Advantage Payment Systems

Secure Payment Systems (SPS) is a third party payment processor providing electronic clearing services to thousands of merchants nationwide [redacted] received services from our subscribing merchant Dr [redacted] on October 16, to whom she wrote a check for payment of services in the amount of $Dr [redacted] on that same day performed an electronic authorization to transmit an image of Ms [redacted] 's check to SPS for clearing as an electronic ACH debit in lieu of physically depositing the check, That electronic debit to Ms [redacted] 's bank account did not occur timely due to an SPS system error that was discovered only last November 2015, over year after the transaction occurred.Dr [redacted] has been contacted and graciously provided a copy of the original check that is still in his possession, as well as Ms [redacted] 's signed receipt acknowledging the amount could be electronically cleared (which we are including in our response), Indeed, the merchant has been paid for the transaction directly by SPS despite the consumer having not yet been debited.When the SPS system error was discovered in November (affecting numerous consumers and over 1,transactions during 2013, 2014, and 2015), SPS debited Ms [redacted] for the $that had not been previously debited from her account for the services renderedUnfortunately, Ms [redacted] instructed her bank to disallow the electronic debit, thereby causing it to bounce back to SPSTo our knowledge, Ms [redacted] is not disputing in any way the services rendered, only our right to debit her, despite her signed written authorization to do soThe failure of SPS to debit her in a timely manner in October is not a waiver of her obligation to pay, or our right per NACHA rules to debit her, even on a delayed basis, on behalf of the merchant that provided the services and to whom the check was written.To summarize: the facts are these as stated by Ms [redacted] in the complaint:Ms [redacted] seems to feel that (a) the check has already been deposited, cleared, and the obligation settled in full.This is not trueWhat is true is (a) the merchant still has the original check, (b) the physical check has not been deposited, (c) Ms [redacted] signed an authorization to permit her account to be electronically debited by us for the amount in question, (d) the merchant has been paid by SPS (and not by Ms [redacted] ) in that we (SPS) as the clearing agent funded the merchant electronically believing that we had successfully debited Ms [redacted] 's funds (that we unfortunately did not do given the system error) and, most importantly (e) the debt remains unpaid to SPS as the clearing agentNotwithstanding (1) above Ms [redacted] , for whatever reason, does not believe that she owes the debt even if it is unpaid due to the lapse of time since the original transaction occurred in October 2014.This is not true, despite her protestations to the contrary, as she still owes the funds regardless of the time delay per the year statute of limitations for allowing the clearing of the check, Our timeliness in debiting created by our system error does not create a waiver of her obligation to pay the debt in full, even if years later

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear and my counter response is below:
*** *** appears to
operate a business with no internal checks and balances. And makes up things along the
way. I did not state in any way or
form anything of what you have in your “summary.” Your inaccuracies are not a surpriseSince, while speaking
with Donna, I could I not get a word in edgewise as she continually and quite
rudely interrupted every word I said as I was trying to explain my current
position.
*** *** deals with
leveraging high-risk transactions.
Unfortunately, the CFO is either negligent, incompetent, or something
else is going on that shouldn’t be.
Any business that deals with leveraging should be balancing and auditing
those books monthly. So, to
come fifteen (15) months later and allege an error was discovered and no good
faith effort extended and access my account. Yes, I am most certainly going to do something about
that. Who would not think it
wasn’t anything but fraudulent.
Furthermore, due diligence was extended to your company and brought to your attention back
when the original transaction occurred in October 2014. To which nothing was done to
rectify it. That is NOT my responsibility,
but lies with you
Unfortunately, so much time has
lapsed (your error not mine) and that money is no longer there as I have many
medical bills. I can offer you two
($200.00) hundred dollars to settle this matter. Which is generous considering the error was brought to your
attention in October 2014, and due to your negligence nothing was done to
resolve the matter back then.
Regards,
*** ***

