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
The name and company used for VeloxMedia's registration in the US is the same one that's been linked to Benthost since around 2016.
No sign of that on socials - at least not in the last 10 years
That wont stop LET legal making it so lol
That's exactly my point already from the start when "Eric" came in and people where calling out for chargebacks. If you still have some kind of service running, they can deny your claim and limit your chances (because you've already tried once) when it actually does happen.
What in my opinion seems strange is that "the merchant" fights the dispute. Who is fighting it when "Eric" states he doesn't have access to it and "Lewis" officially is out of the picture and isn't delivering a service to you anymore.
I don't think I'll get a refund, almost don't care. It's more like "it's a too big mess to leave it untouched" and if I can make their next attempt a bit harder or prevent future victims, I will.
True - I've taken the DDoS message also not seriously. I mean, the whole "let's play a game" part of this thread sums it up: they are playing a game, creating a narrative, and we don't know (or see any proof) of any of it is true or not. But that part ("let's play a game") was really pushing from them to see how far they could go by stating "FBI" and "Homeland security" - come on... they have better things to do, especially on those kind of holidays. Same goes for lawyers.
Usually DDoSes are either by people who want to make a "big statement" and have financial win to it, or by scriptkiddies who are bored on a day like Christmas day and start one. In both cases, they usually are not active in threads like these. But hey, that's my opinion. If someone has real evidence, let me know.
A friend of mine who works in finance in New York suggested I frame my appeal around the concept of “Anticipatory Breach of Contract.” He told me to build out all the details under that theme—screenshots, links, and even specific posts VeloxMedia made on the LET forum.
I’ve already done that, and if my appeal ends up being successful, I’ll make the content public.
BTW, he also stressed that I need to highlight the fact that VeloxMedia’s account has already been banned by LET. He said this point is important for the bank’s assessment, since the promotional information was originally posted on LET.
Definitely. You have "proof" that the original provider has publicly stated that he is no longer responsible for the service and the person taking it over has stated intent to cancel the services and has told everyone the confirmation mails are incoming.
I'd also let your bank know that Stripe and Paypal have already been automatically accepting the chargebacks, providing links to every post where that is described. You could also include the posts where Eric was flagging every chargeback as fraudulent, even after he told people to do it.
The only reason I can see that Stripe might be pushing back on banks is if they've already paid out everything that was remaining in the unpaid balance and now they'll start having to pay the money themselves from what has already been paid. That's exactly the point they need to start taking responsibility for it, because it shows that they've failed their obligations in KYC and only they are able to start the ball rolling following the money trail of what happened to it once it was paid back. Stripe need to take this seriously for much action to happen here.
But yeah, good info if Velox are actively rejecting claims. It shows that they are very much still involved with that account, or else Lewis has woken up and realised the mess he's got himself in.
But maybe you are best waiting until you actually receive the cancellation e-mail now. Stripe can't turn round and later say you left it too late if you've already been in contact with them.
So when I went through the process—from doubting, to deciding to file an appeal, to actually running into problems with the appeal, especially when the bank manager told me I needed to submit more documents—I became even more convinced that this whole thing was a scam from start to finish.
Because if you don’t have the right background knowledge, you hit a wall as soon as the bank asks: “Is the service you purchased currently working as expected?” The tricky part is, most of the time the service does look normal. Then they ask a second question: “Is VeloxMedia’s website communication channel functioning properly?”—and you hit another wall, because VeloxMedia is sitting there waiting for you to submit a support ticket!
Questions like these shouldn’t all pile up in such a contradictory way during an appeal, which is why most people can’t explain their actual situation to the bank clearly in a short amount of time.
I apologize - It was blocked before, now my card details are gone from the system. But honestly I never requested for them to be deleted so not sure if they are removed or hidden.
Great advice in general but thats why I rotate prepaid ones in the first place.
IMHO I will never do business with a person/company who acts like this, no matter how good the price and/or the performance is. You can be a LET hoster and still acting professional like many do.
