🚀 go-pugleaf

> >adaniline@comdale.com wrote:
> >
> >> I have just searched USENET through DejaNews for "Ultinet" - 9 of 10
> >> postings tell terrifing stories of fooled Ultinet custumers.
> >> Unfortunatly
> >> I did not do this research before buying a computer.
> >
> >Ah!  Found it!  Use dejanews, keyword ULTINET and try the date
> >1995/12/09.  Save the message and use it as a text book . . .
> >
> 
>   I found it and here it is cut and pasted.  The poor guy! :(

Yes, I exchanged numerous e-mail with the gentleman who this happened to.  
I'm surprised it's still floating about, in any form.

No doubt ULTINET is still up to their antics, judging by the original 
query.

A lesson to be learned people, it's safer to deal with reputable 
businesses.  With any major purchase, or anything that requires *SERVICE*, 
please check with your local chapter of the Better Business Bureau! (BBB)
 
> ***********************************************************************************
> 
> Hope you're NOT a lawyer for ULTINET - Peter Halani of Ultinet
> HAS threatened to sue me for libel if I don't stop posting the
> truth about Ultinet!
> In April/93 I purchased a 386sx25 notebook from Ultinet. This was
> an expensive toy (prices have dropped a LOT since then!), and I
> THOUGHT I had done my homework, settling on Ultinet, rather than
> a "name" brand because of the not inconsiderable price difference,
> ~$500, the years they had been in business, their ads promising
> "the brightest display", the "fastest service turnaround time in
> Canada", etc. Plus, I wanted a 386sx20, but they told me there
> was no stock, and offered the sx25 for the same price.
> 
> The 2-3 hour battery life turned out to be more like 20-30
> minutes, but that was pretty common for most notebooks of that
> vintage.
> After a month, there were spurious boot failures - somehow, the
> CMOS hard drive type would become altered on bootup, and the
> machine could not recognize the drive, until I accessed setup and
> corrected the drive type number. This was annoying, but did not
> prevent use of the machine. I took it in to Ultinet. Hearing
> nothing from them after a week and a half (the fastest service in
> Canada??)
> I went to Ultinet, and they told me they could find no fault with
> the computer.
> The spurious CMOS changes continued, sometimes rewriting the date
> as well.
> Another trip to Ultinet produced the same "nothing wrong" result.
> (Any COMPETENT dealer could have used diagnostic software to force
> repeated reboots, until the fault occurred!)
> Finally, in the 11th month, the power supply died. This was a
> sophisticated external supply, with minimal ventilation or
> heatsinking, that ran VERY hot, supplied two voltage levels, and
> supplied computer and battery charging simultaneously.
> Most notebook external supplies now provide ONE voltage level, with
> regulation done INSIDE the computer, and the power supply either
> powers the computer OR charges the battery (when the computer is
> off.)
> I suspect this complex, poorly cooled power supply had a lot of
> failures, and the machine was discontinued, I was "suckered" for
> one of the last, and told to "get lost" when it failed.
> Finally, in the eleventh month, the power supply failed - it would
> no longer power the computer, but only charge the battery.
> I could then use the computer for 30 minutes max, and would have to
> wait 4 hours for it to recharge.
> I returned the computer to Ultinet. After the usual week and a half
> wait, I called.
> "Oh, Yeah, - that's discontinued - no parts available, but you
> can still use it on the battery."
> You expect me to be satisfied with that?
> "Yeah - Why Not?"
> I asked to speak to the manager- Frank Wang, sales manager, came
> on the line, and promised to "special order" a new power supply.
> I waited a couple of weeks, and called again.
> "Oh, yeah - that's discontinued - no parts available."
> I asked who the manufacturer was, so that I might try myself to
> obtain a new power supply.
> "Oh, USA!", was the reply, with much snickering (it says TAIWAN,
> ROC on the power supply!).
> I drove to Ultinet. Nick, at the computer brought out my notebook.
> I asked for the manager. Frank Wang came out, indicated my
> notebook, and said, "this is probably stolen - get out of here."
