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.

 

[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?

 

[Legal]

Colin,

>>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.

You're either digging yourself in deeper intentionally or forgetting the OTHER arbitration in which you forfeited for the exact same reason...not replying in the timeframe you agreed to. You were given an exception the first time it happened, and told it could only happen once. You again chose not to reply in 3 business days and you forfeited.

>>So you failed to mention that one of those time infractions was due to RAC's mistake!

Again, I think you're forgetting to count the 2 additional ones on the other arbitration.

>>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.

People can read the arbitration Colin. The majority of time was NOT spent due to RAC. A typical testing arbitration takes only a few days. This reason one took so long becuase you VOLUNTARILY chose to work with him, rather than go for testing. You were given the choice for testing in Arbitration Response Id: 366,119 and you DECLINED it. You consumed the majority of time by your choice....not the mistake made by Rafeek (which was corrected). And that mistake had nothing to do with why you forfeited.

>>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.

That isn't a logically constructed assertion. First, the majority of time in the arbitration was not taken up by that mistake by Rafeek, or in correcting it. The majority of time was taken by you and your choice to work with the coder and DECLINE testing. Second, you had already had a pattern of being a serial offender for missing deadlines before this arbitration started. You missed a total of 4 and received 2 exceptions/extensions. Clearly your habit existed before that mistake occurred, and it was simply continuing afterwards. At some point Colin, a person has to take responsibility for their own actions.

>>Also Rod, why did Cherry tell me that there was no-one by the name of "Rod" working at RentACoder?

This is completely offtopic, but I will answer it and then return to the point. First, her name is actually Sherry rather than Cherry. You can find that out about her by going to the RAC employee page at http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACoder/misc/About/default.asp. And when you do that, you'll also see that I am an employee as well and have been listed there for the 3 months I've been working here. I am fortunate to work from home and report directly to the owner. As a result, I do not deal with phone calls, nor the day-time staff. I have met 3 of them, but am not familiar with all of them and vice-versa.

This however has nothing to do with what is being discussed: Which is the fact Colin that you have deliberately misrepresented what occurred...and are continuing to dig yourself in deeper.

Colin, will you solidify the case against you by doing so again in your next reply? Or will you "come clean" and acknowledge where you might have "exaggerated", "omitted" and/or "stretched" the facts for the benefit of other viewers?

As you saw from the letter, all RAC wants is for you to retract the inaccurate statements you made. Even though you've already damaged us unfairly with those statements, we are currently not pursuing any action against you to collect those damages. But you MUST undo the damage you've done by making those inaccurate statements.

Rod

 

[Zeeble]

In the summary you have laid out how many times I forfeited for not responding:
In point three you say I forfeited for not responding, when in actual fact that was Rafeek's mistake, as I had responded, but he had NOT responded correctly to me. Therefore that was not my fault.

Then, in point six I was forfeited for not responding. And then for a second time at point 7.

You say I had violated the three day deadline three times prior to this but there is NO record of this anywhere in the arbitration (both parts, 1 and 2).
So again, it only happened twice, both times there was a reason for it.

You also claim that I held up the arbitration by declining to have the deliverables tested.

I wanted the project finished. It was put into arbitration Saturday May 27, 2006 11:59:21 AM, I said I would give him another 5 days. Please remember it was the coder who originally put the project into arbitration and not me.
Then on Friday Jun 9, 2006 8:49:01 AM, the project was put into technical arbitration (pardon me if I am wrong, but does that not mean testing?) as a result of a dispute over the deliverables.

The arbitration was finally closed on Friday Sep 15, 2006 9:35:17 AM. That's over 4 months AFTER the arbitration was put in for testing. So how can my decision to want to work with the coder possibly be the reason for a 4 month delay?

It seems to me that even you don't have a thorough understanding of the events that occurred throughout the arbitration.

It also amuses me to see that your arbitrators are sometimes so busy that it takes them over a week sometimes to reply with a short answer. From my point of view little regard was made in that sense for me.

