Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #238914

Complaint Review: Escrow.com - Irvine California

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Grants Pass Oregon
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Escrow.com 16251 Laguna Canyon Road, #150 Irvine, California U.S.A.

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

In early February of 2006, I bid approximately $650 for the website, Jpegz.com, on auction at eBay. The bid did not meet the reserve, nor was I high bidder. I contacted the seller in March inquiring about the status of the website. The seller, Lamont Grey Cooper of Cyberbulk Internet, informed me the site was still available for sale, and that it generated $1000.00 a month in profit. The asking price was $9000. I proceeded to ask the seller some questions and made an offer of $4000. We eventually agreed upon $4500, with $3000 paid through Escrow.com and $1500 paid through PayPal.com.

The transaction was then set up with the online escrow company, Escrow.com. After the funds were transferred to Escrow.com, Lamont Grey Cooper gave me control of the site and 'supposedly' transferred ownership to me. No transfership of ownership actually occured.

Escrow.com released the funds to Lamont Grey Cooper on 04.27.2006. Soon after Escrow.com released the funds, click-through traffic on the advertising on the website dropped to almost nothing. It became painfully apparent Lamont Grey Cooper was deceptive about the profitable 'traffic' for the website.

I requested a refund from Lamont Grey Cooper on June 6. Almost immediately after the request, Lamont Grey Cooper seized control and ownership of the website that I had mistakenly assumed was under my control and ownership. Shocked by this action, I began investigating domain name transfer protocols and discovered that website owners have the ability to reacquire control and ownership of any website in their possession for a period of 60 days after the initial transfer. Escrow.com should have held the funds for this 60 day transitional period, and I find them 100% to blame for not providing me with a safe transaction and allowing the previous owner to reacquire the website without my consent. Since Escrow.com did not provide any escrow service, I expect my $3189 payment to them refunded.

Colby
Grants Pass, Oregon
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 03/14/2007 05:55 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/escrowcom/irvine-california-92618/escrowcom-ripoff-paid-3189-for-non-existent-domain-name-escrow-service-irvine-california-238914. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
4Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#4 Author of original report

Mr. Cooper's rebuttal is slanderous.

AUTHOR: Colby - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, October 29, 2007

These are the FACTS:

Mr. Cooper agreed to a refund and never paid a single cent of it.

Mr. Cooper reacquired the site and profited from it for many months AFTER agreeing to the refund. During this time that he was profitting from the site, no refund was made nor an attempt at a refund.

After nearly a year, he agreed to let me have the site back, provided I pay another $1200. He agreed to $1000.

I paid $4300 total for the site -- the Escrow.com reversal did not hold, as Mr. Cooper is well aware of.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Author of original report

Mr. Cooper's rebuttal is slanderous.

AUTHOR: Colby - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, October 29, 2007

These are the FACTS:

Mr. Cooper agreed to a refund and never paid a single cent of it.

Mr. Cooper reacquired the site and profited from it for many months AFTER agreeing to the refund. During this time that he was profitting from the site, no refund was made nor an attempt at a refund.

After nearly a year, he agreed to let me have the site back, provided I pay another $1200. He agreed to $1000.

I paid $4300 total for the site -- the Escrow.com reversal did not hold, as Mr. Cooper is well aware of.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

Mr. Cooper's rebuttal is slanderous.

AUTHOR: Colby - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, October 29, 2007

These are the FACTS:

Mr. Cooper agreed to a refund and never paid a single cent of it.

Mr. Cooper reacquired the site and profited from it for many months AFTER agreeing to the refund. During this time that he was profitting from the site, no refund was made nor an attempt at a refund.

After nearly a year, he agreed to let me have the site back, provided I pay another $1200. He agreed to $1000.

I paid $4300 total for the site -- the Escrow.com reversal did not hold, as Mr. Cooper is well aware of.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Author of original report

Mr. Cooper's rebuttal is slanderous.

AUTHOR: Colby - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Monday, October 29, 2007

These are the FACTS:

Mr. Cooper agreed to a refund and never paid a single cent of it.

Mr. Cooper reacquired the site and profited from it for many months AFTER agreeing to the refund. During this time that he was profitting from the site, no refund was made nor an attempt at a refund.

After nearly a year, he agreed to let me have the site back, provided I pay another $1200. He agreed to $1000.

I paid $4300 total for the site -- the Escrow.com reversal did not hold, as Mr. Cooper is well aware of.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now