Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


problem with host / is a dispute justified? - Page 4
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.

problem with host / is a dispute justified?

124

Comments

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    The right to repair.
    The right to cancel.
    The right to troll.
    The right to cough.
    The right to end.
    The right to nigh.
    The right to ....

    Gosh, the end is nigh.

    Thanked by 1eol
  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider
    edited December 2018

    Kaulkwappe said: When German law is applicable

    It is not and that was never in question, its a swedish company.

  • MrPsychoMrPsycho Member
    edited December 2018

    AnthonySmith said: I am pretty sure in this case its over 14 days

    It depends if OP asked for a refund within 14 days since conclusion of a contract (and I would say that's when PP sent the money).

    AnthonySmith said: I am also 90% sure that there is an exclusionary limit for transactions I think it is around €50 or over before this counts.

    I can't deny that, but I can't find any information that confirms your words either. Moreover European Small Claims procedure doesn't mention any bottom limit (the upper is 5000€).
    You can read a simplified version of EU consumer guarantees here.
    Maybe you're mixing with the offense/crime status change? For example, in Poland, if the offence is above ~112€ it changes it's status from a offence to a crime. Maybe it's 50€ for UK?

    Nonetheless I'll ask European Consumer Centre for clarification.

  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32011L0083

    (28)
    In order to avoid administrative burden being placed on traders, Member States may decide not to apply this Directive where goods or services of a minor value are sold off-premises. The monetary threshold should be established at a sufficiently low level as to exclude only purchases of small significance. Member States should be allowed to define this value in their national legislation provided that it does not exceed EUR 50. Where two or more contracts with related subjects are concluded at the same time by the consumer, the total cost thereof should be taken into account for the purpose of applying this threshold.

    Thanked by 1AnthonySmith
  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep

    @MrPsycho said:
    Nonetheless I'll ask European Consumer Centre for clarification.

    You should ask Konsumentverket as I am a Swedish company.

    https://www.konsumentverket.se/kontakt-och-vagledning/hjalp-med-konsumentfraga/

    If you want to file a complaint, here is the link: https://www.arn.se/

  • @AnthonySmith: Yes, that is correct. I only wanted to show how it would be in Germany. The Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU also states that the term has to be extended when not properly informed so things may not change for Sweden.

    @mikho said:
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32011L0083

    (28)
    In order to avoid administrative burden being placed on traders, Member States may decide not to apply this Directive where goods or services of a minor value are sold off-premises. The monetary threshold should be established at a sufficiently low level as to exclude only purchases of small significance. Member States should be allowed to define this value in their national legislation provided that it does not exceed EUR 50. Where two or more contracts with related subjects are concluded at the same time by the consumer, the total cost thereof should be taken into account for the purpose of applying this threshold.

    @mikho: Thanks for showing that, didn't know that. So at that point, not the European, but the Swedish law would decide if there is a revocation right or not.

    But as I think there is no revocation right applicable at all because there were no contract related to the payment, laws for unjust enrichment may be applicable.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    I think there are two aspects

    • Legally - you are right. Their "payments without contract are booked as plus on your account with us" is BS. To do that they would need a general contract and be able to show that you evidently want to stay their customer but wanted to cancel that specific service (VPS).

    • Practically - I guess that a__holes like that provider will put you on fraud record and similar services and smear you. If you need (e.g. for business reasons) smooth sailing you'd probably win a little (your money back) and lose a lot (e.g. difficulties getting other services elsewhere).

    Maybe the "third way" is the best, to let the money go but to then make sure that many potential customers are lost for them.

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    Haven't seen you for a while (few days).

    Welcome back, bsdguy.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    jsg said: Legally - you are right

    Except 2 posts above it clearly shows that is not correct but welcome to page 2.

    jsg said: Practically

    Again already covered and confirmed this never happened and there was never the intent for it to happen, welcome to page 2 (where this was reiterated)

    I now believe you are not BSD guy, 1. it only took 20 seconds to read your post, 2. you did not make any effort. so that is good I guess?

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    He is a spiritual successor at least. But, yeah, Bsdguy really did put out solid arguments for argument's sake until a wire came loose in his head.

  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep

    @Kaulkwappe said:
    The Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU also states that the term has to be extended when not properly informed so things may not change for Sweden.

    Unless you consider the informational text at signup/order that ”if you continue to send me money, I will add them as account credit”.
    Not in so many words but that is the meaning of it.

    @Kaulkwappe said:
    But as I think there is no revocation right applicable at all because there were no contract related to the payment, laws for unjust enrichment may be applicable.

