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.

 

[ChrisChris]

Just with point 4, the escrow service wont cancel the project soley for that reason.. i learnt that the hard way

 

[touchring]

Just with point 4, the escrow service wont cancel the project soley for that reason.. i learnt that the hard way

I had several projects cancelled because of no delivery (means no executable uploaded) when the dateline is up.

For this reason, i tend to put a "usual" delivery timeline (no one delivers on the usual timeline, even if you engage professional companies to do the job) so that if the coder is trying to "play delay game" i can cancel the project promptly.

In fact, i think buyers are at the upperhand because of this reason. However, this can be subject to abuse and coders should also beware of this.

 

[ChrisChris]

You mustve gotten lucky there

When I used GetAFreelancer.com the guy went 6 months over and I couldnt cancel it. Their way of it 'taking too long' is if you send him an email (with a CC to them) and he doesnt reply within I think it was 48 hours. This obviously wasnt very effective because they can see they got the CC and they always reply.

I only ended up getting the money back on the condition that I didn't leave bad feedback (he organised this with the site). I accepted and never left feedback.

 

[touchring]

You mustve gotten lucky there

When I used GetAFreelancer.com the guy went 6 months over and I couldnt cancel it. Their way of it 'taking too long' is if you send him an email (with a CC to them) and he doesnt reply within I think it was 48 hours. This obviously wasnt very effective because they can see they got the CC and they always reply.

I only ended up getting the money back on the condition that I didn't leave bad feedback (he organised this with the site). I accepted and never left feedback.

Do you mean GAF or RAC? These are 2 different sites. Waiting 6 mths is a dangerous thing to do, because by that, you implicitly imply you are willing to wait. The best is to immediately ask for cancellation 2 or 3 days after the dateline has expired. This way, there is no excuse.

 

[lilgee]

RentACoder i never trusted. People told me so much how bad there business over on it is. A friend got scammed over on RentACoder.

 

[TakeReal.com]

RentACoder i never trusted. People told me so much how bad there business over on it is. A friend got scammed over on RentACoder.

And I am going complete my 790th project. Via RentACoder.com of course.
In opposite to "People" and "a friend" - I am real person. My profile at RAC.

 

[Legal]

Lilgee,

You said: "RentACoder i never trusted. People told me so much how bad there business over on it is. A friend got scammed over on RentACoder."
---------------------------

I am a Rent a Coder admin. If your friendly truly got scammed because of something that Rent a Coder did, then not only will I apologize publicly to him and you on this board, but RAC will pay your friend back...even if the other party has been paid.

On the other hand, if you're not providing accurate information (for example, if your friend did not get scammed, or get scammed becuase he/she broke the rules), then you owe Rent a Coder and everyone on this board an apology for misrepresenting what occurred.

Please give his screen name and the arbitration and we'll start by posting the entire arbitration publicy on this board so the good people here can have all the information. If you're telling the truth, you should have no objection to this course of action. So Ilgee, please do so, so we can do this.

Rod Smith
RAC admin

Colin Behr,

You said:
>>You talk about others identifying themselves, but who are you?

As I said before I work for Rent a Coder. It's not relevant in any way beyond that what my name is. But it is Rod Smith.

>>All the facts are here to see...........! As I have said to you before, I welcome any letters from you solicitor as I have done nothing wrong. You can threaten me as often as you like, however I will still continue to fight my case.

I'm amazed at your confidence, but I will take you at your word Colin. Since you are so confident, then you should have no problem providing me with your current address so that what you described above can happen...right Colin? Please send it to nospam<at> rentacoder<dot>com.

By the way, our UK solicitor actually already sent you an official letter regarding the deliberate and malicious inaccuracies and defamation you've presented on this thread. But it was returned as "person has moved". So Colin, please back up your public show of confidence by emailing me your current address.

On the other hand Colin, if what you said was just a bluff, then you are about to be called on it. If you don't send me your current address, we'll be hiring a UK investigator to get that address. Your contract says that the loser in the court case must pay for all costs of the winner...and bluffing means that you would be the loser.

So I'm waiting on your address Colin.

Rod Smith
RAC Admin

 

[Zeeble]

Lilgee,

You said: "RentACoder i never trusted. People told me so much how bad there business over on it is. A friend got scammed over on RentACoder."
---------------------------

I am a Rent a Coder admin. If your friendly truly got scammed because of something that Rent a Coder did, then not only will I apologize publicly to him and you on this board, but RAC will pay your friend back...even if the other party has been paid.

On the other hand, if you're not providing accurate information (for example, if your friend did not get scammed, or get scammed becuase he/she broke the rules), then you owe Rent a Coder and everyone on this board an apology for misrepresenting what occurred.

