Complaint Review: Ingenux Inc. - Edmond Oklahoma

Ingenux has been in business 10 years with an A rating from the Better Business Bureau. You can view at http://www.bbb.org/oklahoma-city/business-reviews/internet-web-design/ingenux-in-edmond-ok-90008484. Mr. Tosa is upset because he signed a legal contract and believed that adding additional scope after the contract was signed was free. We followed procedures per the agreement and offered a change order at a discounted price. Mr. Tosa asked us to be his buddy and do it for free but we declined. If Mr. Tosa had a concern about the requirements, this should have been discussed during the 6 iterations of proposals and one signed contract. Mr. Tosa used his mothers credit card and Mr. filed a complaint against her card company and lost. Her bank upheld the charge as it was valid. They stated Zero Liability does not mean Zero Responsibility. He filed a Better Business Bureau complaint and lost. It seems now there is no other recourse than to write bogus reviews on the web as it is the only way he can win. Ingenux does not have the desire to state any defamatory remarks against Mr. Tosa. Ingenux followed all terms of the agreement and have worked with all agencies in Mr. Tosas complaint, which all have been closed to date. There is not much else we can do on this matter. We wish Mr. Tosa the best. Below is our letter of response to the BBB after the credit card company To Whom it may concern, Subject: Mark Tosa and Powerlynx Motor Sports Claim Mark Tosa, the owner of PowerLynx Motor Sports contacted Ingenux in November, 2008 to develop a new web application. Ingenux provided a proposal based on the requirements. At that time, Mr. Tosa declined due to his budget restraints. In April, 2009, Mr. Tosa contacted Ingenux again about the project and provided the requirements again to us. In order for Ingenux to quote the project we needed to understand details and requirements of the project. Mr. Tosa provided those details in an email dated April 28th, 2009 (Appendix A). This email and document are also included within this response. Ingenux has many discussions as well as back and forth emails about requirements. Based on these discussions, Ingenux developed a project proposal and submitted it to Mr. Tosa for review (Appendix B). This is a standard practice as we develop a proposal based on provided requirements and we want to make sure we included all aspects before we move into the contract stage. Two other versions of the proposal were written based on additional talks and Mr. Tosa finally agreed to start the project. Ingenux provided Mr. Tosa a contract as well as a credit card authorization form. Both of those are included within this letter as Appendix C and D. Mr. Tosa signed and sent back the contract as his mother signed and sent in the credit card authorization for to start. With our proposals, we clearly define our project management process in section 7. During this initial phase Mr. Tosa requested additional requirements that increased the time and cost of the project. Ingenux never used any term such as pre spec document and we request so see such proof of this from him. As in the initial requirements, Mr. Tosa stated that he already bought a web template and had another less expensive programmer build the website that were to leverage and link our application within. Mr. Tosa brings up 3 main areas that he believes should be part of the agreement. 1. Member Registration- Member registration is part of the agreement and is in scope of what we planned. However, what Mr. Tosa is leaving out is that he requested after the contract a function where it allows the site administrator to review and approve members after they sign up. This is not a standard and is a much more complex feature. This was never explained nor described in any document or email provided by Mr. Tosa. If he believed this to be in scope, he should of discussed this at the time we did 4 proposals for this project and requested him to review. 2. Zoom This was never a requirement from Mr. Tosa. I recommended it and at the end this was not part of the contract due to his budget restraints. 3. 2D Images Appendix 1 which Mr. Tosa provided, clearly shows what we quoted. These are shown as flat images. Mr. Tosa stated that he would provide all images. We believed these to be 2D images as he provided on June 3rd, 2009 (Appendix E). He then provided 3D images and not only requested we do this for him for free, e wanted the ability for a user switch car colors on the flow. These were the main contentions in which we provided quotes. I clearly stated the image in the diagram you provided is not 3D since it is only showing one angle. We would be able to show that image exactly as he has it since he will be providing the designs. Mr. Tosa failed to clearly state in any documentation that the 2 people in their including the tire would be removed and replaced with other images as well as adding a carrier. Please show us where in the contract does it state this and we will do it? We did not quote a member console, just ability to approve members before they can login and be active. This was not in our proposal or contract. This is the same for the zoom as well as the 3D images. At this point, Mr. Tosa stated that he did not have any other funds so he just wanted a full refund. Per the contracts early termination clause, all deposits are non refundable. Mr. Tosa demanded that we refund the money or he would sue Ingenux. We stated that he signed a contract and wanted to back up because we did not provide additional items for free. We spend a lot of time on new projects and did a lot of analysis to find a solution to fit Powerlynx Motorsports needs. Mr. Tosa wanted us to work for free and then get a fund refund. Mr.Tosa stated be my buddy and refund the money. Ingenux clearly followed the terms of the contract that Mr. Tosa signed. Mr. Tosa submitted a chargeback request to his mothers credit card company. Visa and his bank reviewed the request and found that the contract to be legally binding and declined Mr. Tosas chargeback request. Mr. Tosa stated he would file these claims and so here it is. (Appendix F) shows that our Merchant Paypal and Mr. Tosas bank agreed with Ingenux and no money was refunded. Ingenux is an ethical company and in no way mis-lead Powerlynx Motorsports. We cannot read minds and that is why we write down all requirements and request clients to confirm before we signed contracts. In regards to Mr. Tosas staffing claim. We have no idea where he is getting this 3 person staff claim. Mr. Tosa contacted us in November 2008 as well as April 2009. In the first proposal in November 2008, we did have over 50 full time employees as we owned and operated an offshore development center. On December 16th, 2008 we closed down that office and only have U.S full time staff. That was discussed as well on several occasions and noted that we dont use offshore staff anymore and have 12 full time staff. This is beyond the point of absurdity. We also have included Appendix G within this letter. It is a article from September, 2009 for racer.com that states Powerlynx Motorsports is suing their bank. We searched all court records for Massachusetts and as of yesterday, there has never been any lawsuit filed. This shows that there was no basis for a lawsuit and that is why Mr. Tosa went the route anyone can go for free, and that is filing absorb claims against honest companies. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 405-216-5110 Regards, Ingenux