Global Tel* Link Corporation

June 16, 2015This letter is in response to the rejection response we received from [redacted]
The customer contacted the Revdex.com because some of the calls she receives from an inmate on account #'s [redacted] and [redacted] do not connect.
[redacted] contacted the CSR that was investigating this complaint via telephone on June 16th and she explained to us that she is only requesting a refund on account # [redacted]. The refund has been processed in the amount of $68.25. [redacted] is aware that she needs to allow 3 to 5 business days for the credit to appear on her credit card statement.
The CSR that investigated this complaint provided [redacted] with her direct telephone number so if she continues to have problems with the other account number she can contact Ms. A[redacted] right away and she can listen to the recording of the call to see if additional credit should be issued.
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

[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 10516254, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

September 24, 2014Dear [redacted]This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because she states that the calls she receives from an inmate in the [redacted] Detention Center disconnect...

prematurely due to 3-way call detect.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via telephone on September 23rd and explained to her that the GTL telephone system is quite sensitive and any clicks or noises detected during a conversation with the inmate could cause the call to disconnect prematurely due to 3-way call detect which is not allowed. We have issued a credit to [redacted]'s account for 2 calls that were less than 2 minutes in length. In addition we apologized to [redacted] for not having been advised about GTL's cell phone policy which is we do not guarantee service to cell phones.
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

We have manually gone into our system and have increased the customers LEC limit. The customer was advised of this on Friday 10/10/14. Attached is the e-mail response from the customer.

September 24, 2014Dear [redacted],This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because she states that the calls she receives from an inmate in a correctional facility that GTL is the service provider for...

are supposed to be 20 minutes in length and the calls disconnect after only 15 minutes. [redacted] would like to have her account credited for the minutes she did not receiveWe have e-mailed [redacted] copies of her call records for her review. [redacted]'s calls vary from 14 minutes to 20 minutes in length. There is no indication that the calls are disconnecting prematurely. All of the calls [redacted] receives are billed at a flat rate of $2.25 plus $0.17 tax for a total of $2.42 per call regardless of how many minutes the calls are. I am attaching a copy of the call records with this response.There is no credit due at this time.
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

[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]

[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]

December 23, 2014Dear [redacted]This letter is in response to the second rejection from the consumer.I will address individually the 2 reasons that she rejected our response.Reason 1 - On October 27th I could not make a payment, NOT due to the system being down. It took three representatives, one of which Leandra who was a supervisor, to tell me why I could not make a payment. They claimed that I could no longer make payments using my credit card because I had put more than $500 on my account in less than 30 days. Again it had absolutely nothing to do with either system being down. I DID NOT make a payment on their website for $200 on October 27th. I do not have an email confirmation, and more importantly, there is no option to make payments above $100 using their system. This is the first payment I made by going to [redacted]. In total I was forced to pay in this manner three times. This is a major inconvenience since I am blind and a paraplegic.GTL's response - from 7/15 thru 7/17 [redacted] used co ending [redacted] then 7/17 she used credit card ending [redacted]. On 7/22 to 8/17 she used credit card ending 0755 and from 8/17 to 9/05 she again used credit card ending [redacted] and as long as she was using those cards her account was ok. Then on 11/15 when she used a totally different credit card ending [redacted] that's when her problem with 1 payment attempt declined. However to avoid Fraud in our system normally it only take 2 credits card, but in her case it allowed her to use 3 and when she attempted the 4" credit card it rejected it.
Reason 2 - On November 24th I was told by the representative that I would be issued a credit for $49,15. I rejected that Revdex.com response as well because they did not credit me the full $49.15 and only did $49.12. 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 refund. When the customer service representative asked if there was anything else, there was nothing else pertaining to that particular complaint/issue. I felt as if the two matters should be kept separate.
It is true that the person I was speaking with (they are not inmates since they are not convicted) was released on November 17th. I was skeptical of raising any issues because of, first repercussions, and secondly I wasn't sure what the outcome would be. If I could have avoided using GTL's "services" altogether, I would have. They 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 account. These are just a few of the reasons I am unhappy with their "service". Whether or not the person has been released is irrelevant. I dealt with unsatisfactory, disappointing, and rude service with them for 127 days.
GTL's response - it was a human error that the Accounting department keyed in $49.12 instead of $49.15, but the 0.03 was placed back on your credit card as soon as we received your 2nd complaint on 12/01. 
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

October 20, 2014Dear [redacted]This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because the exact amount of the credit card processing fee was not disclosed to him prior to setting up an AdvancePay...