Please give his screen name and the arbitration and we'll start by posting the entire arbitration publicy on this board so the good people here can have all the information. If you're telling the truth, you should have no objection to this course of action. So Ilgee, please do so, so we can do this.

Rod Smith
RAC admin

Colin Behr,

You said:
>>You talk about others identifying themselves, but who are you?

As I said before I work for Rent a Coder. It's not relevant in any way beyond that what my name is. But it is Rod Smith.

>>All the facts are here to see...........! As I have said to you before, I welcome any letters from you solicitor as I have done nothing wrong. You can threaten me as often as you like, however I will still continue to fight my case.

I'm amazed at your confidence, but I will take you at your word Colin. Since you are so confident, then you should have no problem providing me with your current address so that what you described above can happen...right Colin? Please send it to nospam<at> rentacoder<dot>com.

By the way, our UK solicitor actually already sent you an official letter regarding the deliberate and malicious inaccuracies and defamation you've presented on this thread. But it was returned as "person has moved". So Colin, please back up your public show of confidence by emailing me your current address.

On the other hand Colin, if what you said was just a bluff, then you are about to be called on it. If you don't send me your current address, we'll be hiring a UK investigator to get that address. Your contract says that the loser in the court case must pay for all costs of the winner...and bluffing means that you would be the loser.

So I'm waiting on your address Colin.

Rod Smith
RAC Admin

Email sent with my new address.

When did you send that letter as I did pick up some mail from my old address as early as 3 weeks ago.

I am certainly not bluffing and I am still awaiting an email from you containing all information that you have about the arbitrations that I have been involved in. It is a legal requirement in the UK for you to share information with me that you hold about me so please send it. This is now at least the 4th time that I have asked, perhaps you will be able to deal with it as no-one else had the "authority" to send me my details.

As I say, I await your letter with full confidence.

Moreover I am totally disgusted again at how you treat people.

Thank you,
Colin Behr

 

[acronym007]

RAC threatens to sue people in a public forum? Wow, I can tell you Rod Smith (RAC Representative) you are doing more damage to RAC than Colin is. The fact that someone used your service is a good thing, if they had a bad experience or what not is not good but not every situation requires a lawsuit. It's ok for people to vent and post cautions and I publicly thank Colin for posting this. Can you sue me too? Sue me for reading a caution post? C'mon, who would use your service after reading this? Rod, even bad publicity is publicity, the first rule of marketing. I had no opinion of your service until you started writing in this thread, now, personally I admit I would be scared to use your service because I could get sued if I vented that I didn't like it. That's not a good thing! Opinions and free speech are welcome, yes, even bashing to a degree is not uncommon for any company receive it's fair share. Colin has 2,000+ posts in the forum and I don't know him from Adam but I would gladly believe his story over a guy that has 3 posts and just joined the community with the title "legal" to threaten a long time member. I guess we'll see how this turns out but from my perch there are some lessons to be learned here, especially by RAC, regardless of the outcome I think your approach is a bit brutish. Cheers,

Acro

 

[JoomDev]

Rent-a-coder

Unbelievable. I was searching this forum for info on something else and this thread caught my eye. After reading all the responses I had to register and comment. As I started to read this thread, I was thinking this poor guy Colin got the wrong end of the stick. I think most of us who do business on the web can sympathize because we all have our own horror stories.

Again, from the start of the thread I figured I was reading about an unfortunate occurrence where the little guy gets it in the wallet. Nonetheless, the reported incident would not have kept me from continuing to use Rent-A-Coder any more than all the problems encountered by others and myself keep me from using Paypal or ebay. In other words, these things happen and you just cross your fingers and hope for the best.

When I got to the end of this thread however and read the responses from the Rent-A-Coder representative here, my attitude changed quickly. The unprofessional and bullying responses from this Rent-A-Coder representative remind me of the way middle school children argue. It is absurd that in the competitive world of freelance sourcing, a Rent-A-Coder representative would be so unconcerned with customer service. So you see "legal" it is your responses here that have damaged your reputation as far as I am concerned, not Mr. Behr's. His post caused me to think "better be careful" with who I deal with on Rent-A-Coder next time I post a project. Your responses however have me thinking that if this is the garbage I would have to deal with if I ever have a need for customer service assistance at Rent-A-Coder; then I will avoid the place at all costs. Take Real, who posted here is a great coder, however, his services are just as readily found on another popular freelancer's site which is actually where I first hired his services.

 

[Legal]

Acronym77,

>>RAC threatens to sue people in a public forum?

Writing accurate information is everyone's right. Writing INACCURATE information is NO ONE's. It is actually a crime (called defamation) and punishable by the law. The reason it's a crime is that it's unfair to damage the reputation of the person or entity that is being written about. And yes RAC protects it's rights against those who would write inaccurate information about it. You would too, if someone wrote something inaccurate about you.

