A Locksmith

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/07/21) */
We are applying the deposits to the card upon receiptI have spoken to the customer and explained the receipt datesIncluded here are the trace numbers for the customer to provide to the originator:
6/12/XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
7/10/XX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Based upon the facts available to us, we stand behind the denial reasonThe customer may contact us at *** with any additional information or questions

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/22) */
The account has a maximum balance limitThe latest deposit has been returned to the originatorThe cardholder must refer to her terms and conditions related to the terms of the card
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/06/26)
*/
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
There is no maximum balance limitI have a email from them stating that they did not receive my Direct Deposit for the month of June they were expecting it to post asking did something change and if so they could help with getting it set back up
I am the one who stopped the Direct Deposit and they still will not release my money
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2015/07/21) */
There is a maximum balance limit of $10,A deposit received on 6/1/was returned to the sender because it would have caused the balance limit to be exceeded
The card is open and available for purchase and our records indicate that the cardholder called in June and was provided the options for removing the funds from the card
A message has been left for the cardholder to explain the options for removing the funds from the card

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because: The $referral fee was not addressedThe $bonus is advertising but it does not say if you had the card an Year u can not receive this promotion.Sincerely,*** ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/04) */
Disputes were filed on 7/14/for two charges; Amazon, $and Shoe Depot, $Our research has determined that these transactions were performed using the PIN associated with the accountWe also show transactions before and after
the disputed transactions and we conclude that the customer was in possession of both his card and PINThe cardholder's confirmed telephone number of (XXX) XXX-XXXX was also used to review transactions and check the account balance a total of five times while the disputed transactions occurredThere were not any balance inquiries or declined transactions on the card while the disputed transactions occurred, which would indicate that someone knew the balance on the cardBecause of the card being in the possession of the cardholder, there were no PIN failures, and the fact that the cardholder has valid transactions before and after the disputed transactions, we have denied the customer claimBased on the facts provided to us, we do not find that an error occurred
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/08/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I don't accept the response from the companyAs I have told the company before my card was compromise the charges I didn't make were credit purchasesI called the companies myself to see if I could get the issues resolved they informed me that I needed to file a dispute with my card company as I didI told the card company that I have been at my current address they have on file since February 1st Now before I seek legal action against Account Now I am willing to make a Middle Ground offer of $but that will be the least I am willing to accept
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2015/08/25) */
On 8/17/15, we reviewed the claim with the customer and agreed to credit the customer for the $Amazon chargeOn 8/18/a credit was posted to the customer accountOn 8/and 8/20/15, the customer performed transactions and accessed the fundsWe believe this resolves this issue
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 12, 2015/08/27) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I made a middle ground offer and the offer is what I gotNo further business will be made with account nowThank you so much Revdex.com!

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to meAccountNow has finally contacted me directly and provided me with the merchants informationI contacted the merchant at phone number *** and the merchant has submitted the refund request for the $to be put back on my cardFinally after weeks of fighting with accountnow the issue is resolved Sincerely, *** ***

The customer has accounts which have received Social Security benefit depositsThe customer has previous accounts which have all been closed with a $balanceOn 11/3/the card ending in ***, associated with account number ***, was restricted because an invalid CVV code was
entered into the AccountNow.com customer centerOn 12/3/AccountNow received a TRACE request from the US Treasury, initiated by the Social Security AdministrationA TRACE request is an indication that Social Security has received a report of missing benefitsWhen we receive a TRACE request, we close the account and require a Letter of Indemnification from the US Treasury for the return of the remaining fundsAccount number *** was closed for this reason.On 12/16/we received a call and the caller was verified as the customerThe caller reported the Visa card ending in ***, associated with account number ***, had been lostThe account was restricted and a replacement card was mailed to the customer at the address on fileOn 12/17/we received a call and the caller was verified as the customerThe caller stated that she had not reported the card as lostWe restricted the replacement card and we advised the customer that because we have multiple callers on the account, we require documentation to verify her identity and addressOn 2/26/we received a copy of the customer's photo identification card and a mailerThe photo identifications does not list the customer's current address and we are not able to verify the address from the mailerWe advised the customer that we require a utility bill dated within days to verify the her addressThe customer has stated she is homeless and we requested an alternative to a utility bill such as a bank statement, insurance statement or other verifiable documentationThe Social Security benefits which posted to this account may also be returned to the US Treasury upon receipt of a Letter of Indemnification.On 3/23/we called the customer at the telephone number listed on the complaintThere was no answer and the number does not allow a message to be leftWe also sent an email to the address provided in the complaintWe provided an AccountNow contact telephone number in the emailThe customer replied and requested the telephone number to callWe provided the AccountNow contact telephone number a second time.We have not received a call from the customerWe request the customer call us at (*** ***

