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.
Inception Hosting Review
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I don't have any.
I don't see any rules of LET which prevents someone from posting his opinion whether has has hold accounts with the respective provider or not.
If I have violated, kindly refer that clause.
They paid in advance. It isn't free if you still have their money. If you provided the refund and still allowed migration period, you'd be free to call that free service.
Otherwise, obtuse.
Where did OP call that a favour in what you quoted? It was a good faith offer to resolve the issue and you shit on him and twist words? Why do you feel the need to join the gaslighting? FFS
Haven’t seen a LET drama this HQ for quite a while now.
MOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRR
Since Clouvider is holding the amount of OP till Jan, OP should get discount if I strictly talk about finance.
For 2 months, the Clouvider/inception is providing "free" service which one may or may not choose to use. In case of OP, Clouvider is holding the amount for 2 months literally for no reason. So those amount should earn interest.
Calculation in Jan should take this factor in to account too.
Why didn't you just refund at the time of notice for this "free" period to kick in?
it is just sad how the name Inception Hosting is now gone to the drain. whats the point of buying it out to close it down.
You're holding onto their refund and preventing them from using those funds to acquire replacement services. How is that fair to thousands of other customers?
SMH
You did and got a chargeback. You are not thinking before responding.
Surely the 'free service' element is entirely discretionary, not a right, and not something to factor into a refund calculation.
They could have announced closure mid Jan. with continued service to that date paid by the customer from their [presumably] annual subscription, and only refunded for the outstanding service paid beyond that.
I can't find fault with the closure process myself, this event seems somewhat unfortunate all round.
Customer paid for an annual service. You NOTIFIED them you cannot meet that obligation. You did not refund. They are in fact, entitled to the whole year refund. If PayPal doesn't agree, they fucked up. (PayPal in the past has refunded full amounts in this situation, I don't know about now).
You should have just issued refunds last month, taking away chargeback option.
Pushing out refund dates is a trick to get past chargeback periods. I can't believe you're being so ignorant of this. It's not like we don't regularly see this on LET.
This is quite a remarkable thread, if only from the perspective of how effectively the good will providing a generous winding down of Inception Hosting has been thrown away.
Arguments from both sides have been made, which I won’t repeat as there is little point in doing so. I have also been someone who has benefited from the “orderly winding down” and thus far respected the way in which it was being handled.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is that @Clouvider has repeatedly stated that Inception Hosting was no longer viable as an ongoing concern. In such a case, for a client that had just renewed their service, why should they continue to trust that refunds would be honoured?
Granted, this was not a business entering administration, but from a customer perspective: having not received any reasonable response from the company and not fully understanding the refund situation, would it not be prudent to explore recovery? All they have is a promise from a business that has been declared unviable that they would be refunded at a later date of the business choosing.
What happens if 1000 people filed chargebacks on January 16th because they didn't get the refund? My understanding is that PayPal refunds up to a point, but not 100% out of their pocket. I believe this is why there's a hold period before merchants get their PayPal money.
Anyone know?
Most of what you wrote looks nice and dandy, but there's a - if not the - core point you seem to just not get: Your running the services for free until Jan 15 is a nice and generous gesture - but legally not binding for customers which may or may not chose to make use of that generous offer.
A refund becomes due at the very moment customer cancels a contract. You may of course need and ask for some patience and as long as the amount of time you ask for is reasonable any reasonable customer will accept that.
But again "due" and "payable per [date]" are not the same, plus you of course are not entitled to dictate the conditions.
Also, again, OP's problem seems not to be that he wanted his refund right now or earlier than everyone else. His problem was/is that you didn't respond for 2 weeks.
There may have been understandable reasons for the ignorance like e.g. a support rookie, possibly overwhelmed by a high amount of tickets, but that doesn't change the result. And it also doesn't limit the options of the customer to react to that ignorance.
Granted, he chose a harsh option but certainly not fraudulent. He had paid but not only had he to learn that he won't get what he paid for(in full, just as he had paid in full) but in addition he didn't get a response for 2 weeks.
You should see both sides, not just yours.
What do you mean? I've been very clear that Clouvider just needed to issue the refund at time of notice to be doing the correct thing.
That's not a perception, that's a fact. If he was used to 14+ day responses, or weren't told to contact support, perhaps what you just said wouldn't be silly.
Now you presume to know what others think and want. Ooook. FYI, other people have lives, lol.
Echo chamber is correct. Clouvider repeating himself endlessly is fucking nuts.
Yeah, offered is a favor. Doesn't matter what you think.
So charging back is done. And good faith is now retracting it? Sweet.
Sp 100s of other customers being cool by not making a big issue and not charging back and chilling is also a fact.
Yeah, sure. 1 customer says something, the provider is at fault no matter what. The silent majority, no value.