As far as I can tell, I only posted my opinions and facts taken from the actual arbitration, but if I have done otherwise, please point them out to me with reference to the arbitration and I will gladly remove them.
In the meantime I am taking legal advice and will not remove any content until I have gone through that process.

 

[Nashfan]

I don't have the details of this case, so I won't presume to know who's at fault, but I would suggest for both parties to end this now. Mr. Behr, I understand that you have been damaged in this scenario, but it seems more likely that this is simply human error, not an intentional oversight. I think you will gain nothing by arguing the point.

Mr. Smith, you now have a choice to make: you can be right, or you can keep your customers. Mr. Behr has made some mistakes, and I'm sure there were some people here ready to ignore him, until you proved that RentACoder would rather have a reputation of being correct than a reputation of friendly customer service. Not only will you gain nothing from arguing the point, I think you have much to lose.

If this "discussion" continues, Mr. Behr could end up with a lawsuit and lose far more than he did on a coder, and RentACoder could end up with a destroyed reputation, far worse than Mr. Behr is causing on his own. This post should be the last in this topic.

 

[Legal]

Colin,

>>In the summary you have laid out how many times I forfeited for not responding. In point three you say I forfeited for not responding, when in actual fact that was Rafeek's mistake, as I had responded, but he had NOT responded correctly to me. Therefore that was not my fault.

It's sounds like you are misunderstanding which 2nd arbitration I'm referring to as well as missing exceptions RAC gave you. (When I say "other arbitration" I'm talking about the "Creating a basic website" arbitration...which is a different project and arbitration completely from this project "PHP and Mysql development". )

So to be 100% clear...here is a complete log of ALL of the times you didn't respond in the timeframe you agreed to...and the numerous times RAC gave you an exception and didn't forfeit you for it.

1) On "Creating a basic website" you were given 5 business days to respond to the coder's accusation that they finished work but you didn't respond to accept it. You failed to respond in that time. RAC gave you an extension (even though it didn't have to) in Arbitration Response Id: 236,587 and gave you another 3 business days. You were warned that we could not give you another extension. You did not respond on those 3 business days and forfeited.

2) On this project "PHP and Mysql development": You forfeited for not answering Rafeeks' question in 3 business days. He did not forfeit you and instead granted you an extension (Arbitration Response Id: 383,278). He warned you that you site policy doesn't allow for a 2nd extension. You then responded in time for your next response.

After this, was where Rafeek made his mistake and forfeited you for not following instructions. Ian overruled it. I am NOT referencing anything in this section against you, since it was overruled.

Afterr this, you lapsed again in your responses at Arbitration Response Id: 422,289 by not filling out the flaw list per the instructions you were given. AGAIN Rafeek gave you an extension (which he technically shouldn't have done because it was overly lenient...but he did it for you anyway). He again told you that not responding in 3 days would result in your forfeiture. On Arbitration Response Id: 429,761, you again did not respond in the 3 days. You were forfeited from the arbitration by Rafeek.

-------------------
summary:
So in the first arbitration, you failed to respond twice by your deadline (one 5 day deadline and a 3 day extension). In the second, you failed to respond three times by the deadline (all 3 business day dealindes)...NOT counting anything that happened that was overruled.
-------------------


>>Then, in point six I was forfeited for not responding. And then for a second time at point 7. You say I had violated the three day deadline three times prior to this but there is NO record of this anywhere in the arbitration (both parts, 1 and 2). So again, it only happened twice, both times there was a reason for it.

The record is there for all to see Colin at:
http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACode...itration/ColinBehr_RentACoder_Arbitration.htm
You are a serial deadline abuser, and did not respond to the deadline 5 times. RAc made numerous exceptions for you...3 times. Yet you posted inaccurate information to the good people on this board, in which you claimed RAC forfieted you to get rid of your arbitrationn quickly. Nothing could be further from the truth.

colin, you seem to be misunderstanding what I meant by "2nd arbitration". Please see what I wrote in the first paragraph and you will understand what I was awing.

