North Georgia Gun Trader, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]     Fiserv as indicated in the original complaint has not provided documents that the payment was ever sent to the financial institution for me to contact them for a dispute of charges!

[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,
Shirley [redacted]

We are in receipt of the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”) complaint (#[redacted]) submitted to the Revdex.com. Please accept this correspondence as Fiserv, Inc.’s/BillMatrix Corporation’s (“BillMatrix”) formal response to the Complaint. The details of our review are discussed below.   BillMatrix worked...

with the energy company and the 4 payments in question have been reversed.  The customer should please allow 1-3 business days to receive the refunds. Fiserv is hopeful this will settle the matter to the full satisfaction of the consumer.

Fiserv, Inc. (“Fiserv”) is in receipt of the Complaint from
the Revdex.com (#[redacted]).  BillMatrix Corporation (“BillMatrix”) is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Fiserv, Inc.  Please
accept this correspondence as BillMatrix’s formal response to the
Complaint. ...

 
On July 23, 2015, BillMatrix reached out to the consumer to
obtain specific account information as our search criteria is limited.  The consumer replied “after I complete my
meeting with the management at Nashville Electric Service I will be glad to
send you more information”.   As of this date, we have not heard back from
the consumer.  BillMatrix would like to
complete an investigation and provide a proper response and encourages the consumer
to please contact us.
Fiserv values our customers and we regret that the customer
did not have an ideal experience and offers a sincere apology for any
inconvenience.

We are in receipt of the Revdex.com ("Revdex.com") complaint (11253285) received from the Revdex.com on April 15, 2016. Please accept this correspondence as BillMatrix Corporation’s (“BillMatrix”) formal response to the Complaint.  BillMatrix understands the customer’s concerns and would like...

to explain the results of our investigation.  Regulations allow for the merchant to choose a preferred method of payment for BillMatrix transactions.  In this case, the merchant has chosen a debit payment network to process transactions which means transactions are to be processed via debit whenever possible despite the customer selecting credit. A debit transaction may often times appear to the customer as an ATM transaction.  This is the terminology used by the financial institution.  BillMatrix records indicate the transactions were processed by debit.  With regard to the transactions selected as credit, these were processed according to the merchant’s preferred method of transaction which is debit.   BillMatrix apologizes for the confusion and would like to assure the customer that appropriate steps are being taken to handle the payment transactions.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]Unfortunately, that response does not resolve the problem. If possible, it would be helpful for the business to mail and/or email the records which indicate that the transaction processed as a debit (although, the records appear to be inaccurate). As email correspondence has already been established with me via a paralegal, I imagine this would not be a difficult task to accomplish.Also, if the business is truly interested in ensuring that the problem does not occur again, it could connect me, the consumer, with a specific manager who can facilitate a future transaction, therby assuring a debit transaction will occur. A failure to do so clearly demonstrates a lack of customer service and a failure by management to adequately address the issue (i.e., to internally- if not publicly- acknowledge the unethical behavior of its own employees in this matter, whom I must otherwise conclude have intentionally manipulated my past trasactions). 
Regards,

We are in receipt of the Revdex.com ("Revdex.com") complaint ([redacted]) submitted to the Revdex.com on December 11, 2015, to Fiserv, Inc. ("Fiserv"). There are a few options the customer has to resolve this issue: (1) the consumer can submit a chargeback request with his credit card issuer in order...

for him to be reimbursed by his bank. When Fiserv receives the chargeback, we begin the process to recover the money from the destination account; (2) Fiserv can send a Letter of Indemnity (sometimes referred to as Hold Harmless) in an attempt to recover the funds (the financial Institution has 90 days to respond to this type of request); or (3) the consumer can request the funds from the other party through a Popmoney transaction. These options have also been sent to the consumer via email in an effort to resolve this situation.

[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.  I thank how quick they were to take action  
Regards,
Joseph [redacted]

Fiserv, Inc. (“Fiserv”) is in receipt of the Complaint from
the Revdex.com (#[redacted]). 
Please accept this correspondence as Fiserv’s formal response to the
Complaint.   Popmoney is a service
offered by Fiserv.  The details of our
review are discussed...

below.
It is a Fiserv policy that customers may not have the same debit
card on more than one profile. To accomplish this, the application does not
allow a deleted card to be reused. This policy was established by our Risk and
Product teams to prevent fraudsters from adding the same debit card (possibly fraudulent)
to various profiles and bypassing our established product transaction limits.
The Popmoney.com contact center (reachable via the support
options on Popmoney.com) is aware of this functionality and they are able to
provide customers with those details over the phone or in chat support.
Fiserv values our customers and we regret that the customer
did not have an ideal experience and offers a sincere apology for any
inconvenience this has caused.  Fiserv
establishes policies such as this in an attempt to minimize risk exposure to customers.

[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,
Tamela [redacted]

The three Mastercard payments (along with the fees) show as “Failed Auth” status. The funds for the payments and fees are “Not” debited for Failed Auth payments for Credit Cards.

