RentACoder nightmare

[Zeeble]

A project of mine went into arbitration in May this year after the coder had made insufficient progress.

It dragged on for absolutely months. I was forfeited twice, and twice a senior arbitrator admitted that a mistake had been made and that the arbitration should be reopened.

RentACoder says in it's contract that if a dispute arises, they test the deliverables to decide what percentage of the project had been completed.
During a period of 5 months, no testing on the deliverables had taken place and Rafeek Kulkarni (the arbitrator) had not even got the point of finalising what the deliverables should be. I was disguisted.

Then, about 1 week ago I had computer problems. My computer went bust and it took three days to fix during which time I was required to respond to the arbitration. I responded, but as it turned out I was a few hours late in responding.

RentACoder immediately used this as an excuse to have me forfeit the arbitration for a breach of the contract, which they claimed would delay the arbitration (the contract says that you have 3 days to reply). I had no way of notifying RentACoder of the problems.
All of the money was sent to the coder and I didn't get a single penny back even though the coder had completed only a small amount.

What really annoyed me was the fact that RentACoder would not be flexible at all in terms of my lateness, they said that it was against the contract and therefore I had forfeited. However, I had responded on Thursday Sep 14, 2006 6:03:25 PM Rafeek then responded on Friday Sep 15, 2006 9:30:59 AM 15 hours later! Yet they have the audacity to say that I held the arbitration up.
At one point during the arbitration it actually took Rafeek more than 7 days to reply to a comment made, yet I wasn't allowed an extensions of less than a day due to unforseen circumstances thus loosing me over $300.

To sum up:
An arbitration with NO PROGRESS lasting 5 months.
A loss of $300 due to a slight delay which was explained.
Numerous mistakes on behalf of RentACoder (self admitted)
Arbitrators taking more than 7 days to reply.
Copy and paste answers with no real understanding of the situation.

If you want to avoid all of the above, DO NOT USE RENTACODER.

I have reported them to BBB and SquareTrade, although I doubt I will get any money back. I just wanted to make people beware that their arbitration system is useless and wastes a lot of time.

RentACoder actually said that my arbitration lasted for a record amount of time, and at one point Ian Ipolitto had to step in to say that Rafeek had forfeited me wrongly and to reopen the arbitration.

 

[Legal]

Nashfan,

>>On second thought, I concede this point. You're right here.

I'm glad we could come to an agreement on this issue. RAC has no issues with anyone, other than those that go around making up untrue things to try to get people to unfairly stop using it.

>>If Budweiser made a Super Bowl commercial in which they did this to me, I would take legal action. However, I hesitate to believe that you have caused much harm in this case. Presenting your case in hopes of Colin Behr "coming clean" is one thing, but legal action is a bit inappropriate, I believe.

I understand what you're saying about the Super Bowl commercial. However I can't quite agree that Colin Behr hasn't done much harm. Not only did he post these untrue statements about RAC on this thread, (which can be read by anyone in the world) but he also said (on this thread) that he filed reports with Sqaure Trade, the BBB and (according to him) with the Attorney General's office. That is pretty close to Colin Behr doing his best to "super bowl ad" the situation.

>>I am being perfectly honest and direct with you, Mr. Smith. I do not appreciate the implication that I'm not. I posted my project a few months ago, around December 06/January 07. I'll see if I can find the page for you.

Nashfan, I apologize that I had to ask you for that, and I understand how you feel. Hopefully you understand that some people that I deal with that are anonomous and over the internet, do not aways give you accurate information 100% of the time, and this can cause problems. ...Especially when an emotional issue is involved. A good example are the people at the beginning of this thread who relayed that they had "bad experiences on RAC" but when I told them to give the URL and that RAC would apologize if a mistake had been made, they never responded. I suspect that at least some exaggeration was occuring there.

I'm glad to hear that wasn't the case with you.

Rod

--------------------------------
Acronym007,

I'm sorry to see we are drifting even farther apart in our understanding of each other. We may have to end up agreeing to disagree on some things. But at least lets address it logically and fairly like gentleman, instead of dropping to the level of insulting me personally. That is not what this board is about, nor any rational discussion. Can we at least agree to this Acronym007?

