A Locksmith

Upon receipt of this complaint, a dispute investigator has re-reviewed your dispute claim and determined that no new facts have been provided to usBased on the facts available to us and that was provided prior, we do not find that an error has occurredThe cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted] or write to our [redacted] Tell us why here

On May 22, 2017, AccountNow received a call from the cardholder providing permission for us to speak to her sister [redacted] to have the address updated and the card replaced due to the card being lostThe address was successfully updated and the card replacement was processed On May 29, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow regarding a declined transaction The agent advised the cardholder that the transaction declined due to the card was reported lost on May 22, The cardholder on this call indicated that she did not call in to report the card lost, update the address and did not give permission to speak to [redacted] The agent advised the cardholder that due to multiple callers the account was restricted, verification documents were needed such as a photo identification card, a social security card and a current utility bill On May 31, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow regarding her card status The agent advised the cardholder that the account was restricted due to the discrepancy in the prior call The agent advised the cardholder that verification documents were needed and provided the document upload portal and fax number to send in the documents On June 6, 2017, AccountNow received the cardholder’s identification card, a social security card and an insurance cardThe agent requested the cardholder provide a utility bill for verification of addressLater this day, the cardholder contacted AccountNow regarding the status of her documents The agent advised the cardholder that the documents were received and a utility bill was needed for address verification On June 8, 2017, the cardholder submitted a utility bill that matched to the address that was updated and a call was made out to CenterPoint at the telephone number provided on the bill receivedWe were advised by the representative that she was unable to validate the address on the bill we received to the address in their system Based off this information, we requested a letter of indemnification from the originator of the deposits to have the funds returned to the sender Upon receipt of this complaint, AccountNow has not received the indemnification letter requesting to return the deposits to the originatorThe cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted]

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2015/05/29) */ This is a matter between the customer and the merchantHowever, we are in the process of attempting to work with the merchant to resolve the issue on behalf of Mr [redacted] Mr [redacted] will be issued credit if we are able to resolve the matter in his favor He may also contact the merchant and attempt to resolve it directly with them

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I did not receive any statement from them through FedExAnd my money is still missing or not accounted for Sincerely, [redacted]

I have filed a police report and opened an investigation with the federal reserve and the federal trade commission on account now and won't settle for less then what they owe me! I'm done waiting and playing this "account was accessed times from same IP" or "there's similar past charges so they were authorized" etc Bottom line, I was 2,miles away from home during this so how can I be in both places especially to authorize an illegal charge? Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:Sincerely, [redacted]

The account that the customer used for her tax refund, was issued by AccountNow using an abbreviated applicationThe account required the customer to provide personal information including the Social Security Number during the activation process.On 3/16/we received the tax refund that the customer directed to the accountThe account was closed and we requested the customer provide documentation to verify identity and addressWe determined that the account could not be reopened due to an activation failure caused by the Social Security NumberThe information that was provided to AccountNow during the activation process, is that the Social Security Number is inconsistent with the customer's other personal informationExamples 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/we returned the remaining portion of the tax refund to the IRS W&I Division.On 3/30/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 refundWe 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

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/06/09) */ The claim filed was for quality of servicesWe attempted to resolve the issue with the merchant on behalf of the cardholderThe merchant denied the claim The recourse is between the cardholder and the merchant

