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.
Blackballed by Whole Sale Internet?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
No, we don't do that & I think most of the providers won't do that also !
Did the TOS stipulate that a refund was possible if services haven't been provisioned yet?
Obviously, bear in mind that although services might not have been available to you, it doesn't mean the provider hasn't done some work in the background that they need to be compensated for.
Always the case. The provider has already done the work to make the sale.
Are so sure or just usuall troll? We do report the fraud, scam and non payments as customers can't be bothered to drop a line regarding the cancellation of service.
To follow the ToS it's against some customers believe and abuse of service it's normal.
Do you mean marketing and the like?
Sadly some "providers" do, and use fraud record for revenge against people that piss them off. Thats what happens when zero proof is needed to add people to fraud record. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the service, but not the way it is implemented/used. When ass hats like nuggets are allowed to post whatever records they want with zero verification there is a large problem with credibility on some of the reports.
The 14/30 days money back or request from customer to do a refund is part of customer service! Better to ask for feedback of service to make sure that next customer is happy to stay.
We had a customer who signed up for the most cheapest unmanaged VPS plan and expected to have the fully managed service, without any doubts the service was refunded.
Did you miss the part where you arbitrarily accused OP of threatening to chargeback when asking for refund without any evidence?
I think that most providers don't honestly believe that a majority of their customers will read/skim every condition in their terms of service. Those that do believe it have many opportunities to make their terms of service more clear:
goodexample)One can assert that it's the responsibility of the customer to read the terms of service, but a) providers whining about the reality of terms of services is not going to do any good unless it is directed at effecting change in policy; and b) it also doesn't reflect the legal requirements for terms and services, e.g. a term about opening more than one support ticket per month resulting in termination would almost certainly be considered unconscionable in the U.S. (and good luck in the EU).
What is the alternative? It's unreasonable to require customers to go to court to contest unconscionable terms of service agreements. I think not having the chargeback system would be a far worse idea, even in the context of digital goods.
Got one of the entries removed: https://cloud.goldenberg.me/index.php/s/YFMw0yLrEGVDelR
Apparently someone alphabetically above me in their list of customers was reported for being a shithead and instead it was me....
@concerto49
The listing by QueryFoundry was I believe for something that happened with CloudShards as I've never had a service with QueryFoundry
https://cloud.goldenberg.me/index.php/s/r797IBiiqkFw8qN
That was how it ended. No chargeback or anything. They refunded me and want to do business in the future so again I have no idea why they would be looking to tarnish my reputation.
I am a reasonable person.
In the discussion with Harry @concerto49 I did threaten to chargeback but never actually completed one. He refunded me before it came to that.
Likely because he felt you'd backed him into a corner with the threat. Understandable really.
@Nekki if you're going to accuse me of filing a chargeback then I better have filed a chargeback. I asked him as one business owner to another to let it go.
He agreed to let it go and even ended the conversation with "Hope to do business again in the future".
So it's kinda sketchy to go behind my back and file a false allegation that I charged back on him when I didnt. The chargeback also says I used services Maliciously... I never even used the service he was to provide.
Haha, @jarland added this "report":
That's pretty awesome
No, he is accusing you of threatening with a chargeback which is exactly what you did.
You would've charged back if he didn't "agree" to refund you.
He didn't have other option and you acted like a dick knowing that he could incur in further losses.
The report says this:
That seems to me like an assertion that he issued chargeback, not an assertion that he threatened to issue chargeback.
@perennate it also says I used their services maliciously which is false. He issued me an LOA. I asked him to cancel it. Never even used the LOA or announced the space.
So, have you opened a ticket with cloudshards to see what's up? I'm not saying publishing misinformation on FraudRecord is justified, but talking about it on here is not going to help you get it removed, and we only have your word for it.
yeah I opened a ticket. No response to it though.
Unless the terms of your contract stated there was a cooling-off period or similar agreement that entitled you to a refund if you didn't use the service being delivered, you weren't entitled to your money back.
Whichever way you look at it, you acted improperly. I agree that the wording of the entry is misleading, but that's seriously close to splitting hairs - do you think 'Changed mind post-payment and threatened to chargeback if no refund was given' would have made much odds to anyone checking you out on FR? In my humble opinion, that makes you just as much of a potential liability in a small-margins game.
@Nekki I did not act improperly. I had a discussion with the provider and yes while I did say I would issue a charge back, Harry is not psychic. A threat is not the same as an action and cannot be treated as such.
I've had plenty of people threaten me and nobody act.
As for your "Small Margins" game. He was leasing me a /24 for $50 considering that assignment likely costs him like $100 / year and he charges me $50 per month I find those margins to be quite healthy. Even at that... I didn't issue a chargeback so accusing me of such is still a false allegation.
If he had made an internal note to his own staff to tell me to take my business elsewhere I'd be fine with that. But by labeling me as liability because of what I might have done had he not issued a refund is just blowing smoke.
Also on the subject of a cooling off period, there was never anything stating that there were no refunds. It was only after I asked for one that he came up with telling me no refunds.
I don't see how the issue is merely that the wording is misleading? I think it's very clearly asserting that customer did proceed with a chargeback.
@perennate there are 2 assertions made in the report:
1) I used the services they provided maliciously. Which I did not even use at all.
2) I falsely filed a chargeback. Which I did not.
They're both false and neither event actually happened. He could have stuck to his guns on the refund but he didn't. You can't go accusing me of fraud because you made a judgement call you were unhappy with.
That seems to me like an assertion that he issued chargeback, not an assertion that he threatened to issue chargeback.
Yeah, that's not cool at all. I'm just saying that both parts could've acted a lot better.
@agoldenberg Taking the Fraud Record listing's accuracy aside, I agree with @Nekki here that unless there was a 'no money back guarantee' in your contract, you shouldn't have assumed there is one, and so you were not entitled to threaten the provider with a chargeback nor you were entitled to the refund.
You agreed to the contract, and you should have gone ahead with the consequences of your actions. Should you actually chargeback you would have likely committed a fraud by misrepresentation, which at least here, is a serious breach of the law. The whole threat of chargeback is the key here.
If it was me, I would have probably refunded, not only as a gesture of good will to the Customer, but also to avoid the hassle, but again, it would have been my good will, and not your rights.
You weren't entitled to a refund, and you essentially used a bullying tactic to get it. I'm not saying that Cloud Shards are without fault, but people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.
The 'Small Margins' game refers to VPS providers margins in general not what you spend :-/
As you say, Harry's not psychic, so he took you at you word. He'd clearly believed you'd do it, because he changed his mind on the refund, right? IMO he was in the right to report you, he just should have made an accurate report.
What's the actual difference in terms of impact on FR? I'm not a provider, so maybe I'm misunderstanding it's use.
I doubt it's anywhere close to "likely". AFAIK it'd be very hard for the provider to argue that the customer's claims that digital goods were different from expected are false. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/jan/20/section-75-chargeback
Edit: and even the claims were incorrect, I think it'd be hard to get more than the $7 (or however much) originally paid, given that the customer wouldn't need to misrepresent anything to chargeback. So, far from a "serious breach of the law".
@Nekki I had no contract with CloudShards. As for being entitled to a refund, I made a request and while I did lean on him a bit , he did it as an act of good will.
Now had he stuck to his guns, he would have had reasonable grounds for accussing me had I of actually filed a chargeback. Being that I didn't and he simply backed down, this does not give him any kind of grounds for accusing me of a chargeback as it NEVER happened.