I suspect you are not aware of the following which I ask you to consider:

1) Colin's contract with us is setup deliberately to avoid frivilous lawsuits. No one wants to be in such a lawsuit...they are a waste of time and money. So they are avoided by the contract saying that the loser must pay the winner's fees. This means that if Colin really did tell the truth (as he is claiming), WE will pay his legal fees. Plus he will probably MAKE money from penalties. So we have absolutely no incentive to pursue this, unless Colin Behr really did post inaccurate information. (If you were not aware of this I can send you links showing this in detail).
2) Since #1 is the case, it's impossible for me to "bully" Colin. The contract is deliberately setup that way to avoid frivilous law suits. Does this make sense?
3) Rights to post inaccurate information: Imagine you buy a new Toyota and get drunk and wreck it. They won't refund your money. So you get back at them by lying on a bulletin board about what happened and say they sold you bad car and wouldn't refund it. You advise everyone to steer clear of them and complain to the BBB, Square trade and attorney general to try to generate as much negative publiclity as possible.

Acronomy007, if a person did they above, would they be behaving ethically? If the answer is "no", then doesn't Toyota have a right to sue them to protect themselves from the damage the unethical person is causing.

Please note, I am not asking you to agree that this is the case HERE. I'm asking you to at least synch up with me on what your rules for ethics are.

Rod

-------------------------------------------
Colin,

>>Many people in this thread have said that they were actually going to ignore what I had written until you did what you did. It is therefore YOU who has done the damage and not me.

"Many" is debatable, but even if it were not, there is a difference between "many" and "all".

As an example: Polour.NET said the following (BEFORE I posted anything, but after you posted your inaccurate information):
"Oh well, guess time to look elsewhere..."

Clearly he falls in the category of choosing not to use us due to your inaccurate statements. And I suspect that when we subpoena for the logs and interview others who have viewed this thread, we'll have many others to add to that list.

Further, your complaints to the BBB, Square Trade and Attorney general with false information were obvious attempts to maximize the damage from your false statements.

Colin, you deliberately spread inaccurate information in an attempt to damage another party. It was unethical and you are responsible for your actions.

Rod

 

[AMDWarrior]

No Offense, but I wouldn't use you either after reading this thread and not because of anything that was said by anyone but by you, just in the way you act in this post would be enough to make me stay clear of RAC.

 

[Legal]

AMDWarrior,

No offense taken.

Let me ask you a question. I don't know what you do for a living...if you work for yourself or someone else? Let's say your work yourself (if you work for someone else, let me know and I can change the question).

You depend on that business for yourself and to feed your family. Then someone lies about your business with the intention of making others not use you. And you read on that same thread other people saying "That's terrible. I won't use them either". What in your mind would be the appropriate thing to do?

Rod

 

[Zeeble]

AMDWarrior,

No offense taken.

Let me ask you a question. I don't know what you do for a living...if you work for yourself or someone else? Let's say your work yourself (if you work for someone else, let me know and I can change the question).

You depend on that business for yourself and to feed your family. Then someone lies about your business with the intention of making others not use you. And you read on that same thread other people saying "That's terrible. I won't use them either". What in your mind would be the appropriate thing to do?

Rod

Right, your forgetting the fact that nobody has said that they would not use your service because of what I have said, but because of what YOU have said.

Therefore the appropriate thing to do would be to apologise and try to work out the situation without just bulldozing in.

I haven't come here saying "You robbed me". I have come here to tell people what happened, step by step which to most people would mean that I at least have a legit reason (whether or not you deem it to be accurate) for complaining as something in the process of the arbitration has clearly gone wrong. I deem that to be you, and you deem that to be me.

Rather than bulldozing your way in threatening me you could have explained yourself and left it at that. For anyone who's interested the facts would be fully available to make their own mind up.

Instead you have bullied by the use of threats against me which is the real reason why people here have posted why they would not use RAC.

 

[Legal]

Colin,

I'm not sure why you are responding to something that wasn't addressed to you, but I shall respond.

>>Right, your forgetting the fact that nobody has said that they would not use your service because of what I have said, but because of what YOU have said.

This is plaingly inaccurate, Colin. I will repeat again what I wrote just one posting ago to you: Polour.NET said the following (BEFORE I posted anything, but after you posted your inaccurate information): "Oh well, guess time to look elsewhere..." Numerous others sympathized with you and gave you information on reporting to the BBB, etc.. And when we subpoena the records for viewers and interview them I'm confident there will be many people who were driven away by your inaccurate comments.