On March 17, 2017, the cardholder filed a dispute for a transaction that occurred on 10/12/in the amount of $with the merchant [redacted] *** The cardholder indicated that the clothing item that she ordered was not received On March 21, 2017, we received the cardholder’s dispute written notification On March 22, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow for a dispute update and the agent advised the cardholder that the dispute was still in process On March 25, 2017, the investigator submitted the transaction for a merchant chargeback based on the following information: The cardholder indicated that she placed the order with the merchant [redacted] and that she ordered a pair of jeans The cardholder indicated she received an email that stated that the order had shipped on October 21, and the estimated delivery date was November 30, The cardholder attempted to resolve the issue with the merchant by email on December 1, 2016, but she did not receive a response The cardholder attempted to resolve the issue a second time with the merchant in February 2017, which was one month prior to filing the dispute On March 27, 2017, a dispute letter was sent to the cardholder advising that your error claim does not fall under the requirements of Regulation E or Zero LiabilityTherefore, we will not issue a provisional credit to your card accountHowever, we have initiated a dispute process with the merchant and will assist you to the best of our ability to recover the transaction(s) amount(s) on your behalfThe final resolution of your error claim will be determined as quickly as possible, but not later than June 15, On April 3, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow for a dispute update and the agent advised the cardholder that the dispute was still in process On April 21, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow for a dispute update and the agent advised the cardholder that the dispute was still in process On April 22, 2017, the merchant submitted a representment On April 28, 2017, the investigator reviewed the merchant representment documents and the merchandise was shipped on 10/21/to the same PO Box address that is listed on the cardholder complaint documentThey merchant provided a USPS tracking number of [redacted] Based on the facts available to us we have determined that no error has occurred The cardholder can contact USPS for further details of the deliveryThe cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at ( [redacted]

On July 26, 2017, the cardholders account was blocked due to an ACH tax deposit received under the name of Robert Crisp in the amount of $5,AccountNow requested verification documents to include a photo identification card, a signed social security card and a utility bill listing her current address On July 28, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow regarding the block on the account The agent advised that the account had been blocked for further verification and advised the cardholder that she will need to provide verification documents to include a photo identification card, a signed social security card and a utility bill listing her current addressThe agent advised the cardholder of the document review time once received can take up to business hoursLater that day, AccountNow received a submission from the cardholder via the AccountNow upload portalThe cardholder submitted a photo identification card, a signed social security card and a mailerPlease be advised that AccountNow does not accept mailers as a form of address verification On July 31, 2017, AccountNow received a submission from the cardholder via the AccountNow upload portalThe cardholder submitted medical documents verifying her address Upon receipt of the cardholder’s complaint, August 7, 2017, AccountNow reviewed the cardholder’s concern and determined that we have received the sufficient amount of documentation needed for verification of the accountOn August 7, 2017, the account has been reopened and we have made an attempt to contact the cardholder to provide further assistance; however, we were unable to leave a messageAs a courtesy, AccountNow has reversed the monthly maintenance fee of $on August 7, The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted] Tell us why here

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/09/18) */ On 9/14/15, we spoke to [redacted] in the Accounting Department at the hotel W Chicago-City CenterMr [redacted] confirmed an authorization hold was placed on an account belonging to [redacted] on 7/31/The $authorization hold was placed on the account for incidental hotel charges, should any occurMr [redacted] stated that he had advised the customer that the hold would be released in 7-business days and the full $amount restored to Mr [redacted] 's account if there were no chargesA review of Mr [redacted] 's AccountNow account shows that there are no current authorization holds and the hotel has not posted a debit to Mr [redacted] 's account We contacted Ms [redacted] and she advised that Mr [redacted] is her fiancé and he accompanied her during the stay at the hotel W Chicago-City CenterWe advised Ms [redacted] that authorization holds can be placed on accounts by merchantsThis is described in the Cardholder AgreementThe duration of an authorization hold is based upon the transaction typeThe duration of the hold for a hotel is business days We advised Ms [redacted] that there are no authorization holds from the hotel W Chicago-City Center at this timeMs [redacted] stated Mr [redacted] believed $was still being held and unavailable to him On 9/15/15, we spoke to Mr [redacted] and advised him that there are no current authorization holds on his account and based upon the business day hold, the $authorization placed on his account by hotel W Chicago-City Center, would have expired on 8/14/ We reviewed the transactions on the account with Mr [redacted] from 7/30/15, the day before the $authorization hold and afterMr [redacted] requested we speak to Ms [redacted] and we reviewed the transactions with Ms***We advised Ms [redacted] that she and Mr [redacted] may review transaction history through the AccountNow customer centerThe Customer Center will display all credits and debits that have posted to Mr [redacted] 's accountIf they identify a discrepancy, they are encouraged to contact AccountNow at (XXX) XXX-XXXX At this time, we consider the issue resolved

