We utilized servers from LeaseWeb, a well-known Dutch provider, paying a relatively small volume of services at around 150 euros per month each. Everything went smoothly for several years before illegitimate traffic caused a spike in usage, resulting in LeaseWeb issuing an unimaginably high bill and debiting money from our card, as per the terms of their contract offer.



The issue lies in the fact that while monthly bills are issued for exceeding traffic, nothing is mentioned about the mind-boggling charge of 5 cents per gigabyte. This information can only be found in the FAQ section of the site, which is not included in the official text of the contract. It would be reasonable for this information to be included in the server rental services section.

Additionally, other clients have suffered similar situations with LeaseWeb, such as one from Singapore who experienced an attack that led to a vastly increased traffic rate and expenses at a rate of $100 per hour. Another client with a limit of 8 TB was charged a whopping $16,000 for 111 TB. However, LeaseWeb's standard packages for traffic cost reasonable money, with rates ranging from 11.25€ to 980€ per month depending on the amount of data needed. In our case, we only required a 100 Mbps port without the possibility of exceeding traffic but were still debited due to the hosting provider following a formal process through their contract offer.

Despite our efforts to reason with the hosting provider through several dozen letters, we were unsuccessful. As a long-time customer of Leaseweb for seven years, we found it concerning that the provider issued a bill that was 70 times more expensive than our usual monthly payment of 150 euros. We emphasized in our correspondence that we did not choose the set limit for servers, but for some reason, the provider only accounted for the overspending traffic from one channel and issued an outrageous bill.

According to the hosting provider's own rules stated on their website section and FAQ chapter on bandwidth aggregation billing, surcharges are only calculated if the total bandwidth of all servers exceeds the total allocated bandwidth for all servers. However, there was no proper debriefing on the part of our colleagues, and the provider only offered a contract to be concluded for three years in advance with reduced penalties. We terminated the contract and moved to another host in Germany after several unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation.

However, after our application for termination, Leaseweb continued to demand money for prolongation of the contract, citing a clause in the offer agreement that required customers to warn them about the termination of long-term services two months prior to the expiration of the contract. This allowed the provider to demand payment for services a year in advance, which we found fraudulent as we terminated the contract. We tried to appeal to the sense of reason, but the negotiations reached an impasse, and we even received a warning from the provider's law firm. The situation shows how the multiplicity of the Leaseweb hosting provider leads to the loss of customers and money.

There was an excess of writing that amounted to "farts after the explosion".

It begs the question, why didn't you conduct a thorough analysis of the contract before agreeing to it?

While it clearly states that there will be write-offs in the case of overspending, there is no specified amount.

Why did this issue only puzzle you after signing?

Furthermore, there are several other parts of the contract that are not up to par.

These mistakes showcase your low level of competence and lack of attention to detail.

In other words, it's just plain nonsense.

Additional: When it comes to signing contracts, it's imperative to do your due diligence and understand every detail before agreeing to anything. Otherwise, it could lead to unexpected consequences down the line.

How can one even prove such a massive amount of traffic?

If you disagree and are being charged an unknown amount, the burden of proof falls on the hosting provider.

At the same time, consider filing a statement with the police, particularly if the hosting provider is located in a different jurisdiction.

Be sure to reference the questionable invoices that have been provided.

Of course, this assumes that the source of the traffic is truly unknown.

However, if you do have an understanding of where the traffic is coming from, it may be best to pay the bill and put the issue behind you.
It's important to remember that as a customer, you have the right to demand proof from your service providers, especially when it comes to unexpected charges or fees. Don't hesitate to take action if you suspect you've been unfairly charged or treated.

A company I am acquainted with recently attempted to upgrade their server with Leaseweb, a company they have friendly relations with. However, Leaseweb informed them that they were too late and the old server would need to be paid for in addition to the new server.

The company was shocked as they intended to use the new server after the old one expired in 2 months. Despite having paid for the second server, Leaseweb blocked both servers and demanded payment for an extension of the contract.

Fortunately, the office is out of reach of Leaseweb's influence, which prevented the matter from escalating beyond threats. However, the client lost a certain amount of money due to this situation.

Overall, it may be time to blacklist Leaseweb, despite their history as a once-good provider (the aforementioned company had been a loyal customer for 9 years!).

This situation highlights the importance of clear and concise communication between service providers and their clients. It's crucial to understand all terms and conditions before agreeing to any contracts or upgrades to prevent unexpected charges or losses.

