Unresolved · Updated 26 August 2026
On 3 October 2025, OVHcloud completed the deletion of our entire Public Cloud project. Not a disk. Not a virtual machine. The project. Everything inside it went with it, including the wastewater AI datasets and models we had spent five years building. I found out six weeks later, by logging in.
I own my share of this. We did not keep a sufficiently independent off-provider backup, and that is why the loss was total rather than merely painful. This page does not ask you to forgive that. It asks OVHcloud to explain the part I could not have prevented: why the deletion process began at all.
01 / The short version
If you read nothing else, read this. Every line below is expanded later on this page and cited to a specific document page on the evidence page.
OVHcloud's own words or records. Quoted and cited to the page.
Something UrbanBlue got wrong. Stated plainly, not buried.
Our own figures. Not provider-confirmed, not adjudicated damages.
My recollection, where no document exists. Labelled as such.
A question the private process never answered.
This labelling is the whole method. I would rather lose an argument than blur the line between what OVHcloud said and what I believe.
Microscopy hardware, computer vision, trained models, annotated datasets, and operator software, developed with support from MeitY-backed programmes, NIDHI-PRAYAS, SINE IIT Bombay, Techstars, and Imagine H2O.
A European provider that publicly positioned itself around data protection and sovereignty. The concentration was our decision, and our mistake.
Invoice IN9926 showed ₹2,602.80 due. Three days later, IN10378 invoiced the same March usage at ₹0 with the Startup Program voucher applied.
A later account notice identified IN9926 as an outstanding payment.
Support later stated the project was suspended on 3 September over a debt, and that the deletion task completed on 3 October, wiping the data.
I had come back to retrieve datasets and models for a new commercial use. It took three days and a support ticket to learn it had been gone for weeks.
Terminated for non-payment (22 Nov), then not related to your payment (26 Nov), then indeed our responsibility (28 Nov). Claims later denied liability.
Support, Claims, Legal, Startup Program, regional inboxes, named executives, and two rounds of registered post to India and France. Four deliveries confirmed.
Presented as a commercial gesture with liability denied, and not tied to any assessment of the deleted assets or the reconstruction work required.
No closing message, decision, accepted settlement, or closure rationale appears in the thirteen exported pages.
02 / What was deleted
Before the invoices, the suspension, and the deletion, there was a serious, externally reviewed technical venture — and its assets already had a next commercial use lined up.
UrbanBlue was built to make wastewater treatment observable.
Over several years we developed AquaPulse: microscopy hardware, computer vision, machine-learning models, process analytics, and cloud software designed to observe microbial conditions inside wastewater-treatment systems.
The first commercial product did not become the repeatable business we hoped for. I am not going to rewrite that history. But a product outcome is not the same thing as the value of the engineering behind it, and UrbanBlue was not an empty company.
UrbanBlue was developed through years of engineering, research, field work, and external review. It received grants, incubation, acceleration, or programme support through Government of India initiatives and recognised innovation organisations, including MeitY-supported programmes, NIDHI-PRAYAS, SINE IIT Bombay, Techstars, and Imagine H2O.
Their involvement does not prove every product claim or make commercial success automatic. It does establish that this was a real engineering programme built over years.
We had a purchase order and active written discussions for incorporating UrbanBlue's historical datasets, microbial intelligence, models, and process learning into another product. We had a working technical approach and a defined commercial requirement. This was not a vague future possibility.
The deletion did not erase a hypothetical future. It interrupted work that was already moving toward its next commercial application.
The original commercial model had not produced enough capital to maintain fully replicated, multi-provider operational infrastructure. We selected OVHcloud as our primary provider because it was a major European cloud company that publicly positioned itself around data protection, sovereignty, and trusted infrastructure. We believed a provider of that size and positioning would have reliable billing, account-management, and project-governance processes.
That assumption turned out to be wrong for us. We were wrong to treat provider reputation as a substitute for independent recovery. A simpler off-provider archival copy was still our responsibility, and we did not implement one adequately.
03 / The login
18 November 2025. We went back for the resources needed for the next product. The project was not there. For three days I looked for an explanation that was not permanent loss.
