Global Tel* Link Corporation

This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed aboveThe Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because GTL's automated system does not provide explicit instructions on how to make deposits and does not disclose the rate that is charged to accept calls from an inmate in the Miami Dade Metro West Correctional facility.We investigated this complaint and contacted Ms [redacted] via telephone and explained to her that our records show that she made $deposits that incurred a $service fee for each depositThere were only inmate calls accepted because the first $deposit left her account with a negative balance due to service fee is withheld immediatelyWe have issued a credit of of the service fees to Ms [redacted] 's accountThe recorded prompts do not give the exact amount of the rates and service fee as the dollar amount varies by facilityThe FCC ruling that is to take effect June 20th for all county jail will more than likely reduce the $service feeGTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directlySincerely yours, Kathi T [redacted] Agency Complaints

February 11, 2016The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because GTL charged her in the amount of $without her authorizationMs [redacted] is requesting a refund.We investigated this complaint and contacted Ms [redacted] via telephone and explained to her that our records show that the credit card charges were processed and posted to her AdvancePay account via GTL's Auto Reloader option on December 10th Ms [redacted] informed us that she was aware that the payments posted to her account and she acknowledged talking to the inmateOnce we informed Ms [redacted] that the charges are sustained she requested that we block her telephone from receiving any more calls from the inmate in The Morgan County Correctional Complex.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directly.Sincerely, Kathi T [redacted] Agency Complaints

Global Tel [redacted] Link Corporation Corporate Headquarters Operations Centerwww.gti.net December 9, 2015Revdex.com? Of The Metropolitan Washington DC and Eastern Pennsylvania K Street NW, 10" Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404RE: [redacted] - [redacted] This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because she set up an AdvanceRay account to be able to accept calls from an inmate in the Stillwater correctional facilityThe inmate was transferred to the Faribault Correctional facility which is closer to her home and the rate that she is charged is higher.We investigated this complaint and contacted Ms [redacted] via e-mail and explained to her that the rates for each facility in the MNDOC were negotiated differently between MNDOC and GTLThe rate she is charged? for the inmate's current facility is the correct rateWe included in our e-mail to Ms [redacted] a copy of the rate sheet for both facilities.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directly.Sincerely yours,Kathi T***Agency Complaints

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: There must be a change in GTL's policy when they respond to wireless customers accounts. Land line phone are almost obsolete and because I had a wireless phone GTL slammed the door when the whole time it was their faulty equpment that resulted in the two PRE-PAID phone calls being disconnected. WHEN I called GTL to complain they would not and did not investigate into the issue why the call was disconnected they only smiply reviewed my account records showing the wireless provider. GTL's customer service was horable and its bad business to take people's money which they did not earn. Regardless of whether the call was placed to a wireless or lind line account and therefore naturly the $3.57 would have been recovered in court. GTL has not fairly compensated me for the anguish I had incurred attempting to resolve this issue. Additionally, the response is just a tempoary fix on issues like this. The response fails to state what will be done the next time this happens again. Regards, [redacted] ***

December 23, 2014Dear [redacted] ***This letter is in response to the second rejection from the consumer.I will address individually the reasons that she rejected our response.Reason - On October 27th I could not make a payment, NOT due to the system being downIt took three representatives, one of which Leandra who was a supervisor, to tell me why I could not make a paymentThey claimed that I could no longer make payments using my credit card because I had put more than $on my account in less than daysAgain it had absolutely nothing to do with either system being downI DID NOT make a payment on their website for $on October 27thI do not have an email confirmation, and more importantly, there is no option to make payments above $using their systemThis is the first payment I made by going to [redacted] ***In total I was forced to pay in this manner three timesThis is a major inconvenience since I am blind and a paraplegic.GTL's response - from 7/thru 7/ [redacted] used co ending [redacted] then 7/she used credit card ending ***On 7/to 8/she used credit card ending and from 8/to 9/she again used credit card ending [redacted] and as long as she was using those cards her account was okThen on 11/when she used a totally different credit card ending [redacted] that's when her problem with payment attempt declinedHowever to avoid Fraud in our system normally it only take credits card, but in her case it allowed her to use and when she attempted the 4" credit card it rejected itReason - On November 24th I was told by the representative that I would be issued a credit for $49,I rejected that Revdex.com response as well because they did not credit me the full $and only did $The initial reason I filed the previous Revdex.com complaint was because GTL once again claimed that their system was down for SIX DAYS and I could not get my refundWhen the customer service representative asked if there was anything else, there was nothing else pertaining to that particular complaint/issueI felt as if the two matters should be kept separateIt is true that the person I was speaking with (they are not inmates since they are not convicted) was released on November 17thI was skeptical of raising any issues because of, first repercussions, and secondly I wasn't sure what the outcome would beIf I could have avoided using GTL's "services" altogether, I would haveThey have poor customer service, astronomically high rates, an extremely flawed phone system, and continual failure to know their own reasons of why someone cannot put money on their accountThese are just a few of the reasons I am unhappy with their "service"Whether or not the person has been released is irrelevantI dealt with unsatisfactory, disappointing, and rude service with them for daysGTL's response - it was a human error that the Accounting department keyed in $instead of $49.15, but the was placed back on your credit card as soon as we received your 2nd complaint on 12/ As far as the representatives that you have spoken with we have given the complaint to their Managers and it will be address.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to call.Sincerely Yours,Kathi T.Agency Complaints

