How do I get my money back for the signal if the signal provider drained my deposit 5 days after I signed up for a paid subscription? - page 11
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
For the process... But in full. And if the signal has drained the deposit for 3 days, while you paid for a month?
Actually, this is a rhetorical question. Unfortunately, there are many unscrupulous sellers (signals, experts), who sell really expensive signals. But that is another topic for another time.
1. a big request: please write in a less contrasting font colour, e.g. the default one. Texts with too much contrast hurt your eyes.
2. We have paid $20 per month for a signal that brings 20% a month, we lost it for three days. How much do you need to pay back?
3. You paid $20 per month for a signal yielding 20% a month and earned 40%. How much more do you have to pay to the vendor?
1. a big request: please write in a less contrasting font colour, e.g. the default one. Texts with too much contrast hurt your eyes.
2. We have paid $20 per month for a signal that brings 20% a month, we lost it for three days. How much do you need to return?
3. Paid $20 a month for a signal bringing 20% a month, made 40%. How much extra do you owe the provider?
I'm not in favour of refunds for a depo drained by a bad signal or expert. I'm in favour of administrators taking a more serious and responsible approach to placing certain products on the Marketplace. But this is another topic, and I wrote about it in another thread about Expert Advisors (however, it can also be applied to signals). To quote myself (pardon my immodesty):
"... I think that not only unscrupulous sellers of paid EAs are to blame, but also those who allow selling this rubbish. Although they are in any case, it is profitable - they will get their 20% in any case.
But I cannot understand why they allow selling pure tester gems (mainly scalpers, of which there are a lot) that make millions in usual test mode and tens or hundreds of times less in free-latency mode, if they don't leak at all. I think administrators should only accept for sale those EAs that meet the following requirements:
1) the Expert Advisor on the test should give almost the same results on all 6 modes (2 main - normal and with arbitrary delay and 3 additional - all ticks, OHLC on M1, opening prices only);
2) Seller of the Expert Advis or allows you to download it for free to test it not only on a test, but also on a demo account, say, for a month;
3) Seller of the Expert Advisor provides a link to a real or at least a demo account, on which its Expert Advisor has worked for at least a month.
In this case it would be fair... and there won't be a scam for decent money.
The administration did not understand the proposal - to mark signal providers who have lost their signals, indicating on their next signals that the previous ones have been lost.
The mismatch between the current situation and the current market situation has not been resolved.
The administration did not understand the proposal - to mark signal providers who have lost their signals, indicating on their next signals that the previous ones were lost.
It may be that the makers of this brokerage are not satisfied with the current market situation and do not want to change their mind.
it is too good to be true.
In fact, it turns out to be a PAMM account.
The administration did not understand the proposal - to mark signal providers who have lost their signals, indicating on their next signals that the previous ones were lost.
The mismatch between the current situation and the current market situation has not been resolved.
How can I get my money back for the signal if the signal provider drained my deposit 5 days after I subscribed for a paid subscription?
Very simply, through the courts. In this case there is a violation of consumer protection law due to the failure to deliver the service to the client for the period you paid for.
Very simply, through the courts. In this case, there is a violation of the Consumer Protection Act because of the failure to provide the service to the customer for the period paid for.
The service has been provided. And in full. The provider provides a "signal" service. He does not provide a "mandatory profit" service.
The signal may only be once a month, but it has to be. It was. Probably more than one. The service is provided in full for the month paid for.
The service has been provided. It is provided in full. The provider provides a 'signal' service. It does not provide a "must-run profit" service.
The signal may only be once a month, but it has to be. It was. Probably more than one. The service is provided in full for the month paid for.
and why does it have to be once a month? and if there were no signals for signals?
This is the question that points out the absurdity of the situation. Nowhere in the contract is the required and necessary number of requests to the trading server specified. How to decide if the number of signals received is sufficient to consider the contract as having been fulfilled. Whether the agreement has been fully, partially or not fulfilled.
There are situations that immediately arise:
a person received a signal and earned more than the amount paid (got a profit)
How do you propose to weed out the unsatisfied?
Here he did not get a signal this month, made a fuss with the courts all over the world, and at the beginning of the next period the others got a signal (who renewed their subscriptions) and made 100% profit. He, looking at them, biting his elbows, ran to the next courts - I was misled!!!!! I've been scammed by fraudsters!!!!
You know, it smells like America, where in a cramped lift you accidentally hit some madam - sue her.
The service has been provided. It is provided in full. The provider provides a 'signal' service. It does not provide a "must-run profit" service.
The signal may only be once a month, but it has to be. It was. Probably more than one. The service is provided in full for the month paid for.