>>You also claim that I held up the arbitration by declining to have the deliverables tested.

No, that is not what I said. what I said is that YOU posted (in your first post) that you were "disgusted" because RAC wouldn't test the deliverables "during a period of 5 months". In actuality, it was you who DECLINED testing after being given the choice right off the bat. I also never said you "held it up". What I did say is that if you actually choose testing, it's done very quickly. But your choice (choosing to continue working with the coder) can take longer (obviously)...but that was your choice.

>>I wanted the project finished. It was put into arbitration Saturday May 27, 2006 11:59:21 AM, I said I would give him another 5 days. Please remember it was the coder who originally put the project into arbitration and not me.Then on Friday Jun 9, 2006 8:49:01 AM, the project was put into technical arbitration (pardon me if I am wrong, but does that not mean testing?) as a result of a dispute over the deliverables.

First, just so you understand, a technical arbitrator does not comes into the arbitration just for testing. It can be for testing, but it also can be for anything technical arises which the non-technical arbitrator cannot address. This includes when you choose to continue working with the coder and a dispute arises over things like requirements, etc.

Second...(address 5 day claim)

>>The arbitration was finally closed on Friday Sep 15, 2006 9:35:17 AM. That's over 4 months AFTER the arbitration was put in for testing. So how can my decision to want to work with the coder possibly be the reason for a 4 month delay? It seems to me that even you don't have a thorough understanding of the events that occurred throughout the arbitration.

colin, you and everyone else can read the timeline that occurred:
http://www.rentacoder.com/RentACode...itration/ColinBehr_RentACoder_Arbitration.htm

You are omitting many of the other things that occurred. For example, RAC awarded you several extensions...including when you said you were going to be away. More time was consumed because the two of you started arguing and insulting rather than cooperating, and RAC had to step in. RAC had difficulties getting cooperation from you at several points (including filling out items in the flaw list). The coder was also responsible at certain points for delays. Additionally, the review process did consume time as well, which is RAC's responsibility.

>>It also amuses me to see that your arbitrators are sometimes so busy that it takes them over a week sometimes to reply with a short answer. From my point of view little regard was made in that sense for me.

I apologize you had a time where Rafeek took a week to reply. But there may be a reason that you are not seeing (for example, often he has to setup a testing, or do things that take more time...even when his actual answer to you is short). Please please point out the posting id # this occurred on and I will check into this. I do know that this was back when we had only 2 technical arbitrators (now we have 3 and are hiring a 4th. So if he really did delay that long one time I apologize.

>>As far as I can tell, I only posted my opinions and facts taken from the actual arbitration,

This is an EXTREMELY inaccurate statement. Just in your 4 pargraphs in your first posting on this thread I can see 4 inaccurate statements of fact right now.

>> but if I have done otherwise, please point them out to me with reference to the arbitration and I will gladly remove them

Colin,you were there in the arbitraiton and konw what happened. You know what is untrue and inaccurate. I've given you the most egregious inaccuracies...it's up to you to get those and ALL of them taken care of, as they were your statements and no one else's.

>>In the meantime I am taking legal advice and will not remove any content until I have gone through that proce

Interesting legal advice. If I were in your shoes, I'd remove everything you'v written, because once you remove the inaccurcies, your content becomes unintelligible. But if you want to remove phrase by phrase, then please give me yor attorney's address and information. Our attorney will do you the favor of documenting all the inaccuracies in your first posting ONLY and send them to your attorney. From that you can figure out the 40-50 other inaccurcies that follow that in your subsequent posts. You will be responsible for cleaning out the inaccurate information.