The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because some of the calls she receives from an inmate in the Pinellas County Jail disconnect prematurelyMs [redacted] is requesting a refund for these callsIn addition she states that GTL has been using her credit card number without her authorization.We have attempted to contact Ms [redacted] several times via telephone and she has yet to respond to our request for a call backIn order for us to investigate the dropped call issue; we need to know the dates and times of the calls in question to determine if credit should be given for the callsWith regards to her credit card being used by GTL without her authorization; GTL has not used her card, Ms [redacted] has several accounts with GTL and the credit card number in question is used to fund those account as well.lf/when Ms [redacted] returns our calls and provides us with the additional information we will reopen this complaint,GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directly.Sincerely yours,Kathi T [redacted] Agency Complaints

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response If you wish, you may update it before sending it.] Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Regards, [redacted] ***

This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed aboveThe Consumer contacted the Revdex.com with regards to her credit card payment being declined, the calls she receives from an inmate in the [redacted] Correctional facility disconnect prematurely and the rates she is charged to receive calls from the inmateWe investigated this complaint and contacted the Customer via telephone and explained to her that the rate of $per minute is the correct rateShe is only billed for the actually time she is on the phone with the inmateSince the customer did not provide the dates and times of the dropped calls we were unable to investigate this portion of her complaint to see if a refund was due to the customerWith regards to her declined payment we explained that it is her financial institution that determines the amount of time it takes for the funds to be released back into her account not GTLGTL advises customers to allow to business days for the funds to be releasedGTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directlySincerely, Kathi T [redacted] Agency Complaints

July 7, Dear [redacted] ***This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because he requested a refund over days ago and the refund still has not posted to his credit card.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via e-mail and informed him that our records show that the refund had not been processedDuring the timeframe of [redacted] ***’s original refund request GTL was in the process of changing our refund procedures and our accounting department never received the original requestThe refund has been processed and we have waived the $refund processing fee as a courtesy to [redacted] *** [redacted] responded to our email and informed us that the refund has been applied to his credit card.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to call.Sincerely yours

Global Tel" Link Corporation Corporate Headquarters [redacted] *** Reston, VA Operations Center [redacted] [redacted] Mobile, AL www.gtl.net December 30, Revdex.com Of The Metropolitan Washington DC and Eastern Pennsylvania K Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-RE: Jamee [redacted] – Revdex.com Complaint ID# [redacted] This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed aboveThe Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because Some of the calls she receives from an inmate in The Spartanburg County Detention Facility have been disconnecting prematurelyMs [redacted] is requesting a refund for these callsWe investigated this complaint and contacted Ms [redacted] via telephone and explained to her that we listened to the recordings of her calls and determined that the calls dropped due to our system detected a 3-way call was being attempted when in fact there was no 3-way call attemptWe have issued a credit in the amount of $to Ms [redacted] 's account for the callsGTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directlySincerely yours,Kathi T [redacted] Agency ComplaintsOffice ###-###-#### [redacted] | www.gtl.net

April 23, 2014Dear ***This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because when she called into PCS to talk to someone about some billing issues on her account she was treated very poorly by the PCS representative.We contacted ** [redacted] and apologized for the negative experience she had with the PCS representative and assured her that the issue has been brought to the attention of the Customer Service managerIn addition we explained to her that when an inmate makes back to back calls that are not answered the funds are withdrawn from her account and placed in a “Pending status”The funds are released back to the account within minutes to an hour.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to call.Sincerelv vours

February 10, Dear [redacted] ***This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because his telephone company that he has ( [redacted] ) will not allow him to receive collect calls from an inmateHe was informed by GTL that if he would like to accept calls from the inmate he will have to set up an AdvancePay account [redacted] states that he was never told there would be fees charged to set up and AdvancePay account With GTLWe investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via e-mail and explained to him that according to our records, [redacted] set up his AdvancePay account via GTL's AdvancePay portalBy choosing this method he did not talk to a live customer service representative; however he was prompted the necessary steps to establish an AdvancePay accountOn January 20th [redacted] called and requested that his account be closed and the remaining balance on the account refundedThe balance on this account at the time the refund request was made was $We processed the refund which included the $refund processing feeThe total amount of the refund was $14.00.On February 4th we issued a courtesy credit back to [redacted] 's account in the amount of $which represents the refund processing fee.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to call.Sincerely yours,Kathi TAgency Complaints