Just like you are. I guess there's that.
I have shared my thoughts. But there are others who will not agree with me. Everyone is entitled to their thoughts.
C'est la vie!!
Ciao !
No, only definitions.
"an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual."
Nothing to do with offer. SMH
Is charging back really the same as raising a dispute? Albeit, I never raise disputes, but I do not think so. Nothing is preventing them from communicating and resolving the issue at hand, now through PayPal, BECAUSE the issue was the that there were no way to communicate with @Clouvider at all through any other means. All of a sudden, when a dispute is raised, they start responding, and in an aggressive tone (which is the main problem here, making threats) - because a dispute turns the tide around in favour of the customer, provider now 'forced' to respond. Now, they are in their customer's shoes.
The fact is that Clouvider is/was holding the money 'hostage' (the last communication was an email several weeks prior that says they are shutting down) - there was no way to get in touch with them for at least the last 14 days regarding a more detailed refund enquiry for a recently renewed service, which is bound to shut down. Of course he is entitled to ask, because he has PAID for the service, for the next 1 year. OP is now down 2x the amount he originally had planned to spend in Oct/Nov.
In any case, they had plenty of time to respond (14 days) - even a single / simple, and non-threatening response would have prevented this scene.
You're justifying bad behaviour because not enough people complained publicly? GTFO.
No matter what? Are you fucking ignorant of 8 pages? Jesus Christ, man.
I made clear statements and Clouvider repeating the same thing from the start. Now you're being obtuse.
.> @plumberg said:
We have no data from the provider on how many total affected customers had received no response to a ticket for 14 days, and how many of those "were cool" with that.
Bottom line, nothing matters other than the provider fraudulently submitting a customer to fraud blacklists for using the dispute process dictated by the provider's selected payment gateway.
If as another apologist said, LET fans are only 10% of the provider's burgeoning hosting business, then why are they so maniacal about one $30 a year customer launching a PayPal dispute? Does General Motors pay by PayPal?
If they don't want to be accountable to PayPal's unfairness, then drop PayPal -- oh yeah, the host wants every possible dollar and customers want PayPal protections.
Pick a lane and stop trying to have it both ways.
chargeback yesterday
From entirely technical perspective, a chargeback is a separate process filed with the card issuer. The PayPal dispute and claims processes generally provide more opportunity for mutual resolution. However, it’s likely they are all lumped together under the ‘chargeback’ term by businesses and can be just as damaging for those who rely on PayPal.
No, it's not. Once a client opens a PayPal case to dispute a transaction, both parties still have the opportunity to introduce arguments or reach a solution without PayPal's intervention.
If the attempt to resolve the problem with the provider is unsuccessful, the client can escalate the dispute to a claim. At that point, PayPal reviews the details posted by both parties and makes a decision based on that.
A chargeback on the other hand is a reversal of a payment made with a credit or debit card, initiated by the cardholder through their bank or card issuer. Fighting a chargeback is generally harder for sellers compared to handling PayPal disputes. It also incur higher fees, it's harder to contest, don't allow direct communication between buyer and seller, etc...
FINALLY! A proper LET drama to end the year with a bang! LET really needed this kind of advertisement considering everybody started resting after Black Friday.
Thank you @Clouvider for waking up LET and for ending 2024 with a banging drama!
Can someone post a/the thread to a provider shutdown where they provided refunds, with short dates and kept in frequent touch with the LET thread and people would report back getting their refund in that reasonable time?
I know there's at least one in the last year, I just wasn't a customer and just monitored the thread to see people reporting their refunds.
JustVM?
Thank you. It was.
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/197125/justvm-closing-operations/p1
This is how you close business. Notification, request refund, issue refund, allow migration period.
I imagine more people would want (or the option) their money refunded before Black Friday than services continuing past useful date (when they've migrated to another service).
JustVM:
Email sent: Aug 21
Closure: Sept 21
Duration of notice: 30 days
Support and Refunds: To initiate your refund, please open a support ticket through our customer support portal. Refunds will be processed on a prorated basis, starting after the closure date of September 21st, and will follow a FIFO (First In, First Out) approach. Kindly submit your ticket as soon as possible to ensure timely processing.With JustVM, they released new services a couple weeks or month ago and then gave closure notice. All in the good books
They said refunds will be issued FIFO. But guess what? DMing/ posting the ticketID helped to SKIP through the queue. But, yes, JustVM good, Clouvider Bad.
Inception:
Email sent: Nov 12, 2024
Closure: Jan 15, 2025
Duration of notice: 2 months
Refunds: After Jan 15, 2025
Sure, Clouvider/ Inception is super sketchy as they gave a longer notice
Clouvider/ Inception is bad cause they are not asking customers to put in tickets to issue refunds