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
If what you are saying is true in the OP, then no, I wouldn't reinstate him. He's opened a dispute, attempted to fraudulently recover funds for a service ToS he agreed to before payment. Then again, if he's likely a client who will keep wasting your time with refund requests it may be worth just offering him a final warning against his account and let him have it back.
I really don't see the relevance. I am not claiming legal damages. The TOS was violated. That alone permits us to terminate the account. If you violate the TOS of your service provider, you do not normally get a refund.
Ultimately we are talking about a $6.50 /year service. No court in the land would allow this case to escalate.
@fkj, I've made an adjustment to our policy regarding disputes on the NAT-VPS plan.
Before, we simply forbid it, and opening a dispute would simply constitute a violation/breach of our TOS.
Instead, we are now saying that opening a dispute will result in the levying of a dispute handling fee. If they want to resume the service, they need only to pay the dispute handling fee. I think that should be an easier concept to understand.
why on earth some providers go through all that crap for $6.50 ?
if you'd refunded him the moment he asked for it - despite your TOS/policy, you'd saved so much time of your life and even wouldn't have to ask, what to do next.
If ever you let such a customer resume his service by your new rule you're calling for trouble at some later point. he stays just because he lost the case and probably will try to mess with you again, about $6.50 ...
I dont know...
NEVER!
Opening a can of worms is this case. Ruining so much reputaiton for 6.50.
In my view, the host was right to suspend and kick the client. But he wasn't right to bring it up to public. It was most likely to backfire.
What you said didn't make sense. Did they open a credit card claim or paypal claim? You said paypal, so they didn't go to their credit card. So paypal rules in your favor and they did not. If they went to their credit card (not paypal), then you would be dealing with the credit card issuer, not paypal. The person getting screwed is the buyer, by the seller (OP). You guys are so emotional and just trying to get the guy out of spite and it is blinding you to the fact that you got paid, and you have services to furnish otherwise you are open to compensatory and punitive damages.
In my case the customer paid via paypal, using a credit card.
Then issued a unauthorized payment claim with their credit card company.
But this is not about me. Leave it with this reply.
Violation of TOS is not an acceptable reason to terminate?
Well they "technically", based on facts and not feeling, the buyer did not get a refund. So "technically".. was no "violation" at the end of the day. Them disputing it, is completely legal and it is illegal to put in terms that they cannot dispute it (dispute =/= refund). That is why Paypal examined it and rules in your favor. Paypal didn't tell you to fuck off and take your money away and refund the seller. If they had, then you would have a violation of ToS.
Can you post your TOS? Are these yours?
http://www.hosthongkong.net/?page=tos
That's a stupid way to put it. If the server is so slow that it reaches the point of being unusable, and you do this deliberately, no matter your TOS, you're on the hook. Even if it isn't intentional, you're still in a dangerous position.
So your first post is about a company that doesn’t even relate to @randvegeta’s company...?
offer thread and avatar... what makes you think it's not his company? ;-)
You should read this : http://hosthongkong.net/?page=NAT-VPS
But it wasn't slow. That's the point. At least not on average. The speeds were averaging at 30mbit, which I believe is more than reasonable for a 6.5 /yr service.
Besides, look at the product description / TOS for the Nat VPS.
Aha, this should solved the current problem. But, still needs to point out, since "a dispute handling charge is levied in the amount of HK$500.", your client may also charge you $500 if they win the dispute, anyway.
That's ridiculous. We are not forcing them to agree to our terms. By signing up, they agree to ours. They have the choice to accept it or not. There would be no grounds to claim $500 in the event they win a dispute claim.
Holy shit. My brain’s off today.
I’m on a crappy sleep schedule again and I guess 3 hours is too little for my mind to work.
Haha, interestingly, somehow that's how the law works - legal fee is always the major cost. Anyway, the current version is better than last one.
I can't find the order form for the NAT-VPS so that is the only TOS I could find.
You are asking people to form an opinion on how you do business based on your TOS and it is difficult since we can't see the order process (or I am blind, which is possible) to verify the terms on their own.
My opinion is that posting this and inviting the customer into it is a poor decision and says more than any TOS could.
@randvegeta
It wasn't meant towards the current situation. My point was that your terms of service does not make you invulnerable is all.
The product description is pretty clear I think. No justification for refund/dispute.
@randvegeta
There is one case where (I feel) that a customer is entitled to a refund -- if you don't provide an usable service for an extended period of time, you're not fulfilling your end of the service and as such are not entitled to the funds.
Who determines what is usable? The situation is that the average network speed was around 30mbit. Is that not usable? To cover our arses, we even put in the TOS that speeds may be as slow as 50Kbit and that the server may have downtime for extended periods without compensation. This is supposed to set the bar (and expectations) very low!
If we are now saying that we 'usable' is determined soley by the end user, then what the heck are SLAs and contracts for?
Why is it you think our TOS / Product description should be ignored? If we say you will get 50Kbit/s, and you expect 50Mbit, but then you only get 5Mbit, is this seriously grounds for a refund? Baring in mind the no refund policy?
Who defines what is usable and acceptable?
I mean we have contracts for 100Mbit IP transit over 1G links. If we can only push 300Mbit (out of 100!), can we say "hey that's not good enough for us", cancel the contract and demand a refund? Is this what we are now saying?
@randvegeta
Calm down, I'm not trying to attack you.
Providing an usable service is defined as something that is usable. If your service is not provisioned, it is not usable. How usable the service is, that's another question.
Damn, 96 new comments. TLDR plz?
OP kicked a Chinese user out of his hosting biz because he opened a paypal dispute. His reasoning was stupid and OP won the dispute.
Now, OP invited the user to come here to prove that he is right.
It did not go the way OP wanted and apparently opened a can of worms.
The whole drama for 6.50, LET babie.
Apart from inviting some trolls I got exactly what I wanted. The poll results were clear.
The only thing left was a few people trying to justify violating terms of service.
Client was terminated for opening a dispute. At the time, it was a clear policy that opening a dispute would result in account closure. It has since been updated, now having a dispute handling fee, which is required to be paid in order to reactivate the account.
Still there are some who think that an 'unreasonable' TOS is not valid. The problem with this thinking is that their opinions are entirely subjective. This despite the product description having clear and concrete values significantly below the levels being complained about. Basically, there are people who think TOS and contracts are irrelevant, and a product description does not influence client expectations what so ever. Either that, or they are trolling.
Lots of people trying to play lawyer
Nah, just annoyed that people can still find ways to complain about it. I bet the people who do that to you could pay $0 and still demand 100% SLA...