5 ms·

You seem to be giving Square far, far more credit than any business deserves. I suspect it is because Square is an HN darling, but hey, to each his own. I take

by adgar 14y ago

You seem to be giving Square far, far more credit than any business deserves. I suspect it is because Square is an HN darling, but hey, to each his own. I take serious issue with your characterization that those Square responses were "pretty responsive" and "reasonably polite." * They took several days to respond to a time-sensitive billing issue * They claimed to provide support they could not and did not provide * They refused to even acknowledge that this was frustrating for the customer * They refused to acknowledge that their automated systems may not be doing the best thing for the customer * Instead of owning any responsibility, they blamed the customer, several times * __They still haven't given him his money__ All over a measly 180 dollars. Seriously - Square jerked this guy around for weeks over less than two hundred bucks. How on Earth do you characterize those actions as responsive or polite? They weren't "responsive" to the customer's support interactions or his time-sensitive needs. They barely even "responded" at all, considering the e-mails they sent were clearly stock PR crap with some blanks filled in.

PeterisP 14y ago
* Chargeback's can't be resolved faster; * They can't (and shouldn't) give him this money - as it's quite likely that this money will never be paid, the dispute rules favor the cardholder quite much.
- adgar 14y ago
  So the best response is to not respond to him for a few days at a time, and when you do, assume the customer is acting in bad faith while you fill in some form letters?
  - jguimont 14y ago
    They clearly stated that "no further actions are required" from his part.
    - adgar 14y ago
      That's usually the case when one summarily dismisses the customer.
eridius 14y ago
> * They took several days to respond to a time-sensitive billing issue I just responded to someone else making the same claim up above (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3956896 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3956896), but no they didn't. They always responded the next day. > * They claimed to provide support they could not and did not provide What do you mean? > * Instead of owning any responsibility, they blamed the customer, several times They did? I must have missed that. All I see are statements of facts from Square. Maybe you're misinterpreting that given that Jason did in fact screw up.

by adgar 14y ago

PeterisP 14y ago

* Chargeback's can't be resolved faster; * They can't (and shouldn't) give him this money - as it's quite likely that this money will never be paid, the dispute rules favor the cardholder quite much.

adgar 14y ago
So the best response is to not respond to him for a few days at a time, and when you do, assume the customer is acting in bad faith while you fill in some form letters?
- jguimont 14y ago
  They clearly stated that "no further actions are required" from his part.
  - adgar 14y ago
    That's usually the case when one summarily dismisses the customer.

eridius 14y ago

> * They took several days to respond to a time-sensitive billing issue I just responded to someone else making the same claim up above (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3956896 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3956896), but no they didn't. They always responded the next day. > * They claimed to provide support they could not and did not provide What do you mean? > * Instead of owning any responsibility, they blamed the customer, several times They did? I must have missed that. All I see are statements of facts from Square. Maybe you're misinterpreting that given that Jason did in fact screw up.