Times Observer Reviews (2)
Customer's check was returned from bank: Un Locate AcctWe mailed letter to customer on 11/12/notifying of the returned checkOur standard practice is to charge $for any returned check
*** ** ***
Review: I received a letter from a collection agency stating that I owed 127.50 to this company. I called the Times Observer to try to find out how this had happened. In October 2014 I had sent a check to renew my subscription. It never was cashed according to my bank and I didn't receive any more newspapers. I figured check had gotten lost in mail and by that time had decided it wasn't worth my time or money to try and renew again. Thought nothing else of it, heard nothing else from the paper. Today they said that the check had been returned due to "No account found" at the bank. This is not true as my husband and I still have the bank account. My issue though is that they never contacted my to say that this happened. They do say they sent a letter which I never received and they said that is the only attempt they make before sending it to a collection agency. A problem I have with this is I think they should have sent a registered letter so they know that the person got the letter or call. If they would have done any of this I could have had the bank fix this or at least be aware about the problem to fix it. Now though they want me to pay the NSF fee plus the original fee for the subscription. I feel this is wrong because there is nothing wrong with the check and I never received the service so why should I pay for it now.Desired Settlement: I want them to adjust it so I don't owe for the service that I never received. I don't want my subscription renewed at this point. I don't trust them. I asked if I was able to get the check back from them and fix the problem at the bank if they would fix it on their end and they said "No". They need to fix it. I also believe they need to change their collection practices and at least send a certified letter so that they know the individual was notified.