I was there to retrieve the historical datasets, trained models, experiment records, and supporting assets we intended to use in another product.
Not one missing bucket. Not one stopped virtual machine. The Public Cloud project itself was not where it should have been.
My first assumption was that the interface had failed to load. I checked from another browser, then went through the billing view. I kept returning because permanent loss still did not feel like a reasonable explanation.
At 17:44 I opened ticket CS12897544. The request was blunt: the services appeared terminated, and I wanted access back.
Support replied that the project had been suspended on 3 September, deleted on 3 October, and could not be recovered. It was not a display problem. The project had already been gone for seven weeks.
The 18 November access attempt and the three-day login sequence are my firsthand recollection. The 21 November ticket timestamp and Support's later suspension, deletion, and non-recovery statements are in the record.
04 / Their own record
This is the sequence I want OVHcloud to reconcile. I am not going to guess which internal process produced it. Here is what the invoices, the account notice, and Support's own dates say.
The same March usage lines were invoiced with the Startup Program voucher applied.
A later account notice nevertheless identified IN9926 as pending.
The record shows conflicting billing treatment. It does not let me diagnose OVHcloud's internal account state. That explanation has to come from OVHcloud.
The notices existed. Automated suspension and deletion notices were sent. We did not intervene before the process completed, while our email service was malfunctioning. That explains why we did not stop the process in time. It does not explain why OVHcloud's systems placed the project into that process in the first place.
Support said the service was suspended because of an existing debt. Open the dated moment ↗
Support said the deletion task had completed and that the data was wiped in the process. Open the dated moment ↗
Support said the Public Cloud project had been terminated for non-payment and could not be recovered. Open the exact source moment ↗
This was not presented to us as the failure of one disk, one VM, or one storage volume. OVHcloud Support said the entire Public Cloud project had been terminated.
05 / The contradiction
These are OVHcloud Support's words inside ticket CS12897544 — not mine. Open the redacted records and read the surrounding messages yourself.
“This project has been terminated due to no payments made on your end.”
“The issue was not related to your payment.”
Open complete redacted record ↗
“The recent issue was indeed our responsibility.”
Open complete redacted record ↗
I am not declaring these lines a legal admission; that is for counsel or a tribunal. I am saying that OVHcloud first blamed non-payment, later separated the issue from our payment, then described the recent issue as its responsibility — and that Claims later denied liability. Those positions still need one coherent explanation.
06 / The blast radius
I learned that in the most expensive way available. If your recovery copy shares the same administrative blast radius, it is not a recovery plan. Please learn it for free.
Project terminated, deletion task completed, data wiped in the process, and the project could not be reactivated.
Infrastructure categories, research programmes, dataset types, software components, and recovery topology.
Data volume, record counts, field-recollection work, reconstruction effort, and financial impact.
These are UrbanBlue's internal scale estimates. They are not provider-confirmed quantities or adjudicated damages.
07 / Who owns what
Two columns. I filled in the left one first, and I published it before I asked OVHcloud for anything.
OVHcloud says we chose how to store the data, and that backups, business continuity, and disaster recovery were our responsibility. On that basis, OVHcloud denied liability for the loss and related damages.
That is fair, and I have said so on this page before saying anything else. Our architecture explains the blast radius. It does not explain why the deletion process began under a payment explanation OVHcloud later contradicted.
08 / Every door
Support. Claims. Legal. Startup Program. Regional inboxes. Named executives. Two formal notice rounds, delivered to four addresses across India and France. Some people replied, and one person genuinely helped. None of it produced a coherent explanation or a committed resolution path.
Open public-post facsimile ↗
“Keep an eye on these companies.”
OVHcloud employees publicly named UrbanBlue as a Startup Program company and described our work as real-time AI-powered microbial analysis for industrial wastewater treatment. The posts were promotion, not a warranty. The contrast still matters.
It supplied the initial explanation, the later payment and responsibility statements, and the Claims handoff.
She took calls and helped us find a working Legal route.
No responsible owner or committed timetable followed in the produced thread.
Two rounds reached addresses in India and France.
