First Data

Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. Upon review of the information provided and the account history, we have found that the Merchant Processing Agreement was signed by the Merchant on 8/13/15 in connection with a lease account *** for a 48 month non-cancelable lease. Our lease records indicate that the Merchant settled the lease account with our Collection Agency in 2017 for $500.00.

In regards to the processing account, we have found that there was an account closure due to NACHA in 2015. The account was reinstated with that were on hold had been released to the Merchant in December 2015. There is a NACHA that was completed on 3/29/17. Therefore, a bank letter and a signed NACHA form was submitted. On 6/4/19, we received an ACH reject code of C01 - which is for an incorrect bank account number. The Banking Institution still fulfilled the ACH debit requests auto forwarding to the new bank account. We have no record of the equipment being returned. The Merchant has been billed in accordance with the MPA and the Merchant must cancel in writing which we have no record. On 2/11/20, the Merchant called Aurora Payments regarding cancellation. As a courtesy, the processing account was closed. There will be no refunds forthcoming.

Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. Upon review of the information provided and the account history, we have found that the Merchant signed up for two processing accounts on 7/23/19; one brick & motar location and one mobile location. There was one lease in connection with the brick & motar location through First Data Global Leasing (FDGL). The Merchant requested two accounts and processed on both. The Merchant was to receive 1.0% on qualified credit and then the downgrade surcharge was applied to the non-qualified transactions which was outlined in the Merchant Processing Agreement (MPA). The Merchant received the rates on the MPA and then requested an account review. The Merchant was then approved for the ERR to be lowered to 1.99% with a refund issued for January fees. The Merchant has since closed both accounts and Early Termination Fee's (ETF) were applied to the storefront location. The Merchant signed up for a 48 month non-cancelable lease and has 41 months remaining. Returning the equipment does not close out the lease. The Merchant completed a verbal verification call on 7/23/19 confirming the non-cancelable lease. As a courtesy, we can offer buyout options of $2495.60 or a settlement offer of $1900.00. We recommend that you reach out to FDGL for payment arrangements at 877-257-2094.

As stated previously, the Merchant signed for two accounts on 7/23/19 for brick & motar location and storefront. Regardless of sending back the equipment, the Merchant has a responsibility to fulfill the lease term. The Merchant completed a verbal verification call on 7/23/19 confirming the lease and processed on both accounts. As a courtesy, we can offer buyout options of $2495.60 or a settlement offer of $1900.00. We recommend that you reach out to FDGL for payment arrangements at 877-257-2094.

Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. Upon reviewing the information provided and the account history, we have located two lease accounts.

Specifically;

Lease *** was signed in 11/2014 for 36 month non-cancelable lease which was disposed of on 5/24/19 and coded PIF (Paid in full) MERCHANT KEEP EQUIPMENT.Lease *** was signed 6/2015 for 36 month non-cancelable lease which was disposed of on 6/26/19 and coded End of Lease w/return of equipment.

Our records indicate that there have been no additional charges after the leases closed on 5/24/19 and 6/26/19. If you have supporting documentation showing charges after these time frames, then please forward that to us and we will further review. There will be no refunds forthcoming.

Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. To research the aforementioned concerns, please send your Merchant Number (MID), Business information and any associated Lease Number to ***. Upon receipt, we will research for resolution. Please reference case *** in the Subject Line.

Respectfully

Dear Mr.,
Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. To research the aforementioned concerns, please send your Merchant Number (MID), Business information and any associated Lease Number to [email protected]. Upon receipt, we will research for resolution. Please include case 383370 in the Subject Line.
Respectfully,
Fiserv

Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. Upon reviewing the information provided and the account history, we have found that the merchant account was closed 1/7/20. The Merchant was notified on her October 2018 statement that an Annual Maintenance Fee of $119.00 will be charged going forward. Continued processing was acceptance of this fee and she continued to process up until 12/15/19. The Annual Maintenance Fee of $119.00 that the Merchant was billed on 1/2/20 was for the year of 2019 which she actively processed. However, as a courtesy, a refund was issued for $119.00 which a partial refund of $39.01 was previously deposited on 1/10/20. Therefore, the difference of $79.99 was refunded today 3/5/20 to the DDA on file. Along with this refund was the $16.95 that the Merchant was charged for supplies. A call tag cannot be issued for supplies. Thus making the total refund $96.94 that was deposited today 3/5/20, please allow 24-48 business hours to reflect in bank account.

Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. Upon review of the information provided and the account histories, we have found two lease accounts. The original merchant processing account was signed 11/29/12 in connection with a lease *** through our Independent Sales Organization (ISO) Securus. The lease was signed for a 48 month non-cancelable lease for VX570 terminal and PinPad 1000. There is an option of buyout or to return the equipment at the end of the lease term or it will then be placed month to month. The second merchant processing account which was a change of ownership was signed on 3/31/16 and had a different Tax ID than the original processing/lease account. This lease account *** was signed for a 48 month non-cancelable lease for a FD130 terminal and FD 35 PinPad.

