Some questions and thoughts for Proviation
As I said in my first post on this thread: I don't have a dog in this fight as I am not a customer of Proviation. As the thread has developed, I have tried to post in a balanced and factual way (mostly!). Also, as I said in my last post, I don't like to see any business go bust like this as invariably innocent people get hurt when it happens.
In that spirit, I have a few questions / thoughts arising from the recent Proviation posts.
1. Is Proviation being targeted or the victim of malicious attacks?
If it is, any right thinking person should utterly condemn it. Well I would anyhow. So is it true?
Mr Ross says:
“We got wise to 'customers' ordering very small items shipping to fake addresses.”
Can he quote examples? How does he know they are fake addresses? Why would it matter anyway if he can provide proof of delivery?
Also, if it's a genuine card but a fake address different from the one to which the card is registered, I always thought that the payment wouldn't be authorised.
He says: “We attracted many good reviews recently which Paul Kerry did not want you to see. He blocked them.”
That's quite an allegation. Can Mr Ross explain how a third party can simply “block” a review with no evidence? Query it, perhaps, but block it?
Equally, the allegation was frequently made that Proviation was causing genuine critical reviews to be suppressed. Can they provide verifiable details of their grounds for doing so or refute the allegation that they did?"
Mr Ross says: “We believe we have been heavily targeted in recent times by those wishing to harm the company’s reputation”
Why does he think people have tried to do this?
There has indeed been a very large number of negative comments about Proviation customer service posted here from a wide range of customers both from the UK and abroad.
Is he saying that they are all fake and that the way in which Proviation has managed customer service has not been the main cause of the problems?
In the first post, he talks about someone “representing the interests of a competitor”.
That's also quite a serious allegation and, if true, customers should know the details. I for one would not want to trade with a business that would do something like that.
So who was it, and which competitor? What proof of this is there?
It does seems a bit strange, though, that no other player in this market seems to have been targeted.
2. Loss of merchant account
Proviation says that: “We received a spate of 8 chargebacks covering a two day period” and “We submitted defences for all but 2 claims”.
Wow! Given that claimants can not start the process without showing that they have tried to get the supplier to resolve a problem themselves and, to make it stick, they then need to provide full justification: that would seem to bear out at least some of the complaints about problems with broken promises and inability to contact customer service.
As a data point: for the last ten years, I have been Chairman of a company which does part of it’s business by credit card. In all that time we have never had a single charge back claim, never mind failed to defend one. The post from Proviation reads as though it's quite a normal part of doing business. It isn't, and I recall pointing out the potential consequences on this thread last year.
3. Charging cards before shipment
Reputable companies don't do this.
Proviation says: “We had the facility in place not to charge cards, and most of these were only charged as they had been sent, part sent, or were pending delivery or refund for cancellation/return”
Sorry, but everyone has “the facility in place not to charge cards” before delivery at all. You, erm, don't charge the card until you ship. Simples!
Question: how often did Proviation charge cards before shipment and, if they did so, why?
As they seem to have found: if you do that, and then have delivery delays and don't deal with them, what happens is:
“We received notification from the merchant bank that the sudden chargebacks had prompted a risk assessment of the company”
Confucius he say: “further comment like nightie on honeymoon: superfluous....”
5. Paul Kerry
Presumably that is who is meant by:
“In the case of the main individual on this forum; he lacks this balance. Undeniable through the contradictory comments he has left; his desire to not see the Company address issues; his un-called for, personal attacks on an individual, his distortion of the truth and the very fact that he feels the need to lie about his background and circumstances. “
In particular, Paul Kerry stands accused of “distortion of the truth” and “the need to lie about his background and circumstances”
Again, that's quite an allegation. Can Mr Ross substantiate it? If so, Paul Kerry has a lot to answer for. If Mr Ross can't, then I would suggest that he does.
6. The last few posts here have raised the possibilities of Mr Ross incurring personal commercial liability, despite Proviation having been a limited company, as well as even potential criminal prosecution.
Reading what I have read here, I would advise him quite strongly not to discount either possibility, and to be very active in dealing with the issues that could quite easily cause these things to happen.
7. A final quote from Mr Ross's last post:
“My lifestyle has been one of absolute dedication to running the company. It sickens me to be tained on this thread that I behaved any differently.”
If that's meant to be genuine, a good first step towards coming out the other side of this situation with a chance to make good, would be a demonstrable willingness to face up to the issues that led to this dreadful outcome, acknowledge responsibility for them and, if it isn't too late, be seen to try to deal with them.