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
I can't stop laughing on this statement.
Based on the current situation, it's very likely that, he will terminated all your services after the six months (past the PP protect window), you will lost all the remain unused credits then, it's very bad especially for those who paid for 2/3 years, and you have no any chances anymore.
Can you show me an invoice that states that you've paid to Lewis? Mine only has a reference to "VeloxMedia" - we can discuss if that company existed or not, but the invoice and payment I've done are to some "VeloxMedia"
Again, taking out of the discussion if there was a company or not, Eric apparantly agreed to take over the assets of "VeloxMedia" from the person acting under that name, Lewis. Then there isn't a "sole discretion", because with agreeing that there comes responsibility.
Unless there is written and legal proof that the customers and the obligations towards them were not part of the agreement, they are. Because of (1).
See 1 and 2.
But there are also quite a number of users (you know, the ones you don't hear) that don't experience those downtimes and have the service delivered as should. You cannot project all experiences on those of one location that is problematic (or even DDoSsed by an angry customer who wants downtime in order to be able to get his money back)
See
Reading between the lines... it was @itsTomHarper?
read the forum. Lewis is/was sole proprietor. VeloxMedia did not have any legal status. Its just a name like ABC or XYZ. The user deal with Lewis. There was no entity called VeloxMedia. Lewis could have also named it Godaddy for a namesake.
BTW please stop shilling about VeloxMedia. Its already removed from LET.
No use in promoting a broken hosting provider who is just SCAM.
So Lewis was committing actual fraud at the point you bought your server. That alone is sufficient grounds to file a chargeback.
Are you not worried about going to jail?
UK police is too busy with confiscating plastic knife from ordinary citizens 😉
I read the forum. And I'm not stupid. In my reaction I also mentioned is that if you set aside if the company existed or not people didn't do business with Lewis but with a (maybe non existent) company.
What we do know is that some guy "Eric" is now acting out of name of "VeloxMedia" and it seems to be (or become) a "company". Also he taken over accounts that have those name (e.g. here on LET), so that, under several jurisdictions that "VeloxMedia" did trade under is enough to have obligations against the customers. Even if the company didn't really exist before.
You're accusing me about "shilling" on VeloxMedia? I'm not. Not everyone who is not as negative or biased as you is "shilling". Am I shilling because I'm just saying what I think or experience (my VPS is still running, no downtime, network is OK, etc)? I have no interest in VeloxMedia at all.
He is clearly getting more and more upset that the exit scam isnt actually happening.
Sigh.
You said
I'm not stupidandI read the forum.Your assumption (let me straighten poorly worded statement):
1. Customer are dealing with unknown company (may exist or not)
2. Eric took over the unknown company
3. Therefore Eric has liability with the existing customer
As said, Lewis didn't transferred the contract nor fund to Eric (which the customers should agreed first). Therefore, Eric has zero obligation. What's transferred is the infrastructure.
Please do correct me, if you know evidence that suggests otherwise
Nope. I don't care about the money. So that isn't a factor. What I'm more upset about that apparantly it's not allowed on this forum (Commonly a forum is a place to share ideas, opinions and experiences) to have a different opinion or way to look at things.
Apparantly also it's going along with the US way of thinking: either you're with us or against us. Being in between isn't an option.
My comment is about a thought process - we are all looking at things without knowing the details. Everyone, including people who are very determined in their thinking, is making assumptions. Simply because we don't know details. We don't even know if there is a real "Lewis" and/or "Eric" or whatever.
And if I just mention a fact (yes, a real fact, they still exist these days) that my VPS is still up and running and doesn't have an issue, I'm put into a corner of "promoting VeloxMedia".
Unfortunately people nowadays tend to go into extremes really fast. This is the world we live in: you're either on one side, or the other side. There is no in-between, no nuances of grey and no colours; just black and white. It's sad when one thinks about it.
Back on topic: I still have not cancelled my service, nor requested a chargeback, simply because the service is running properly. I can't say I am not worried about the future of the brand, but can't say that the brand is not working either. I'm in the middle, still not asking for refund.
https://v.yur.mom/💬-chat_kMLiBXQ_EH/💬-chat_page_1.html
Can someone please explain the urge to defend companies and providers? Let people do whatever they want. If you have any connection with said company, of course that’s a different story.
What? Of course not. Why would I be going to jail because Lewis fraudulently produced invoices under a fake name?
If you're insinuating that I'd be committing fraud by requesting a chargeback, you'd be wrong. I'd request a chargeback citing the fact that the original trader has given up on the business, transferred my data to a different entity who has gone on record stating that they may or may not honour the service commitments going forward, and point out the fraudulent name on the invoice.
All of that is completely true, and so I wouldn't be doing anything wrong by saying that. Then the payment provider makes their determination whether to accept the chargeback or not.
The chargeback is entirely justified, even if service is still being provided - because the current owner has indicated that they consider they are under no obligation to continue providing service over the contract length.
I'm not sure where you see the jail part in this series of events.
Except Eric has stated that he doesn't have the obligation to provide service and is just doing so because he feels like it.