But, Acronym...if you really believe Colin Behr's story is true, then you shouldn't be worried about him one bit. The contract between him and RAC says that the prevailing party has all of their court costs picked up by the loser. So if what he is saying is true, this won't even cost him any money. On the other hand, if what he is saying isn't true, then he will be in for an expensive trip and you should be concerned.

Rod Smith

Joomdev,

>>Again, from the start of the thread I figured I was reading about an unfortunate occurrence where the little guy gets it in the wallet

EXACTLY. You associated RAC with the "bad guy" because of what Colin Behr wrote and assumed that he's some "good" little guy. Now what if it turns out that what Colin Behr wrote was inaccurate? Of course it may be tough for you to consider such a scenario, since RAC is already the "bad guy" in your mind. But hopefully you can consider that statistically, as in any dispute, there is a 50% chance that Colin Behr actually might not be presenting accurate information here. And if so, then not only did you get an unfair impression of RAC, but thousands of others have as well. That's why defamation is a crime and punishable under the law. It's not fair.

If Colin is telling the truth then he has no troubles whatsoever to worry about. That's becuase his contract states that the prevailing party pays the court costs of the losing party. On the other hand, if he isn't telling the truth, then he is in for a very expensive ride.

Rod Smith

 

[acronym007]

Venting is everyone's right. Nothing is ever 100% accurate even your guarantee's. I never said I believed Colin more than you, only that I have no reason not too. I don't believe you have any case whatsoever, he is entitled to free speech, having said that your methods of attacking him are not fair and just and actually counter-productive. Perhaps, he can counter-sue? Maybe there is more opinion here than fact, I don't know the case nor do I claim too but I don't want anyone to fear posting problems because they're afraid the rep from the company will come in here and bully them. Can you sue people because they called you a bully? Is that an opinion or a fact? You have overstepped your bounds Rod. Your a one man tornado, your ripping apart your company's reputation faster than Colin ever could have, don't you get it? Colin may be 100% wrong and that's one person's experience but your approach left a bad taste in my mouth.
Ever heard the customer is always right? I mean I heard many stories about Mcdonald's but I still eat there on occasion and so do millions of others BUT I never once heard the Mcdonalds sue the person because of what they said. Someone goes to Home Depot buys a drill, the drill is broke then they hate Home Depot and bad mouth them but I would still shop there. Now if Home Depot got pissed and sues the guy because they didn't make the drill they only sold the drill. I have a problem with that line of thinking from a company. I'm not going to use a service or company I am afraid of. Good luck trying to win the battle of public opinion with this case, you already lost Rod. If I were you, from one businessman to another, I would strongly suggest you to reconsider your position and help makes Colin's experience better. If nothing else you OWE him that much because he used your service and something did go wrong.

And it's Acronym007, not acronym77. Cheers,

 

[Legal]

Acronym007 (sorry for the name mixup),

>>Venting is everyone's right

Let's synch up on our terms. If "venting" means expressing accurate statements and honest opinions about something you're upset about, then you're correct. It is your right to vent (and everyone's). No one can sue you for that.

But that's not what defamation is. Colin Behr has nothing to worry about if that's all he did. Defamation is the inventing/twisting facts to present a skewed picture of something that happened, to unfairly damage the reputation of another. No one has the right to do that. That's not "venting"...that's deliberate fraud. I certanly hope you're not advocating that people have the right to do this?

Does that make sense Acronym007?

>>Nothing is ever 100% accurate

Often true. But again, there's a difference between true "venting" and defamation. If you truly vent and miss a few minor things, that isn't defamation. You can't be taken to court fot that. That's not what we are talking about here when we are discussing defamation. Defamation is when you deliberately change key things that happened to paint an unfair picture of the other party.

>>Perhaps, he can counter-sue?

A007...there is no need for Colin Behr to do this, becuase if what he posted on this board is true, his contract says we will pay his court costs for him and the judge might even award damages against us. So if he's been truly venting, then he has no problems whatsoever. On the other hand, if he's been engaged in fraud, then he has serious problems.

>>If nothing else you OWE him that much because he used your service and something did go wrong.

That is exactly the point Acronym007. You've just shown that you yourself believe something did go wrong because of what Colin Behr wrote. That seed of doubt about RAC was planted becuase of what he said. Now what if it turns out that it's all not true and that he has an agenda that he's pushing and changed key facts? If so, then he's committed defamation. And that is a crime.

Again, if he didn't do this, then he has no worries at all.

Does the difference make sense?