Account. The amount is only disclosed after the payment is made and the credit card is charged.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via telephone on October 15th and explained to him that the exact amount of the credit card processing fee is not disclosed at the time of the payment transaction because the fee amount varies by facility. In addition we explained that he could avoid this fee if he were to fund his account by check or money order, there are no fees attached to these 2 types of payment options. Unfortunately there is no refund due to [redacted] at this timeGTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questionsplease feel free to call.Sincerely Yours,Kathi T
Agency Complaints

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The amount was for $49.15 and they are only refunding me $49.12.
Regards,
[redacted]

From: Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC
font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><[redacted]>Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:21 PMSubject: Fwd: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].To: [redacted] <[redacted]>
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: [redacted] <[redacted]>Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:34 PMSubject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].To: Revdex.com <[redacted]>
I thank you so much.  The company refunded my money right away instead of making me wait 30 day. I really appropriate it, and a young lady did call and speak with me
Thank you
[redacted]

October 17, 2014Dear [redacted]This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.
The customer contacted the Revdex.com because GTL is no longer the telephone service provider for the [redacted] Department of Corrections. [redacted] called GTL to...

request a refund of the remaining balance on her AdvancePay account, she was told that she would be charged a $4.95 refund processing fee.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via telephone on October 10th and informed her that the entire balance on her account in the amount of $13.83 has been credited back to credit card ending XXXX0[redacted] and she needs to allow 5 to 7 business days for the credit to appear on her credit card.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questionsplease feel free to call.yours,Kathi T
Agency Complaints

May 1, 2015This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because she no longer needed DSL-ITI, LLC services so she called into customer service to request the remaining balance on her account refunded. She has...

never received her refund.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via telephone to confirm her address and advised her that a refund check in the amount of $32.06 has been processed and we will be expiditing the refund check to the address she provided in our telephone conversation.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 TAgency Complaints