Rod Smith

-------------------------------------------
Nafshan,

I applaud your attempt at mending fences. The problem with "leaving it alone" is that the inacccurate statements Colin Behr invented about what happened to him, continue to damage RAC unfairly. While it is regretable he will no longer be a customer of RAC, we actually have a responsibility that goes beyond just our pocketbook. One of our principles is that we run an marketplace that protects both buyers and coders. Colin Behr is a repeat "late responder" (5 times in 2 arbitrations past either 3 or 5 business day deadlines)...and in the other arbitration, the reason it was put into arbitration by the coder was that he stopped respoding to the coder. Even if it would be profitable to bring Colin Behr back, we couldn't do it, becuase his continual habit of not responding, makes him a less than ideal buyer for the coders in a safe marketplace. We have to uphold that...even if it means less profit in the end for RAC.

Rod

 

[Nashfan]

Mr. Smith, you are hurting yourself more than Mr. Behr ever could. Let me speak from personal experience: I recently had a programming project that I wanted to pay someone to do. Rent a Coder was one of the first places I looked. I then saw this topic. Mr. Behr made some mistakes, and may have deserved your arbitration decision. His anger at RAC in his first post did not bother me. However, I saw this long, tiresome discussion about an issue that could have been ignored. I did not want to deal with anything like this if something went wrong with my project, so I passed over RAC and posted my project at guru.com.

In conclusion: Mr. Behr's post did not lose me as a RAC customer. Your inflexibility did. You have lost at least 2 customers, then. One must wonder how many you've gained by this? It certainly seems like a loss.

 

[Legal]

Nashfan,

>>Mr. Behr's post did not lose me as a RAC customer. Your inflexibility did. You have lost at least 2 customers, then. One must wonder how many you've gained by this? It certainly seems like a loss.

I'm sorry to hear that Nashfan.

However if you consider defending your good name from unfair attacks to be "inflexible": then you don't just disagree with me. You also disagree with William Shakespeare. In Othello he said:

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."

This is why writing inaccurate things is a crime and punishable by the law.

Let me put this another way to you Nashfan.

Let's say I was considering doing business with you. And a coder didn't like you because you didn't send him a bonus he felt he deserved. So he posted on the internet "Nasfhan Nightmare" (just like "RAC nighmare on this thread"). He also wrote "Nasfhan never paid me" (even though you did), and he wrote "beware in doing business with him".

What are your choices? You have 2 choices.
a) You can say nothing and ignore it. And many people will assume that your slience indicates that you cannot defend yourself, becuase you are guilty. Everyone who reads the thread will read how you didn't pay the coder. And if they have a choice to choose you or someone else, they will choose the other person.
b) Or you can choose to defend your good name against the unfair lies told about you. You can point out each instance where the coder lied about you and give out evidence so that people can decide for themselves what happened. This is normally enough to get the person to "come clean". But if it didn't, and you were losing business because of the lies, you could then take legal actions to remove the lies. You can do this, because the court recognizes that it's unfair, unethical and immoral for you to suffer becuase of the lies told by the coder.

So my questions are:

1) You have said you won't use us, because we did #B instead of #A. Would you have done #A in the situation described above?

2) I'm being very honest and direct with you, and I hope that you are being the same way with me, Nashfan. You said that you skipped using RAC because we defended our name from inaccurate attacks and used guru.com instead. However I could not find a job posted by you on the guru web site. What is the URL where you posted your project Nashfan.

Thanks,
Rod

----------------------
Nashfan,

You said:

>>However, I saw this long, tiresome discussion about an issue that could have been ignored. I did not want to deal with anything like this if something went wrong with my project

One final question...to make sure everyhthing is clear.

3) The reason Colin Behr is going though this is because he wrote inaccurate things about RAC to deliberately damage our business. If you write true things...as 99.999% of people do, you have nothing to worry about (you CANNOT be sued, we can't do anything to you, etc.) So the ONLY reason to be concerned is if your intention is to write untrue things about the company you do business with. You seem like an honest person Nashfan. Certainly, having the ability to write untrue things about a company is not the main criteria you use to determine who you will do business with...and who you won't?

