GoldCalling - Stephen Burke ripoff Refused to operate as a responsible business owner. Hamilton Ontario Canada
RIP OFF REPORT WARNING! THESE PEOPLE HAVE RIPPED OFF INNOCENT VICTIMS!
GoldCalling, Owner Steven Burke
5 Mapleside Ave.
Hamiliton, On
L8P 3Y4
905.525.7878
In July/05 we purchased the new software called GoldCalling.
Goldcalling was supposed to be the most advanced contact management software available. This software would automatically connect to a voice broadcasting company and dial the geneology leads that came with the program.
At that time it was still in beta mode. It was very difficult to set up.
It required several hours of assistance from Steven Burke, to set it up.
It never worked properly. Steven Burke guaranteed us that he would get it up and running to work with our satelite Internet Provider.
He never did.
He refused to give a refund. Instead of honoring his obligations as a retailer, he became defensive and attacked our ethics and motives.
He adamantly refused to give us the new download link for the new updated, easier to use software.
He is a crook.
We have had no alternative but to take him to court. The trial is in process as I write this.
This is still unresolved.
Connie
Falmouth, Nova Scotia
Canada
2 Updates & Rebuttals
Connie
Falmouth,Nova Scotia,
Canada
We didn't lose.
#3Author of original report
Tue, March 13, 2012
We didn't lose our lawsuit against this company. We just couldn't travel to Ontario from NS to be there. Since Canada is a huge country it is very difficult to file a suit against a crook and self rep when the country doesn't provide video conferencing in court.
If you don't show up, you lose by default. We couldn't show up. Steven Burke is still a crook. I still want my money back. Pay up!
Steve
Hamilton,Ontario,
Canada
Connie (Falmouth, NS) lost her lawsuit against our company.
#3REBUTTAL Owner of company
Sun, July 06, 2008
On the 14th of March, 2008, after approximately two years and a half since placing the order, Connie B Brauer, the individual who posted this report and brought a small claims action against me personally, my company and strangely my father, lost her court case. It should be noted that this rip off report and the court case were not brought until after she discovered our success and huge growth in our business, a fact that will make more sense when you read on.
The document in my possession, called an "Order Dismissing Claim as Abandoned" was issued in Hamilton, signed by court clerk Donald Montgomery.
Connie did not see fit to even show up in court.
Had Connie bothered, the evidence of this case is very simple. She was a former customer of a Satellite Internet Provider (and may still be). This was not expressed to us before she placed the order with our company, so we had no prior knowledge. Since certain internet technology (like VOIP) is more difficult to work through satellites, mainly because of a delay that is placed on signals as a designed method of fighting terrorist abuse of this technology, we would have had trouble connecting her software to any server (we have completed at this date connections to 4 separate servers, one our own and three those of third party suppliers - in the fall of that year we had one outside server we were successfully connecting with).
When the issue was raised, we offered a temporary solution and a permanent one, which we accepted by Connie, this was early in the fall of 2005. The permanent solution required an expense to us, which we incurred and completed that work in October of that year (months before the lawsuit was registered). This was programming to deal with the server delay she was suffering from. And might I say, that expense was far greater than the gross amount of her order (in other words a money loosing proposition for us).
It took just a few weeks we complete the required and unplanned programming for her solution and upon talking to her, ready with good news, she was not willing to listen. Demanding money back for services already completed, which of course were rightly denied. I want to be honest and tell you she was very hard to deal with or talk to and, even though we valued Connie's business by bending over backwards "honoring obligations as a retailer", I am pleased this matter is finally resolved for good and that I can post this rebuttal with the facts. She anyone like to discuss this matter with me, I can be reached by phone at 905-525-7878.
The temporary solution was interesting too and still works perfectly today. You simply EXPORT the list of clients to dial and upload them through a web platform, already in perfect format to be accepted b y the third party IP Voice Broadcaster, prepared that way by our unique export feature that saves a lot of time over the manual manipulation of data required through the use of the most common PC software!
The note in her report about the difficulty of getting her software set up, taking time, this is actually a benefit not a negative. We did support her and did get the program working on her computer, we did not in any way ignore or shy away from that TECH SUPPORT situation, even though Connie is not or was not very computer literate, causing the support session to last longer than it might have.
It is my humble opinion that CONNIE's bitterness had as much or more to do with her business not being as profitable as it was with our service. Why else wouldn't she let us prove we have dealt with the issue? And why did she bring suit for $10,000, which was more than 6 times the cost of the order she placed, rather than for the amount she was out of pocket?
Steven Burke