how to answer to a bizarre web hosting customer request

Started by Лара, Jun 19, 2022, 09:12 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ЛараTopic starter

We are selling a dedicated server and firewall web hosting service to a customer, they are renting a server plus a firewall, provisioned installed set up and provided to protect the customer server.
Customer has cancelled server, but is now requesting that we return the firewall and server to him since it is his and he paid for it.

Perhaps the customer doesnt understand that web hosting is a service even though he is paying to have a server and a firewall it is not his property?

Has anyone run into this situation before or does any have any suggestions? We dont even know how to answer this kind of question since the fact that it is the ISP infrastructure is kind of obvious and self evident as that is how hosting works.


Awfully tempting to say that you will deliver it once he has paid the 52 remaining monthly payments of your Rent To Own program. But, seriously, it might help to NOT use the word "sell" or "selling" as you have in your original post and perhaps may have to the customer.

Rental is the word to emphasize. Perhaps by saying something like, "We are sorry that you have misunderstood the Rental Service that we offered you. Similar to renting a car, house or apartment, we retain Ownership and only allow you to use the Server and Firewall until you cancel your Rental agreement."


If you work with Google search queries, you will find that the key "buy a server" is more popular than "rent a server. But "buy a server" in about 50% of all queries does not mean that the customer is looking to buy a server for their home. Thus, it looks like your client was in the other 50%.

jonburnaby gave a good recommendation on how you can prevent such misunderstandings in the future.
You can also sell subscription rather than dedicated server.


Last year, a client came to our support, which needed to serve more than 10 product websites. In addition to ordinary work on the sites themselves, the contract also included the administration of the servers on which these sites are located. However, the client insisted that he did not want to change the host and would not migrate to our virtual webservers.

Initially, we were neutral about that decision - he wants and wants. But the moment we started setting up basic site monitoring, the "fun" began. In short: all channels configured for notification began to be buried in "alerts". About the reasons, attempts to solve this issue and our conclusions, and there will be a further longread.

Classic hosting is a waste of money
It is important to note here, for the convenience of further reading and understanding, that "classic webhosting" in our understanding is shared web hosting that is losing its relevance, which I will call "hosting", while virtual servers will be called that.
So what was the global problem with websites? As you may have guessed, it was in the fact that they were hosted on the hosting. Next, we will analyze what are the main problems when using it.

It should be noted right away that the situation here is individual and in the case of a different client + hosting provider combination, everything could have turned out better differently.