On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:47:43 Berend de Boer wrote:
Michael == Michael mich...@networkstuff.co.nz writes:
Michael The vast majority of people in the web development industry
Michael are complicit in this problem by taking on jobs where they
Michael KNOW the customer is going to
Pedant. noun
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of
learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
common sense.
On Mar 2, 9:02 pm, Michael mich...@networkstuff.co.nz
Michael == Michael mich...@networkstuff.co.nz writes:
Michael The vast majority of people in the web development industry
Michael are complicit in this problem by taking on jobs where they
Michael KNOW the customer is going to LOSE MONEY.
That is utter nonsense, and
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:15:27 Hamish Campbell wrote:
Pedant. noun
1.a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of
learning.
2.a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3.a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
common sense.
*sigh*
If a web developer (or any professional for that matter) always supplies
services and products, that are integral to their client's business, and
their client makes money from it, the web developer (or any professional)
will almost always be paid as a #1 priority.
Please read my post
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:15:31 Kent Parker wrote:
The sad reality IMHO is that few websites make money. Outside of Trade me
most NZers prefer to buy their stuff at a bricks and mortar stopfront.
Translation: Networkstuff.co.nz is not making any money, so Michael
generalizes to include 'most'
Michael == Michael mich...@networkstuff.co.nz writes:
Michael PS: I am sick and tired of hearing this 'recession' beat up
Michael in the media. I prefer to use another 'R' word -
Michael realignment.
I can fully agree with this definition :-)
--
Cheers,
Berend de Boer
Clients not paying invoice IS NOT unique to web development industry!
It is a problem common to any industry where the good/service is
delivered first before asking payment.
Agreed in part. Nonwithstanding that these things are relative to how
important a customer perceives a product/service
The only picture I am getting is that this has detoured in [WOT]
terrtory and is becomeing more and more of a pissing contest than an actual
discussion.
+1 for killing this thread now...
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/03/2009 at 10:37 p.m. Michael wrote:
Get
March 2009 10:40 p.m.
To: nzphpug@googlegroups.com
Subject: [phpug] Re: [OT] Clients that don't pay
The only picture I am getting is that this has detoured in [WOT]
terrtory and is becomeing more and more of a pissing contest than an actual
discussion.
+1 for killing this thread
On 2/03/2009, at 10:40 PM, Karl wrote:
+1 for killing this thread now...
Agree - end of conversation thanks guys.
Kind regards,
James McGlinn
__
CTO
Eventfinder Limited
Suite 106, Heards Building
2 Ruskin Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052
Phone: +649 365
.
A
- Original Message -
From: Andrew McMurtrie and...@anyzoom.com
To: nzphpug@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:55 AM
Subject: [phpug] Re: [OT] Clients that don't pay
By the way I thought the topic was a good one before it got hijacked!
It is a bit like the how much do you
I agree
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: nzphpug@googlegroups.com [mailto:nzph...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Aaron Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2009 9:37 a.m.
To: nzphpug@googlegroups.com
Subject: [phpug] Re: [OT] Clients that don't pay
Me too
I have to say I saw it coming
On 3/03/2009, at 9:36 AM, Aaron Cooper wrote:
Perhaps a good Wiki topic at some stage along side the What to
charge
article?(sans ego-war). There was some decent experienced info in
the early
posts (Jochen's especially) - and it's a topic that is overlooked by
many
until it's
I've put what I could think of immediately in the wiki. Feedback and
extension is appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Jochen Daum
Chief Automation Officer
Automatem Ltd
Phone: 09 630 3425
Mobile: 021 567 853
Email: j...@automatem.co.nz
Skype: jochendaum
Website: www.automatem.co.nz
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009
You mention options such as ...revert the site to how it was... which
implies that even though you don't host the site, you at least have ftp access
to the server?
If that is the case, a method I found highly effective with a 'repeat
offender' a few years back...
1 -
Don't ever do this. Looks very bad.
Just lodge a claim at your Disputes Tribunal. Which is a fairly straight
forward process, but can be time consuming.
+1
Given your rational and sensible advice above, I am at a loss as to why you
offer the below-
If non-paying clients become an issue,
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:48:50 Jochen Daum wrote:
Hi,
I've passed someone on to www.accountsenforcement.co.nz in November and he
paid within 3 days from receiving their letter. It did cost $25 + 15% of
the invoice. They collected interest - he did have to pay that, but I never
asked anyone for
Hello,
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Michael mich...@networkstuff.co.nzwrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:48:50 Jochen Daum wrote:
Hi,
...