Priority 4 — Low, with no visible closure rationale.
I am not attacking the employee who tried to help me. I am documenting the system that left both of us without a working decision path.
09 / The offer and the end state
Claims first denied liability and described compensation as a commercial gesture. On 12 February 2026, it proposed two options. Neither was tied to an assessment of the deleted assets or the reconstruction work required.
€700
cash, excluding tax
€4,200
OVHcloud Money Pot, excluding tax
They cannot recreate expert labels, historical plant data, or lost model lineage either. Reconstruction means:
Ticket metadata shows an update on 18 May 2026. The export does not identify who closed the case, the exact closure time, or a closure rationale. I therefore do not present “Closed” as a reasoned final decision.
The proposal figures are presented as recorded in the claims correspondence and may be disputed by OVHcloud. My reconstruction record is preliminary, and its line-item arithmetic is still being reconciled. This page therefore does not present its aggregate estimate as an adjudicated or final damages figure.
10 / Why I built this
I took these photographs on a June 2026 trip after a brutally hard year. I was trying to enjoy the sunset and not think about OVHcloud. One question would not leave me alone: after months of private escalation, what exactly was I still waiting for?
The loss was not newly discovered. The deletion was not new. The silence was. What changed was that the record had stopped moving. Support, Claims, Legal, Startup Program contacts, executive outreach, and formal notices had produced no coherent reconciliation and no committed resolution path. The exported case now said Closed.
Before speaking publicly, I did the part that had to come first. I accepted that our recovery architecture was inadequate and that we failed to intervene before the automated process completed. I rebuilt the chronology, redacted the source records, and separated OVHcloud's statements from our own estimates and conclusions.
Because waiting had stopped producing answers. Because every reasonable private route had been tried. Because silence was beginning to make an unresolved incident look resolved.
Publication was not the first step. It is what remained after the private process had run its course.
I could not buy equal power. Fine. I could build a public record that nobody has to take on faith.
So I am publishing now. Not because the anger is new, and not because I expect a website to replace a legal process. I am publishing because the private process exhausted itself while the central contradictions remained.
This is not a court judgment, and I am not asking for a mob. I am asking people to inspect the documents, other founders to learn from our mistakes, and OVHcloud to provide the coherent explanation the private process never produced.
— Akash Singh, founder
11 / The ask
I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for a reconciliation of a record that currently contradicts itself.
Your backup is only a backup if it survives your account being wrong about you. Not a different region. Not a different bucket. A different administrative blast radius, with credentials your primary provider does not control.
Test the restore. Read the suspension policy for your provider before you need it. Make sure the address on your billing account is one a human actually reads.
Identify the sentence. Provide the supporting record. State the correction. I will publish a substantive, documented response next to the claim it disputes — not bury it in a footnote, and not rewrite history to make myself look better.
Dedicated reply route: akash.singh@urbanbluetech.com. A substantive response from a verifiable OVHcloud address will be published in full or linked beside the disputed claim, subject only to necessary privacy redactions.
12 / The detailed record
The outreach ledger, 54 dated moments, and the source register are on one page. Each timeline citation opens only the page or pages supporting that moment — not an entire ticket followed by a scavenger hunt.
13 / What remains
UrbanBlue's first product did not become the repeatable business we hoped for. The cloud project is gone. The work, the lessons, and the impulse to build are not.
I still believe industrial AI has enormous potential. I still believe difficult physical systems can become more observable, more efficient, and more sustainable through better engineering.
This record exists because I refuse to pretend this incident never happened. It also exists because I refuse to let the incident write the ending. I hope OVHcloud eventually provides the explanation I spent months asking for. Whether it does or not, this record stays public.
The project was deleted. The builder was not.
Full design revamp. Every load-bearing statement now carries a visible claim status — provider-stated, my failure, UrbanBlue estimate, firsthand account, or unresolved — so a reader can see at a glance what is OVHcloud's word, what is documented record, and what is mine. The billing sequence and the suspension/deletion sequence are merged into one provider-record chapter, a ninety-second summary opens the page, and the five open questions are now stated directly instead of implied.