08432896037

1. Anthony Simister who runs TAPA and The Nuisance Calls Forum was found guilty of running a scam advertising company

http://high-court-justice.vlex.co.uk/vid/-52636657

2. He is now a disqualified director and thus banned from managing a company or partnership

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//dirsec

Disqualified Directors Details

Addresses displayed are supplied by the court or other disqualifying authority when notifying the disqualification

Name :     ANTHONY MICHAEL SIMISTER
Address :    HIGHFIELD HOUSE CONGLETON ROAD
SCHOLAR GREEN
STOKE 0N TRENT
Postcode :    ST7 3SY
Date of Birth :    23/09/1980
Nationality :    BRITISH
Number of disqualification orders : 1

Disqualified From: 22/03/2006 To: 21/03/2015
Company No:
Reason : CDDA 1986 S8

                    8: Disqualification after investigation of company, under companies and other legislation.

The Secretary of State may accept an undertaking from a company director under sections 7 or 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

3. Address Match to the above:

On www.nuisancecalls.org.uk

The Nuisance Calls Forum
Highfield House
Congleton Road
Stoke On Trent
ST7 3SY

enquiries@nuisancecalls.org.uk


4. The Nuisance Calls Forum links to TAPA on its front page:

On www.nuisancecalls.org.uk

Useful Resources

Stop Sponsorship Advertising Sales Calls to Your Business www.tapa.co.uk


5. TAPA links to The Nuisance Calls Forum on its front page:

On www.tapa.co.uk

Bottom left TNCF panel:
www.nuisancecalls.org.uk


6. Previous www.nuisancecalls.org.uk Address:

http://web.archive.org/web/20121207000803/http://nuisancecalls.org.uk/

www.nuisancecalls.org.uk

The Nuisance Calls Forum
27 Old Gloucester Street
London
WC1N 3AX

enquiries@nuisancecalls.org.uk

7. The same address as TAPA:

https://www.tapa.co.uk/disclaimer.php
TAPA is a Partnership firm. The Partners can be contacted by way of writing to;
The Partners, TAPA,
27 Old Gloucester Street,
London,
WC1N 3AX

By the way The Call Register Company DO have a website

The Call Register Company - are they fiendish scammers too, Sinders? We seem to be over-run with vermin.

Did you call the courts, police, trading standards, or ico? The info about the ruling has been repeated that many times it's just nonsensical. Only in the sense that 4 complaints were made and in the ruling the asa actually say although the info was on the site because it was still posible for someone to miss it they upheld the 4 complaints. I still use talk talk even though for 3 or 4 years they were the most complained about service provider, a mantle recently taken by orange (yes, the mobile phone giant) but I'm sure they will still have customers for many years.

If you ask trading standards about them not putting a name on the site they pretty much say they are aware and alow it. Speaks volumes.

Report them to OFT for it as companies house have no power as it is (or most certainly seems to be) an unlimited partnership not an LLP. It seems that like your own and many posters before you on this very thread have been "reporting" them for years, are you not puzzled as to why they are still allowed to do what they do? Is it maybe because the powers that be let them for very OBVIOUS  reasons ;-) . . . . . . They actually help!

Anyway, final point, is a complaints procedure not ther when people are not happy with a service not to go to and say, "I saw a bogus post from a total stranger telling me I should complain, so i am, yet i do not have a problem with them?

it seems a bit too personal on here when posters that don't come on with a grievence but just regurgitate very very old posts and almost demand people make complaints but seem uninterested if people actualy have any reason to. It's almost as if the reason is because tapa is having a very negative impact on that person. Now, if tapa is helping people that have been conned, I ask who possibly could want them shut down so very badly?haha!#transparent!

Sinders and peace this thread is about tapa. If you call the company that owns the mail drop they will not give you actual adresses but they will confirm the post goes to different addresses for tapa and the call registry thing. Seems strange if they were 1 of the same?!

"Report them to OFT for it as companies house have no power as it is (or most certainly seems to be) an unlimited partnership not an LLP."

1. So TAPA, The Advertising Protection Agency, is an "unlimited partnership", defined within the BIS document http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business ... or-business.pdf , as a Partnership and thus an unincorporated legal form, the distinguishing feature of unincorporated forms being that they no separate legal personality.

