Hello,
I'm actually in the same
exact situation with Wamo and Payrnet.
I went yesterday at Wamo's office in St. Julian, since︋ I needed an explanation on why I should refer to Payrnet, while T&C stated clearly︌ that the agreement was between Wamo and my companies, being Payrnet the provider of the︍ service.
They told me that I implicitly agreed to Payrnet T6C, but did not explicitly︎ show where is states that, in case of disputies, I had to refer to Payrnet️ and not Wamo.
I'm actually thinking that Wamo themselves could have also been one of the companies that did not comply with regulations; should it be true, Payrnet would have surely sued back Wamo, blocking Wamo's owned funds on purpose. In such a situation, Wamo would not be willing to act proactively to recover its customers' funds.
I'm saying this because when I asked Wamo to give me any evidence of the efforts they're making to recover my funds, the answer was "We cannot comment at this time".
I found it also very suspicious, in such a situation, that Wamo also shared with customers the︀ letter received from their lithuanian lawyer yesterday, offering support to apply in court.
Wamo is︁ claiming to be on the same side of their customers, and played the role of︂ the "good guy", but:
- Was not transparent at all
- Did not safeguard its︃ customers, switching to anoither partner bank on time (as they did with the previous Estonian︄ partner bank)
What verifiable proofs do we, as customers, have that Wamo is playing fairly︅ in all this mess?
I personally also found them friendly, but there also have to︆ facts supporting their claims.
That said, I'm seeking for a maltese lawyer, and started a︇ Google Group where to share ideas on how to address this situation:
UAB Payrnet -︈ Release of customer funds - Google Groups
Let's keep in contact and join forces.
Best,
Lino