    That is why I gave the links to the Swedish authority who rules in the case consumer rights.

  • mikho said: Member States should be allowed to define this value in their national legislation provided that it does not exceed EUR 50.

    Okay. Thanks for pointing that out. Now the question is on what value did Sweden and/or OP's country agreed on?

    mikho said: If you want to file a complaint, here is the link: https://www.arn.se/

    I believe the better idea would be to file a complaint through EU, as OP's rights in Sweden are well... limited.
    ...and if you figured who I am and that was aimed at me, then well... We already came to an agreement, through tickets, didn't we? I'm not going to file a compliant with European Consumer Centre, just ask them if I can demand my right to get a refund in situations where I am negatively geared towards a provider to put it gently.

    It may be as well that the OP is Asian, in which case you are the winner, as there is not much he can do, but that doesn't mean you behaved in accordance to law. :/

  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep

    @jsg said:

    • Practically - I guess that a__holes like that provider will put you on fraud record and similar services and smear you. If you need (e.g. for business reasons) smooth sailing you'd probably win a little (your money back) and lose a lot (e.g. difficulties getting other services elsewhere).

    It has already been written in this thread that I would never report anyone to Fraudrecord or any similar service for this type of event.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @AnthonySmith

    On what basis does the provider claim that there still is a general contract and that they had reason to assume that @southy wanted to keep that contract and buy another service from them in a not too distant future?

    Because that would be their only basis to accept that paypal money.

    Yes, one may argue that southy did not also cancel the subsciption but (a) that's just how humans are and (b) not cancelling that paypal thing does not mean that southy intended to get other services from that provider.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    jsg said: @AnthonySmith

    On what basis does the provider claim that there still is a general contract and that they had reason to assume that @southy wanted to keep that contract and buy another service from them in a not too distant future?

    Its in the thread, read it if you want or dont, your choice.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @mikho said:

    @jsg said:

    • Practically - I guess that a__holes like that provider will put you on fraud record and similar services and smear you. If you need (e.g. for business reasons) smooth sailing you'd probably win a little (your money back) and lose a lot (e.g. difficulties getting other services elsewhere).


    It has already been written in this thread that I would never report anyone to Fraudrecord or any similar service for this type of event.

    OK. But why don't you simply send southy his money back? It seems to me that that would be the simplest and cleanest solution and nobody has bad feelings.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    jsg said: OK. But why don't you simply send southy his money back? It seems to me that that would be the simplest and cleanest solution and nobody has bad feelings.

    Welcome to page 3.

  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep
    edited December 2018

    @MrPsycho said:

    mikho said: Member States should be allowed to define this value in their national legislation provided that it does not exceed EUR 50.

    Okay. Thanks for pointing that out. Now the question is on what value did Sweden and/or OP's country agreed on?

    According to the Swedish website, 400-500 SEK depending on the type of service provided.

    @MrPsycho said:

    mikho said: If you want to file a complaint, here is the link: https://www.arn.se/

    I believe the better idea would be to file a complaint through EU, as OP's rights in Sweden are well... limited.
    ...and if you figured who I am and that was aimed at me, then well... We already came to an agreement, through tickets, didn't we? I'm not going to file a compliant with European Consumer Centre, just ask them if I can demand my right to get a refund in situations where I am negatively geared towards a provider to put it gently.

    It may be as well that the OP is Asian, in which case you are the winner, as there is not much he can do, but that doesn't mean you behaved in accordance to law. :/

    I’m sorry that it came out the way it did. What I ment was that ARN and Konsumentverket handles complaints and questions in cases between consumer and company. Not directed to you as a person.

    Only quoting as you brought up the question at hand and I offered the links on how to contact the Swedish who handle these questions.

    As I’ve stopped assuming things, I have a pretty fair idea on what ticket you are reffering to and the OP was offered the same resolution.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @AnthonySmith said:

    jsg said: OK. But why don't you simply send southy his money back? It seems to me that that would be the simplest and cleanest solution and nobody has bad feelings.

    Welcome to page 3.

    Oh, evil, evil me! I learned just now after @mikho's response to me that he is the provider in question. Evil, evil me didn't read each and every post of everyone (just like many others do). Yes, I'm guilty, I'm sometimes just reading the OP and responding to that.

    @mikho said:
    As my venture as a VPS provider started with lowendspirit, it is no secret that I looked and copied much (first version was pretty much a copy/paste) from @AnthonySmith terms of service.

    Which probably wasn't exactly smart because @AnthonySmith's company is not a european one iirc.

