Is this poor customer service?

[qps]

First of all, let me start by saying that I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with us.  I'd like to explain our process and the series of events so that everyone understands what happened.

 

When an order is flagged by MaxMind, the order is automatically cancelled by the MaxMind plug-in in WHMCS, and a message is displayed on the screen advising the customer to contact us for more information.  The customer noted that they saw this message in one of their posts.  I'm sorry if the message wasn't clear enough, but it said in the message to contact us for more information.  

 

When the customer contacted us, we notified him that based on the warning characteristics of the order, we did not wish to continue.  When orders have a number of warning characteristics, even if we spend the time to work with the customer to address all of the concerns, we aren't likely to ever going to feel confident in our decision to allow the order to proceed.  

 

We don't like revealing to high risk orders why their order was flagged, as it gives them a roadmap on how to either attempt to defraud us or others in the future.  I am not saying that was this customer's intent here, just speaking in general terms.  That is why our first e-mail did not reveal any of the reasons why the order was rejected.

 

Here are the reasons why the customer's order was rejected.

 

1) MaxMind flagged his IP address as high risk.

2) The name on the customer's account did not match the name he used in a previous sales request, nor in his e-mails to us.

3) The customer utilized a VPN to submit his order.  (NOTE: At the time we did not realize it was the IP address of a competitor's network, so this didn't play into the decision.)

4) The address the customer provided was in Atlanta, but the residential IP address was that of Northland Cable in Greenwood, South Carolina (after he disabled his VPN).

5) The name, address, e-mail address and phone number on the whois of the domain name provided did not match the information provided on the order form.  This by itself is not a warning characteristic, but when combined with other warning characteristics, this escalates our level of concern.

6) The customer signed up for more than one month in advance.  We often find that fraudulent orders are placed for multiple months in advance to "test" the credit card.  This by itself is not a warning characteristic, but when combined with other warning characteristics, this escalates our level of concern.

 

Based on these issues, we did not want to proceed.

 

When the customer e-mailed us a second time, the customer's tone started becoming aggressive.  We did not immediately respond (as we were working with another customer to resolve an issue which took priority over a billing request on a Saturday).  He sent another e-mail just under an hour later with links to three industry sites at the top of the e-mail, which we took as a threat to allow the order to go through or else he would post negative reviews.  We don't take threats lightly and this was the end of the conversation for us.  In our final message, we advised him of the VPN issue as one of the reasons why we did not want to proceed and wished him well in his search for another provider.

 

Later, after he posted on WHT and VPSBoard and made a number of accusations about QuickPacket being a malware host, that we were trying to defraud our customers, and whatever else he has claimed, we looked a little deeper into his order and discovered that his IP address belongs to a competitor.  The customer has stated that the IP address he ordered from was his work VPN IP address, so this leads me to wonder if his attempts to bash us are at least partially motivated by his employment by a competitor.  Whether or not he works for a competitor really doesn't matter to me.  I only mention it because he said he works for the company he VPN'ed in from or something to that effect.

 

I'm surprised that the VPSBoard staff has allowed the IP address information I shared in confidence with them to end up in jarland's hands.  After assuring me that the info would not leak out, they did it anyway.

 

Let me also clear up two false things that this customer has claimed.  

- At no time have we attempted to defraud anyone.  The plans on our website are accurate.  If we catch a typo, we correct it.

- We do not tolerate malware being hosted on our network.  We investigate and address all abuse complaints.  Our reaction to the abuse complaint depends on the situation.

 

That's pretty much all I have to say about this matter.  I hope this clears things up for everyone.

 

[jarland]

I'm also shocked that the VPSBoard staff has allowed the IP address information I shared in confidence with them to end up in jarland's hands.  After assuring me that the info would not leak out, they did it anyway.

I requested it from the user directly. I was very thorough but promised not to share information that could allow others to perform any malicious action in his direction, so I shared my conclusion but not my work. I assure you that unless it varied from the IP he used for the order, I did not make a mistake in my conclusion. I simply dislike this particular scenario and believed the user wasn't being heard correctly, so I stuck my nose in. Don't take it personally or anything.

 

[qps]

I requested it from the user directly. I was very thorough but promised not to share information that could allow others to perform any malicious action in his direction, so I shared my conclusion but not my work. I assure you that unless it varied from the IP he used for the order, I did not make a mistake in my conclusion. I simply dislike this particular scenario and believed the user wasn't being heard correctly, so I stuck my nose in. Don't take it personally or anything.

Like I said in my post, whether or not he worked for a competitor didn't matter.  We made the decision to reject the user's order based on the other factors I mentioned.

