Elance Elance Escrow Falsely Advertise their Services, Internet

I'm sorry you feel this way.  Whenever a case like this comes up, multiple members of our team review all materials thoroughly.  We stand by our assessment that neither the scope of work nor the subsequent agreement was defined clearly.

The scope of work was indeed clear and the company I hired, Ingress, did not complete the work, nor follow the instructions.  The developer knows that they did not complete the job and they refused to deploy the application to the Internet so I could view their work (as stated on Elance) and approve their work. So I had to recruit another developer to deal with their code, which took me 5 months. Ingress Solutions did not complete the job, nor program it correctly because they refused to comply with the specific requirements listed in the contract. Elance does falsely advertise their services because on their home page, they say you can approve the work before payment, yet when you read their terms, you will see that you are buying on the "as is" basis and they will not claim liability for their dispute process, nor their services. It's all in the fine print folks. Just read it. Save yourself the trouble. Do not hire Elance or any company for a large sum of money.

I lead the marketing team at Elance and am familiar with this case.  While only a small fraction of the 1,000,000 jobs completed annually on Elance is ever disputed, we're unhappy whenever a customer is dissatisfied with the outcome.

Before getting to the specifics of this case, I wanted to share a link to our dispute policy:  https://www.elance.com/p/trust/dispute_assistance.html

Here is the timeline of what happened in this case.

K_California did indeed go through our dispute process because the work-plan for the project was not scoped clearly.   As a result of this process, K_California entered into a private agreement with the freelancer to end the dispute, an agreement we were not privy or party to. 
 
Five months after that agreement was reached and the freelancer complied with the requests to the best of their ability, K_California is now alleging that the provider did not comply.

What we can say is that the freelancer was extremely reasonable when we talked to them on the phone and was willing to work with K_California in a very limited capacity, but K-California wants more to be done - that again appears to be outside of any scope of work ever created for the project.

The work-plan for the project when it was active was not scoped clearly nor was the private agreement.