[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.  I am accepting that they restored my bill pay services. I am not accepting that I owed them any money.  USAA had the wrong SSN and name? Really?  And what about [redacted] or [redacted]. I think they are confused but I am glad my rights are no longer being violated.  
Regards,
Sherrie [redacted]

We are in receipt of Revdex.com complaint #[redacted]. Please accept this correspondence as Fiserv, Inc.’s (“Fiserv”) formal response to the Complaint.   The PopMoney transaction in question was scheduled, however, failed to process due to an unknown error on February 1, 2017. ...

The credit was returned to her account on February 9, 2017.  The complainant advised she had $152 in NSF which Fiserv also credited to her account.

Fiserv maintains our position that our employee reached out to the complainant regarding a legitimate [redacted] position and did not engage in any spam or phishing practices.

Fiserv, Inc. (“Fiserv”) is in receipt of the Complaint from
the Revdex.com (#[redacted]).  BillMatrix Corporation (“BillMatrix”) is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Fiserv, Inc.  Please
accept this correspondence as BillMatrix’s formal response to the
Complaint. ...

 
BillMatrix reached out to the consumer to obtain specific
account information as our search criteria is limited.  The consumer did provide a biller account number
however it appears it may be inaccurate as BillMatrix is unable to locate that account
number in our system.  Therefore, we reached
out again to the consumer to confirm the account number and to request that he provide
additional payment details such as payment dates and amounts which will assist
us further in the research of this complaint. 
As of this date, we have not heard back from the consumer.  BillMatrix would like to complete the investigation
and provide a proper response and urges the consumer to please contact us.
Fiserv values our customers and we regret that the customer
did not have an ideal experience and offers a sincere apology for any
inconvenience.

The complainant provided [redacted] a copy of the bank statements so that we could verify the two debits. Our system shows that 1 of the payments that was debited was a “False Time Out” that never made it to the biller. This wouldn’t be something the payor would see so it appears to the payor as...

being debited twice and sent to the biller ([redacted] account). Understandably, the complainant disputed a payment, however, that payment would have been the only good payment. The remaining issue is that both payments were debited from the payor’s account, but only the disputed ACH payment was returned. The payment that was attempted through the [redacted] (the false time out) is still at issue, and it appears that the complainant is due these funds. Our team has been in contact with [redacted] about this payment and [redacted] couldn’t see where it was debited (neither could we when we searched the [redacted]). We’ve opened an escalated ticket with [redacted] whose IT department is looking into this further because even though none of us can see the debit in the [redacted], the bank statements clearly show the payment was debited and that the funds have not been returned. We have provided this status to the complainant and will continue to be in contact with [redacted] daily until we are able to provide a resolution on this matter.

As I have stated all along that neither Nashville Electric Service nor [redacted]'s Own Credit Union have no records of a transaction ever being processed. Fisher/ Bill Matrix is the only entity that can provide the documents I have requested all along. Until they can produce the documents I will continue to pursue this complaint as unsatisfactory. I repeat that no one else can provide these documents but them.

The following details are being provided at the request of the customer and to respond to the complaints of the customer. The details pulled from our system regarding the payment are attached.  As stated previously, the Bill Pay accounts are linked through the customer’s social security number (“SS#”). When a Bill Pay account is canceled due to Collections, it places that Bill Pay account in a negative status and flags the customer’s SS# associated.  When a customer tries to enroll with any other bank’s Bill Pay service that Fiserv processes for, it will block the enrollment. Which is what happened in this case. Other Bill Pay profiles for this customer were enrolled in prior to 12-11-09, when the [redacted]/Wells Fargo account went into a Collection status. Fiserv does not process for [redacted] Bill Pay. Fiserv also located a USAA Bill Pay profile using the same customer email address, however, that account is associated with another name, DOB and SS# and therefore, Fiserv would not block that Bill Pay account. Please also note, the payment in question was made using an Online Bill Pay account, therefore, the customer would not have written a check.  Fiserv made the payment as requested online and then attempted to collect from the customer’s bank account, however, the bank indicated there were non-sufficient funds in the account and Fiserv was unable to collect.  This means that the money was owed to Fiserv and not to the bank so the bank would have made no attempt to collect the debt. Despite the preceding, Fiserv has decided in terms of good customer relations, that we will change the status of the customer account and allow her to re-enroll in our Bill Pay services. The customer should allow at least 48 hours for this to process before attempting to enroll.

I wanted to follow up on my response to this complaint. I spoke with the consumer this afternoon. The consumer provided the needed information and we have lifted the block on the account. I will email the consumer to let him know but wanted to provide that information to the Revdex.com as well.

We are in receipt of Revdex.com complaint #[redacted]. Please accept this correspondence as Fiserv, Inc. (“Fiserv”) formal response to the Complaint. The details of our review are discussed below.   The process of conducting a chargeback is driven by the regulations and rules set...

forth by Visa and MasterCard. Fiserv’s role is processing agent.   Our records indicate that a new cardholder statement was provided and on April 10, the chargeback was submitted to the network (the debit was passed back to the merchant).  The Financial Institution would have received the chargeback credit within a few days. The merchant then has 45 days to represent our chargeback and take back the credit.  If the merchant does not represent, the credit would be passed to the cardholder.   We apologize for any inconveniences and we will continue to work on this issue.