> Both Frank and Nick seemed to find this quite hilarious.
> A friend had accompanied me, and started yelling. I told him
> that would get us no where, and picked up my computer and headed
> out of the store. Frank followed me, threatening to call police.
> When we reached the door, he said "give me two hundred dollars
> and I'll special order you a power supply"!!!
> I spent some time trying to track down the manufacturer (there is
> no name on the computer, power supply, or in the manuals!).
> In August, I filed suit against Ultinet in Small Claims Court.
> Ultinet did not respond, so I was awarded a default judgement.
> I then had to wait until Feb/94 for a damages trial, where I was
> awarded the price of the computer plus court costs. Ultinet did not
> show up.
> Since Ultinet did not pay, I began collection efforts, and posting
> BBS messages outlining my treatment at the hands of Ultinet.
> I then received a call from Peter Halani, who identified himself
> as part owner of Ultinet, and threatened libel proceedings if I
> continued posting messages about Ultinet (I laughed).
> He told me the messages brought to his attention were his FIRST
> knowledge of any court proceedings, and that he had NEVER
> received any notice from the courts!
> (What a laugh - the court knows that dodge all too well, and
> maintains proof of service of notice.)
> I then received a notice of motion from the court, in which Peter
> Halani requested the default judgement be overturned. In his
> accompanying affadavit, he stated that he had not shown up in
> court because his briefcase (containing the court notice - the one
> he told me he NEVER got!) was stolen from his car, so he didn't
> know the court date! (Wonder if he ever thought of phoning to
> ask?).
> On the day of the hearing (May 6th, I believe), Peter Halani
> failed to show up (again!) - remember, this was HIS motion.
> Also, on the court roster, immediately after my case, was ANOTHER
> claim against Ultinet.
> This person had hired a lawyer to represent her. She had purchased
> an Ultinet notebook. It too had power supply problems - the
> notebook case bottom got so hot she couldn't hold it, which
> damaged the plastic case. It was sent to California for repairs,
> whic apparently took six months, it was lost in customs for some
> months, was dropped (and she was informed the warranty was void
> because it had been dropped -while in THEIR care!!!!).
> When it finally emerged, the case and cover didn't match,
> the cover wouldn't latch, the plastic case was still damaged, etc.
> So, she sued, and got no response, until getting the same "I didn't
> show up because my briefcase containing HER notice (too!) was
> stolen."
> Imagine - TWO court cases, but you don't think to phone......
> As I said, Ultinet failed to appear for THEIR OWN motion,
> so it was denied, and we were awarded $100 additional damages,
> and the Judge ordered that Peter Halani was not allowed
> to file any more motions until that $100 each was paid to
> the court.
> We shared costs on a writ of seizure against Ultinet (but that
> turned out to be almost as much of a ripoff as Ultinet).
> I had earlier consulted with a collection agency, who advised
> me to issue a writ of seizure of goods and cash register contents,
> which I had done in my earlier collection efforts.
> Calls to the bailiff enquiring about the progress of this revealed
> that he had laconically visited their "former" premises, but that
> they had moved, and that he really had no knowledge of computer
> hardware!
> (Ever see a business that moved that doesn't leave LARGE signs
> in the old premises indicating where they've moved TO?)
> Couldn't the bailiff PHONE?
> Being a short-tempered, persistent, dutch farmer, I drove to
> Ultinet's new premises, intending to make a small purchase and
> pay with plastic, on the chance that the merchant visa number
> on the transaction slip might lead me to some assets.
> A purchase was not necessary, as I was able to note the number
> from an unattended card imprinter.
> I will not divulge how, but in consultation with the other
> plaintiff, we managed to trace that number to a bank account.
> We both went to the court to file garnishees on the Ultinet
> bank account.
> The court clerk told us that Peter Halani had filed a new motion,
> to have the default judgements overturned, and hold a trial, the
> reason for his failure to appear at his earlier motion being that
> "he was out of town on business."