Rod

 

[Nashfan]

The reason Colin Behr is going though this is because he wrote inaccurate things about RAC to deliberately damage our business. If you write true things...as 99.999% of people do, you have nothing to worry about (you CANNOT be sued, we can't do anything to you, etc.) So the ONLY reason to be concerned is if your intention is to write untrue things about the company you do business with.

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

b) Or you can choose to defend your good name against the unfair lies told about you. You can point out each instance where the coder lied about you and give out evidence so that people can decide for themselves what happened.

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'm being very honest and direct with you, and I hope that you are being the same way with me, Nashfan. You said that you skipped using RAC because we defended our name from inaccurate attacks and used guru.com instead. However I could not find a job posted by you on the guru web site. What is the URL where you posted your project Nashfan.

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.

 

[acronym007]

Nashfan-
Why in the world would you give Rod anything. You don't have to prove anything to him. You don't owe him anything, he's changing the subject again like he has throughout the course of this thread. I believe he is nothing more than a bully. Let me state some facts:

1. You can sued for anything in life, not just lying, someone can get sued for telling the truth also, did you know that? Suing is rather easy, winning is not. Anyone can sue anyone for any number of reasons, not just lying or slander.
2. Aren't there fictitious stories, aren't there magazine out there that print lies everyday? Rod's got this all twisted and he'll have fun trying to prove his position and the intent of Colin to harm him and and his company by simply posting a beware thread in a forum.
3. You can be sued, in some states even arrested for threatening. Rod does not have the right to come in here and threaten Colin or anyone else. That's nothing more than bullying people. Rod can sue him that's his right, Rod can state his position but if Rod continues to threaten people Rod will be more likely to be sued and lose than Colin. Colin will have some good points, Rod has not one leg to stand on. Ask your lawyer Rod if he wants you in here threating people with lawsuits? If he does I would like to know his/her name and avoid them. Truth is any lawyer will tell you to keep your mouth shut if you have a solid case. Threating to sue is ugly!
4. Me, Joomla, Nashfan, to name a few in this thread; have all tried to help Rod understand some basic business concepts. Help the customer, the customer is never wrong, if the customer FEELS slighted fix it because word of mouth CAN and WILL hurt a company's reputation BUT a company rep can hurt it faster than a cusomter's lips.
5. I would be surprised to find one person counter this point. Rod has done more harm to RAC than Colin in this thread. Rod are you listening yet? Shhhh, Rod, it's the customer talking, we don't want to see RAC in here threatening people, we want to see RAC helping Colin. Doesn't matter if he is right or wrong. He does deserve to be listened to, he paid money for your service.....
6. Forums are for free speech and warnings such as the one Colin wrote about. The facts always need to be weighed by the reader but if Colin feels slighted and it's his fault we'll figure it out but wait, there's a company Rep in here to help, no it looks like the company Rep is threating a lawsuit? WHAT? Let the reader judge, don't attack the thread contributers or the thread creator. State your position and points and move on.
7. Rod has no clue about customer service and I would encourage all who read to be aware of that. Use whomever you will but one thing is certain from the content of this thread, if Rod does not like what you say he will threaten to sue you.
8. Learn your lessons from this and NEVER, NEVER fear the bully. After reading this post I am more energized to post about bad experiences than ever before and especially glad I met Rod who set's the standard of customer service incredibly low. Rod has gone a long way to actually tick me off. Read the thread, he attacks everyone who posts against him. I hope more of you post after reading this and tell Rod and other companies that you support an individual's right to free speech regardless if the company likes it or not.
9. The saddest part. Rod missed a golden opportunity to show the best side of customer service. Rod could have worked things out right in the thread and in front of all of us so we would have the confidence to use RAC and know they care, know they will take care of our problems. That ship has sailed. Opportunity missed and judging by the responses from Rod the lesson still has yet to be learned.

Cheers,

Acro

 

[futureaudio]

Mr Smith:
As it has been said before, you really need to mellow up your attitude and tone towards people in general, at least while representing RAC. Just my 2 cents and I hope I don't end up being attacked by you too.

 

[Zeeble]

Rod,

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.