Upon receipt of the complaint, on August 18, 2017, AccountNow has attempted to reach out to Ms*** to address her concerns at the telephone numbers provided with no responseWe have left a message for a return call back
On August 15, 2017, Netflix refunded the account in the amount of
$and Hulu refunded the account in the amount of $11.99, please refer to your recent statement to view these refundsThe cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at *** ***

On August 1, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow through our automated system and requested for the card ending in ***, to be blocked and replaced
Upon receipt of this complaint August 14, 2017, we have not received any calls from the cardholder speaking to our Customer Service
department for verification of the address to replace the card
On August 15, and August 17, 2017, AccountNow has reached out to the cardholder at the telephone number listed in the complaint and on the account, left a message with a direct number to call backAfter further review of the account, AccountNow has replaced the card ending in *** to the address on fileThe cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at *** ***.Tell us why here

On May 28, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow and filed a dispute indicating that 13 transactions were unauthorized.
On June 9, 2017, AccountNow concluded its investigation and determined the following:
During the May, 2017, dispute call, the cardholder initially stated that he was...

aware of all of the transactions that occurred with the merchant CT[redacted] and that he authorized those transactions to pay his bills. However, he later changed his story on that same call and stated that he only authorized the $106.37 transaction with CT[redacted] and that the other transactions with that same merchant were unauthorized.
The cardholder is in possession of the card and claims that there were unauthorized transactions.
The dispute was filed for transactions with GLOBAL MARKETING SERVICE/ INTER VOUCHER COM for $24.92, $29.96, $34.93, and $24.98; and with CT[redacted] for $31.85, $53.16, $31.90, $53.17 x 2, $53.09, $53.15 x2 and $53.18 done from 4/18/2017 19:26 CST to 4/28/2017 02:15 CST.
The cardholder states that he didn’t make the transactions with CT[redacted] for less than $100 and verified that he made the charge for $106.37. This transaction was done after the disputed transactions occurred.
There were no declined authorizations with GLOBAL MARKETING SERVICE/ INTER VOUCHER COM and these transactions were done after the account received its direct deposit.
There were also in-between card-present transactions, including ATM withdrawals, which would have made the card user aware of the account balance.
With the facts avail bale to us we found that no error occurred.
On June 13, 2017, the final resolution letter was mailed to the cardholder.
On July 3, 2017, upon receipt of the complaint the dispute was re-reviewed and we determined that there are no new facts available to us and the denial resolution will stand. The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted].
 Tell us why here...

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/05/12) */
Our records indicate that the merchant is attempting to return the funds to a closed card. The consumer will need to contact the merchant and provide them with the open card so that the credit can be refunded, or arrange a credit in the form of...

a check. The credit is rejecting off of the closed card, but there is an open card for the consumer.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/05/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
u reject there answer Based on that anyone I talk to when I call then can not give me any form on information on tge matter it's just an answer to try to silence me
Final Business Response /* (4000, 30, 2015/07/08) */
The card number that the merchant attempted to credit is closed. We cannot provide them the new card number, the consumer needs to do that.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 32, 2015/07/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
It's the same card I've always had. It's not closed

account now wouldn't close, money in the account second card holder lost her card held the funds for this month gave me the run around.3/1/16 [redacted] contact me to say she lost her card.She lives in [redacted] Mexico. she wanted me to order new cards in her and my name and send it to a address in [redacted] Texas.I told account now I want the account closed.They told me the account couldn't be closed because their was money in the account.Account now gave me two options return the money to ssi or send me a check to my [redacted] suggested send me a check would be faster than returning the money back to ssi.I don't know if I have money in the account, I haven't heard from them since the 23 of March,all I want is a letter from them saying my Name is off the account and the account is closed.Where did the money go.Please contact me [redacted] a letter from account now showing account closed name off the account no contact from company

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: I didn't make these charges. I didn't know how to check the ebill portion online. I tried talking to the merchant but thy wouldn't budge. I tried to inform account now but they refused to listen. I simple want my money and they could provide it to meSincerely,[redacted]

Due Date:                            4/19/16
 
Originator:         ...