Rod Smith

 

[JoomDev]

Sorry Rod. I'm afraid you just aren't getting it. From the consumer viewpoint, and that is what this thread is about, this guy paid three hundred dollars and got nothing for it. We aren't interested in your personal definition of libel here, we as consumers are interested in knowing where we will get a fair shake for our dollar and be treated at least politely for our business. I have not seen anything to dispute the fact that this guy paid you three hundred dollars for a service that you did not deliver. Any reasonable business would do everything it could to prevent that from happening. If they don't, they will justifiably lose business because word gets around. People talk as we see they are doing here. This is the United States and we run on capitalism. Service providers that give the consumer a fair deal and treat them right will always come out ahead.

As I stated earlier, Colin's posts did nothing to dissuade me from using Rent-A-Coder again, they just simply reminded me that as a service consumer you need to be careful. In this case it means checking the reputation of the coder and looking for information on their past performance. What has turned me off from Rent-A-Coder is 100% your posts. What you are doing is known on forums as trolling/flaming/griefing. You are simply posting inflammatory posts in an attempt to bad mouth and discredit the person who started thread. I, as a consumer of freelance services, cannot believe that Rent-A-Coder would send a person out into the public to represent them in the manner that you are doing. Regardless of your claims to the contrary, he has every right to share his experiences here, this is exactly why this forum exists; to share information. We don't expect Rent-A-Coder to come here and not give their side of the story, but we also don't expect someone who represents a business to come here and post in such an unprofessional manner.

If you truly represent Rent-A-Coder's philosophy and company culture, than what people are going to take from thread is not what Colin posted, but the knowledge that if they use the Rent-A-Coder service and happen to have a concern or need help at some point, they are going to have an extremely difficult time in getting any sort of fair assistance from a reasonable individual. Again, as a consumer paying for a service, I will choose to use a freelancer site that isn't so hostile.

 

[Legal]

P.S.
>>Someone goes to Home Depot buys a drill, the drill is broke then they hate Home Depot and bad mouth them but I would still shop there. Now if Home Depot got pissed and sues the guy because they didn't make the drill they only sold the drill.

Yes, this shows exactly what I'm talking about Acronym007. You are already are assuming that we ("home depot") did something wrong ("sold the guy a bad drill").

Now let's suppose that Home Depot didn't really sell him a bad drill. Maybe the broke the drill accidentally himself and couldn't afford to tell his wife because she would berate him. Maybe he is a shareholder for Lowes and doesn't like the fact that it's more crowed there on Saturday than at Lowes. Does he still have the "right" to bad mouth Home Depot for a broken drill that never occurred?

If he still does that, then that is not "venting". That is fraud. That is also defamation. And this is certainly not everyone's right to do.

So Acronyom007, I have a simple question for you, so I can understand your ethics:

You go into home depot and buy a drill. The guy demos it for you, so you know it works. On the way home, some jerk cuts me off and causes the drill case to fall on the floor and breaks it. You know your wife is going to kill you because she didn't want you buying another drill in the first place and it's expensive. So you take it back to the store. But the guy tells you they can't refund your money because he knows you left the store with it working.

Do you have the right to then come to this website and complain to everyone that Home Depot stole your money and gave you a non working drill (under the name of "venting)?

I'm very interested to hear your answer.

Rod

-----------------------
Joomdev,

Your statements might be totally on-base...IF what Colin Behr had said about his arbitration was true. But if it turns out that in actuality Colin Behr forfeited the arbitration for a situation OTHER than what he posted here, then what you're saying is completely off-base.

You will be seeing the arbitration posted publicly shortly and then you'll be able to make that determination for yourself, Joomdev.

When that happens, I welcome your input Joomdev on what you're thinking at that time. (Assuming you're not a competitor and have honest intentions. Since you know my name, Joomdev, what is yours?)

Rod Smith

 

[Zeeble]

Rod,

Please answer me the following before saying anything else as you seem to be question dodging:

1. Where are MY copies of the arbitrations?
2. When was the letter from your solicitor sent? If in fact you did have one sent.

I first posted here for 2 reasons:

An arbitration was initiated (not RAC's fault of course) but then the following:

1. Mistakes made (and admitted to) by RAC during the arbitration.
2. Length of the arbitration.

I have not lied or defamed RAC so therefore I look forward to the day when you take me to court for this, even if it is a monumental waste of my time.

Let me say again, the UK data protection act states that any company holding data about an individual must give access to this information to the individual if requested. Why have I still not (after more than 3 months and 6 phone calls) received MY copies of the arbitrations?! Pray tell me, what is the delay?

Also, just remind me EXACTLY what it is that I have said which is libelous?
You claim that I omitted information, which is not true. I would gladly have uploaded the full arbitrations (there is more than one) however you refused to provide them for me.