Partnership

A Partnership is a relatively simple way for two or more legal persons to set up and run a business together with a view to profit. A partnership can arise, without any formal agreement, when people carry on a business in common, but typically there is agreement to trade as a partnership. Partners will usually draw up a legally binding partnership agreement, setting out such matters as the amount of capital contributed by each partner and the way in which they will share the profits (and losses) of the business.  
Again the Partnership has no separate legal personality. Partners share the risks, costs and responsibilities of being in business. Because partners generally bear the consequences of each other’s decisions, partners usually manage the business themselves, though they can hire employees. Partners usually raise money for the business out of their own assets, and / or with loans, although again being unincorporated limits borrowing in practice, and not being a company with a share capital prevents the
business itself from raising equity finance by issuing shares.

Each partner is self-employed and pays tax on this basis on their share of the profits: The partnership itself and each individual partner must make annual self-assessment returns to HMRC, and the Partnership must keep records showing business income and expenses. Legal persons other than individuals – such as Limited Companies or Limited Liability Partnerships – can also be partners in a partnership. They are treated like any other partner except that they have additional tax and reporting obligations – for example
companies must pay corporation tax rather than income tax on their profits from the partnership.

2. And that TAPA is not a:

i) Limited Partnership

Not to be confused with a Limited Liability Partnership (see below) – a Limited Partnership has two sorts of partner: general partners and limited partners. The form is similar to a Partnership, with the main differences being that the limited partners may not be involved in the management of the business and their liability is limited to the amount that they have invested in the partnership. Note that limited partners are different from ‘sleeping’ partners in a Partnership or Limited Partnership, who do not take part in running the business but remain fully liable for its debts.  Limited partnerships must register at Companies House, and do not come into existence until they are registered.  Changes to the partnership must also be registered

ii) Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)

A Limited Liability Partnership is a body corporate with a separate legal personality similar to a company. Unlike in a normal partnership, the members of an LLP enjoy limited liability as the name suggests liability is limited to the amount of money they have invested in the business and to any personal guarantees they have given to raise finance. Each member takes an equal share of the profits, unless the members' agreement specifies otherwise.  

Much like a Partnership, each non-corporate member of an LLP needs to register as selfemployed with HMRC, and both the LLP itself and each individual member must make annual self-assessment returns HMRC. Non-corporate members of an LLP pay income tax and national insurance contributions on their share of the profits. Additionally, LLPs must register and file accounts and annual returns at Companies House. At least two members must be “designated members” who hold additional responsibilities – it is they who appoint auditors and sign off and file the accounts at Companies House.

Limited Liability Partnerships have much more freedom than companies over arranging their internal affairs, for example in the way in which decisions are made, and the way in which profits are distributed to members.

iii) Nor a Sole Trader, Unincorporated Association, or any type of incorporated legal form such as a Limited Company.  

2) Given the above, and that the The Business Names Act 1985 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/7 ) requires the disclosure of the names of current partners where the firm (in this case TAPA) has a place of business (which in TAPA's case is 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AX) and carries on business in Great Britain under a business name (TAPA) and which does not consist exclusively of the surnames of all of the partners, why are the partners so reluctant to comply with the The Business Names Act 1985 and not publish their names?

3) Given that TAPA by definition has no separate legal personality...

i) when an individual or company instruct TAPA, who exactly are they entering into a contract with?

ii) How can a third party conduct due-diligence if the partners are unknown?

iii) Bring legal proceedings for e.g. breach of contract if the partners are unknown?

"If tapa are on the run how is it last week they helped me recover money through my credit card company that scam advert companies duped me out of?"

You do not need the TAPA scammers to get a charge back on a credit card (nor debit card) from the scam advert companies that fund and collaborate with TAPA . If you are unsure of how to go about it look at the honestly run and impartial CAB, Which? Magazine or MoneySavingExpert sites or call your credit card company. Unsurprisingly TAPA are also exposed as scam artists on the MoneySavingExpert site:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3611601

1. Report them to the ICO: www.snapsurveys.com/swh/surveylogin.asp?k=134674895144

"Tell us about unwanted marketing text messages and telephone calls you have received. If you've had an unwanted marketing call or message we want to know about it. Please provide as much information as possible to help us investigate the organisations responsible for sending these marketing communications."

The ICO can fine them £500,000 for repeatedly contacting you against your wishes.

2. Action Fraud for attempted fraud, actual fraud or misrepresentation with intent to defraud.

http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/report-a-fra ... crime-questions

So did you call trading standards etc . . . You know, just to ask why they allow tapa to be exempt. They have a good explanation you know!

Any reason you have not yet? It's easy. Mostly better than trying to scare off victims of fraud from getting help. Copying and pasting law is easy but doesn't help in this case does it?!

"So did you call trading standards etc"
Should I?
Is there anything else you would like to disclose?
etc being?

"You know, just to ask why they allow tapa to be exempt."
Exempt from what?

"They have a good explanation you know!"
Which is?

