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
Again, except for the part where Eric said that he plans to drop all the customers he decides aren't worth keeping, and explicitly said that all the LET plans fell into that bracket.
I don't use Discord, so I might have missed it, but AFAIK he hasn't contradicted that yet by making a statement that he will honour every contract to their expiry date. If he did that, then the biggest red flag will be gone. But until he makes a statement to that effect, one has to believe his original statement still represents his true intentions.
> Old owner gone with the money and contract> New owner get new infra> "Guys, it's not an exit scam"Where's Lewis Edwards?
Not keeping the some unsustainable services is quite correct, but announcement needs to be done and the services need to be honoured on the remaining period which was paid for. In my opinion, these should be marked for cancellation as soon as possible, until the end of their billing period, so the customers become aware that their services will be terminated automatically at the end of billing period.
Thanks for clearing it up
None of this is a legal reason for a chargeback. You're allowed to request a chargeback in the following circumstances:
END OF STORY. If you willingly paid for something, you received what you paid for, and you request a chargeback anyway, that makes YOU A CRIMINAL.
Now, if you paid for 12 months and the service is only delivered for 15 days, go ahead and start the chargeback process because that is actually a scam.
If you paid for 12 months and the service is delivered for 6 months then cancelled, there's a different process, which is called small claims court. You don't need a lawyer.
Service was delivered, yes, but isn't fulfilled anymore. The service bought was a VM managed by a UK sole trader. No one here has that anymore, so chargeback is justified.
Where's Lewis Edwards?
It being provided by a specific company is not part of the service. Did you sign a contract that said your server would be in a specific data center rack under the control of a specific company or did it just say you'd get a server?
The contract can be with whoever, that's not what matters, that's who you can sue if they don't fulfill it. If the contract doesn't say where the server is, they're free to get someone else to provide the server on their behalf.
Exactly, they are flagged now and monitored now on the payment processors.
Sure I am young, almost 40 and you old 70-80?
Have worked in several support jobs for companies like Playstation, Google, Ricoh and others and did those things daily in my job the last 2 years, but different context, not for kids companies which occur here.
Lol, old but not that old fwiw.
More like, mature but sexy
They would still have to do something wrong for a chargeback to be legit. You still can't issue one just because.
Note that your bank always evaluates your chargeback request before they make it happen.
love mature, I look more like 25 and have more sympathy with young ppl, but also had several assistant jobs for older executives when I was younger, still have C level thinking and some conns, always was like that.
Not necessarily. They usually make a risk assessment. Like, if they honour a chargeback and they're wrong, who's gonna sue them?
Before an account gets flagged, legal is involved. The moment its flagged, seller is screwed and chargebacks are a free for all.
In this case especially cos the seller has been like, acting shady. Providing false and/or inaccurate data.
Seller screwed up big time. They know it. We know it.
Only party gonna be a pain in the arse are clients, not seller, cos he AWOL.
Now who do you think PP/CC is gonna side with?
Legality aside.
That would imply, that the contract was transferred to Eric, but that isn't the case. Eric only received the assets. You still only have a contract with Lewis, not Velox Media and not Eric. Lewis doesn't fulfill the contract anymore
I mean, the obvious answer to that is that the merchant could sue you. Or call the police on you, since it's a criminal dispute at that point not just a civil one.
Lewis has the right to fulfill his side of the contract by any means he likes, including by asking Eric to fulfill it, unless you have a contract with Lewis that says he can't do that. Think of it as dropshipping.
Think about it: half the providers on here are reselling someone else's servers, sliced up intoVPS. If I have a contract with aluy but the physical machine is owned by onlyservers who they resell, is that a violation? No it's not.
Lewis went out of business, he isn't here anymore. You have a contract with a out of business sole trader. Obviously you can chargeback/dispute, when the other party of the contract went out of business and you have time left where the service should be provided.
Sure... But why would a criminal call the police to make a criminal complaint about someone?
I have £4 to loose + maybe a fine (at very very worst, never gonna happen but let's say it would), now the complainant (fraudulent guy) will loose everything as he'd be outing himself.
Just saying...
Anyone who suggests that a charge back is fraud is forgetting that in all likelihood the was never a valid contract to begin with, so Lewis didn't actually have legal standing to make the charge in the first place. He represented Velox as an incorporated business, but operated it as a sole trader. There are very specific requirements for disclosure that were not followed.
