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
She is never going to admit anything at this point.
the end is nigh. kill -9 upcoming.
Because 'James King' (as shown in the screenshot) is a popular fraud name? 3 out of 4 FraudRecord entries were only name match.
What puzzles me is the psychology behind this: she knew that she had a history, and yet she thought that she could win with a thread like this? There was no point to this thread.
After I purchased the service, my service was found to be fraudulent, and you immediately deleted my service. I have not used the server. You say here that I used the server for several hours, you liar. Have you forgotten that Ticket will be sent to the mailbox, you can't argue now. Please look at the screenshot:
So you're saying that the OP faked his name? If so, well, case over.
Yes, that's my point. See the latest screenshots of Gmail, I sincerely doubt any Simplified Chinese language users are named 'James King'. Isn't that a version of the Bible?
The version of the Bible is King James, but yes, close enough
If a customer doesn't use their real name, that already counts as fraud, so from that point on, a nuanced discussion about FraudList is besides the point
I honestly don't see why any reputable host would stake their reputation in exchange for 2.49 euros
Have you been following the discussion and do you understand what fraud is?
It's a typical nigerian scam-prince name.
I have updated, the liar was exposed in public. Please refresh the website to see screenshots.
I was too lazy to continue reading past the op, since I knew where things were headed anyways
In which case I don't follow your remark about "reputation", but never mind, it's easier to write a quick sentence about reputation than to follow a discussion
Name is ok, but when name, matches email, it is almost a home run.
Behavior matches and that's the period mark for me.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, if he came up with a better fraud name maybe he can shorten the FraudRecord list to one. But hey,
To clarify, you have terminated and not refunded based n previous actions recorded on fraud record, not the actual illegal activities with you?
So you used a fake name, and are wondering what might have happened?
And you're saying its their responsibility to cover the fees associated with the refund, even though you started with a blatant fraud?
Hats off to @skbenterprise and their fraud protection, thats how it should be.
Don't know about ya'll but to me it looks like the OP is the culprit trying to scam SKBE
Edit: It's hard to see those who comes on forums to complain about something, be it a ticket or billing related, that do not mask/hide their details (name/email) in screenshots
That also bugs me.
If the details are wrong I would at least issue a refund for the amount minus transaction fees.
Perhaps you should read the thread before commenting
How much would you say remains to be refunded after the transaction fees are deducted?
That depends. Response of the host mentions “reputation” alone; was the false name even confirmed? If so at what stage ? Before or after denying of the refund?
If the decision was based on rep, then I believe the full refund is due; host should have run these checks before allowing the order to go to the payment stage if they wanted to avoid fees.
To be clear, I’m not defending the OP, but my problem is tight the withdrawal of service with no refund based on rep, which seems to have happened here as per the hosts response.
Why are people defending SKB here? It perfectly fine that SKB doesn't want to serve this customer, however they can't keep the money. They are refusing the product based on previous actions from other providers, he has done nothing wrong with SKB. It was SKB's decision not to allow this transaction, so if there are any fees related to them sending a refund, then SKB is the one who should pay the fees. Stop being stupid and just refund this money back and this will be over.
Also tip to OP, if somehow SKB still refuses to fully refund you, just dispute the charge with your bank. If you never received your service, you are entitled to a refund. Since SKB never provided you the service you will easily win.
This won't be over just because OP gets her refund.
She will pull the same trick over at another host.
Perhaps it's not a great practice, or perhaps it's due to a practicality of the low-end workflow, but at least my experience with a number of low-end providers who "manually check orders" is that the PayPal payment goes through (quickly) and still before the manual check takes place.
In the case at issue, we don't have all of the details, but I guess that I wouldn't hold it against the provider if the PayPal order succeeds before they have a chance to manually check the order.
This said, from a stricter point of view, I understand what you mean: do all manual checks before even accepting payment. I'm just not sure that this is what happens in most cases in practice in the low-end segment.
Side note: Also, what kind of shitty gateway charges €2.50 as a transaction fee for a transaction worth €2.49? To me, that's just unheard of.
I don't mean the general fee that the provider charges for a refund, I mean what the payment provider actually charged the provider and I highly doubt that it is 2.50€.
fartmother walks on thin eggs