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 9, 2015/07/16) */ Received business response via email on 7/15/15: The customer account received merchant refunds of $1,with no prior debits from WalMartOn 6/6/the account was restricted and copies of sales receipts were required to verify that the refunds were validThe customer was advised on 6/7/15, that receipts were required to verify the WalMart refundsOn 6/8/15, the customer provided one WalMart receipt for $924.32, but it did not cover the entire credit balance and we requested copies of the additional receiptsOn 6/9/15, we received documentation from the customer, but the documentation did not include the outstanding receipt copiesOn 6/13/15, we again asked the customer to provide WalMart receipts which covered the additional $refund amountOn 6/15/15, the remaining documentation was received from the customerDue to a prior report of a lost card, a card reissue was initiated to cancel the old card and issue a new card with a new card numberThis replacement card was expedited and our records indicate that the customer activated the card on 6/20/ The customer has stated that this complaint involving the restriction on his account was resolved to his satisfaction Thank you [redacted] Compliance and Risk Development Manager Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 11, 2015/07/21) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Please call me

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/06/10) */ We are waiting on appropriate documentation to verify the identity of the owner of the account Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 11, 2015/07/08) */ Tired of sending personal information to these people and get no results For four months now ive been fighting with these people for my money and have sent multiple documents Just want my money relesed so I can be done with them Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 15, 2015/07/21) */ A check in the amount of $has been mailed to the customer

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/01/29) */ On 1/21/the customer account received a new deposit and we restricted the account for verificationThis deposit was a Veterans Affairs Federal benefit and considered high-risk On 1/28/we reviewed the documentation that the customer provided and we removed the restrictionWe called the customer and explained the reason for the restriction and verification requirementAs a one-time courtesy creditWe will also provide the customer with replacement cards at no cost The customer stated that she was satisfied with the resolution to her complaint Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2016/02/02) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) Although it was a nightmare, I accept because the issue was resolved within one phone call from someone who was calling from the statesEveryone else from the call center won't call you back and is basically uselessNonetheless, thanks for unfreezing our account

On August 9, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow regarding her pending ACH depositThe agent advised the cardholder that we are not showing anything pending at that time for an ACH deposit In review of the deposit history, On August 10, 2017, AccountNow received an ACH deposit in the amount of $from TWC-PAYCARDAs stated in the cardholder agreement funds from direct deposits will generally be available on the day the Bank receives the transfer or one day prior to the settlement date AccountNow has confirmed that all ACH deposits have posted to the account on the settlement date provided in the NACHA fileThe cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted] .Tell us why here

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2015/05/12) */ We did conduct and investigationWe issued provisional credit while we conducted the investigation with the dispensing bankThe bank that owns the ATM notified us that the funds were dispensed and that the ATM was in balanceTherefore we sent notification to the customer that we would be reversing the provisional credit issued On 4/27/we mailed the documentation provided to us by the dispensing bank that advised us that their terminal was in balance and that funds were dispensed We acted based on information provided to us from our investigation Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 8, 2015/05/13) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) According to the reviews on AccountNow they are known for ripping off their customers and I will not stand to be another victimThey obviously did not complete a thorough investigation...please see case # XXXXXXXX I have uploaded the letter from the ATM owner(First Convenience Bank) who states in their letter to me and to you(Revdex.com)that they notified AccountNow and advised them that there was a dispense error on March 13th and submitted a reversal transaction that same day through their processor to AccountNow showing the correct debit amount $ With that said...I am not sure why AccountNow stated the ATM owner would have advised otherwise I presume they didn't expect for me to reach out to the ATM owner, must have expected me to take their word The document attached is proof of the error and proof that AccountNow are thievesI am expecting an immediate deposit of $280.00, as that is what is owed to me I do not know what kind of sick joke this is, but I work very hard for my money and I do not appreciate being a victim of theft by any financial instution and especially one that I once trusted with my income If this is not resolved immediately, I will seek to file criminal charges, as well seek legal counsel to begin a class action suit against this company's common practice of improperly manipulating their customer's accounts to obviously fill their pockets Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 11, 2015/05/19) */ AccountNow would have expected that the customer would contact the ATM owner if in fact she still believed that there was an errorWe have taken the action based on the documentation that the ATM owner provided to us, which is what we are required to do We will now take the letter with the contact information and call the person who drafted the letter and provide the documentation they provided to us and determine why there has been inconsistent documentation provided If there was a reversal provided to us, we would have credited it back to the accountHad we had the reversal on the day that the merchant indicated it was granted, which was on March 13, 2015, we would not have had reason to grant a provisional credit on March 30, We granted the provisional credit while we continued our investigation with the ATM owner Based on the new information provided, we will reopen the investigation and contact the sender of the letter and provide additional information as soon as we have spoken to her