> (Court rules allow only excuses such as "serious illness").
> This motion was illegal, because the $100 in damages had not
> yet been paid. The court clerk admitted they had erred in
> accepting the motion for filing, and called the bailiff, who
> told us to call the next day and it would all be straightened out.
> (They then phoned Halani to come in and pay!)
> The court clerk then refused to accept our garnishees of Ultinet's
> bank account.
> We became rather hostile, and she finally backed down, and accepted
> them.
> This was the week of the Computer show, and we practically
> begged the clerk to expedite the mailing of the garnishee
> notices, since there were certain to be funds (from the show)
> in the account. However, those infuriating, inept, stonewalling
> swivel servants insisted the garnishee notices would have to
> undergo the normal two week delay in someone's "OUT" basket first.
> On Monday morning, the other plaintiff's lawyer personally
> saw to it that the garnishees WERE mailed that day.
> On Friday, I called the bank to enquire if the garnishee
> had been received and honoured.
> It had just arrived. Peter Halani had also delivered a copy
> of an amended notice of motion, now legal, since he had paid
> the $100 damages (after being tipped off by the court clerks
> office).
> THis amended motion reuested the garnishee be set aside until
> a new trial. This was, of course, an attempt to bamboozle the
> bank into thinking the notice of motion meant the garnishee
> was on hold. I told the bank official that was what the notice was
> requesting, but that, until a judge heard the motion, and ruled
> on it, the garnishee had to be paid into court. The bank checked
> with the court, and did send the monies to the court.
> Peter Halani's affadavit attached to the motion now stated that
> my computer had been "abused and damaged, and was out of warranty
> as well."
> Knowing the funds WERE in court was a major milestone - collecting
> on a judgment is much more challenging than getting a judgement.
> Time marched on....in the meantime, I had filed for an
> "Examination for Discovery" (of why he hadn't paid, what assets
> he had, etc.) of Peter Halani. Now that monies were in the
> court, I hoped to spare myself yet another court appearance,
> and so attempted to cancel this, but there was insufficent
> notice time to do so, and I showed up, but, as expected,
> AGAIN, Halani did not.
> On Nov. 16th the hearing of Ultinet's latest motion took
> place. Once again, Ultinet failed to appear. Their motion to
> overturn the default judgment was denied, and we were awarded
> an additional $150 in damages for being dragged to another
> hearing for no reason than Ultinet playing the system to
> get out of paying.
> The lawyer for the other party, knowing the swivel savaants
> in the Clerk's office all too well by now, and fearing yet
> another motion by Halani, asked the judge to order the
> immediate payment to us of the garnishee money.
> The judge stated that wasn't necessary, since we had judgment
> in our favour, the money was there - the court HAD to release the
> funds to us.
> The lawyer replied that he had had difficulty getting the $100
> damages Halani had paid, released to his client.  (It then dawned
> on me that I had not received mine, either.) The judge told the
> lawyer to contact him if there was any difficulty.
> Out to the Clerk's office we go, and request a cheque for our
> funds.
> The clerk refused because "the judge hadn't specifically ordered
> payment."!!!
> The lawyer went back to the courtroom and spoke with the judge.
> We waited, until all other cases were heard. Then, the judge came
> out, ordered the clerk to pay out our cheues and left.
> Then, the clerk pulled out her trump card - Carol, the ONLY person
> who can sign cheques, was not in.
> When will she be in? - "I don't now."
> Will she be in today? - "Maybe"
> When? - "maybe 1 o'clock, maybe 2."
> Will she be in tomorrow? - "I dont know"
> What is her work schedule? - "I don't know."
> 
> The lawyer left, I returned at 2pm - no Carol.
> The Lawyer called the clerk's office first thing next day.
> Carol was in.
> Carol refused to issue cheques "because the judge had not ordered
> payment be made IMMEDIATELY."!!!!
> I called Carol, and asked why my $100 damages had not been
> sent to me when paid by Halani. Carol replied that "sometimes
> the judge orders damages to be held with the other funds".