The possibility of him working for a competitor was only considered after his statement that the IP address he ordered from was his work IP address.  He has now said that he doesn't work for the company that the IP address belongs to, so that's fine.  Perhaps I jumped the gun in posting that, but it doesn't really change anything about the situation.

 

[MartinD]

I'm surprised that the VPSBoard staff has allowed the IP address information I shared in confidence with them to end up in jarland's hands.  After assuring me that the info would not leak out, they did it anyway.

I just want to clarify something here;

None of us that have access to IP address information would ever (and will never) give that information out to anyone. Ever. Period.

We have been asked in the past and the answer was always no. We're not in to playing that game so rest assured that information is 'safe' on here.

 

[qps]

I just want to clarify something here;

None of us that have access to IP address information would ever (and will never) give that information out to anyone. Ever. Period.

We have been asked in the past and the answer was always no. We're not in to playing that game so rest assured that information is 'safe' on here.

When I posted that statement, I thought that another moderator had shared the info I provided to him to jarland.  jarland has since clarified that he got the info from the user himself, so no problem there.

 

[MartinD]

That's all good and I get that

Just wanted to make sure that people knew we didn't and don't do that.

 

[devineball]

I'm not sure ( as I don't have time to read this thread and the WHT thread and get paid to act like I'm working) if I have caused any problems trying to disprove the competitor allegation made by QPS. If that is the case, I was fully aware and consented to the information I provided to disprove this claim.

 

[devineball]

I have and am currently replying to the conversation about this topic at WHT:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1301704

I can't really post at both places simultaneously.

It is also worth mention that I will post other inconsistencies with QPS claim but I don't have the time at the moment as I am dealing with the competitor claim at the moment. So there are more inconsistencies with what QPS has claimed today.

And on a side note, I think QPS is probably a good host as far as host service goes. I am questioning the ethics of their decisions, specifically the competitor accusation but also other inconsistencies, in regards to me but as I have stated before I think this is an isolated incident. However, these decisions do reflect the company as whole even though they may be isolated.

 

[AnthonySmith]

wow, this thread was just not needed, let me sum it up for you in sane terms.

Order was rejected for reasons that are fairly standard, it is fairly standard because after you loose a few thousand a year due to orders that follow the same pattern you get a little less understanding.

They are not trying to be a dick about it that is just the way it is, this could have been dealt with without the drama jeez.

 

[qps]

We've made our position clear.  This will be our last post here on this topic.

 

[tonyg]

wow, this thread was just not needed, let me sum it up for you in sane terms.

this could have been dealt with without the drama jeez.

100% agree...like I stated in a prior post, the OP should just have moved on.

There really was no need for any of this back and forth.

My Socrates moment:

Dealing with rejection in a healthy way is part of the key to a long, healthy life.

 

[Tactical]

All this stuff was is not even needed. How about changing the title of the topic to "How I make a Fuss Over Nothing!" Nothing was actually done wrong here except someone getting their feelings hurt over a rejected order. Just grab hold of your big boy pants and let it go!

 

[MartinD]

Agreed. I've edited the title to something a little more appropriate.

 

[devineball]

@SgtZinn

Do you think when a hosting company says that a review is from a competitor when in fact it is not is a big deal? Basically whenever a host sees a negative review about themselves they simply say "the review is not legitimate, it is from a competitor". And do you not see how that kind of undermines the honest review platform?

QPS said I was a competitor. At WHT he says that statement was posted because he "honestly" thought HostWay was posting a negative review of him.

This thread was never about rejection of an order. As I have stated multiple times I am fine having my order rejected. The problem arose when QPS gave a one line reply as the reason for rejecting my order:

Due to the characteristics of your order, we are not willing to accept your order. Unfortunately, when there are certain flags, it is too much of a risk for us to proceed.

So as a person that does not work in the hosting industry, the vagueness of that answer is troubling. What aspect of the information that I gave them is "too much risk"? If my domain or email or IP are flagged, and as an honest customer, how am I supposed to get a new host? So, yeah I don't really think rejection on behalf of risks is that small of deal. If your domain is problematic or email or IP then you big issues to deal with.

But, this is not a thread about rejection of an order. This is a thread about the customer service received in regard to the rejection of order. And sadly QPS has said I am using a fake identity and that he believes I am HostWay in an effort to discredit the review, but it is still about customer service. You send me a bill, invoice, order confirmation. You don't send me any information saying the order is canceled. I had to contact them. And then you give me a one line reply that is so vague it could mean many different things. All of which, with the exception being a VPN, are major issues.