Ladies and Gentlemen of NP, I would again like to point out that throughout the arbitrations (particularly the first) there was a catalogue of errors which essentially came down to Rafeek (an arbitrator) using copy and paste answers, often having NOTHING to do with the question at hand. Ian (CEO of RAC) then personally intervened after a lengthy period, he stated that a mistake had been made on behalf of RAC and apologized for it. But everything still went wrong.

The proof is there that RAC made mistakes, the arbitration lasted 5 months and RAC still hadn't tested the deliverables!

Again, I have said NOTHING which is untrue so I welcome RAC to finally post the FULL versions (and unedited) of the arbitrations.

I fully understand that when a coder under delivers it is not RAC's fault, it is however RAC's fault if the arbitration goes wrong and under delivers, or doesn't deliver at all.

I am totally disgusted by RAC's behaviour and strongly suggest that no-one use their services.

To those who have commented, thanks for following the dispute and I sincerely hope that we will soon have real proof to show what has happened.

 

[acronym007]

P.S.
>>Someone goes to Home Depot buys a drill, the drill is broke then they hate Home Depot and bad mouth them but I would still shop there. Now if Home Depot got pissed and sues the guy because they didn't make the drill they only sold the drill.

Yes, this shows exactly what I'm talking about Acronym007. You are already are assuming that we ("home depot") did something wrong ("sold the guy a bad drill").

Now let's suppose that Home Depot didn't really sell him a bad drill. Maybe the broke the drill accidentally himself and couldn't afford to tell his wife because she would berate him. Maybe he is a shareholder for Lowes and doesn't like the fact that it's more crowed there on Saturday than at Lowes. Does he still have the "right" to bad mouth Home Depot for a broken drill that never occurred?

If he still does that, then that is not "venting". That is fraud. That is also defamation. And this is certainly not everyone's right to do.

So Acronyom007, I have a simple question for you, so I can understand your ethics:

You go into home depot and buy a drill. The guy demos it for you, so you know it works. On the way home, some jerk cuts me off and causes the drill case to fall on the floor and breaks it. You know your wife is going to kill you because she didn't want you buying another drill in the first place and it's expensive. So you take it back to the store. But the guy tells you they can't refund your money because he knows you left the store with it working.

Do you have the right to then come to this website and complain to everyone that Home Depot stole your money and gave you a non working drill (under the name of "venting)?

I'm very interested to hear your answer.

Rod

Rod,
Let's make one thing very clear you will never bully me, I am not scared of you and your aggressive behavior does not intimidate everyone so I suggest you tone it down for your own benefit. Now, onto the question and answer. Yes, I would return the drill to home depot and tell them the true story and home depot would give me a new drill within 30 days of purchase for just about any reason under the sun because they understand customer service. I'm going to state a fact, you have NO CLUE about customer service coming here beating up on people. It is not going to gain you a customer, it is not about being right or wrong! It's about going the extra mile to make someone's experience a pleasant one. We all told you we don't care so much about this particular incident, we care about your behavior during this incident. Your language, your tone, the way you carry yourself all smells of arrogance and pride with no care for people. I jump in this thread to try and help you understand and you attack me? You ask me questions about my ethics? My ethics aren't involved in this situation, my ethics will never win or lose your company a customer, my ethics aren't this issue, this is not my company. EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO COMPLAIN, EVERYONE! You just don't get it, he can vent, he can allege, he can complain and all the while you can behave like an adult and show the good side of your company but instead you attack me and joom, and Colin? Gimmie a break and come off this kick that your company is perfect. I'm amazed you continue to fight with people in this thread simply BECAUSE WE VOICED OUR OPINION. Apparently the only opinion or voice you like to hear is your own, you cannot take any criticism whatsoever. You have long, tough road ahead of you my friend.

 

[Legal]

Acronym007,

I apologize you felt intimidated. If you look back careflly, you will see that you have made numerous negative statements about my company and myself personally. And yet NOT ONCE have I have responded to you in the same way you've been addressing me. In my last posting I asked you a simple and legitimate question.

Acronym007, you didn't quite answer it, because you got side tracked on the Home Depot's return policy. Let me address that first, and then we can get back to the main point.

1) I will take your word that if I break a drill (through my own fault), I can still return it to Home Depot for a full refund. Personally, I have never experienced this even though I have broken several things I have bought from them. I wouldn't even think to make someone else pay for my own mistakes. But I completely understand why Home Depot would do this and why this works well for them. I also agree with this policy 100%...it's good for everyone involved.

2) Acronym 007, hopefully you can understand that Home Depot is a retailer who has a single customer (the drill buyers). RAC on the other hand is providing an arbitration service to 2 customers...a buyer and a coder. So they only come to us because there is a dispute. Usually the coder claims they've done the work and the buyer claims they haven't.