Securus as advised that they did not recommend at any time to discard the equipment.

Our records indicate that calls were placed to FDGL on 2/28/20 & 3/2/20 where it was outlined that the Personal Guarantor has a responsibility to fulfill the lease when signing. Also, by signing the lease agreements, you have acknowledged and accepted the Terms & Conditions of the non-cancelable lease.

As a courtesy, both leases have been closed. A refund of three months of fees for $386.97 on the first lease has been offered.

Upon further review, the lease *** was under *** which was signed in November 2012 and we understand that it was under your Father *** but the fact remains, this lease had the same banking ending *** as you and it was his responsibility to fulfill the lease. First Data Global Leasing withdrew the monthly fees out of the DDA that was on file. This lease was closed 3.9.20 and this is the account where a refund of $386.97 was offered. As stated previously, there is an option of buyout or to return the equipment at the end of the lease term or it will then be placed month to month as this was. There will be no additional refunds forthcoming.

As stated previously, the Merchant was informed of the Annual Compliance Fee on their October 2018 statement of $119.00. The fee is for the year of 2019 to which the Merchant processed up until 12/6/19, therefore the charge is valid. However, as a courtesy, we have waived the collection fee of $150.00 which leaves the current balance of $123.65 that is due. We recommend that you call our Collections Team directly at 800-833-9049 to discuss payment arrangements.

Upon further review, our records indicate that the Coral Springs address was not provided by Money Network Customer Service and that it was actually advised by the Cardholder on 10/30/19 that she mailed the written cancellation request to Coral Springs. The Cardholder was advised that it was the incorrect address and was provided email/fax. Also, the Cardholder was advised on 10/15/19 that the card/account closes after six months of inactivity at a $0.00 balance and not as soon as it hits $0.00 balance that it would be closed which was all outlined in the Programs Terms & Conditions. The account/card has been closed to which the Cardholder was advised of on 2/4/20 when she called Money Network.

Upon further review, our records indicate that the Coral Springs address was not provided by Money Network Customer Service and that it was actually advised by the Cardholder on 10/30/19 that she mailed the written cancellation request to Coral Springs. The Cardholder was advised that it was the incorrect address and was provided email/fax. Also, the Cardholder was advised on 10/15/19 that the card/account closes after six months of inactivity at a $0.00 balance and not as soon as it hits $0.00 balance that it would be closed which was all outlined in the Programs Terms & Conditions. The account/card has been closed to which the Cardholder was advised of on 2/4/20 when she called Money Network.

As stated previously, the account was not closed on 10/15/19 because a cancellation letter was requested and not received until the original Revdex.com complaint was used as that documentation. Also, per the instructions that were provided to you while speaking with Money Network Customer Service, they informed that the account would close after 6 months of inactivity at a $0.00 balance. The calls were reviewed and at no time was the incorrect address provided for the cancellation to be sent to. Lastly, the Money Network accounts are not deleted.

As stated previously, per your Merchant Processing Agreement (MPA) and by signing, this allows us to pull consumer reports. It may be beneficial that you educate yourself on the MPA. These credit inquiries will not be removed as they are valid inquiries. As stated, please send the credit report to [email protected] when you receive and reference case 367413.

Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. Upon reviewing the information provided and the account history, we have determined that Money Network's Fraud Team was alerted to the account for compromised card data and placed the hold on the account. The card was closed and a new card was reissued to the address on file on 2/18/20.

Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. Upon reviewing the information provided and the account history, we have found that the dispute was denied for inconsistent conflicting information. Specifically; Previous undisputed transactions with the Merchant Apple on 2/2/20, 2/3/20 & 2/6/20. A Denial Letter has been mailed to the address on file on 2/17/20 outlining the denial. We consider this case resolved and closed. If you have any questions, please call Money Network directly at 888-913-0900.

Thank you for bringing the stated concerns to our attention. Upon reviewing the information provided and the account history, we have located the two disputed transactions processed on 8/17/19 for $10.59 and $374.10 at Wal-Mart, Lakewood, Co. Money Network has reviewed the documentation again and the denial still stands. Specifically; - Cardholder has robust history for undisputed transactions at the same Wal-Mart. - The disputed transactions were PIN based, face to face transaction, meaning the PIN was used. - Transaction times do not coincide with times on Police Report. - Disputed transactions were processed at 8:30 PM, yet the Police Report stated 5:30 - 6:30 PM that the card was stolen and transactions were processed while in the presence of the Police. The disputed transactions are not indicative of third party fraud. We consider this case resolved and closed on our end. Denial letters have been mailed to the Cardholder.

As stated previously, Money Network has investigated the dispute claim and their findings are not indicative of 3rd party fraud. The police report has the information because the Cardholder provided it to them. Money Network did not and has not refunded the Cardholder for any of the disputed transactions. These are PIN based transactions and were processed at 8:30 PM after the police report was written and does not fit the timeframe of the Cardholder's claim that the card was stolen. The denial stands and we consider this claim resolved and closed. We recommend that the Cardholder go to the Merchant for a refund.