> (There was NO such order in this case.)
> The Lawyer went over Carol's head. Way over.
> Carol suddenly rediscovered her cheque-writing ability.
> I photocopied my cheque, and then deposited it.
> 
> I have replaced the Ultinet with a Toshiba notebook.
> The battery life is a couple of REAL hours, and the screen
> display is several orders of magnitude brighter than the
> Ultinet.
> I did ocassionally use the Ultinet (to keep the battery alive),
> but the serial port has failed, as has the internal modem.
> What can you do with a computer that runs for twenty minutes
> every four or five hours?
> In my modemming I have received messages from others reporting
> really uncouth treatment. In my visit to Ultinet's "new"
> premises, it was obviously set up to sell systems, NOT software and
> accessories. There was nothing on display for a bailiff to seize!
> Checking Court records revealed about a dozen small claims cases
> filed against Ultinet.
> The court log only provides names, dates, and case numbers, so
> contacting plaintiffs is pretty difficult.
> I only managed to reach one other party (in addition to the case
> heard in conjunction with mine). It was A Toronto Engineering
> Firm, who purchased a notebook with docking station, on the
> assurance it would interface with a sensing unit.
> It did not, in spite of numerous Ultinet suggested upgrades.
> They settled by returning the unit for credit towards purchase
> of a number of desktop models. They reported having some memory
> problems with them, which WERE taken care of under warranty.
> There are, of course, those who are satisfied with their ULTINET
> purchase. I personally know of a notebook owner who received
> prompt, no hassle repair of a broken hinge on a notebook.
> He does claim the hinge disintegrated on its own within a few
> months.
> An aquaintance purchased a VERY expensive system from them - 16MB
> memory, 17" monitor, etc.
> Support was promised. Being elderly, he had some problems with
> Microsoft Works. He called them for help. The response - "why
> are you bothering us - call Microsoft!".
> 
> It's over - at least hopefully, although, legally, there's
> nothing to stop Ultinet from filing ANOTHER motion asking
> for a trial, and return of their money.
> After not showing up for three motions so far, though, they'd
> likely be laughed out of court.
> Believe me, this was no victory. The anger at being treated
> this way dimishes your trust in others, alters your attitude,
> makes you a little colder. Most people don't bother with the
> court route, and who can blame them - for the working person,
> many hours are needed to search registration, file claims,
> file writs, garnishees, and appear for motions. Each time, Court
> parking
> costs the price of a nice supper. Metered parking in the area is
> designed
> to expire while you're still in the court - great revenue maker!
> The courtroom procedures are concise, fair, quick.
> It is the Clerks, the beaurocrats, that turn the process
> into frustration and anger.
> They will stall, block, stonewall, and obstruct, and misinform.
> Sure, they have to deal with both sides in a dispute. Sure, the
> poor dears haven't had a raise in years - they still don't
> deserve one.
> 
> A collection agent candidly told me, "small claims court
> is designed for business to collect from people. It isn't
> meant to work the other way."
> It can, but you have to have a LOT of persistence.
> How can you avoid this situation? Ultinet, with their ten
> year record, those full-page ads, appear so solid.
> Well, check with the Better Business Bureau. They have
> complaints against Ultinet, who are on record as "very
> unco-operative." (I've added my written complaint to that record.)
> Buy a "Brand-name", i.e. major multi-national. Then, even if
> the guy you bought from gives you a hassle, you can always
> go over his head.
> In contrast with Ultinet, the first battery in my toshiba
> began giving inconsistent charge/use times. I didn't have
> to take it to Toshiba - they found me a dealer here.
> He had a new battery for me THE NEXT DAY, and he called me when
> it came in - he didn't leave me hanging for a week an a half.
> And, he didn't claim to have "Canada's Fastest Service" either!
> -!-
> 
> I hope this answers any questions about Ultinet and their customer
> dealings when you have a problem.  So far, they havn't had the balls
> to
> refute this report.
> 
> --
> D. Doucet
> Toronto, Canada
> d_doucet@netcom.ca