If we were to use the "home depot" method and always just give the money back to the buyer in 30 days (even without a legitimate excuse) it would be extremely unfair for the coder. The whole point of arbitration is that a netural 3rd party comes in and determines who is at fault and who isn't. By always assuming "the buyer is right and the coder is always wrong" we would be aborgating our duties of providing a fair arbitration process and providing a biased process.

Does this make sense Acronoym007?

3) Now back to the main point. Let's remove Home Depot from the question, because we got sidetracked by their 30 day return policy.

Let's say that you go to Toyota and buy a new car and drive it off the lot. To celebrate you have one too many beers at the local pub and you end up crashing it into a tree. Your spouse gets furious at you, so you have to do something. So you take it back to Toyota, but they refuse to refund your money.

If that happened...would it be legally or ethically right, to post on a bulletin board that Toyota stole money from you beacuse they sold you a damaged car?

Rod

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

I should add the following to make it 100% clear the difference between home depot and RAC. Home Depot can refund a $200 hammer, becuase they are a retailer and the $200 went to them (they have the money to give back). RAC is an arbitrator that the two parties have appointed to settle a dispute. The $200 is not "ours" to take or give back...it belongs to either the buyer or the coder. If we were to simply always give it back to the buyer, it could potentailly be stealing from the coder. That's the difference between arbitration and a retail situation.

 

[acronym007]

Acronym007,

I apologize you felt intimidated. If you look back careflly, you will see that you have made numerous negative statements about my company and myself personally. And yet NOT ONCE have I have responded to you in the same way you've been addressing me. In my last posting I asked you a simple and legitimate question.

Acronym007, you didn't quite answer it, because you got side tracked on the Home Depot's return policy. Let me address that first, and then we can get back to the main point.

1) I will take your word that if I break a drill (through my own fault), I can still return it to Home Depot for a full refund. Personally, I have never experienced this even though I have broken several things I have bought from them. I wouldn't even think to make someone else pay for my own mistakes. But I completely understand why Home Depot would do this and why this works well for them. I also agree with this policy 100%...it's good for everyone involved.

2) Acronym 007, hopefully you can understand that Home Depot is a retailer who has a single customer (the drill buyers). RAC on the other hand is providing an arbitration service to 2 customers...a buyer and a coder. So they only come to us because there is a dispute. Usually the coder claims they've done the work and the buyer claims they haven't.

If we were to use the "home depot" method and always just give the money back to the buyer in 30 days (even without a legitimate excuse) it would be extremely unfair for the coder. The whole point of arbitration is that a netural 3rd party comes in and determines who is at fault and who isn't. By always assuming "the buyer is right and the coder is always wrong" we would be aborgating our duties of providing a fair arbitration process and providing a biased process.

Does this make sense Acronoym007?

3) Now back to the main point. Let's remove Home Depot from the question, because we got sidetracked by their 30 day return policy.

Let's say that you go to Toyota and buy a new car and drive it off the lot. To celebrate you have one too many beers at the local pub and you end up crashing it into a tree. Your spouse gets furious at you, so you have to do something. So you take it back to Toyota, but they refuse to refund your money.

If that happened...would it be legally or ethically right, to post on a bulletin board that Toyota stole money from you beacuse they sold you a damaged car?

Rod

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

I should add the following to make it 100% clear the difference between home depot and RAC. Home Depot can refund a $200 hammer, becuase they are a retailer and the $200 went to them (they have the money to give back). RAC is an arbitrator that the two parties have appointed to settle a dispute. The $200 is not "ours" to take or give back...it belongs to either the buyer or the coder. If we were to simply always give it back to the buyer, it could potentailly be stealing from the coder. That's the difference between arbitration and a retail situation.

Rod,

Your losing customers by the second. I don't know if you can't read or won't read. I NEVER made any negative comments about your company? What is wrong with you? Why do you try and twist things. All the people that can read will see your either mental or disillusioned? I have made statements about you personally NEVER about your company and ONLY AFTER you began attacking me once I tried to help clear the matter up and assist you in seeing that your making a bad business mistake. I never said you intimidated me, you don't scare anyone, so no need to apologize. I eat bully's like you for a bedtime snack. A psychologists will tell you that this is the only place you feel powerful online and anonymous. Maybe you feel scare tactics will work and threatening people will scare then, maybe your 100lbs soaking wet or you got your lunch money stolen allot when you were a kid so this is your place for revenge? Who knows, all I know is I'm done trying to help you. We don't need to talk any further. You don't need to "try" and convince of your position any more. I hope whatever happens here turns out to be a good thing for Colin. I have no opinion at RAC one way or the other but because of you Rod I would most likely choose another service.