There's no such thing as an out of business sole trader, since a sole trader is just a person, unless he's dead. He's still responsible for all contracts. If he breaks a contract then he does, and if he doesn't break it then he doesn't. Until he breaks it, he hasn't broken it.
There's a reason that law school takes three years in the U.S. after obtaining a four year undergraduate degree, and multiple days of tests to get licensed.
Most of you on both sides are missing the basic point.
"Eric" as the purported successor to "Lewis" posted a statement that constitutes an "anticipatory repudiation" of everyone's agreements with Lewis.
Given Eric's additional statement that Lewis went off with the money, and Lewis' statement that he is no longer involved in any way, there is no doubt that the aggrieved party (suckers who paid for pre-paid VPSes ten days before Lewis decided it was too arduous to perform even one month worth of his side of the bargain) can treat the statement as an immediate breach, suspend their own performance and seek remedies without waiting for the actual performance date.
This is how business in the real world works, when it involves more than daily coffee money.
Since even the most expensive 3 year pre-paid deal costs less than 15 minutes of any decent attorney's time, no one will litigate this.
Nonetheless, it is important to know how things really work because someday in your job or life you might have more than pocket change at stake.
Even McDonalds won't hand you the $1 Coke (that costs them 7 cents) in the drive-through until you hand over the dollar. When you pre-pay something for a year or more to a rando on the internet (of all places!), you are at their mercy with no recourse.
The people who appeared to vouch for the Velox clown show all throughout have been totally silent in the face of your distress.
UNLESS you can REQUEST a chargeback, which is an entirely civil, private legal matter. In fact, in most cases if either you or the payment processor disagrees with an action, you are all stuck contesting it in arbitration, there is no access to a court!
So no, there are no police involved. In fact, you'd be lucky to get anyone involved.
The guy trying to scare you into believing you can't charge back without legal consequence is the dumbest person on the internet today.
I wonder who he is. It can't be anyone involved in this, since it's illegal to have multiple logins on the internet! (That's sarcasm, for some of you who need it spelled out.)
59 pages! lol
I'd like to ask a question: None of us know who Eric really is. He's hiding his identity from us, isn't he?
In other words, an anonymous individual is now fully in control of our data and manipulating it—for example, deleting servers.
Does this constitute a crime under U.S. or U.K. law?
Will the ship stay on course, or will it capsize with an unknown captain at the wheel?
There has been no repudiation. The servers are online. Providing an option for prioritized migration or enhanced protection during a massive DDoS attack isn't a breach; it’s transparent communication. In the real world, when an ISP or data center raises costs due to emergency mitigation, those costs have to be addressed.
It’s easy to call it a 'clown show' from the sidelines, but Eric stepped in to prevent a total immediate blackout that would have happened if Lewis had simply pulled the plug. He is trying to bridge a gap with zero remaining budget.
Encouraging a mass wave of chargebacks is the quickest way to ensure nobody gets service. Chargebacks freeze merchant assets, meaning the money needed to pay the data centers for your VPS uptime disappears. If you want the servers to stay on, you don't starve the person currently paying the power bill.
Calling the entire history of the service 'fraud' just to justify a chargeback is a dangerous game. Banks look at whether you received the digital goods you paid for. If you’ve been using the VPS up until this attack, claiming 'fraud' now because you found a typo in the business registration is a fast track to having your bank account flagged for a false claim.
Eric is trying to sustain a dying service. If you spend all your energy trying to find legal loopholes to bankrupt him, don't complain when he finally decides it's not worth the headache and shuts everything down."
But Lewis already took those right ?
>
That is exactly the point—Lewis took the money and ran. Eric didn't 'buy' a profitable business; he stepped in to try and save a sinking ship that was already $0 in the black and running at a 25% loss. When Lewis left, he didn't leave a bank account full of prepayments to cover the next year of electricity and data center bills. He left a mountain of debt and a bunch of active servers that Eric is now paying for out of his own pocket.
Instead of attacking the person who is actually standing in the data center trying to fix things, maybe focus on the fact that without 'Eric,' there would be no service to complain about at all. He’s trying to bridge the gap with zero resources—give the guy a break for being honest about how bad the situation Lewis left behind actually is."
So in your words chargebacks are taken from Lewis account instead Erics, so you have nothing to worry about. However you have to worry if they are same person.
Now you're changing the narrative, Eric.