>>Therefore the appropriate thing to do would be to apologise and try to work out the situation without just bulldozing in.

So Colin, you are saying that in the above hypoethtical situation I just described, (where someone does business with you, you do nothing wrong, they lie about it to try to discourage peple from doing further business with you, and you depend on that business for your living as well as to support your family)...you would "apologize and try to work out the situation without just bulldozing in"?

Come on Colin. Do you apologize to the man who steals your wallet and wish him a good day? Or do you report him to the police so that he can't do it again to you, and to protect everyone else whom he would take unfair advantage of?

>> I have come here to tell people what happened, step by step which to most people would mean that I at least have a legit reason

If that was all you did, there would be no problem Colin, and I would never have even posted on this thread.

The problem is that you lied about a # of things to try to gain sympathy for yourself and to drive business away from RAC unfairly. That was where you crossed the line.

For example, you told people RAC forfeited you for just barely missing a 3 day deadline...encouraging people to sympathize with you about your situation and how inflexible RAC was. You deliberately omitted the fact that you were in fact given 3 exceptions by RAC for missing your deadlines. We bent over backwards for you, and you repaid that kindness by sticking a knife into our backs over it. You knew what you were doing...you were intentinoally trying to drive away business...business which we depend on for ourselves and our families.

>>Rather than bulldozing your way in threatening me you could have explained yourself and left it at that

Most people never read past the 1st page of postings. Doing that, would not stop the problem (which is continuing even now), in that people have a warped view of what happened and unfairly blame RAC because of the inaccurate statements you've made about what happened.

Had the roles been reveresed and had I been lying about Colin Behr enterprises and caused damage to your business, you would have every right to both present your side of the story, and then take whatever action was necessary to get that first page of false information removed.

Rod

 

[Zeeble]

For example, you told people RAC forfeited you for just barely missing a 3 day deadline...encouraging people to sympathize with you about your situation and how inflexible RAC was. You deliberately omitted the fact that you were in fact given 3 exceptions by RAC for missing your deadlines. We bent over backwards for you, and you repaid that kindness by sticking a knife into our backs over it. You knew what you were doing...you were intentinoally trying to drive away business...business which we depend on for ourselves and our families.

Well, first of all, I posted about one abritration, so why you include what happened in other arbitrations doesn't make sense.
My original post was concerning just ONE SINGLE arbitration so why I therefore have no reason to mention the history of any others.

Again, I missed the deadline twice in the arbitration. I deemed the fact that I was forfeited to be unfair, hence why I posted here and in regards to this.

It didn't even occur to me that I should talk about other arbitrations which have occurred as they were totally irrelevant to the post that I had made, and in fact to the arbitration in question.

RAC arbitrators have even said to me before that previous arbitrations are ignored whilst in a new arbitration, so again, why are you even discussing them?

So to say that I was late three times is actually a misrepresentation on your part.

 

[Legal]

Colin,

>>Well, first of all, I posted about one abritration, so why you include what happened in other arbitrations doesn't make sense. My original post was concerning just ONE SINGLE arbitration so why I therefore have no reason to mention the history of any others...RAC arbitrators have even said to me before that previous arbitrations are ignored whilst in a new arbitration, so again, why are you even discussing them?...So to say that I was late three times is actually a misrepresentation on your part.

Had you only complained about the arbitration itself, that would be a fair assumption to make. But you actually complained about a RAC policy...not just the arbitration. RAC policies span multiple arbitrations. And since the policy was actually the opposite of what you claimed it was, it was important to show that this policy is consistently more lenient than you were making it out to be. As we saw on your 2 arbitrations...even though your contract says you forfeit the first time you don't respond in 3 days, we ALWAYS give people a 2nd chance. It is only when they also fail that 2nd chance that they forfeit.

>>Again, I missed the deadline twice in the arbitration. I deemed the fact that I was forfeited to be unfair, hence why I posted here and in regards to this.

Colin, I am glad to see that we are coming to some common ground here, regarding the fact that RAC did give you an exception to the forfeiture.