Unfortunately, Ms [redacted] has in her rebuttal taken the tack of demeaning and belittling our 20 year-old company that undergoes annual financial and data security audits by high level examiners. As Ms [redacted] is likely aware, audits do not always uncover every single hole, no matter how trivial, in an organization's control and balancing processes. In this case, while this one-time error in timely debiting was insignificant to our financial results given the millions of transactions we originate, organizational changes in our finance area were made nonetheless.However, and to be clear, we rarely deal with “leveraging high-risk” transactions as Ms [redacted] states. Moreover, a customer's payment obligation for a legitimate business transaction for which services were provided does not magically vanish just because the invoice for such is not delivered at the same time as the transaction itself.The fact remains that the debt remains outstanding at this time, that Ms [redacted] blames not having the funds due to having had other bills to pay in the interim such that our funds are not available. We are not going to accept Ms [redacted]’s $200 settlement offer to erase a $ 1,000 debt that remains outstanding.We are willing to present two options for Ms [redacted] to consider:a. A 12 month payment plan, at $83.33 per month with no finance charges assessed so as to pay off the entire $ 1,000, with SPS originating the first electronic debit April 1, 2016 and thereafter continuing for 11 consecutive months on the 1st business day of each month until paid in full. Failure to make a successful payment when due will result in a voiding of the installment payment agreement and cause an immediate assignment of the balance due to our collection attorneys. A debit returned for any reason will also incur the maximum service charge allowed by the state where Ms [redacted] resides.orb. Settlement in full for the sum of $800 payable by March 31, 2016, representing a 20% discount against the $1,000 amount due so that we might have our cash sooner.If neither option is acceptable, our collection attorneys to whom this has already been assigned will deal with the entire balance due accordingly.She has acknowledged that the doctor's services were performed, that she tendered a check for $ 1,000 (which Dr [redacted] still has the original un-deposited item), and signed an electronic debit authorization (image on file) to allow SPS to remove the funds from her account electronically on behalf of Dr [redacted]. We think we are being overly generous in offering Ms [redacted] an option whereby she has a full year to pay off the amount owed.Respectfully,[redacted]

Secure Payment Systems (SPS) is a third party payment processor providing electronic clearing services to thousands of merchants nationwide. [redacted] received services from our subscribing merchant Dr. [redacted] on October 16, 2014 to whom she wrote a check for payment of services in the amount of...

$1000.00. Dr [redacted] on that same day performed an electronic authorization to transmit an image of Ms. [redacted]'s check to SPS for clearing as an electronic ACH debit in lieu of physically depositing the check, That electronic debit to Ms [redacted]'s bank account did not occur timely due to an SPS system error that was discovered only last November 2015, over year after the transaction occurred.Dr. [redacted] has been contacted and graciously provided a copy of the original check that is still in his possession, as well as Ms [redacted]'s signed receipt acknowledging the amount could be electronically cleared (which we are including in our response), Indeed, the merchant has been paid for the transaction directly by SPS despite the consumer having not yet been debited.When the SPS system error was discovered in November 2015 (affecting numerous consumers and over 1,500 transactions during 2013, 2014, and 2015), SPS debited Ms [redacted] for the $1000.00 that had not been previously debited from her account for the services renderedUnfortunately, Ms [redacted] instructed her bank to disallow the electronic debit, thereby causing it to bounce back to SPS. To our knowledge, Ms [redacted] is not disputing in any way the services rendered, only our right to debit her, despite her signed written authorization to do so. The failure of SPS to debit her in a timely manner in October 2014 is not a waiver of her obligation to pay, or our right per NACHA rules to debit her, even on a delayed basis, on behalf of the merchant that provided the services and to whom the check was written.To summarize: the facts are these as stated by Ms [redacted] in the complaint:1. Ms [redacted] seems to feel that (a) the check has already been deposited, cleared, and the obligation settled in full.This is not true. What is true is (a) the merchant still has the original check, (b) the physical check has not been deposited, (c) Ms [redacted] signed an authorization to permit her account to be electronically debited by us for the amount in question, (d) the merchant has been paid by SPS (and not by Ms [redacted]) in that we (SPS) as the clearing agent funded the merchant electronically believing that we had successfully debited Ms [redacted]'s funds (that we unfortunately did not do given the system error) and, most importantly (e) the debt remains unpaid to SPS as the clearing agent.2. Notwithstanding (1) above Ms [redacted], for whatever reason, does not believe that she owes the debt even if it is unpaid due to the lapse of time since the original transaction occurred in October 2014.This is not true, despite her protestations to the contrary, as she still owes the funds regardless of the time delay per the 3 year statute of limitations for allowing the clearing of the check, Our timeliness in debiting created by our system error does not create a waiver of her obligation to pay the debt in full, even if 1.5 years later.