Global Tel* Link Corporation

January 9, 2015Dear [redacted] ***This letter is in response to the rejection response we receive from [redacted] [redacted] has filed complaints the Revdex.com againstEach complaint GTL issued credit for dropped calls to a cell phone for a total of calls creditedEach time we spoke to [redacted] we explained GTL's cell phone policy which is “GTL does not Guarantee service to cell phones”Even though this is GTL's policy, we still issued credit for disconnected callsGTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to callSincerely yours,Kathi T Agency Complaints

February 23, Dear [redacted] ***, This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed aboveThe customer contacted the Revdex.com because she paid $to set up an account to be able to talk to her husband who is incarcerated in the [redacted] Detention Center.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] and advised her that it appears that she filed her complaint with the wrong companyShe thought that she was setting up an account with GTL but in reality she set up her account with “ [redacted] "GTL is not affiliated with this company in any wayWe have received many complaints from people stating that they thought that [redacted] was affiliated with GTL [redacted] informed us that she would be filing a complaint against [redacted] and would advise the Revdex.com that the complaint filed against GTL was done in errorGTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to callSincerely Yours, Kathi TAgency Complaints

The attached e-mail was sent to [redacted] on 11/19/as of today we have not had a response to our request for [redacted] to contact usPlease advise as to how you would like us to proceed with this complaint sincerely, Kathi T***

June 16, 2016The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because the calls she receives from an inmate in the Talbot Correctional facility disconnect prematurelyMs [redacted] is still charged for the disconnected callMs [redacted] is requesting a refund for the disconnected calls.We investigated this complaint and contacted Ms [redacted] via telephone and explained to her that our tech support department determined that there have been numerous fraudulent calls at this facilityWe have credited Ms***'s AdvancePay account for all calls between 5/01/to 6/14/that were under minutesThe total amount of credit issued to her account Was $22.47GTL 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

July 6, 2015The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because he set up an AdvancePay account so he could talk to an inmate in The [redacted] Correctional Facility (SC)The service did not work [redacted] is requesting that the remaining balance on his account refunded.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via telephone on July 2nd and advised him that we have processed his refund check in the amount of $48,The refund check will be mailed to him via US mail.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

Attached is the resolution letter to this complaintThis letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed abovecorporate Headquarters [redacted] The customer contacted the Revdex.com because some of the calls that she receives from an inmate in the [redacted] Jail in [redacted] have been disconnecting prematurely [redacted] is requesting a refund for these callsWe investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via telephone on June 1" and informed her that we listened to her calls and determined that some of her calls did in fact disconnect prematurely [redacted] informed us that the inmate has been transferred to a different facility that GTL is not the service provider forWe have issued a credit for the disconnected calls in the amount of $back to [redacted] 's credit card [redacted] is aware that it could take to business days for the credit to appear on her credit card statementGTL 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

May 8, 2017This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because she made deposits in the amount of $each to her AdvancePay accountOnly payment posted to her account but all payments were deducted from her bank account [redacted] is requesting a refund.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via telephone and informed her that we have processed her refund of $in the form of a credit back to her credit card [redacted] is aware that she needs to allow to business days for the credit to appear on her card.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

[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 There are still some occasions where the call does not go through the first time, but it is a lot better than it was at the beginning of their servicethank you Regards, [redacted]

This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because she paid $to set up an AdvancePay account so she could accept calls from her son in a LA County correctional facility [redacted] ’s son was released and the account was never used [redacted] is requesting a refund.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via e-mail and explained to her that her refund in the amount of $in the form of a credit back to her credit card [redacted] is aware that she needs to allow to business days for the credit to appear in her account.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

August 17, 2015This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed aboveThe Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because she is requesting that the money that is on her existing account be transferred or refunded for the calls she accepts from her husband who is incarcerated in the [redacted] County Jail (FL) that have disconnected prematurely.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via e-mail and explained to her that account number [redacted] has a balance of $When we attempted to call this number we received a recording saying that this number is no longer in serviceWe have transferred the $$balance from this account to account number 581-In addition we have listened to the calls from June 4th thru August 11th and have issued a credit to the new account in the amount $which represents all the calls that disconnected less than minutesTotal amount Credited to new account was $GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me directlySincerely yours, Kathi TAgency Complaints