"Any reason you have not yet?"
Contacts for Staffordshire, Cheshire, City of London and Manchester Trading Standards collected
Still ascertaining which others may need to be simultaneously contacted.

"It's easy. Mostly better than trying to scare off victims of fraud from getting help."
- The "victims of fraud" you refer to are defrauded by support publishing firms.
- These "victims of fraud" are then in turn contacted by TAPA to 'protect' and the fraud continues
- TAPA is run by Anthony Simister (and Partners). Simister was convicted of running a support publishing firm and defrauding companies http://high-court-justice.vlex.co.uk/vid/-52636657
- I do hope that the verifiable evidence does scare them off from using TAPA and providing TAPA with their card details and being threatened by debt collection calls when the victims realise they have been conned twice
- The above amounts to running a protection racket - see below *
- Fraud victims should contact www.actionfraud.police.uk and not the TAPA protection racket

Does promoting fraud not concern you?
Do you support protection rackets?

"Copying and pasting law is easy but doesn't help in this case does it?!"
Indeed it does and I do so because linking to the facts and legislation helps to...
-  neatly highlight why TAPA are so reluctant to disclose who the Partners really are.
-  that TAPA pay scant regard to normal business practice and legislation
-  permits those defrauded or not to conduct due-diligence, risk assessment and come to an informed decision about the true risks of engaging with TAPA and the benefits of avoiding a protection racket that has no legal identity, which is headed by a convicted fraudster, Anthony Simister, or of being deceived by any number of its own and affiliated websites such as e,g. www.theadvertisingprotectionagency.co.uk **

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)
  Domain Name: THETELEMARKETINGCALLSFORUM.COM
     Created on: 29-Aug-12
     Expires on: 29-Aug-14
     Last Updated on: 02-Sep-12

  Registrant:
  Anthony Simister
  Grosvenor House
  3 Chapel Street
  Congleton, Cheshire CW12 4AB
  United Kingdom

  Administrative Contact:
     Simister, Anthony  enquiries@theadvertisingprotectionagency.co.uk **
     Grosvenor House
     3 Chapel Street
     Congleton, Cheshire CW12 4AB
     United Kingdom
     07872841055

  Technical Contact:
     Simister, Anthony  enquiries@theadvertisingprotectionagency.co.uk **
     Grosvenor House
     3 Chapel Street
     Congleton, Cheshire CW12 4AB
     United Kingdom
     07872841055

  Domain servers in listed order:
     NS19.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
     NS20.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

* Protection Racket as defined by e.g. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

"A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a criminal group or individual coerces a victim (usually a business) to pay money, supposedly for protection services against violence or property damage. Racketeers coerce reticent potential victims into buying "protection" by demonstrating what will happen if they don't—they damage the victims' property. In most cases, the racketeers do not actually protect their client from anything but the racketeers themselves, and their "protection" is merely extortion. However, if their victim is seriously threatened by a third party, sometimes gangsters will protect their source of revenue."

"Legitimate businesses are not the only victims of protection racketeers. Other criminals are also targeted, since they cannot ask police to stop the extortion. However, for that same reason, criminals sometimes actively seek to buy this "protection". Paradoxically, in a parasitic relationship, the parasite both damages the host and prefers that the host remain healthy. Thus, when criminals are cheated or abused (e.g., a cocaine dealer is swindled by his supplier) they cannot turn to the police and instead rely on powerful gangsters to protect the gangsters' income."

"The person who periodically visits the victim to collect protection payments is called a "bag man"."

** The Advertising Protection Agency aka TAPA

Eastway, if you have evidence contact the police and BIS Company Investigations.

The police run a witness protection scheme if you feel you are in danger from TAPA and you are concerned about being declared a super-grass. The BBC explain it well http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20856420

If you are concerned about your credit card details being in the hands of the support publishing firm or TAPA there is a CAB near TAPA and Simister's registration address at CW12 4AB.

See www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22CW12+4AB%22+scam

CAB will advise you how to obtain a charge-back.

Cheshire East Citizens Advice Bureau,
Dean House,
Chapel Street,
Congleton,
CW12 4AB

Now you are just being childish! I said at no point I was dissatisfied with them so your remarks about witness protection really highlight your intellect. The comments I have made have been in direct response to your posts so I am puzzled to why you find them confusing.

I re-iterate for your benefit that trading standards say they are aware tapa does not display info others are required to by law and they have no concerns about tapa. When they make those comments it reasures far greater than some random copy and paste fanatic.