 

[Legal]

Acronym007,

So now I am "mental and disillusioned" according to you. The purpose of this board is supposed to be to discuss facts. Again Acronym007 you are making negative and personal insults. Again I am not responding to you in the same way that you are treating me and am going to stick to the facts.

Acronym007, you should never be afraid to talk about facts, because only in that way can people come to an understanding.

Did we at least come to an understanding on these 2 issues?

1) The difference between RAC and home depot: RAC is not a retailer who has $200 to "give back" to a buyer. The money is not ours...it belongs to the buyer or the coder. We were hired by both parties to find out who was at fault and return it to the opposite party. If we were to simply give Colin Behr his money back within 30 days (like Home Depot), that would absolutely NOT be "good customer service". That would be horrible customer service, a dereliction of duty and would have a good chance of involving the stealing of money from the coder. Do you see the difference?

2) Right to complain: NO person has a right to invent a story about something that didn't happen...especially when it's done to intentionally damage another party unfairly. You seem like a resonable fellow, and I think you just made a statement before you thought it all the way through. You really don't believe a person has a right to do this...do you?

Rod

 

[Zeeble]

Acronym007,
2) Right to complain: NO person has a right to invent a story about something that didn't happen...especially when it's done to intentionally damage another party unfairly. You seem like a resonable fellow, and I think you just made a statement before you thought it all the way through. You really don't believe a person has a right to do this...do you?

Rod

Rod,

You have now gone from saying "IF" I made libelous comments to implying it as fact. By your standards I should counter sue you for making such comments.

You still haven't even responded to the MOST BASIC of my questions. What do I have to do to get a response from you?

I don't even think that you or RAC have the guts to take me to court.

Anyone can talk the talk, but you don't actually seem to be able to follow through on what you say.

Now tell me Rod, where do I need to put the disclaimer to say that this is opinion? You and RAC are a total joke as a result of this thread.

 

[Legal]

Colin,

>>You have now gone from saying "IF" I made libelous comments to implying it as fact. By your standards I should counter sue you for making such comments.

I don't make up the standards of what is considered ethical or legal Colin. And yes, you can counter sue me IF what I was saying was innaccurate. Of course, IF what I've been saying is accurate (and you are the one who has been making inaccurate statements) then you really can't do anything.

>>Now tell me Rod, where do I need to put the disclaimer to say that this is opinion?

That only works when you actually express opinions Colin. It doesn't work when you make inaccurate statements about facts.

For example: "XYZ stinks" is an opinion. You can say that as much as you want. You don't have to preface it with "In my opinion XYZ stinks"...it's still an opinion. It's your right to state any time you want.

However, if you lie about XYZ and say "XYZ stole $50 from my kid sister" and they really didn't do that...that is not an opinion. It's a fact (in inaccurate fact, but a fact nonetheless). You can't cover up your defamation by saying "In my opinion XYZ stole $50 from my kid sister". Either they did or they didn't. There is no room for opinion. It's a fact that you're misrepresenting. And Colin, you've misrepresented what actually occurred numerous times on this thread.

It's unethical to make statements that are untrue, and it is also illegal (defamation).

Rod

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

You just called into RAC today asking for the complete arbitration. Here is the link:

http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACode...itration/ColinBehr_RentACoder_Arbitration.htm

I encourage everyone on this thread to read it in it's entirety. I will warn, it will take a few hours to do go through completely. You will see:

1) That Colin Behr misrepresented to the good people on this board about the role of testing in the arbitration. He stated that RAC should have been testing and didn't do it's job. In reality, he was given the choice of testing and DECLINED IT. (Arbitration Response Id: 366,119)

2) That Colin Behr complained on this board thathe lost due to RAC's inflexibility regarding a single missed deadline. In reality, Colin Behr was a serial deadline abuser and RAC bent over backwards giving him exceptions numerous times (which it did not have to do)...both on this arbitration and a previous one. He only forfeited after receiving a final warning that no more exceptions could be farily made (and he yet again did not respond in time).

3) That EVERYTHING stated in my initial posting about the defamation that Colin Behr has comitted on this thread is accurate.

Colin, it is neither ethical nor legal to intentionally defame someone and you alone are responsible for your actions.

Rod Smith

 

[Zeeble]

I would like to draw peoples attention to post ID: 419,761 by Ian Ippolito where he points out mistakes have been made by the previous arbitrator.

This also shows why I would have said that many of the posts are simply copy and paste, because I was making a request (which was my right on RAC, as pointed out by Ian) which was then totally ignored several times and responded to by THE SAME copy and paste answer several times by Rafeek which was actually irrelavent to my requestion to cancel the project.