June 9, 2015This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because her billing records on GTL's ConnectNetwork website does not reflect the accurate balance that is available to accept additional calls.We investigated this complaint and I am including a spreadsheet of [redacted] 's billings call recordsThe account balance is correct per our billing systemThe call records that are uploaded to the website can fail and as a result provide incomplete billing/call historyThe only accurate and reliable way to obtain the correct balance information is to contact customer service and have them pull the data straight from the billing systemThis can be e-mailed or mailed to the customer at the time of the requestGTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directlySincerely yours,Kathi T Agency Complaints

September 23, Dear [redacted] ***The customer contacted the Revdex.com because on March 27th she requested a $refund from the GTL account that she never usedThe $has yet to be refundedWe investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via e-mail as she was unavailable to reach her by phoneWe determined that there was an error in processing [redacted] 's refund and the $credit was never issued back to her credit cardThe refund was processed on September 19th and should appear on [redacted] 's credit card within to business days.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to call.Sincerely Yours,Kathi T Agency Complaints

May 11, [redacted] ***This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed aboveThe customer contacted the Revdex.com because he no longer needed GTL's services so he called into customer service to request the remaining balance on his account refunded He has never received his refund.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via telephone on May 4th and advised him that a credit in the amount of $has been prosessed back to credit card ending *** [redacted] is aware that it could take up to to business days for the credit to appear on his credit card statementGTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directlySincerely yours, Kathi T Agency Complaints

October 24, 2016The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because there is a block on account # ###-###-#### and she requested that the block be removed so she could set up an account to accept calls from an inmate in the Essex County Jail.We investigated this complaint and determined that there is not a block on this account at this timeThe System shows the call failure reason as "inmate cannot afford this call" so the inmate was trying to use debit calling but did not have the funds to do soThe last call was 08-10-16.We have attempted to contact Ms [redacted] several times via telephone to inform her of this resolution; unfortunately she has not returned our request for a call back.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directly.Sincerely yours,Kathi T [redacted] Agency Complaints

This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because GTL's automated system does not provide explicit instructions on how to make deposits and does not disclose the rate that is charged to accept calls from an inmate in the Miami Dade Metro West Correctional facility.We investigated this complaint and contacted Ms [redacted] via telephone and explained to her that our records show that she made $deposits that incurred a $service fee for each depositThere were only inmate calls accepted because the first $deposit left her account with a negative balance due to service fee is withheld immediatelyWe have issued a credit of of the service fees to Ms [redacted] 's accountThe recorded prompts do not give the exact amount of the rates and service fee as the dollar amount varies by facility.The FCC ruling that is to take effect June 20th for all county jail will more than likely reduce the $service fee.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directly.Sincerely yours, Kathi T [redacted] Agency Complaints

This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed aboveThe Consumer contacted the Revdex.com for several different reasonsWe have addressed each issue below.Q: Why do I have to pay GTL $for the inmate to be allowed to call me but he is never told he can call me, so what is the point? A: Global Tel-Link is contracted to provides inmate phone service for Los Angeles County JailsYou would have to check with the facility to find out the procedure they have in place about informing inmate's when they can make a call Q: When does the $run out? A: The $payment less the $service fee= $is available to accepts calls; any unused funds will be refunded back to you, upon your requestQ: Is it a one-time fee? A: Global Tel"Link charges a $service fee on all credit card paymentsThis fee is charged each time a payment is made and is non-refundableQ: Is it per call? A: Calls are charged at a per minute rateInmate are permitted to up to hour Q: Is it per minute? A: Calls placed to Ms [redacted] ***'s number ###-###-#### are rated at $per minuteQ: If GTL has the inmate telephone contract with the LA County prison system to provide this service how is it that they are not able to let the inmate know they can use it.? A: Global Tel [redacted] Link does not work for the prison system; we have been contracted to provide the inmate phone systemPlease contact the correctional facility to find out their procedure for informing inmates they can now make calls to your numberQ: I am in California and the jail is in California which means calls are actually free, so what exactly am in being charged for? A: Unfortunately, the calls placed within the state from any Correctional Facilities are not “free”, The are inmates are only able to make free calls while in the holding area only Q: What service do you provide? A: Global Tel [redacted] Link is contracted throughout the State of California to provide the Inmate Phone system so that inmates are able to stay in touch with their families and friends GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directlySincerely yours, Kathi T [redacted] Agency Complaints

The customer advised GTL via e-mail on May 6th that they have received the refund check

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] there is a current issue: 1. I have received none of over 20 messages that he sent successfully 2. Although he had 20 sensuccessfully he has had approximately 18 delete from his tablet over the past week. Once plugged into the kiosk the messages delete and are not sent (cannot even attempt to resend because they are erased 3. I can't tell you what he's sent (subject as I haven't received but he has them he can read off) 4. Inmate [redacted] PA DOC (all facilities) 5. I contact customer service and the rep asks for this information with no resolution Hope you can help. This is marked as rejected as I have not contact name. Once resolved and messages are restored I'll mark it as such. Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Regards, [redacted]