website client

niall19922

Hi I designed a website for a guy. He was happy with the website and paid me for my work done on the website.

Now he has come back to me after a week and asked for his money back for the website. I refused as I was paid for my work and as far as I knew he was happy with the website as he paid me for it.

Has he a leg to stand on or just chancing his arm.

Peregrinus

Why does he think he should get his money back?

niall19922

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why does he think he should get his money back?

He says he not paying for something he's not getting

davo2001

niall19922 wrote: »

He says he not paying for something he's not getting

That makes no sense what so ever. Can you elaborate?

gerarda

niall19922 wrote: »

He says he not paying for something he's not getting

Which is?

plodder

niall19922 wrote: »

He says he not paying for something he's not getting

Is it a dispute over ownership of the website domain, or more likely, of the content that you created?

niall19922

The content and website I designed.

Gongoozler

How do you expect people to help or comment if you won't elaborate on what the issue is?

niall19922

What are you talking about lad

Pov06

Tell us what you delivered and what he wants to be delivered.

brian_t

Gongoozler wrote: »

How do you expect people to help or comment if you won't elaborate on what the issue is?

There is a bit more information in the OP's other thread in the Design forum.

Pat Mustard

niall19922 wrote: »

What are you talking about lad

What he has pointed out is that you asked a question in your OP but you didn't give enough information to allow anybody to answer that question.

You explained that a customer of yours wants his money back and you asked if he has a leg to stand on but you never explained the reason why the man asked for his money back.

Unless you give all of the relevant information, no accurate information can be given to you.

Peregrinus

niall19922 wrote: »

He says he not paying for something he's not getting

What is the thing that his is not getting? Or that he says he is not getting? And is he, in fact, getting it?

niall19922

The website

the_syco

Check what you agreed to give him. Check CAREFULLY in case there's something small you forgot.

Sounds like he thinks he can pull a sly one of getting his money back, doing a few changes, and then claiming his money back.

Peregrinus

niall19922 wrote: »

The website

In the OP you said he was happy with the website that you delivered for him. Now, we have dragged it out of you that he says he hasn't got the website that you were supposed to deliver.

Explain, please.

niall19922 wrote: »

Has he a leg to stand on or just chancing his arm.

For some reason, you are extraordinarily reluctant to tell us what his complaint is, or what case he would make. We have to drag it out of you kicking and screaming, piece by piece.

If you are not willing to offer us a comprehensive account of what this man would likely say in court, if it came to that, there is no possibility that we can tell you if he has a leg to stand on. In which case, why bother to ask us?

My advice to you would be not to post again to this thread unless that post is a comprehensive account of the complaints this man would make, stated in terms that he would recognise and accept. Without that, there can be no useful answer to your question.

plodder

Impossible to know in this case, since the OP is being so coy, but there can easily be disputes over ownership of the content. Without being agreed in advance, the provider could simply be providing a presence on the web, while retaining ownership of the material, thus requiring the provider to be paid for updates to it etc. Whereas the client might have an expectation of getting all the material that would allow the client to do updates themself, or to get a third party to do it. Same goes for the website domain name. It may have been registered by the provider, who then holds on to the registration details, or they could be handed over to the client. Unless these details are agreed in advance, problems can arise.

Pat Mustard

plodder wrote: »

Impossible to know in this case, since the OP is being so coy

Agreed. No point in opening a discussion and then to withhold the relevant information regarding the grounds for the other party's claim.

Pointless thread closed.