Lasitha M.
Response to TechKart’s Reply
Response to TechKart’s Reply – Reiterating Refund Demand However, I would like to address several inaccuracies and clarify my position to provide a full picture for any future clients reviewing this exchange. 1. Figma Design Approval and Payment: I approved the initial Figma designs and fulfilled the second milestone payment, despite TechKart’s delays. I have aimed to adhere to our agreement and ensure progress, which is why I frequently requested updates and more consistent communication. 2. Template Use Instead of a Custom Build: As per our agreement, I was promised a custom-built website tailored to my specifications. However, I recently discovered that TechKart used a template from Behance (Golobe-Travel-agency-website) for the site design, rather than creating a customized solution. This is not only a breach of our agreement but also raises questions about the quality and originality of the work delivered. 3. API and Content Delays: While there were challenges with some API providers, this was communicated to your team. However, TechKart failed to deliver core backend features, such as authentication and dashboard functionality, which do not depend on third-party APIs. These components are essential to a fully functioning website and were within TechKart’s scope of responsibility. 4. Unauthorized Portfolio Usage: I object to TechKart’s unapproved use of the project in your portfolio, particularly as it remains incomplete. Displaying this project without consent is both unethical and unprofessional. 5. Project Delays and Miscommunication: Due to TechKart’s continuous delays, I hired additional developers to try to salvage the project. However, these efforts were also hindered by the lack of a complete and functional backend from TechKart, leading to further frustrations. 6. Duffel API Integration and Missing Features: While the Duffel API demo was appreciated, it did not meet the real-time functionality specified in our agreement. Furthermore, the project’s core backend functionalities remain incomplete, leaving the website static and unusable. 7. Client’s Management Style: My management of this project has been in good faith, consistently seeking updates and resources within the timeline. I expected TechKart, as a professional provider, to lead this project transparently and to proactively address any challenges. Given these discrepancies—particularly the use of a template instead of a custom-built design and the incomplete deliverables—I am left with a product that does not meet the specifications agreed upon or justified by the amount paid. I therefore reiterate my demand for a full refund of $1,400 USD. Thank you, Lasitha Madushanka