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:I worked as a counselor at the [redacted] facilityOne of my former students had become incarcerated in [redacted] **After a year of using [redacted] for telephone services while following the pulse of the caseUnfortunately the student pled guilty to take a year minimum sentence and put it behind himHe was Transferred to [redacted] in [redacted] I was prompted to now set up an account with GTL to continue phone servicesI did so on 11/5/I found the website misleading and difficult to use(I'm a [redacted] in [redacted] for [redacted] presently)I can only imagine how the average person uses their servicesAnyhow after a month of calling GTL and asking for assistance with setting up services and a month of getting bounced around and months of no contact with my former student because of GTLI gave up and requested I be refunded the $I had put on my account VIA a credit cardAfter GTL ignored that request I filed a dispute with [redacted] *** [redacted] recovered the $for meGTL then went into my account and marked it as being -$negative balanceIt's 2nd grade math +$- $= not $-I spent over hours on the telephone with [redacted] and GTL trying to get my account accurately updated and GTL simply refused toI haven't made or got one phone call from my former studentHe wrote a letter to me stating the phone service at that facility was scamming people out of money by dropping their calls or charging $for minutes of talking and for the lousy year he is inWe can just write to each otherI informed him of what I was going through with GTL as it is and they were not getting any of my credit card informationI called GTL at one point with a rep from [redacted] on the line and they were caught in a lie that [redacted] has on tapeI'm considering legal action against GTL if this matter isn't rectifiedIf I do i'm going to be looking for a whole lot more than $30.00.I want my account brought to as I owe GTL nothinglike I said before +- $= according to GTL's math +$- $= -$it's pretty sad that I have to go to the Revdex.com for something this elementarybut then again after reading over all of the Fraud watch websites GTL jumps right off the pageThe complaints will go past the Revdex.com right on to SC senators if this matter isn't cleared up and within the next weeks Regards, [redacted] ***

This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because she made a $payment to her AdvancePay account; the money was deducted from her bank account but was never applied to her AdvancePay account.We investigated this complaint and determined that the payment was posted to an incorrect account numberWe contacted [redacted] and informed her that we have issued a credit in the amount of $back to her credit card [redacted] informed us that the funds were back on her card.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 She states that GTL has put a block on her telephone preventing her from receiving calls from an inmate in the [redacted] (OH) [redacted] is requesting that the block be removed.We researched account # [redacted] and it appears that [redacted] receives calls from several different inmatesCurrently there is no block on this account number from GTLThe reason [redacted] is unable to receive calls from the inmate in this facility is because her name and telephone number is not on the inmate allow list which is required by the facilityOnce the inmate adds her name and telephone number and it is approved by the facility; the calls will go through.We have tried to contact [redacted] several times with this resolution via e-mail; unfortunately, we have not received a response.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

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: This response is not relevant to the current complaintThis issue was about the commissary accountThe current complaint is regarding his Pin Debit account Regards, [redacted] ***

July 20, 2015The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because her account was doubled billed in May 2015and she has still not received her refund.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] and explained to her that that the payment that was processed May 18th in the amount of $had been approvedUnfortunately the GTL system controller timed out on the transaction and that is why it did not post to her accountThe system error was on GTL's end and we have investigated the transaction through our payment system CHASE and we were able to determine that we did actually collect the payment.We have placed the $back on her account to correct her negative balance.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feelfree to contact me directly.Sincerely yours,Kathi TAgency Complaints

July 1, 2015The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because of a GTL system error his credit card was charged twice when he was establishing his AdvancePay account to accept calls from his brother in TheSullivan County Correctional Facility.We investigated this complaint and contacted Mr [redacted] via e-mail and informed him that we have voided the $duplicate payment.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

The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because she set up an AdvancePay account to be able to accept calls from an inmate in a TN Department of Corrections facilityMs [redacted] was told that she could not transfer the money on her AdvancePay account to the inmates phone account so she requested a refund of the balance in her AdvancePay Account.We investigated this complaint and contacted Ms[redacted] via telephone and explained to her that since she used her new credit card in our system when she made the $payment we were able to credit the balance on her account in the amount of $back to her credit cardMs [redacted] is aware that she needs to allow to business days for the credit to appear back on her credit card.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