4/23/14Dear [redacted]I am in receipt of your 4/7/14 letter informing me that the Revdex.com is pursuing my claim regarding an OffenderConnect/GTL transfer of funds. On Tuesday, 4/15/14,1 received a letter from GTL which included printouts showings their computer records of the transaction in question. I am also in receipt of your 4/14/2014 letter, which includes GTL’s 4/11/2014 response letter. I certainly appreciate your efforts to assist me in this matter.At first glance, the documents from GTL appear to confirm their assertion that the $17.00 was added to my phone account instead of to my commissary account [as was intended by [redacted]], But, upon closer examination a number of questionable discrepancies leave me with lingering doubts. I am therefore requesting that your agency continue to pursue my claim based on the following points:Point I. When informed by GTL that the money in question had been added to my phone account I checked the receipt for the transaction and found no reference to which account (phone or commissary) monies received would be placed into. In fact, GTL - which is known to be the only approved vendor for inmate phone services within the Ohio Dept, of Rehab. & Corrections (ODRC) - is not mentioned at all on the receipt, giving the user no clue that the service being provided originates from a company whose initial contract with ODRC was to provide phone services for inmates in Ohio. The lack of such information fosters the deception that OffenderConnect will be vigilant about alerting users which account deposits are made to. Also, in GTL’s 04/08/2014 letter is included a computer printout identified by the handwritten “Receipt #” in the upper right-hand comer. On this page, in the “Account Comments (Add New)” section of the printout there is a check-mark that locates the transaction in question above that particular entry is an apparent verification of the entry that clearly, and in all caps, designates “INMATE PHONE ACCT” as the target account. However, in GTL’s 4/11/2014 letter GTL refers to [a deposit] made to my commissary account, demonstrating the company’s understanding of there being a difference between inmate’s phone and commissary accounts. This fact is also demonstrated on the second page of a statement of my inmate account here at LoCI for the months of November and December of 2013: the 12/06/2013 entry is an OffenderConnect deposit that went into my commissary account. I do not think it unreasonable to assume that in its contract with ODRC the distinction between the two accounts is established, pointing out the fact that monies deposited into a commissary account are transferable by the inmate into his/her phone account but that monies in a phone account are not transferable. In light of this one-way aspect of account functions, and the fact that all deposits are non-refundable, there should have been no discrepancy as to which account the money was posted to.Point II. Near the bottom of the first page of GTL’s response, after the bold printed “Why payment didn’t post on 11/08/2013?” there is a [probable] misprint that cites $13.00 as the payment amount after the transaction fee, instead of $17.00. Then the date and time, 11/8/2013 11:09:59 is listed for when the deposit took place; this contrasts against the time of 12:09 listed on the receipt. How could money be recorded before it is even received?Point III. On the same page, and in the same section as previously mentioned, there follows three listings for my personal phone account, one deposit and two calls. There is a strong possibility of an existing discrepancy with the two calls. The first cannot be confirmed because the call apparently was not answered. The second call can be confirmed and I am requesting you to inform GTL to produce the number I am reported to have called so that I may contact that individual to see if his/her phone bill reflects the call having been made on that date and time. Although this information does not seem directly relevant to the initial inquiry, it might be part of a larger pattern of inconsistencies in this matter. I very, very rarely make calls at that time, because that is the period immediately after a prison count has been “cleared” and when a general rush for the phones ensues. It is not impossible that I made a call at 9:31:37 PM on 11/9/2013. but it is very unlikely. I' would like to confirm it. 
Point IV. On two separate pages, GTL forwards printouts of its data records. On the page with the OffenderConnect logo at the top, the “Amount Payable” is listed as “17.00” and the “Date/Time” correspond with the receipt secured at the OffenderConnect kiosk at LoCI; however, the following page, which has “Receipt #” handwritten near the top right-hand comer, has what appears to be a printscreen image of the file accessed to verify that money was received from [redacted], and repeatedly states the amount to be “$20.” This begs the question of why the transaction fee is still attached to the amount reported to have been added to my phone account. Why Is that? There are more questionable elements on the right half of this image. There is a checkmark in the “Account Comments (Add New)” section of the image. It is clearly used to call attention to the LoCI kiosk usage and the amount deposited, and the receipt number is highlighted. Here is where I will begin a delineation of the remaining questionable elements:A - To the left of the actual ‘comment5 about the transaction you will find the date and time 11/15/2013 8:19:36 PM which is one week and six+ hours after the actual transaction.1)    Why is this apparent verification dated as occurring a full week after the transaction?2)    Why is this apparent verification exercised twice within a two-minute span as indicated by the line below it, dated and timed 11/15/2013 8:17:08 PM?
3)    Why would not a date and time corresponding to the present inquiry be evident, indicating the most recent accessing of that file?B - In the comment section of the line indicated by the check mark, the date is recorded as “8/11/2013” and the amount as “$20” just as in the line below it. Either this is the incorrect date or a dating protocol specific to such OffenderCormect/GTL record-keeping. If this is a dating protocol used for the comment section, why do the two lines above the line in question reflect the date 11/8/13 instead of the incorrect date, “8/11/2013”?
C - The two lines above the check-marked line in question also appear to be more verifications of the 11/8/2013 transaction; but these two items are eleven days after the transaction and six seconds apart (11/19/2013 7:25:42 AM and 11/19/2013 7:25:48 AM): why?And why is it that only on those lines - the eleven-day late verification - is It noted that the targeted account is the “INMATE PHONE ACCT”? Furthermore, why is the full amount of $20.00 continually listed instead of the actual $17.00 allegedly deposited into that account according to the OffenderConnect receipt on the left side of the printscreen image?D - Two and three lines below (respectively) the check-marked line in question are entries with dates and times reading 11/15/2013 3:38:24 PM and 11/1/2013 2:33:56 PM, with both entries being for the amounts of “25.00”; [redacted] has personally verified to me that, on a monthly basis, she makes such bi-weekly deposits into the phone account of an inmate here, and that the dates for the phone account deposits she made in November 2013 correspond almost precisely with the above recited dates. However, these entries do not specify “inmate phone acct” as the target account: why not? This also highlights a discrepancy regarding the dates and times that entries are made and verified, because the alleged posting of the money in question into my phone account is not recorded or verified until dates and times far removed from the date of the actual transaction. Business protocols are legally mandated to conform to some consistent method, for auditing and other purposes; the varying manners used to record transaction information, as displayed by the printouts afforded by GTL, do not comply with such consistency. Why is this?[redacted], it is possible that everything that GTL alleges is true. But, I feel that the Inconsistencies and apparent discrepancies within the letters and printouts GTL has forwarded [as an accounting of what happened to that $17.00] warrant further Investigation. An independent audit of OffenderConnect/GTL’s accounting methods in this matter may be necessary, since they have already and repeatedly Illustrated Inconsistencies in their own reporting.
I have enclosed a copy of the letters and printouts sent to me by GTL as well as a copy of my inmate account statement for the months of November and December of 2013. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience on this matter.Thanking you, in advance, for your time and consideration, I am ...
Sincerely,