                Revdex.com
 
Log #                                     [redacted]
 
Customer Name:          [redacted]
               
Complaint:
Incorrectly charged service fee and bad customer service.
I have had this account for several months. I do several direct deposits every month. On March 17,22 & 28 I made a visa purchase to T-Mobile. With this purchase I was charged a $1.50 balance inq service fee by ACCOUNT NOW not T-Mobile. I have called customer service several times and get told that this fee was charged by TMobile. After speaking with a account payment rep at T-Mobile it was brought to my attention that T-Mobile did not charge me these fees. Then there customer service at account now is the worst I've ever had to deal with. They refuse to admit any mistake and said a call from T-Mobile will not change that. A conference call between T-Mobile and customer service is going to be done.
 
Consumer's Desired Resolution:
I would like a full refund of all 3 of these fee's that was charged by account now or a credit due to poor service.
 
Response:
On 4/15/16 the customer described the T-Mobile transactions which he performed and which represent three different payment types. On 2/25/16 the customer stated that he made a payment through the TMobile IVR and he was not assessed a fee. On 3/11/16 the customer made a payment through the TMobile.com website and he was not assessed a fee. The 6 payments made between 2/2816 to -4/10/16 were performed using his cellphone and a fee was assessed.
On 4/19/16 we advised the customer that the 2/28/16-4/10/16 transactions are being presented by TMobile with balance inquiries and that is the reason that balance inquiry fees are assessed. We advised the customer to utilize the alternative TMobile payment method to avoid fees in the future.
 
The customer may contact us with any questions or additional concerns. We may be reached at [redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/13) */
Customers with a history of two qualifying deposits may qualify for their direct deposit to post up to two days early. Customer accounts without a history of direct deposit do not qualify.
Our review of the customer call history shows the...

customer contacted AccountNow on 10/28/15 and requested a status of his direct deposit. We asked the customer if this would be his first deposit on this account and the customer stated that it would be. We advised the customer that there were no pending deposits and we provided processing information. The customer stated he wanted his deposit posted upon receipt and not on the date it was scheduled to post. The Customer Service Agent advised the customer that an account must have a history of at least two direct deposits, before the account qualifies for an early posting. The customer was not happy with the information and we apologized. The customer then hung up.
We received two additional calls from the customer on 10/28/15. During these calls, we advised the customer that there were no pending deposits.
On 10/29/15, the customer called and stated he has a pending deposit coming through that was supposed to have posted yesterday. We advised the customer that his deposit should post on 10/30/15. The cardholder stated that was unacceptable and he wanted it to post now. We advised the customer it could not be posted early because his account did not meet the qualifications and the customer asked for a supervisor. Upon the customer's insistence, his call was transferred to five Supervisors who each advised the customer of the policy for early deposit and that his account did not currently qualify. The customer refused to accept the information.
The last AccountNow employee to speak to the customer on 10/29/15, asked if the policy for early posting of deposits had been explained to the customer. The customer said no and the Supervisor then explained the qualification for early posting of direct deposits. We advised the customer that we require a history of 2 qualifying deposits before we will post the funds a day or two early. We advised the customer that this account does not have a history of previous deposits and does not qualify. The customer stated "so nothing's going to happen?" The Supervisor responded "unfortunately no". The customer stated that he had already complained to the Revdex.com, Attorney General and FCC and he will involve social media.
Our review of the history of the customer calls shows that the customer was provided with the policy during his first call. Our records show that the customer was advised several more times that his deposit did not qualify and that we provided the qualifications for early posting of a direct deposit several times.
The customer may contact us at (XXX) XXX-XXXX with any additional questions.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/11/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
This is a bold lie. I do have more than one account with account now and I WAS told to use this one and it WOULD link with the other accounts and I would not have to wait the 2 days! The reps exact words were I guarantee it! But I'm sure that you won't be able to find that call huh seeing how after reading your response how you massage the truth to make the customer look bad leaving out all the details of how I was treated on those calls. You even made me wait again on my next deposit.. You are liars and you once again prove how manipulate you are.