On July 14, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow advising that the card ending in [redacted] was not received and a deposit was received in the amount of $from N.CSTATE UNIVThe cardholder advised that she had moved and requested to update the address and process a replacement cardThe agent informed the cardholder that she would be required to answer security questions in order to process the requestWhile 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 listing her current address On July 20, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow requesting for an update on the documentation that the cardholder sent through emailThe agent advised that we do not accept documentation through email and we can only accept them via the AccountNow upload portal or by fax On July 26, 2017, the cardholder contacted AccountNow for an update regarding a new card replacement and was advised by the agent of the review timeframe of the documentation can take up business days to review, once the documents are received On July 27, 2017, AccountNow received a submission from the cardholder via the AccountNow upload portalThe cardholder submitted an identification card and a billThe bill received did not list the cardholder’s nameThe bill was under [redacted] ***, we cannot accept any bills for address verification that are not under the cardholder’s name Upon receipt of the cardholder’s complaint, on July 31, 2017, reviewed the cardholder’s concern to process a card to card transfer request to the cardholder’s current card ending in The cardholder acknowledge that card ending in was in her possession and agreed to the card to card transferAs a courtesy, AccountNow has issued the cardholder the monthly maintenance of $The cardholder may contact AccountNow with any remaining questions at [redacted] .Tell us why here

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/12/14) */ The customer requested a change of address and was presented with security questions to verify his identityThe customer failed to answer the questions correctly and a restriction was placed on the accountWe advised the customer that due to the failure, a valid photo Identification and proof of address was required in order to verify identityThe customer provided an expired Driver's License and a utility billThe address on the customer account, on the Driver's License and on the bill are all different On 12/9/15, the customer stated that he does not have a non-expired photo IDThe customer provided an alternate form of verification and a check for the remaining balance on the account was sent to himWe advised the customer that his account would have to be closed until a non-expired photo ID is provided

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/06/18) */ Our records indicate that a call center manager did a three way call with the originator of the deposit and the cardholderThey were advised by the originator that the account number on the account at AccountNow is not the account number that they directed the deposit toWe advised Ms [redacted] that she must work directly with the originator to resolve We also advised her where she can obtain the terms related to Get Paid Faster and the fees associated with the account if she no longer had the terms provided with the card

On May 22, 2017, an AccountNow attempted to reach the cardholder at the telephone number provided, there was not answer and voicemail message was left On May 23, 2017, the cardholder contacted the AccountNow investigator back and the investigator informed the cardholder that the merchant [redacted] was able to locate an account under his social security numberThe cardholder stated that he had an account with the merchant [redacted] five years ago but he did not pay themThe investigator advised the cardholder that based on the information from [redacted] as well as the denial reasons that were provided to him on the original complaint response we have determined that the claim denial decision will standThe cardholder indicated that he did not want anyone from AccountNow to contact him again unless the dispute denial decision was overturned and otherwise he will sue AccountNow

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 9, 2015/10/27) */ The customer account was debited for $on 9/30/by an Automated Clearing House direct debit transactionWe received a dispute from the customer for an unauthorized transactionWe advised the customer on 9/30/that we received her dispute and we would initiate an investigation On 10/9/15, a credit of $was posted to the customer account and a letter was sent to the customer advising that a provisional credit was applied to her accountOn 10/14/the customer transferred the funds from her accountOn 10/15/15, a letter was sent to the customer advising the provisional credit is a permanent creditWe provided our telephone number for the customer to contact us with any additional questions The customer has received a credit for the $We consider this issued resolvedThe customer may contact us at (XXX) XXX-XXXX with any questions Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 11, 2015/10/28) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) I got their attention!