@tonyg

Yes, I could have just moved on and tried at another host. But if you receive a message saying your domain might be flagged are you going to just move on. No you are going to ask what specifically is the risk. And I think the main issue here is that someone that is fraudulently trying to get hosting service they:

1. Wouldn't contact you asking first "why can't I login" then "what are the risks"
2. Wouldn't contact you 11 days prior asking you about your datacenter location. I kind of doubt service quality issues would be something a fraudulent person would ask about.

Someone that was fraudulent would have just changed the IP, name, email, domain and tried again. Is anyone here incapable of figuring out how to do that? Do you think a fraudulent person would probably have the same level of knowledge?

Instead I contact them asking why I can't login with the account info they just sent. You think a fraudulent person would bother with that question? Or how about when I ask "what is at risk" with my order? A fraudulent person is probably pretty likely to know the answer to that question and therefore wouldn't ask it.

So, QPS could have simply looked further into what MaxMind flagged and communicated those findings to me. And they could have sent a notice that the order had been rejected. If you send someone a bill for services, you kind of should be contacting them to say the bill is not owed. I am of course looking at this from a consumer perspective not from a hosting company perspective.

@MartinD

I think many people have weighed in on whether they think that is appropriate customer service so the title change is welcomed.

I'll also state that, the ordering system, I think it is WHMCS?, at least the one from QPS is flawed. I'm not sure if it customizable for certain things. But, as was the case with QPS, it sent a bill, an account confirmation and an order confirmation. Generally these are things that you see AFTER being accepted/verified. Not before. I was sent a bill for an order when I had no order. I was sent and order confirmation when the order was not confirmed. I was sent an account confirmation when the account was not accessible. And worse, when your order is canceled, you get no notification. i'm not sure if WHMCS, or whatever the ordering system is, is setup in this manner but that is obviously wrong.

Confirm the order then send out the bill and the order confirmation.

Confirm the account then send out the account confirmation.

If order is canceled send out notification.

I'm not a business specialist but that seems to be a better system of purchase notification to me.

So I get a order, that I just got a bill for, canceled with no notification.

Then I get a vague reply  that my order information is high risk.

Is that poor customer service?

Do you think that would happen at Amazon.com?

Or at restaraunt:

Place order. Get the bill first. No food comes for one hour.  Flag down waiter. Waiter says we can't serve you here and there is a high possibility that they won't be able to serve you at other restaurants. And a good day to you sir!

And then you review the restaurant service and they claim you are a competitor.

All around 5 star customer service.

 

[AnthonySmith]

seriously stop writing war and peace, accept it was not personal and move on. I totally get it, it is annoying but it is not worth the amount of your life you have given over to it already and the stress you have caused a number of people.

 

[Jade]

Personally, I think QuickPacket is completely in line for what they did. Every host has the option on to refuse an order that was flagged as fraud. Nothing left to say about this, should just move on.

 

[clarity]

I am not sure why we are still discussing this. People are not required to do business with anyone in the US. As long as they are not discriminating against you for a physical trait, they can essentially do whatever they please. 

If you don't like it, there is really nothing that you can do. Move on!

 

[devineball]

@AnthonySmith

Stop reading war and peace.

It is apparent that some people here are having difficulty understanding the basics of business/customer relations.

And as for it being annoying. Yeah. When someone tries to say you are using a fake identity to discredit an honest review that is annoying.

@jade

Personally, I think QuickPacket is completely in line for what they did. Every host has the option on to refuse an order that was flagged as fraud. Nothing left to say about this, should just move on.

Actually, I think most businesses have the right to turn away customers? So aside from that insight, that wasn't the problem be discussed. The problem is when a host rejects a customer how and in what manner they notify that customer.

In this case they waited an hour. Was sent no notification. Then given a vague reply that meant I had figure out the risk prior to "moving on" as so many host providers here are suggesting. Because, another obvious statement, it's not like I was going to just keep on trying different hosts until I found one that didn't flag my order.

 

[devineball]

@dclardy

Ok, one more time, the rejection is not the issue.

And yes you can't turn a person away from a business for their race. Hallmark example. Still not the case here.

Please read above where I tried to spell out the issue.

• order/bill/account confirmation
• contact customer support
• 1 hour wait
• informed of order cancellation
• no order cancellation was ever sent.
• hosts provides vague response that the order is risky. Does not say what the problem is because they think fraudulent people can't use deductive logic and change their IP, Name, Email and Domain.

I think the restaurant example in #54 is good though. Try that, I made it a quick read. It's at the bottom.

 

[Tactical]

LOL Where is my gun!