    As been discussed over and over again here and on most other hosting forums, the PayPal subscription is YOUR responsibility.
    You were informed multiple times to cancel that subscription if you had one.
    I even sent a dedicated email to ALL customers to cancel all subscriptions when the name changed, in a way to avoid this type of incidents.

    I also see that as the weak point on southy's side. I understand it and I wouldn't turn it against him but it really is a negligence on his part.

    As ending words, the money is still yours, it is on your account for future services.

    No. "the money is his" would mean that he can use it for any kind of legal transaction he pleases. That however is not the case. His freedom to use that money is limited to buying services from you.

    Again: Why don't you simply pay back his money - minus fees that you would incur - and be done and have a happy ex- and maybe again customer and both of you could be happy about a fair solution and having avoided troubles?

  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep

    jsg said: Which probably wasn't exactly smart because @AnthonySmith's company is not a european one iirc.

    UK, they still belong to the EU. :)

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @mikho said:

    jsg said: Which probably wasn't exactly smart because @AnthonySmith's company is not a european one iirc.


    UK, they still belong to the EU. :)

    And again something learned (I mean about the providers location, not about Brexit). Thanks.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    jsg said: Oh, evil, evil me! I learned just now after @mikho's response to me that he is the provider in question. Evil, evil me didn't read each and every post of everyone (just like many others do). Yes, I'm guilty, I'm sometimes just reading the OP and responding to that.

    Thanks for admitting your wrong, further confirmation you are not BSDguy.

    Thanked by 3angstrom eol bugrakoc
  • This is a commercial break to ask everyone to go into their PayPal account and look at any subscriptions that they may have. If you have subscriptions that you don't want to keep, then please cancel them. :smile:

  • deankdeank Member, Troll
    edited December 2018

    I always cancel my pp subscriptions. Only idiots / careless people don't.

    Thanked by 1à̸̢̫̬͛̚
  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    Well going forward as a result of this thread I am going to introduce a new policy for Inception Hosting for 2019 onward.

    Before commenting, please remember, subscriptions are 100% optional.

    Users will have 28 days to apply for a complete refund in the event that an over payment is made due to a voluntary and optional PayPal subscription that they may have forgotten to cancel after 28 days if no refund has been requested any over payments will be deemed as intentional credit purchases.

    I am going to do this because what is clear is that this is a decisive issue where I and many others have said that they understand both perspectives while agreeing with only 1 i.e. is it a 6 or a 9.

    i think this is largely down to nothing more than personality and self discipline, some people have it others don't, no argument will fix that.

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    Just remove paypal subscription all together. Let them make payments monthly manually.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    deank said: Just remove paypal subscription all together. Let them make payments monthly manually.

    In 2011 I got complaints from people that i did not allow subscriptions, I enabled subscriptions, this issue occurred pretty fast.

    2013 (ish) I stopped allowing subscriptions, people complained, I re-enabled subscriptions.

    You are damned if you do you are damned if you don't, to end users the only thing that matters is what is best for them and they never consider that any reaction to their request can mean action for many others that would rather not do it the same way which is why they are optional to begin with.

    This is just a classic case of the loud minority making decisions for everyone else, I must get at least 3 new PayPal subscriptions every day and have done for many years, I perhaps (excluding BF/CM) get 1 person quoting chapter and verse at me every 3 months while refusing to take any responsibility and it is usually that 1 person that generates 3 - 4 pages of drama on forums because if they cant win they sure as hell want to take you down with them (and their €2)

    Thanked by 1wtfcook
  • Bring me more pictures of Spiderman!!

    Thanked by 1wtfcook
  • YmpkerYmpker Member
    edited December 2018

    Tbh PayPal subscriptions have always been coming up as a problem, which is why I'd just take PayPal One time payments to skip on the hassle that comes with dealing with problems like this. In any case I'd still refund the customer if it came to this sorta scenario.

    To come to a conclusion with this sorta inner-europe dispute one could proceed with the likes of:

    If both parties are cooperative have a neutral party judge the case:

    https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/index.cfm?event=main.home2.show&lng=EN

    Or bring it to local, then to providers country court and eventually get court costs refunded:

    https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumers/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/european-small-claims-procedure_de I guess.

  • Dear customer,
    if you accidently sent us too much money, you can choose between
    a) getting 100% of it as credit for future purchases
    b) getting it refunded minus all applicable paypal/CC/bank fees, minus a 3€/$ handling fee

    How about that?

    Thanked by 2Shazan Janevski
Sign In or Register to comment.