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
Precisely, if this all had been an issue at the sign up I would have never had a reason to complain. I would have noticed that I missed a number and maybe my order would have been declined because of their Paypal suspicion, but that would have been it. I dont even complain about them cancelling the service, I complain about such an unjustified record. In 17 years I never had such a problem with any host before.
Another day, another long ass drama thread.
@AnthonySmith at least I broke his trend briefly.
2 reasons.
1) it is a legal obligation for tax records in many countries.
2) If you want to do any sort of order screening it is required, with a high percentage of malicious and fraudulent orders it is pretty much essential these days, even with this hosts still lose a considerable amount of money yearly due to fraud, it would be devastating without it.
Uh, I wasn't looking deeply into it at all. I simply pointed out why there was no reason for you to intervene / stifle discourse. All I was saying was, why not let threads resolve themselves?
If people want to stop responding, if they feel they have expressed all there is to say and they are confident there is nothing more to add, they can simply stop typing. The rapid move toward thread closing suggests there may have been more to say (and more to suppress) and that people would rather avoid the inconvenience of having to respond. If you're not confident enough in your responses to the point where you have to close the thread to avoid dealing with certain criticisms...
lol
Except this thread has opened new avenues of criticism and isn't stuck in a closed roundabout. The whole 'going round in circles' framing as a way to avoid dialogue isn't going to work, mate.
Explanation wouldn't be enough, you have to prove it. Same as many people from foreign countries that have to submit their ID/Passport when they are trying to buy a Kimsufi/OVH
Actually they have a base, point 1 (different PP origin), point 3 and 4 above (change address, and not verifiable) is a red flag.
In financial industries it would be harder. Not verifiable might get you blacklisted in the banking council and subject to other federal law, and this will affect your credit rating. If this happened, then nobody will ever fund you for education, housing, vehicle, etc.
@alessio ever wondered how FraudRecord could possibly participate in this thread. I mean, how are they supposed to know you are the customer in their report?
The mentioned companies do this verification beforehand and they dont blacklist you if you do not comply. But again, not the cancellation is the problem, the filing is. There has never ever even been the doubt of any possible fraud or chargeback.
The address was verifiable. They simply refused to verify it even though they themselves insisted on this very type of verification before.
By the email that I sent them from the address in question?
1 more page, more circles.
Latest update, I just sent an email to @MarkTurner asking him what time next week Monday would be most convenient for him for a phone verification.
Oh, so you've actually done that. OK.
My impression is you deliberately obfuscate your details, saying stuff like "I'd be delighted to give them my work number and agree on a particular time" just reeks of a ruse.
Isn't your best case outcome just to ask for a rewording of the report. Like "customer refused to provide a phone number"?
But, do you really work there?
Anyway, it is now between you, Delimiter and FraudRecord, and please be gentle in expressing your opinion as in some countries this kind of issue might end up in a law suit.
This reminds me of a young man who re-posted an edited picture of the president in FB, and now it has become a law issue. While in the US, even if you place a mocking picture of Pres Obama or Pres Bush, nobody cares
What am I obfuscating? I am offering a way to fix the situation. Mentioning the time is because they might call at a time where I cant answer and then come out even more re-assured that I was planning the most evil things or god knows.
Not really. The wording is secondary, a record which implies fraudulent conduct is wrong in the first place. I havent committed anything like that.
Seriously?
Well, thats what I have been trying to do and have been successfully ignored from the start. No response, nothing, nada, zilch. I dont find it entertaining to write a post here and get this sort of responses from certain people.
As for gentle, really? Me? I have been gentle all along. I havent used foul language or called anyone names. Highly unlikely that I am going to do it and only hypothetically spoken
, but it should be those two companies who should be afraid of a law suit because of slander.
@alessio have you tried to call them?
@alessio O.k. good luck then.
I, as an outspoken delimiter customer, would like to weigh in on this after reading both threads.
There is truly no way of understanding this situation as an outsider without seeing the ticket. If this should truly be known by potential customers, I hope the two parties find an agreeable method for verification so that the tickets can be posted.
Because it's not hard to agree with someone that you provide their number and they can verify on your behalf. Agreeing a time would just be courteous.
Anyways, the simplest solution would be phone verification at the point of sign up. There is at least one provider on LET that does this. Obviously you could do the same phone-a-friend thing but it's slightly different, as you agree, because this is the point of sale... not an arbitrary time later when it's called into question.
Anyway, good luck resolving it. I don't think the provider is going to budge.
FWIW there are plenty API's for phone capability (voice and SMS) should the need arise.
Why would I want to call you? I don't work for Delimiter, I have no authority to validate your account. I have told you already I am not interested in being party to your issues, when you first contacted me, I requested copies of your tickets. I went into it with an open mind. By the time I had finished reading, I decided I am not spending my time helping someone who did everything they could to twist and turn at every juncture.
I confirmed with Delimiter yesterday and they stand by its report and has NO intention of changing it. I spoke to their accountant yesterday and she said there is nothing in there that is invalid. The report was accurate, professional and emotionless.
I have you told you to contact FraudRecord and ask them to arbitrate it. I expect they will concur when you authorise them to release copies of the tickets.