Just to be correct, there is no evidence that suggests otherwise, but we still don't know what deal Eric made with Lewis. Perhaps Eric did agree to honour the obligations that Lewis had to provide service, in which case Eric failing to do so would be a legal matter between him and Lewis.
But from our side, Lewis has the obligation to ensure that service is provided. That Lewis said it's not his problem any more doesn't absolve him of that obligation, it just provides grounds to chargeback especially as Eric has shown intent to only selectively provide service.
I think we need some new developments cuz I'm tired of seeing the same arguments.
It clearly is allowed.
Being in between is surely just not having an opinion.
The rest is just whether you're right or wrong, and the point of this discussion is for both sides to explain why they think the other side is wrong. Ultimately, both sides can completely believe they are correct, but obviously the opposing view must be wrong.
Personally, I think if the basis of your argument is saying somebody might or might not do something, when they have stated the complete opposite stance themselves, it kind of means your argument is wrong.
That's true. "Lewis" has already issued invoices as a sole trader using made up trading name without indicating his real name. That's already enough reason not to trust him and request a chargeback.
The issue isn't "promoting VeloxMedia". It's great that your VPS is still up (and there's a good chance it might continue to be so until the end of your term, depending on Eric's mood), and great that you have confidence that it will continue to stay up. That's all great, and they might turn out to have an excellent service technically.
The problem is that when others are having problems like just being terminated because Eric feels like it's too expensive, those problems can't just be brushed under the carpet just because you're getting good service. If their service is just terminated at a whim, they deserve a refund. Simple as that.
I also believe that there is sufficient grounds to request a chargeback proactively due to the many other issues going on. That only affects those that want to do that, if you're happy with your service, that's great, but that's not a good reason to discourage others from getting their money back.
If this is true, how the new owner know who did chargeback and delete his service ?
Yeah. Basically the biggest issue can be solved very simply by the new VeloxMedia inc making a statement saying that will ensure that all contracts are honoured until the expiry date.
The GDPR issue is slightly trickier, as Lewis has never been compliant in all the 4 years he's been selling services as he never registered with ICO. But Eric can easily become compliant just by registering with the ICO and following the regulations. In all likelihood, how the business operates won't need to change much.
Yes, Eric and Lewis might have agreed on details Eric haven't shared. But, it's hard to imagine Eric agreeing to keep the services up until the PayPal buyers protection went out, since it would make him accessory to Lewis's fraudulent transfer.
On one hand, he said he's going to remove unsustainable package, but he told people to not fill chargeback because the system is running. And when people filled chargeback, he deleted their services. 🤡
I can state that I am not participating in this forum discussion, but the truth is otherwise. A statement not always is a (legally checked) fact.
True. But IMHO it's sufficient grounds to request a chargeback because it shows intent from both Eric and Lewis not to honour the service.
And do you think people won't give their thought on your statement?
No, but comments from others are clearly going in that direction. Again: people only think in black and white these days. Am I concerned about future stability or providing the service I've paid for? Yep. No because I think my service was at an "unsustainable" rate; but because I (and we all) don't know what will be considered "unsustainable". Is it everything with more than 1 CPU and for less than $1/month? Or 10/month? We simply don't know. Also the way "Eric" communicated upto now doesn't seem to have a clear path worked out, so everything can change. Again. And again.
True. But (and I'm have to repeat that) some people here are considering not getting a chargeback as "stupid". That's the opposite; everybody is entitled on their own opinion, not that of the ones screaming the loudest.
Where am I discouraging people to get their money back? I can only point out the reasons I'm not doing it, why I think there is no ground for it. Just like the people here yelling "chargeback" from the first negative post about a provider. I hope you agree that not only negative attitudes regarding a provider should be expressed, right?
Snipping the rest as otherwise it'll just be more back and forth.
Absolutely. A great experience from a provider should definitely be called out and applauded. I've often mentioned a provider where I had over 9 years without interruption because that is quite rare.
On the other hand, a service that achieved the base level of "staying up for 2 months" is a useful anecdote, but hardly a glowing recommendation.
Perhaps if hundreds people were saying the service was great and one person was complaining then all those useful anecdotes show a trend, but when then majority of customers are being screwed over, a handful of good reviews don't outweigh the negatives.
But anyway, I'm not arguing against your right to say positive things. I'm arguing against those saying that requesting a chargeback is somehow illegal or immoral in this situation.
I wasnt referring to you. I was referring to JasonM
Sorry for the confusion.
People can believe what they want but when they are posting things like
Veloxmedia now has 4 servers temporarily deployed there, 4 servers temporarily deployed in OH2 while we build our separate infrastructure 8+ server in a new location for you guys. Hope to have the agreement signed next week and we're building the equipment now so its ready to go as soon as they have the rack prepped for us and our IPs assigned.
We're also clearing a 2PB storage array for the new DC
It's about as far away as an exit scam as you can get.
For sure plans will be axed and reviewed but everything they are doing points to the new owners providing the services. As much as that may annoy people who wish them to tank.