July 7, 2014
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 30 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 processed. During 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 request. The refund has been processed and we have waived the $5.00 refund processing fee as a courtesy to [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

May 11, 2015[redacted]This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.
The 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 $132.37 has been prosessed back to credit card ending [redacted] is aware that it could take up to 5 to 7 business days for the credit to appear on his credit card statement.
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

June 2, 2014
Dear [redacted]This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because she is requesting a refund for calls that she receives from an inmate in [redacted] Regional Jail that disconnect prematurely....

In addition [redacted] does not agree with GTLs cell phone policy.We investigated this complaint and advised [redacted] via a letter sent by US mail on May 22° the following resolution:We apologized that you disagree with Global Tel Links business practices, service and Cell phone policy CELL ACCOUNTS ARE CREATED (G) CUSTOMERS OWN RISK. Currently, [redacted] this policy remains in place. Upper management granted you 3.24 credit for one call on March 22, 2014. We have emailed you copies of your Call Detail per inmate calls from [redacted]REGIONAL JAIL and advised that you are not charged for unanswered calls. Your funds are placed on hold for forty five minutes to one hour then released back to your account balance per inmate dialing back to back. [redacted] you have been advised on numerous dates October , 7th, 25th, December . 10, 21st, March and April 17" of GTLs Cell phone policy and again it does not appear in writing and thats why CSRs are very articulate making sure customers understand the policy prior to establishing Cell accounts.
We have issued you an adjustment of 3.24. Again we apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused you and the inmate. Per monitoring and reviewing of your calls it appears inmate was arrested again after his release. There were a lot of disagreements during conversations between you and the inmate when the premature disconnects was mutual.
GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely yours,

September 24, 2014Dear [redacted]This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because she paid $25.00 to GTL to set up an account to talk to her grandson who is incarcerated in the [redacted] Correctional...

facility. GTL does not service this facility so she is requesting a refund in a reasonable amount of time.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via e-mail on September 24th and advised her that we have issued a credit back to her credit card that she used to establish the account in the amount of $25.00 and to please allow 7 to 10 business days for the credit to appear back on the card.
GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely Yours, 
Kathi T

April 11, 2014
Dear [redacted]This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The customer contacted the Revdex.com because on November 8th 2013 a friend of **. [redacted]’s made to his commissary account and **. [redacted] says that the payment never...

posted to his account.We investigated this complaint and contacted **. [redacted] via US mail and informed him that the funds did in fact post to his account. The payment was for $20.00 minus a $3.00 transaction fee. Below is a copy of the transaction of the payment:[redacted]    11/8/20 11:09:59 Deposit $37.44 $17.00 $0.00 $54.44 [redacted]GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to call.Sincerely yours,

This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.
The customer contacted the Revdex.com because she logged onto GTL's website to make a $20 payment to an inmate's debit account and she received an e-mail conformation that 2 $20 payments were made to his...

account. She is requesting that 1 of the $20 payments be credited back to her credit card.We investigated this complaint and contacted Ms. [redacted] via telephone and advised her that we have removed one of the $20 payments from the inmates account and issued a $20 credit back to her credit card.
GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely yours,
Kathi T[redacted] Agency Complaints