you have a good chance to get money back - in the UK the credit card company shares some of the risk of the transaction, so even in the case of the company going into administration the credit card company should still cover some of the loss themselves (in fact in this case there would be no need to argue that there has been any DSR-breach or otherwise-untoward behaviour).
The problem with the route of court-action is that once AT don't show up to court, and the customer is favoured in the verdict, then what? The court-appointed bailiffs are pretty useless and actually getting the money that the court says you are owed can be much harder than winning in court. The reason this is likely is that it is my understanding that AT has very little in the way of corporate debt - so any CCJ won't matter to the company as it doesn't have a financial reputation to worry about. It has no need for credit in the future and presumably already has manufacturing contracts set-up - so who cares about CCJs? They clearly aren't in it for the long term and the company looks set to wind-up after this debacle is over anyway. My guess is that if AT resists any court judgement against them, they will be able to hold out until September anyway and if everything else goes to plan, might be able to shake off the legal troubles long enough to post out some orders.