by Miguelito » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:06 pm
violet wrote:Miguelito wrote:So another interesting development. I received an email from someone (not a poster) who believes that someone has obtained the credit card details of former subscribers to the CD and is now using this information to make fraudulent charges against their visa cards.
He had subscribed for online access for six months back in March, but that was a one off and he didn't believe that they should have stored his cc for future purchases. He has just received an email invoice purportedly on behalf of the CD (with a fake U.S. phone number listed), and his card was charged $50 the same day (today, Monday the 18th).
He is not sure what to think, that it could be someone trying to further discredit the paper or maybe they forgot to turn everything off. Has anyone else that was a subscriber had this happen to them?
The idea that a person had obtained the credit card details and was fraudulently using them WAS complete bullshit. That is not what has happened at all. That poster has nothing to apologise for in that regard as far as I am concerned.
The individual paid for six months of access to a website. Before that six months expired, the business closed. Three weeks after their closure, they renewed his subscription without his authorization, and provided an invoice with false information. Unable to contact anyone at the closed place of business, he "believed" that his information could have been compromised. Following that statement, he continued to make clear that he was aware that there were other possibilities, such as " it could be someone trying to further discredit the paper or maybe they forgot to turn everything off".
CDextra then quite promptly responded that the mere thought of that happening was complete bullshit, and then quickly backtracked on that statement realizing that it has in fact happened.
In your honest opinion, which of the two presented false and misleading information, and appeared aggressive in this encounter (I know that I represented the customer here, but I expressed his concerns accurately)? If you were the customer, what would you think? Personally, I would want to be rebated for my three weeks of lost subscription, not charged again.
[quote="violet"][quote="Miguelito"]So another interesting development. I received an email from someone (not a poster) who believes that someone has obtained the credit card details of former subscribers to the CD and is now using this information to make fraudulent charges against their visa cards.
He had subscribed for online access for six months back in March, but that was a one off and he didn't believe that they should have stored his cc for future purchases. He has just received an email invoice purportedly on behalf of the CD (with a fake U.S. phone number listed), and his card was charged $50 the same day (today, Monday the 18th).
He is not sure what to think, that it could be someone trying to further discredit the paper or maybe they forgot to turn everything off. Has anyone else that was a subscriber had this happen to them?[/quote]
The idea that a person had obtained the credit card details and was fraudulently using them WAS complete bullshit. That is not what has happened at all. That poster has nothing to apologise for in that regard as far as I am concerned.[/quote]
The individual paid for six months of access to a website. Before that six months expired, the business closed. Three weeks after their closure, they renewed his subscription without his authorization, and provided an invoice with false information. Unable to contact anyone at the closed place of business, he "believed" that his information could have been compromised. Following that statement, he continued to make clear that he was aware that there were other possibilities, such as " it could be someone trying to further discredit the paper or maybe they forgot to turn everything off".
CDextra then quite promptly responded that the mere thought of that happening was complete bullshit, and then quickly backtracked on that statement realizing that it has in fact happened.
In your honest opinion, which of the two presented false and misleading information, and appeared aggressive in this encounter (I know that I represented the customer here, but I expressed his concerns accurately)? If you were the customer, what would you think? Personally, I would want to be rebated for my three weeks of lost subscription, not charged again.