Slashdot Mirror
British Domain Registrar Offers 'No Transfer Fees,' Charges Transfer Fee
First time accepted submitter RealSurreal (620564) writes "British web host 123-reg, which previously advertised 'no hidden transfer fees' has angered customers by introducing a £12 fee per domain for transfers out. Best of all, they didn't bother to tell anyone they were doing it relying instead on terms and conditions which say : '123-reg reserves the right to change, add, subtract or in way alter these Conditions without the prior consent of the Client.'"
Sign here to be bound by terms we can change any time.
How can that be legal?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
"This change to our product is not directly customer impacting..."
It's almost as if by transferring your domain away, you're no longer a customer!
...there are still no hidden transfer fees.
If your partner changes your contract in a way that is not exclusively beneficial to you, he not only has to inform you a few weeks before it becomes effective, you also have the right to terminate the contract immediately without any early cancellation fees applying.
It sure helped to get some telcos off their bait and switch practice where they lured you in with incredible rates only to jack the price up once they got you tied down to that 2 years contract.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Huh?
Oh, wait... Americans.
Given that the sentence was a direct quote from the site's actual terms, its not clear why you think Americans are to blame for it. Unless of course you are claiming that a UK company has to rely on Americans to draft their TOS.
They all seem to be slime balls. I suppose when money is flowing that type is attracted to the smell.
It wasn't agreed to... so just transfer your domains out and refuse to pay.
A registrar cannot decline to transfer your domain due to refusal to pay or due to a dispute over payment.
The Registrar of Record has other mechanisms available to collect payment from the Registered Name Holder that are independent from the Transfer process. Hence, in the event of a dispute over payment, the Registrar of Record must not employ transfer processes as a mechanism to secure payment for services from a Registered Name Holder.
Not just GoDaddy, it seems to be common practice with all registrars now. Domain expires, gets transferred to a subsidary which squats on the domain 'til it gets bought out.
(I'm talking about changing terms of contract without the consent of the signatory)
The fact that you clicked "I AGREE" with that clause in place mitigates any claim you might have against them.
I have found such clauses in paper contracts; what I tend to do is put a line through them and initial next to the strikethrough, to indicate that I do not consent to such clauses. Covered. Yes, Virgin Media have/had such a clause, they also have/had a clause that said that the customer was still liable for service charges even in the absence of service and to the end of the initial contract period (24 months!) in the case of early termination of contract! Oh yes, that bitch got a line through it!
(more difficult to do in the case of electronic contracts, but there again you do have the option of shopping elsewhere...)
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
As a net-connected consumer, it is assumed that you read the EULAs and terms for all the sites you visit and the software services you use, and that you go through this process again periodically (every few weeks) in case anything has changed.
Did you know: most people spend 4-5 hours reading terms and EULAs for every 2 hours of using their computers. It's just basic responsibility. It's called the free market, freely-entered-into contracts, meetings of the minds, equal footing, etc. It works grat.
M
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Judging by the expired domains I used to have registered through namecheap that are currently available, they don't squat expired domains.
Consumer have strong rights in the UK, and they *can't* be waved, regardless of what a contract says.
If a company pulls you in on a "no exit fee" promise & then silently changes the contract to renege on that on that promise, I reckon the ombudsman would have something to say about that.
I have a couple of domains with 123-Reg, and if they try to extort this money when I transfer out (I noticed the other day that they've also substantially raised their prices), then I will be reporting them to the ombudsman & challenging them in small claims court.
One million British pounds and one flesh pound, then.
Ezekiel 23:20
What's a good no-nonsense registrar for major TLDs? It doesn't have to be super cheap. I want to dump Network Solutions because they gave me an unsolicited domain (I had .com and .net; they gave me a useless .info) which they then expect me to pay to renew.
I have about five domains. I want to avoid the "bulk" domain companies like GoDaddy.
How long ago did the domains expire? My experience is that on the expiration date, your domains get held in a renewal period of 30 days where you can renew it at normal price without any possibility of losing the domain. After that period is an additional 1 - 3 months where the domain is in a different status where the registrar still has control over it, but you need to pay an additional fee (often called "redemption fee") to renew it. If you don't pay this fee the registrar is free to auction the domain or otherwise sell it to someone else.
NameCheap's website contradicts your experience, stating that most domains with them have a redemption fee of $200 : https://www.namecheap.com/supp... I presume your domains had been expired for several months and had been fully released by the time you checked. $200 is actually on the high side, most registrars are closer to $80 for redemption fees.
Other sources: Personal experience registering domain names since 1998, and professional experience of several years working at a company that resells domain registrations.
In the US we file what is called a charge back. Quite simply, if you didn't explicitly agree to the charges, you can file (and win) a charge back. The burden of proof would be on the merchant to prove that you consented to the charges. Combined with the fact that they are required by ICANN to transfer the domains, the merchant in question really has no legal standing. it's only the morons that would pay this transfer fee...but there are QUITE A FEW morons in the world.
That's actually a kilogram, you barbarian!
First, there's no doubt that 123-reg have handled this badly, need to change their advertising and probably need to eat a few £10 fees and apologies. So I'm not totally defending them. However, I do wonder exactly how much 'service' people expect for the few pounds a year per domain that these 'budget registrars' charge. I'd guess that straightforward registrations are a loss leader for them, and they rely on selling 'cherished' domains, ads on 'parked' domains and hosting sales for actual profit.
The 'IPS tag' change is an extra (at least c.f. .com/.org) step required for 'co.uk/org.uk' names managed by the UK central registry, Nominet. You can make this change yourself via the Nominet site, but they'll charge you £10 as well. That's more than 123-reg charge per year for a regular .co.uk. Even if they get a reduced rate it's going to eat their profit - in fact, without this change I could transfer in a domain, and transfer it out again before it expired without paying 123-reg a penny.
I notice that Nominet has just changed its contract for registrars and while life's too short for me to plough through 10 pages of legalese, so maybe the timing is not a coincidence.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Since we're talking about British kidneys, I find your remark rather tumorous.
Ezekiel 23:20