Let me ask you another question. Let's say the roles were reveresed. Let's say:

1) The coder missed his 3 day deadline to respond (instead of you).
2) We gave the coder an exception to the forfeiture clause in his contract (as we did to you). At the same time, we warned the coder that if he missed another one, that he would forfeit, becuase he would not receive another exception.
3) The coder still didn't respond and missed the 3 day deadline again.
4) He gave an excuse that his computer crashed. But:
4a) It cannot be verified as true (other than by taking his word for it).
4b) He cannot provide a legitimate reason as to why he didn't just logon at the local library or internet cafe.

Colin, what should happen to the coder in the above situation? Should he be given a 3rd chance, and further delay your arbitration?

(I can tell you that on RAC, the coder would forfeit and you would win the arbitration. Note: Even if the above happened, but the coder had a logical and verifiably excuse...for example an illness with documentation from the hospital...an exception would be made. The same accord is given to buyers as is given to coders.)

Colin, do you really feel that the coder should be given a 3rd chance under the above circumstances?

Rod Smith

 

[TakeReal.com]

No Offense, but I wouldn't use you either after reading this thread and not because of anything that was said by anyone but by you, just in the way you act in this post would be enough to make me stay clear of RAC.

It is very good to know. And I am going to complete my 865th project. Via RentACoder of course.

 

[touchring]

No Offense, but I wouldn't use you either after reading this thread and not because of anything that was said by anyone but by you, just in the way you act in this post would be enough to make me stay clear of RAC.

RAC is very firm on deadlines and regulation. You either play by the rules, or you lose the arbitration or project. As in all low cost propositions, there is no time to waste.

 

[snareklutz]

Colin,

If RAC's logs are correct, then I feel that you are being dishonest. RAC had refunded $55 to you out of the $300. At many times, you have been exaggerating the situation. In comparison with other freelance sites, RAC is by far one of the best. It is their arbitration system that protects both buyers and sellers (I have been both a seller and a coder). In comparison with GAF or scriptlance, the absence of a arbitration system means a buyer could pay and receive nothing, and a coder do work and receive no pay.

The fact that you failed to reply is not RAC's fault but yours. Under the contract, you are required to reply (other than certain circumstances such as natural disasters), even if it means using a public computer. RAC was generous enough to give you an extension, so by all means honour it! One of the things that make arbitration a slow and tedious process is that people like you take so long to respond. In fact, the process could not have possibly continued until a reply was received from you.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[-MGS-]

Hey,

Well just doing research into RAC, any update on this? The case etc?

When I read through this (not taking sides I hope), spent an hour of my time looking at this and also researching as well. But as a potential customer of RAC, which is what I am. I am worried about how this has all been handled.

I understand that RAC wants to defend itself and protect the company name. But this thread and how RAC(rob) have replied is damaging the companies integrity, even if you are right, I still do not understand why you have used some strong handed tactics. I understand the nothing is clear cut and me and everyone else probably does not understand it as best as you (Rob) or Zeeble.

But what RAC has said here is worrying me, Is this how they want to handle customers? As me being a potential customer I am worried that if I have a problem I cannot complain on forums like this without being sued (unless I stand in Parliament and then I can say whatever I want as long as I was an MP).

The reputation of RAC should be key at the end of the day but this thread is doing more damage than good. Not by Zeeble but by you Rob, how you have handled this case but also the tactics used.

To me, I just think this is getting out of hand and RAC need to cut its losses and understand that customers are what they need to work for, not against.

Just what think, but I am just a grad student

Thanks

-Dan

 

[touchring]

As me being a potential customer I am worried that if I have a problem I cannot complain on forums like this without being sued (unless I stand in Parliament and then I can say whatever I want as long as I was an MP).

I'm a user of RAC, basically, you are either a buyer or a seller on RAC - what you are NOT is a "customer". RAC arbitrator plays god here.

And since the commission is deducted from the seller payment, if there were to be a customer of RAC, the seller is more of a customer than the buyer.

:tu:

 

[Zeeble]

I have received no further communication from RAC.

I have shown my side of the story, and the arbitration has been posted. Obviously I believe that the case was not handled fairly and RAC believes otherwise. It's great to know that rather than to actually come out and give their side of the story they have to threaten legal action in order to remove customer complaints from the internet.

 

[touchring]

I think they should thank you for the publicity. No one bothers about RAC, most people get their projects done without going through arbitration, and will never need to deal with them directly.