I think it's evidently a waste of time communicating on here as still it would seem you have not made the calls to get 1st hand info from government offices or the police. You are relying heavily on regurgitated babble to "warn" of tapa but seem to have no actual issue as a customer. Very strange! You seem uninterested in the alegation you are simply one of the rogue companies tapa shuts down which would suggest that I'm bang on the money. Have a nice life, adios!

1. "Now you are just being childish! I said at no point I was dissatisfied with them so your remarks about witness protection really highlight your intellect. The comments I have made have been in direct response to your posts so I am puzzled to why you find them confusing."

- Eastway, I am helping you. Everyone, including the defrauded and those engaged in fraud, are entitled to protection if they assist in a prosecution and feel at risk. It is precisely because you are so well informed about TAPA, that you may be at risk. Please contact the police and provide them with as much information as you can about the TAPA protection racket. The witness protection scheme is specifically designed to protect whistle-blowers.

2. "I re-iterate for your benefit that trading standards say they are aware tapa does not display info others are required to by law and they have no concerns about tapa."

- Eastway, please provide the verifiable evidence to support the assertion that "that trading standards say they are aware tapa does not display info others are required to by law and they have no concerns about tapa." I have tried but can not find a single line of written (and thus verifiable evidence) to support your claim on a single Trading Standards website, report or document. If you can, please post it here.

3. "When they make those comments it reasures far greater than some random copy and paste fanatic."

- I am indeed a fanatical copy and paste fanatic and here is why. Facts referenced to an official agency's links e.g. the courts, the police, the ASA, TPS, domain registrars, companies house, BIS Insolvency Service etc. are trustworthy. They reassure those defrauded by support publishing companies, such as those run by Simister and associates, that the facts posted about who and where the TAPA partners are,  because they are verifiable and thus true. This allows those defrauded, or any reader, to arrive at an informed decision as how to proceed, based on fact and not vacuous gossip.

- Eastway, which posted verifiable facts and data, with supporting links, are you disputing?

4. "I think it's evidently a waste of time communicating on here as still it would seem you have not made the calls to get 1st hand info from government offices or the police."

- No Eastway it is not a waste of time and here is why I have deliberately omitted telephone calls

- As you are well aware, telephone calls are unverifiable and inadmissible as evidence unless all the parties involved identify themselves and are clearly identifiable. If this is the case the recorded conversations, information and opinions are credible because they can be verified as actually having taken place. Without the (and quotable) written permission of the third-parties and individuals involved the recordings can not be uploaded onto an audio forum nor transcribed for pasting on here.

- In the absence of the above telephone calls will only be dismissed as heresay because they are not credible. Babble, as you might say, and a complete waste of time and of little value.

- A credible case depends upon verifiable facts with links and to date you have failed to provide any, are there none?

- The police, BIS Company Investigations nor Trading Standards have been willing to put anything in writing in support of TAPA. Indeed TAPA itself proclaims in its disclaimer that it does not work with any of the above or any government agency: https://www.tapa.co.uk/disclaimer.php 

- Are you now disputing TAPA's own admission, Eastway?

- Everything I have been able to locate is verifiable linked factual evidence, namely that i) TAPA is run by Anthony Simister* the proven fraudster ii) the very same Anthony Simister** who was found guilty of running a fraudulent support publishing company which was wound up by the Insolvency Service after a High Court hearing.

- Eastway, do you have anything to share that is verifiable that is to the contrary?

5. "You are relying heavily on regurgitated babble to "warn" of tapa but seem to have no actual issue as a customer. Very strange!"

- Not at all Eastway, there is a lot of recent verifiable data which TAPA and Simister and associates were careless with which is why it has now surfaced and I and others have posted. The older verifiable regurgitated data is no less valid in proving the identities and locations of the scammers. Unverifiable material is of no value.

- Eastway, what verifiable data are you relying to make your case and can you share it?

- Indeed I have never been i) duped and scammed by a support publishing company ii) duped and scammed by the TAPA protection racket and thus agree that I have never been a customer aka. TAPA scam victim and thus unwittingly funded a proven fraudster and his associates. At the time my colleague simply put the phone down and binned the amateurish letters, magazines and threats from Abingdon House and TAPA.

6. "You seem uninterested in the alegation you are simply one of the rogue companies tapa shuts down which would suggest that I'm bang on the money. Have a nice life, adios!"

- Eastway, TAPA has not shut down a single rogue support publisher. Fact. The authorities investigated, prosecuted  and wound them up. Do not be misled by TAPA - check the Insolvency Services' press releases, including those in the government archive. If you have verifiable data to the contrary, post it.