Would be my advice too until a couple of years ago. Then the cardcompany pro-actively blocked my card (because they thought they've seen a suspicious transaction), and I had to pay to get a new card...
Have you paid through PayPal?
It could happen that the bank goes after him. In such case, he might need money, thinking about starting another scam, this time more cautious by not going in business as sole trader.
Assuming you luckily get the email where Eric demands $4/month fees; I would argue the current entity which currently leased the capacity to you, demands more payment for goods/service you had prepaid.
So, the next move would be to send message that you requested refund. And perhaps cc your bank/pp.
If he didn't respond or insisted the plan is non-refundable, I think that's enough of evidence that he or the acquiring entity has no good will.
Always sole trader, but have to ask another friend.
My bank also offers disposable cards which is great.
Lots of merchants however insist that you have a card that they can place a recurring charge on, even though you are making a one-off purchase.
When that happens, that adds about +10 suspicion points against that company, so if it was already a border suspect provider, it goes no further. Of course, you've normally given them too much PII for comfort by that point in the process.
But yeah, would definitely explain why they're only sending out the e-mails "in batches of 100" (which nobody can verify) which probably means "as and when they think each order is past the chargeback window".
That sounds like a reason to find a better bank, regardless of what else is going on.
EDIT: pointed out below that it looks like I'm making assumptions about paying the $4/m. This was intended as an additional point explaining why you should not do that even if you like the service.
If you submit to the $4/m demands, firstly I'd say you're foolish for giving in to the scammer.
Secondly, I'd say you've probably given up any claim on the original contract because you've accepted a new contract that explicitly superseded the original. Thirdly, you'd be implicitly giving them consent to continue to hold your PII data. And finally, $4 is getting into the range where I'd carefully vet a provider before continuing. They would definitely fail that test.
Nope - only Stripe was available then, and Stripe charged by creditcard. So I have to go through the process with my creditcard company to get money back, because I don't use a Stripe account for those things and they point me to the CC company...
Sorry, I don't quite understand the part where you assumed, @i12h would pay or consent to the $4/month fees.
Oh wait, it seems you are stating "it would be foolish to", instead of assuming @i12h would.
Yeah, mine should have been a separate point. Sorry it reads like I was contradicting him. Will edit.
I agree.
Re Tom Harper. Its Lewis.
See? Even in our own discussion these weird “walls” pop up, almost like some kind of bug. If it weren’t for falling into a carefully designed trap, you’d hardly ever run into something like this in everyday situations.
Alright we got a new update here and I need opinions.
I did my chargebacks after seeing my account was going to be shut down. However, we are all under the impression the PayPal and Stripe gateways were under Lewis’s information. How did I just get a message from Velox saying my service is suspended due to a PayPal case, if Eric never had access to the PayPal and it was still in Lewis’s control?
Only one of my servers was suspended, and it was the one with the 30gb/RAM for 40/yr. The rest of mine are still active.
@Calypso does this touch on what you were talking about with us not knowing if Eric actually has access to the payment accounts (PayPal/Stripe)? I thought I remembered him complaining about the chargebacks because he wouldn’t know if someone did one and they’d be getting free services?
Apparantly (mentioned somewhere by him in this thread) "Eric" has the ability to view disputed payments in PayPal. He stated that he wasn't able to take control of it, but he can see the status as disputed and was writing a script to terminate disputed services. And then some crazy bla-bla (in my opinion) about it being illegal to keep on using a service you had disputed and received money back from.
So I think that's going on with you: you disputed, he noticed it, he terminated. Even if your dispute is not granted, ofcourse.
Don't say it out too loud...
Yes, it touches a bit, but not as proof as such. It may be that he's able - somehow - to see a status but not have control. However, if someone denies a dispute, someone has to have control of that account - either if it's "Lewis" or "Eric'. In both cases that'd be very interesting...
Another possibility is that he doesn’t have a plan for a new DC in California, and is just closing those instead of moving people. I say that cause my $7 CA server stopped working a few days ago, and now this one is down too. But none of the others are touched despite disputes made for all of them.
lol