So stop trying to loop me into your self-created problems, I will always fight for a customer that has been wronged, but in this instance you just dug yourself into your own grave.
I think Anne was right with her assertion that you are 'combative' - these last two thread and your posting in another thread about a customer shutdown for DDOS just prove she was right.
You are not a customer of Delimiter any longer, you violated their terms of service with fake signup information, you were given multiple chances to resolve the matter by an overly accommodating accountant but you just wouldn't be forthright.
Don't waste my time on this matter further. I am with Delimiter on this one.
@Jar - Delimiter didn't just shut the former customer's service down and file a fraud record report. He was asked to remedy the misinformation, he failed, he was asked again and threatened with suspension of service, again failed. And so it went on. In the end Anne gave him notice and pulled the plug and refunded him.
If you read Delimiter's terms of service, they are adequately clear on the points of providing accurate contact information. The former customer failed despite days of attempts to remedy it.
They are not going to change the report, they are not going to remove it. They stand by the report and the information in that report, I can personally confirm is accurate.
And I do trust you @MarkTurner, but I will choose to be unbiased in this event as it is technically not something I have complete information on short of the word of both parties. Regardless of who I trust, it is clear that the reader who has not made up their mind does not have enough information here. For everyone's sake, I hope either the conversation dies or the details are all made public after both parties reach an agreement to do so.
Delimiter simply refused to accept any arguments, no matter how valid they were. Very similar to their (respectively in particular Mark Turner's) reaction in this thread. Refusal, denial, refusal, denial and more refusal.
One thing I don't quite understand...why don't you just send them some sort of proof of your address (I am sure you have utility bills???) and I am sure you have a work phone number, since you can think of sending them your work address, why don't you send them your work phone number and ask them to call you on this number and give some sort of proof that this number belongs to a company rather than a personal cell?
@HostNun said:
I asked for a PM for a reason, but since you couldn't do me that courtesy...
I'd just like to know why you think it's ok to accuse me of being basically dishonest and closing a thread for reason other than those I've stated, when all I can see that I've done is make a decision that you disagreed with.
Whilst I agree that my actions could be construed that way, why have you immediately assumed the worst possible outcome? I would genuinely like to know, because if I come across as the sort of person who behaves in that manner, I really need to take a hard look at myself.
So bottom line, like it or not, delimiter stand firm, Mark is not in a position to over rule them even if he wanted to which he does not which leaves the decision is in fraud records hands, as they are not responding to this thread it serves no purpose any more.
@Jar - I am not looking for you to take sides. There are no sides in this, the customer acting in one way and then another, he was asked to remedy what is technically a breach of contract (see Delimiter's TOS), he failed, given another opportunity, failed, contract terminated and refunded.
The FraudRecord report just notates that the customer provided invalid contact information (customer already admits the misinformation and also the basis of termination of contract), the customer was combative (we can all see that point) and Paypal location doesn't match (customer already admitted that too).
Its just a statement of events, no embellishment.
If I provided an address:
Mark Turner
Market Street
London
Tel: 0000000
Then someone came back and said 'Hey, your address is wrong' then assuming I really was living at Market Street then I'd update my record to 10 Market Street. Instead of changing it completely to 123 Buckingham Palace Road.
Add to that the address provided has a single tenant at that address, so calling the main switchboard and asking for the person by name, should yield one of three options - Putting you through/voicemail, he is out of the office or no-one by that name. Anne received no-one by that name.
Now do the maths - Invalid address, Equifax won't verify that name as even existing on the first address (irrespective of house number), Second address is a business who don't know him, unverified Paypal registered in another country and his general 'good' natured emails.
Delimiter verifies the information provided as best it can and if it can't verify it will reject the order. Thats been evidenced here many times with unhappy people who want to buy services but get told no. If I can get enough information from them, I have tried to help them get past these blocks but some are blatantly fraudulent - like the guy who contacted me off here called Bruce Willis who lives in the Philippines and his government ID is being renewed at the moment so can't send it.
When you do the maths on this individual there is NOTHING that can be validated. So definitely failed any form of KYC.
@HostNun @Nekki - I don't think there is any inference of bias or stifling free speech, the OP was told by Nekki if you want the original post opened then PM me. the OP then spammed someone else's thread and then opened a new one. Just the merge them and leave him to rant away. Sooner or later its going dawn on him that sitting on a forum where there is no-one who can affect his self-inflicted situation is pointless and his efforts should be directed towards FraudRecord and ask them to review his case.
This is one of the Patriot Act policy adopted by financial and large institutions in many countries to comply with business in USA, including use of the SWIFT network & PCI standard.
@vRozenSch00n - This is also a requirement in Europe and US. For example when if get hit by a subpoena from the police or government and don't provide valid info they give us hell (nightmare type of hell). This is from direct experience.
Hope not to detract too much, @MarkTurner could you comment on why this happened 60 days after signup rather than at signup?
Considering the number of entries I've seen from them relating to non-fraud issues, I usually don't automatically rule out a customer based on an entry from them. They report people for even small reasons (such as ordered but never paid - which I've seen a few times).
Is it possible to check if I'm also reported at fraudreport. Not that I'd care I'm just curious