- The disingenuous claims on TAPA's site are essentially poorly regurgitated and plagiarised court proceedings and press releases. Here is why. Analyse the original well structured and written official postings, note their dates and times and compare these to TAPA's belated tabloid press styled postings. Note how these mirror the poor style, limited lexis and syntax of the remainder of TAPA's illiterate websites. Examine TAPA's archived websites stored on the wayback internet archive; they are even worse.

- Eastway, it is because I am not a rogue publisher that I am disinterested in your allegation that I am one. However, what I am interested in is verifiable facts and data be it about rogue publishers or the The Advertising Protection Agency protection racket. The clue is in its name, after all.

I am looking forward to your return, Eastway, it has been a genuine pleasure engaging with you.

* see next message for reposted Simister data
** see next message but one for  Simister reposted data

Sinders can you or others confirm the URL for this website please? Even if it is now dead - thank you.

I have compiled a list of tele-pest sites (with registration details etc.) where user's posts are DELETED because they either/or:

1. Present facts from trustworthy and verifiable sources that expose TAPA for what it is

2. Discuss or question TAPA and/or Simister and associates

3. Are supportive of whocallsme.com and moneysavingexpert.com and others sites that expose TAPA

4. Are critical of the scam support publishing companies NOT on "TAPA's Watch" list but which are openly complained about on whocallsme.com,  moneysavingexpert.com and others.

(For example, Abingdon House, which was investigated, shut down and taken to court by the Insolvency Service, and not TAPA, was omitted from TAPA's watch list until Spring 2012. So 6 years after it stated in 2006, and 2 years after it was reported on whocallsme.com in 2010 by which Insolvency Service investigations had begun. Again, I have prepared a list of others from whocallsme and elsewhere.)

5. Are critical of companies listed on "TAPA's Ledger". These are the unwitting "customers" (victims) who pay the TAPA protection racket to stop members of the protection racket contacting them.

I do not wish to post the TAPA related Tele-Pest sites on here until I am fairly sure that it is complete.

I actually used to work at the nuisance calls forum on Princess Street in Manchester. The offices weren't too swanky or anything special but so so. There was only a few of us there and mainly it was responding to email enquiries and finding who nuisance numbers belonged to when asked.

They had another office in Luxembourg and as far as I could understand they had 8 or 9 eastern European guys in there that were simply adding numbers to their forums and posting info. They have forums for different countries around the world.

The guy that ran the show was a guy called Tony who didn't really make an appearance that often, usually once a week or so and was usually accompanied by a Chinese guy called Lee. I know that Tony drove an Aston Martin as we usually heard him and Lee go past before coming in. Lee was a little bit of a strange character, quiet and a scar on his cheek. Was a bit of a strange sight really, not your usual run of the mill business types but seemed to run a tight ship.

Seeing this info sort of explains a few things if you like but as far as I could see I couldn't see the criminal element to uploading phone numbers and info on who the numbers belonged to as they were all business lines. I regularly answered forum posts asking who the caller was so I know there was no slander. I only post this info to maybe help answer some questions about the set-up. I only left The Nuisance Calls Forum as got a better offer elsewhere and the 'silent' partner wasn't quite so unsettling (just in the sense I'm not used to working for Chinese people with butchered faces!).

There's a (new?) link within the dark blue menu on the left of the www.tapa.co.uk scam site's homepage entitled, "Post Comments About Firms On Forum" which links straight to the front page of Tony Simister's other lair, The Nuisance Calls Forum www.nuisancecalls.org.uk scam forum. Very predictable as Simister the fraudster runs both.

I've joined the nuisance calls registry last week, I've been plagued by calls and TPS are crap. I paid by credit card. I haven't heard anything about these scams, now I'm sick with worry. So have I really been scammed? What can I do if I have?

What is the TNCR and what have you paid for?

Is it a different scam site to the TNCF www.nuisancecalls.org.uk scam site?

Websit is www.nuisancecallregistry.co.uk i paid to have my number blocked to overseas callers and marketing from uk. They said they put something on the line that recognises overseas numbers. It doesn't come through to my phone and they get a continuous no number tone.
Have to say amount of calls has reduced from 7-8 a day to none!

Websit is www.nuisancecallregistry.co.uk i paid to have my number blocked to overseas callers and marketing from uk. They said they put something on the line that recognises overseas numbers. It doesn't come through to my phone and they get a continuous no number tone.
Have to say amount of calls has reduced from 7-8 a day to none!

Hi, if you paid by card you can just call your card issuer and report it as a fraud. You have attempted to resolve with the company but if you cant get through it makes it impossible. As long as you have tried your card co will process a charge back and you should get the money back in a week(ish). Tapa talked me through the very same process and it works.