On February 27, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow to request for a paper statement and to update the address. While processing the address update with the agent, the cardholder failed the security questions and verification documents were requested to include a photo identification card...

and a utility bill.
On March 8, 2017, the cardholder submitted a photo identification card and a partial bill that did not list the address nor name of the cardholder. We requested that the cardholder provide a utility bill listing the information requested.
 
On June 12, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow advising that her card was about to expire and the replacement card was not received. The agent advised the cardholder that a utility bill was needed due to the prior address verification failure.
On June 15, 2017, the cardholder submitted the utility bill and the address was updated and a replacement card was processed.
On June 20, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow to file a dispute and during the address update with the agent, the cardholder failed the security questions and verification documents were requested again to include a photo identification card and a utility bill.
On July 3, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow advising that the replacement card was not received. The cardholder requested for the card to be expedited and the agent advised that there is a $25.00 fee. While processing the verification for the card replacement, the cardholder failed the security questions and verification documents were requested again to include a photo identification card and a utility bill.
On July 5, 2017, AccountNow received a photo identification card, a social security card and a bill with a different address. The address was updated successfully and a replacement card was sent to the cardholder.
On July 7, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow to advise that the new card was sent to her old address. The card that was replaced on July 5, 2017 was sent to the address based off the documents the cardholder submitted to us. We have updated the address and processed another replacement card to the cardholder. As a courtesy, we have credited the expedited card fee of $25.00 for the prior replacement and processed the new card replacement as expedited with no fee. The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted].
 Tell us why here...

The cardholder received an AccountNow Green Dot Direct Mail prepaid card offer.
 
On April 5, 2017, the cardholder closed the card through the automated telephone system as lost.
 
On April 26, 2017, upon receipt of the complaint we have confirmed the account is closed and that no...

fees have been assessed to the account. 
 
The card has not been activated and funds would have had to be loaded to this prepaid debit card in order for any fees to be assessed. The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted].

On February 24, 2017, the account was restricted due to purchase case back activity.  Verification documents to include a photo identification card and a utility bill were requested. When an account is restricted you are also restricted from viewing the account online as well until the...

restriction has been removed.  The cardholder contacted AccountNow to find out the status of the account and was advised to send in a copy of his photo identification card and a utility bill.
On February 27th and February 28th 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow for status of his documents.  The agent advised the cardholder that there was no update at the time and advised of the review timeframes.
On March 2, 2017, we reviewed the cardholder’s photo identification card and requested that the cardholder provide a utility bill. The cardholder contacted AccountNow for the status of the review and was advised that we still needed a utility bill.
On March 6, 2017, we reviewed the cardholder’s bill and removed the restriction on the account. The cardholder has been actively using the card since.
The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted].

The account that the customer used for her tax refund, was issued by AccountNow using an abbreviated application. The account required the customer to provide personal information including the Social Security Number during the activation process.On 3/16/16 we received the tax refund that the...

customer directed to the account. The account was closed and we requested the customer provide documentation to verify identity and address. We determined that the account could not be reopened due to an activation failure caused by the Social Security Number. The information that was provided to AccountNow during the activation process, is that the Social Security Number is inconsistent with the customer's other personal information. Examples include but are not limited to; the Social Security Number is associated with a deceased person, or the Social Security Number was issued prior to the Date of Birth.On 3/22/16 we returned the remaining portion of the tax refund to the IRS W&I Division.On 3/30/16 we called the customer and we reviewed the sequence of events which caused us to close the account and return the remainder of the tax refund. We provided the information that is available to us.The customer will need to contact the Social Security Administration for additional information related to the Social Security Number and the IRS for information about the returned tax refund amount.

On June 28, 2017, upon receipt of the complaint a re-review was done. Our investigation and determined the following:
The card is still in the cardholder’s possession/the card is with the cardholder.
There were no declined transactions due to invalid pin.
There were no pin updates/pin was not changed immediately prior to the dispute.
The funds were not “drained” immediately.
 
On July 3, 2017 AccountNow contacted the cardholder at the telephone number provided. The cardholder was informed that we had completed the re-review of the claim and the denial decision will stand. He stated at the onset of that call that he did not want the reason for denial and that he did not want us to send him the reason for denial in writing. The denial decision will stand. The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted].Tell us why here...