New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Do say,
Which client is that exactly?
The one whose telephone, mail, address and social media accounts @randvegeta shared?
Wait, he did nothing of the kind. He just said a client did this, what do would you do if you were me? I think what he does is totally legit and understandable.
I refuse to be a pet of community that is expected to act as angry mob towards a Customer dumped here by the OP.
Not only is this very unprofessional, but also damaging to the community.
I say no.
Maybe he thinks the provider won't actually stick to their own policy? And despite everything this client has done, here you are saying a refund is possible. So your policy is worthless.
Not a hosting provider, but that is a red flag to me. I think if you were to allow him back, he could cause more problems with paypal disputes by lying. Not worth it, to waste your time with him.
I don't see that at all. The client can choose to come or not. I always take complaints from clients with a grain of salt as without the viewpoint from the provider, the 'review' would likely be very bias and one sided. Like wise, any one reading this thread may think the same. Allowing the client to respond serves to eliminate this bias as the thread would then have both sides of the story. This is not about ganging up on the client.
From the client perspective, this could be an opportunity to get his money back. They think they are right and we are wrong. They think they are being unfairly treated. PayPal ruled in our favour but they think that's just because of a technicality and we still have an obligation to provide the service.
We have made our decision but they still think it's unfair. I thought it was not a bad idea to get an impartial viewpoint.
If that's unprofessional and wrong, then that had iluded me.
Besides the effectiveness or correctness of this thread...
There are arguments both ways. Client paid for the service thus you could/should give it to him. If your TOS states that opening a dispute will result in account cancellation and you are upfront about no refunds then you should not give him a refund.
However unless you are required to by law give him the service then I wouldnt as he would then have another 6months to attempt some other claim on you and 12 months to use/abuse the service. Not saying he would but on form...
Lol. Damned if you do, damned if you don't aye?
Not at all, stop avoiding your failure to enforce your own policy.
So no refund under any circumstances?
Whatever your policy is, follow it. Not saying whether it is right or legally enforceable.
If you do offer refunds in some circumstances, make it consistent.
No need for this thread.
If you're honestly unsure how to proceed with this then this is a horrible sign for your current clients. If I were a client of yours and I read this thread I would jump ship immediately because the answer is so obvious. Having to ask the public how to handle such an obvious problem shows poor management skills.
Your only excuse is you created this thread in an effort to shame the person, in which case that's just unprofessional.
If your time dealing with the dispute cost HK$50 how much did this thread cost?
So, if the client reply , the LET member will bash on him. But if he won't , the client can only silent read the LET bash on him.
You shouldn't really open this thread. Even If you do, there is no reason to send him the link to this thread.
You want oppinion that's fine. Inviting your client to argue in public forum ? That's another thing.
So yes, this is basically an attempt to public shaming / bullying
So imagine this from the clients perspective. You are giving him a possible option of a refund if he comes here and publically argues with you, which reveals his identity and what he has done followed by pretty much public shaming him. Sure he can chose to be anonymous, but that’s not the point. What I’m talking about is how does that make you look? It feels like primary school type of attitude.
Asking for opinion is fine, inviting them here is not.
I'd say ban both, the host and the user if he shows up. Or at least strip the host of the provider tag.
Keep this sort of affairs indoors. What next? A mom and a kid show up and argue here because the mother wouldn't give the kid one more meatball after he had 65?
I don't have to come here. The time I spend is mine to decide. What it cost me, is the time that I want to give. LET is more entertainment than anything else. The time spent dealing with abuse or disputes is time that I am unwilling to give freely. This is the distinction.
That's certainly not my intent, nor even a viewpoint that I had even considered.
Again, not my intent. But even if it were (which it isn't), appearing 'professional' in this forum is hardly a concern. I mean seriously, what kind of language do we use on this forum? LET is hardly a place that promotes 'professionalism'. The language adopted here is more like 'locker room talk'. And if 'locker room talk' is good enough for the white house, it's good enough here!
Besides, what's so professional about 1 provider bashing on another provider when you have absolutely no experience of our services to draw from?
Fair point. I did not consider this view point.
I'll consider this matter closed then. No refunds, and no service (due to abuse/fraud).
Add them to fraudrecord while you are at it, so other providers don't get the person too since at cubedata our policy states any/all disputes/chargebacks are considered instant termination/listing at fraudrecord/blacklisted from any/all cubedata services.
Yes we've made a few listing already. Including the Paypal account used.
I really want this same outrage to appear whenever someone calls for the providers side of the story when a user posts a bad review.
Hmm?
Funny thought but it's quite a different scenario really
Oh is it really? It seems that the call is usually made hoping to shame the poster. In essence a form of bullying. Remember the often quoted two sides to every story. Then there is the historical essence of forums being a place for thoughts to be exchanged.
It probably is actually. Service providers are normally (and should be) held to a higher standard than the general public.
Though I find it interesting that some of the comments here have been quite negative about the idea of inviting the 'client' because they see it as a form of bullying or shaming. And yet, what is the function of services like FraudRecord? Providers use it to report bad clients, and in this case, our client committed fraud by submitting false information to Paypal in order to obtain a refund.
Perhaps the higher standard for which hosts are held to precludes them from naming and shaming on public discussion forums. Which makes me wonder why FR is different?
And for my critics, who call me unprofessional, among other things, why fight so hard to protect the fraudsters?
Interesting what people consider right, wrong, good, bad, professional, unprofessional...
seems fraudulent.
it is all in the tos/aup at cubedata so it isn't fraudulent to us since we enforce our policies.
That’s not how it works.
I am quite saddened in all honesty that you appear so naive in this thread.
If you take out a car loan or a mortgage and default that business will pass your details to a credit agency, it's a message to others that they can choose to deal with you or not but beware. Indeed many companies will factor that 'black mark' against you in any decision, higher rates for example.
None of those businesses will then run to an internet forum inviting the client to state their piece and the community will decide the fate of their refund. Surely you see how utterly stupid that sounds. If not, I can assure you it is. How many times really have you seen that happen. Businesses know that such an approach is more damaging to their reputation than the client.
FraudRecord albeit unregulated and run in a dictatorial manner is a hosting equivalent for the majority of hosts who cannot use organisations such as Equifax or Experian. Despite the fact, providers can post false reports there is still a reliability factor to aid your decision to allow access to services. What it does not however do is name and shame, anyone, it simply returns a match. Albeit anyone can then reveal the details if they really wanted.
Different systems, same intended result for a business to warn others.
It is not about higher standards, you need to accept as a business that you have to maintain minimum standards. A client can run round around the internet all they like, saying whatever they want and you can follow with appropriate retorts. But you have done your part, reported them, unless you want to hunt them down, sue, blah... Not happening.
If a client comes here as they often do to complain then you have a choice, respond or ignore. Unfortunately, on LET, you have many providers with significant IT skills but a complete lack of business acumen and most of the threads turn into a war of words. Bad move despite the entertainment that usually follows.
you came here for an opinion on whether to refund and you have rightly so, ended up worse off.
Any/All. So regardless of whether you are in the wrong and the dispute is upheld.
Yeah, sounds like exactly the kind of abuse that makes FR an ineffective system.
I agree 97% with @Lee. This thread should have never existed. Shame on the host.
I will take 97%, where did I loose 3%?