I am deeply troubled by the complex and frustrating experience you encountered with LeaseWeb. Your story highlights the critical need for transparency and fairness within the web hosting industry. Hosting providers play a pivotal role in supporting the online presence of businesses and individuals, and the lack of clear communication and fair billing practices can have far-reaching consequences.

It's concerning that the detailed information about overage charges of 5 cents per gigabyte was not explicitly outlined in the official contract offer, and instead, relegated to the FAQ section of LeaseWeb's website. This lack of upfront disclosure can lead to confusion and, as seen in your case, substantial unexpected expenses for clients. Hosting providers have a responsibility to ensure that their clients are fully informed about the potential costs associated with their services, especially when it comes to bandwidth usage and overage charges.

Furthermore, the disparity between the standard traffic package rates and the staggering charges incurred during traffic spikes raises serious questions about the consistency and fairness of LeaseWeb's billing practices. As a journalist covering technology and business, I understand the impact that such experiences can have on the trust and confidence of clients in the web hosting industry as a whole. It is essential for hosting providers to be transparent and consistent in their billing structures to foster trust and reliability within the industry.

Your efforts to reason with LeaseWeb and the lack of a satisfactory resolution despite being a long-time customer for seven years reveal the challenges that clients can face when dealing with disputes and unexpected expenses. The failure to engage in meaningful dialogue and offer fair solutions can result in the loss of clients and tarnish the reputation of hosting providers.

This situation underscores the need for hosting companies to prioritize open communication, fair billing practices, and ethical resolution of disputes, ultimately enhancing the trust and integrity of the web hosting industry. I hope that sharing your experience will encourage hosting providers to reevaluate their policies and prioritize the fair and respectful treatment of their clients. Your decision to transition to a new hosting provider in Germany serves as a testament to the impact of transparent and customer-focused practices in the web hosting industry.

Quote from: johnmart1 on Dec 29, 2022, 04:17 AMWe utilized servers from LeaseWeb, a well-known Dutch provider, paying a relatively small volume of services at around 150 euros per month each. Everything went smoothly for several years before illegitimate traffic caused a spike in usage, resulting in LeaseWeb issuing an unimaginably high bill and debiting money from our card, as per the terms of their contract offer.



The issue lies in the fact that while monthly bills are issued for exceeding traffic, nothing is mentioned about the mind-boggling charge of 5 cents per gigabyte. This information can only be found in the FAQ section of the site, which is not included in the official text of the contract. It would be reasonable for this information to be included in the server rental services section.

Additionally, other clients have suffered similar situations with LeaseWeb, such as one from Singapore who experienced an attack that led to a vastly increased traffic rate and expenses at a rate of $100 per hour. Another client with a limit of 8 TB was charged a whopping $16,000 for 111 TB. However, LeaseWeb's standard packages for traffic cost reasonable money, with rates ranging from 11.25€ to 980€ per month depending on the amount of data needed. In our case, we only required a 100 Mbps port without the possibility of exceeding traffic but were still debited due to the hosting provider following a formal process through their contract offer.

Despite our efforts to reason with the hosting provider through several dozen letters, we were unsuccessful. As a long-time customer of Leaseweb for seven years, we found it concerning that the provider issued a bill that was 70 times more expensive than our usual monthly payment of 150 euros. We emphasized in our correspondence that we did not choose the set limit for servers, but for some reason, the provider only accounted for the overspending traffic from one channel and issued an outrageous bill.

According to the hosting provider's own rules stated on their website section and FAQ chapter on bandwidth aggregation billing, surcharges are only calculated if the total bandwidth of all servers exceeds the total allocated bandwidth for all servers. However, there was no proper debriefing on the part of our colleagues, and the provider only offered a contract to be concluded for three years in advance with reduced penalties. We terminated the contract and moved to another host in Germany after several unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation.

However, after our application for termination, Leaseweb continued to demand money for prolongation of the contract, citing a clause in the offer agreement that required customers to warn them about the termination of long-term services two months prior to the expiration of the contract. This allowed the provider to demand payment for services a year in advance, which we found fraudulent as we terminated the contract. We tried to appeal to the sense of reason, but the negotiations reached an impasse, and we even received a warning from the provider's law firm. The situation shows how the multiplicity of the Leaseweb hosting provider leads to the loss of customers and money.

I understand your frustration with LeaseWeb's unexpected charges and lack of responsiveness. It's crucial to thoroughly review contracts and seek legal advice when facing disputes with service providers. I'm glad to hear you found a new hosting provider, and I wish you the best in your future endeavors.