January 10, 2018This letter serves as a formal response to the complaint listed above.The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because On December 21, [redacted] attempted to make a payment of $on her GTL AdvancePay account, the payment was declined [redacted] attempted the same payment a second time, it was declined againThe third attempt the payment was processedWhen she checked her bank statement, all payments had been deducted from her account.We investigated this complaint and contacted [redacted] via telephone and explained to her that we were experiencing computer problems (Controller Timed Out) the day she made her paymentsWe have issued a refund for of her payments back to her credit card [redacted] replied that she was pleased with the outcome of this resolution.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

April 21, 2016The Consumer contacted the Revdex.com because she requested her account closed and the balance on her account refundedShe requested the refund on February 9th 2016.We investigated this complaint and contacted Ms [redacted] via telephone and apologized for the delay in responding to her refund requestThe refund was processed in the form of a credit back to Ms [redacted] 's credit card on April 15th Ms [redacted] is aware that she needs to allow to business days for the credit to appear back on her card.GTL anticipates that this will close this complaint and should you have any additional questions please feelfree to contact me directly.Sincerely yours, Kathi T [redacted] Agency Complaints

4/23/14Dear [redacted] ***I am in receipt of your 4/7/letter informing me that the Revdex.com is pursuing my claim regarding an OffenderConnect/GTL transfer of fundsOn Tuesday, 4/15/14,received a letter from GTL which included printouts showings their computer records of the transaction in questionI am also in receipt of your 4/14/letter, which includes GTL’s 4/11/response letterI certainly appreciate your efforts to assist me in this matter.At first glance, the documents from GTL appear to confirm their assertion that the $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 doubtsI am therefore requesting that your agency continue to pursue my claim based on the following points:Point IWhen 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 intoIn 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 OhioThe lack of such information fosters the deception that OffenderConnect will be vigilant about alerting users which account deposits are made toAlso, in GTL’s 04/08/letter is included a computer printout identified by the handwritten “Receipt #” in the upper right-hand comerOn 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 accountHowever, in GTL’s 4/11/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 accountsThis 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/entry is an OffenderConnect deposit that went into my commissary accountI 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 transferableIn 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 IINear 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 $as the payment amount after the transaction fee, instead of $Then the date and time, 11/8/11:09:is listed for when the deposit took place; this contrasts against the time of 12:listed on the receiptHow could money be recorded before it is even received?Point IIIOn the same page, and in the same section as previously mentioned, there follows three listings for my personal phone account, one deposit and two callsThere is a strong possibility of an existing discrepancy with the two callsThe first cannot be confirmed because the call apparently was not answeredThe 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 timeAlthough this information does not seem directly relevant to the initial inquiry, it might be part of a larger pattern of inconsistencies in this matterI 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 ensuesIt is not impossible that I made a call at 9:31:PM on 11/9/but it is very unlikelyI' would like to confirm it Point IVOn two separate pages, GTL forwards printouts of its data recordsOn 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 accountWhy Is that? There are more questionable elements on the right half of this imageThere is a checkmark in the “Account Comments (Add New)” section of the imageIt is clearly used to call attention to the LoCI kiosk usage and the amount deposited, and the receipt number is highlightedHere is where I will begin a delineation of the remaining questionable elements:A - To the left of the actual ‘commentabout the transaction you will find the date and time 11/15/8:19: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 11/15/8:17: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 itEither this is the incorrect date or a dating protocol specific to such OffenderCormect/GTL record-keepingIf 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/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/transaction; but these two items are eleven days after the transaction and six seconds apart (11/19/7:25:AM and 11/19/7:25: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 $continually listed instead of the actual $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 11/15/3:38:PM and 11/1/2:33: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 correspond almost precisely with the above recited datesHowever, 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 transactionBusiness 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 consistencyWhy is this? [redacted] ***, it is possible that everything that GTL alleges is trueBut, 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 InvestigationAn 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 reportingI 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 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,