Even if I hosted a site, I would consider it. I had someone in 2007 who
went bust and had I collected that way, I would have received more than I
Poor excuses for not paying!
Don't make this sound like a problem unique to web development
industry, if McDonald invoices people after they go home with the
burger, it will have the same problem.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Michael mich...@networkstuff.co.nz wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009
May be I shouldn't use McDonald as an example LOL but you should know
what I mean
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Sid Bachtiar sid.bacht...@gmail.com wrote:
Poor excuses for not paying!
Don't make this sound like a problem unique to web development
industry, if McDonald invoices people
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:56:25 Sid Bachtiar wrote:
May be I shouldn't use McDonald as an example LOL but you should know
what I mean
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Sid Bachtiar sid.bacht...@gmail.com
wrote:
Poor excuses for not paying!
Don't make this sound like a problem unique to
It was a good example. Why?
I was just anticipating comments like So you compare web developer to
a company that produces junk food, not saying here that McDonald is
producing junk food, but pretty sure that many people out there think
so.
Because McDonalds can read what their customer is
Karl wrote:
You mention options such as ...revert the site to how it was... which
implies that even though you don't host the site, you at least have ftp
access to the server?
If that is the case, a method I found highly effective with a 'repeat
offender' a few years back...
I remember warning you about that extortionate Irish insurance! :-)
2009/2/28 Harvey Kane har...@harveykane.com
Karl wrote:
You mention options such as ...revert the site to how it was...
which implies that even though you don't host the site, you at least have
ftp access to the
The only problem with sabotaging your own work is that then the
customer really does have a reason not to pay you.
There are no easy answers to this. Like Berend, I used the disputes
tribunal to reclaim a sum of over $1000. I had to give a little to
get what I did. The adjudicator said that
Hi Harvey,
Yeh, my advice echoes other members already.
In the end I changed my payment terms (in proposal) to have three
stages, and the final stage (delivery) was after approval on a final
pre-live site hosted at my end, and was only made live after payment
was received in full.
I also
I also amended my payment terms to include some pretty harsh late
payment penalties - e.g. 10% compounding per month. The invoices
included the amount at the bottom, but also the extrapolated late
amount if they pay in 60 days and another row for 90 days. For small
amounts this can look
I haven't had an opportunity to read the entire thread, so apologies if
this has been mentioned already:
Get your customers to sign a development agreement *before initiating
work* which includes your terms and conditions (that include policies
for late payment, cost of debt collection, etc.).
When I send out my final notices in the past I've included a snippet
of my terms that allows me to disable their website until they pay
without nageting their payment - my terms of business also make all
work my property until paid for in full, so there could be
justification for
When I send out my final notices in the past I've included a snippet
of my terms that allows me to disable their website until they pay
without nageting their payment - my terms of business also make all
work my property until paid for in full, so there could be
justification for contacting
[mailto:nzph...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Michael
Sent: Sunday, 1 March 2009 2:21 p.m.
To: nzphpug@googlegroups.com
Subject: [phpug] Re: [OT] Clients that don't pay
When I send out my final notices in the past I've included a snippet
of my terms that allows me to disable their website
. I would recommend trying to find out how other companies find
them to deal with, get some references from them, do some back ground
checking to ensure that you aren't stepping into a problem that many others
have stepped into before you. Typically if they are bad payers they will
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:31:18 James McGlinn wrote:
On 1/03/2009, at 6:07 PM, Michael wrote:
If someone's business model is based on sales of several thousand
dollars at a
time, where their clients have 10-20x the 'normal' rate of business
failure,
is it any wonder they have a problem?
. I haven't heard of this being done but another option for bigger
jobs could be to have the payment transferred to a third party in trust so
that it is confirmed that the money will be there when payment is required
be that a lump sum or progress payments subject to the client
Hi,
I've passed someone on to www.accountsenforcement.co.nz in November and he
paid within 3 days from receiving their letter. It did cost $25 + 15% of the
invoice. They collected interest - he did have to pay that, but I never
asked anyone for that. They also collected debt collection costs,
36 matches
Mail list logo