Rafeek then proceeded to make me forfeit the arbitration for not answering his standardised questions which Ian pointed out were actually irrelevant, which can only lead me to think that Rafeek uses his copy and paste answers to cut down on time and expense, it also gives the impression that Rafeek didn't even read my answers and reasoning and simply proceeded to copy and paste his answers in order to cut corners, simply steaming through the arbitration.

Also, today I received a letter from Sprecher Grier Halberstam LLP representing RAC as lawyers threatening to

initiate legal proceedings for libel and malicious falsehood

.

The letter also stated the following:

Given the extensive nature of the postings and the fact that we consider the false and defamatory meanings which they bear to be self evident, we do not consider helpful or appropriate at this stage to set out each and every instance where such an improper statement is made"

So you can't say what these comments are?

The letter did however give a summary of what they would be potentially suing me for:

1. That I accused RAC of actively seeking the first available excuse to forfeit the arbitration and therefore notwithstanding it's obligation as an arbitrator.

2. That I accused RAC of unjustly refusing to extend the stipulated 3-day time limit for responding to a communication.

3. And that I accused RAC of improperly seeking to palm clients off by using copy and paste responses to cut the costs of the arbitration process.

I stated in my first post why I was of the opinion that they used this as an excuse.

Surely it is painfully obvious the point number two is just an opinion, again I even gave my reasons for having this opinion.

And I have just given my reasons for giving point number three as an opinion.

In the letter they even write about my comment about RAC being an unethical company, regardless of the fact that I stated that it was "In my view". Why send me a letter from a solicitor saying this? How can you sue me for libel over one of my opinions?!

So to me, it seems as though RentACoder wishes to sue me for having an opinion and airing it publicly after having had a bad experience with the company.

I would also like to add that I called RentACoder tonight and asked to speak with Rod. Apparently there is nobody with that name working for the company.

 

[Legal]

Colin,

You are attempting to misdirect attention from the main point...but I will address it briefly.

RAC never said claimed that Rafeek didn't make a mistake. In fact, just the opposite...RAC acknowledged it and corrected it as part of the review process during the arbitration. All of this happened BEFORE the arbitration ended and has nothing to do with how it ended. It also has nothing to with why you forfeited the arbitration.

You lost the arbitration becuase you did not respond in the time you legally agreed to. Contrary to the false statements you've posted in your very first posting on this thread...RAC gave you more than one exception to this rule in the past and allowed you to continue in arbitration, even though technically you had forfeited. We did that because we want to fully hear both sides. But we cannot do that indefinitely becuase eventually it causes the process to be unfair to the other party. After you had missed your response deadline the 3rd time (twice in a previous arbitration, once in that arbitration) you were warned that missing it a 4th time would result in your forfeiture. You missed it and were forfeited.

>>So you can't say what these comments are?

Colin, that's a lawyer talking, and due to the large # of inaccurate statements of fact you've presented, they just want to make sure they aren't limited on what they can address (which is fair).

If you really do need a review, let's started with the biggest inaccuracies:

1) Incorrectly stating RAC didn't test when it should have....when in fact you DECLINED testing.
2) Incorrectly stating that RAC forfeited you for a slight one-time infraction of the response times clause...when in fact you were a serial abuser and had exceeded your 3 business day deadline 3 times in the past and given 2 exceptions previously. You were also warned ahead of time that the 4th time would result in your forfeiture...which is what happened.

3) Every other example of defamation I gave in my first posting.

Rod

P.S.
>>So to me, it seems as though RentACoder wishes to sue me for having an opinion and airing it publicly after having had a bad experience with the company.

Opinions like "XYZ stinks" are your right to express. But making up inaccurate statements about facts "XYZ stole $50 from my sister" are NOT your right to express. And if you choose to do this, you are both ethically and legally responsible for your actions, Colin.

Rod

 

[Zeeble]

2) Incorrectly stating that RAC forfeited you for a slight one-time infraction of the response times clause...when in fact you were a serial abuser and had exceeded your 3 business day deadline 3 times in the past and given 2 exceptions previously. You were also warned ahead of time that the 4th time would result in your forfeiture...which is what happened.

It only happened twice. On of the times was a mistake made by Rafeek which was pointed out by Ian Ippolito. Therefore like I said before, I was forfeited due to a slight time infraction.
So you failed to mention that one of those time infractions was due to RAC's mistake!

I also stated that (in relation to the above) the arbitration spanned more than 4 months so time infractions were inevitable at some point considering that in such a large amount of time, due in large to mistakes made by RAC, no testing of the deliverables were completed. If RAC had completed the arbitration in a timely manner without mistakes (meaning without those particular copy and paste answers), in my opinion the problem concerning the second time infraction would not have occured.

Also Rod, why did Cherry tell me that there was no-one by the name of "Rod" working at RentACoder? Or are you going to question dodge again?