I cannot see anything of the company being an ass. To the contrary, the op has put himself across very badly.
Clearly you haven't read the chat logs, or you are deliberately overlooking their behaviour and just focusing on me.
This idea that a registrar must transfer in lieu of payment is ridiculous and you know it.
The registrar wasn't "transferring" anything, simply retrieving a code which I was entitled to. I could have asked my new registrar to contact them directly and sort out the transfer between them (in which case the fee would have been justified), however I am the one who enacted the transfer, not them. Can you please elaborate, and explain why giving an EPP code in lieu of payment is "ridiculous", and why he should "know it"?
Frankly you've made yourself look really foolish in this whole debacle and your embarassing claim of having won shows this was nothing more than a game to you.
You're entitled to your opinion. Not sure why you've been so keen to sum things up... repeatedly using words like "debacle", "crass", "embarassing"? Please lighten up
It's clear you already made up your mind who's side you're on regardless of facts, and you are picking out straw man points to give your position merit and to smear my character.
Paypal always side with the purchaser, we all know and loathe them for that.
I for one don't loathe Paypal thanks very much. I've read many stories about Paypal too, but there are always 2 sides to every story. Paypal has never sided with me as the purchaser until now. You seem like a fairly diligent chap, what with your attempts to dissect and sum up my actions in such a decided manner. Out of interest, do you hold the same tenacity every time you read one of your Paypal horror stories? I digress.
My "behaviour" and whether or not that "£10 fee" clause really did exist in the Terms of Service back in 2009 does not invalidate the point being made, and that is, the company were not within their rights to withhold my EPP codes unless I paid them first.
Instead of focusing so intently on smearing my character, citing this incident as a "debacle", using my "behaviour" and mistaken claim over the existence of a Terms of Use Clause as a straw man, I would appreciate if you could offer your grand wisdom in discussing the legitimacy of witholding my EPP codes, which happens to be the crux of this dispute?
The op set about publicly damaging the reputation of a small business due to not reading their terms. His manner in doing so was incredibly arrogant and unwarranted.
He claims they changed their terms however
here is a version from 2009 with the same disputed charge.
Like I said in my previous post, the reasons I have said the negative things in my OP still hold true, apart from the terms & conditions from 2009 showing the charge (which I humbly withdraw). So are you actually making a point to dismiss my other claims in the OP, or are you just passing judgement?
I resent the fact that you are attempting to sum up my motives and paint me in a bad light. Allow me to speculate your motives in a similar manner: You are defending this company because perhaps you also own a small business yourself and once encountered somebody with an attitude, you have a chip on your shoulder and believe "people like me need to be put in their place".
This may or may not be true, but notice how I use the words "perhaps" when passing judgement on your character, unlike what you are doing.
Ok, I read a couple of your logs and as you say you do seem like a "cheeky douche"
That's not what I said but I'll let that slide...
however the support staff courteous and patient; pointing out their staff numbers and questioning the size of their office seems particularly crass. You clearly enjoy arguing and have too much free time otherwise you'd spend less time trolling their online support staff and leave it to Paypal.
Either you skimmed the chat logs or you simply missed it. They were definitely being cheeky beneath their flaky "courteous and patient" facade, you cannot deny that. For example when they addressed me by my last name alone, the manner in which they retorted to my challenges, the way they lied to me saying that their fee covers a third party charge, and then admitting actually it goes towards their wages? How about the numerous times they saw me enter the chat conversation and deliberately close it down on me when they saw who it was?
My last argument with them prior to submitting the Paypal dispute was me trying to get them to answer on a
single key point: they illegitimately withheld the EPP codes from me. They avoided answering on this point, and I was simply calling them out on it. Funnily enough, you seem to be doing similar i.e. you are focusing your efforts on judging my personality and actions rather than talk about said key point.
I pointed out staff numbers and questioned the size of the office because on multiple occasions they tried to give me the impression that they were a much bigger company than they actually were in a bid to establish their legitimacy. They would speak of their different "departments", using this as an excuse to delay sending me my EPP codes, and them using the fictional names in their chat support is what provoked the whole thing. I am certain that I spoke to the same single chap, using different names during this entire "debacle", as you like to call it.
I hope he hasn't sued them already
All that cockyness could backfire, badly.
I haven't sued them, as the Paypal claim succeeded.
Not sure where all this "all that cockyness" comes from though
As RoyMi6 and Beansprout said:
http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm
Section 5, Paragraph 4
As Beansprout pointed out, I'd agree with that line.
It seems to be the most relevant piece of information; especially when backed up with the other policies that outline the reason why an EPP code can be withheld.
Actually, the op originally claimed the company changed their terms and added this fee after he bought the domains. This has since been disproved. Having already paid the fee he set about trying to claim it back using paypal in which he has succeeded but now he will have to pay it again as the domains were since transferred.
It is true that they cannot withhold the transfer out in lieu of this fee but he inexhaustibly trolled their incredibly patient support staff arguing on and on about everything from staff wages, the size of their office and whether a business can determine it's own charges.
Evidently the op, having experienced some success against corporations and subsequently enjoyed some perceived accolade online, embarked upon this debacle purely in the hope of achieving the same. Frankly I believe his behaviour has been nothing less than petty and crass.
Again, I don't know why you've taken it upon yourself to spend so much effort smearing my character.
Also... lofty much?
I guess you've got some apologising to do
I'm waiting to see the chat log where he apologises for his mistake.
To be honest if the op had searched for "icann domain transfer fee allowed" he would have found this FAQ within 10 seconds.
Yet it took you the best part of the evening and the following morning to find? Lastly, read your quote below, scroll up and down, and note the irony.
You clearly enjoy arguing and have too much free time
Speak for yourself
Regardless of likwid's obvious contempt for me, one thing's for certain, now this company will definitely think twice the next time they refuse to send EPP codes when their clients ask.
).
