My Credit Card Co. Keeps Cashing Same Check Twice, My Bank Is An Accomplice

[Blue Colnago]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois.

Issue: My Credit card company keeps cashing the same paper check twice.

Details : I mail a check for $300.00, and I get the same check # clearing twice. I called my Bank, they verified this, and said that the Credit Card Company is presenting the transaction once as paper check, and once again as an electronic transaction. So... I call my card carrier and they say they've only drawn once each month. This has happened two months in a row.

My Request To My Bank: I want to request, both over the phone, and In writing that my card carrier is only authorized to draw once on each paper check. So... where can I mail this request?

Bank's Response: There is no address for that request, because we cannot stop this from occurring. You can stop payment on a check after you see it has cashed once, but that will cost you $26.00

Me To Bank: You mean to tell me that my credit card company can draw from the same paper check, as many times as they want, and you will oblige the transaction?

My Bank : Correct. For the two transactions in question, we can credit your account the $600, and start the dispute process. We will be mailing you paperwork to fill out.

My Credit Card Company : We have no record of us clearing the same check twice for two consecutive months, we do see record of the first draw but not the second. We are willing to credit your account the $600.00 until the matter can be resolved, we will be mailing you paperwork to fill out.

Bottom Line: Both my Bank and my Credit card seem willing to work towards resolving this issue, but I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that my bank is unable to stop this sort of thing once I alert them to the situation. Is this correct, or is my bank just passing the buck, avoiding responsibility in the matter?

Thanks In advance!

Jack, Chicago Il.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by Blue Colnago

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois.

Issue: My Credit card company keeps cashing the same paper check twice.

Details : I mail a check for $300.00, and I get the same check # clearing twice. I called my Bank, they verified this, and said that the Credit Card Company is presenting the transaction once as paper check, and once again as an electronic transaction. So... I call my card carrier and they say they've only drawn once each month. This has happened two months in a row.

My Request To My Bank: I want to request, both over the phone, and In writing that my card carrier is only authorized to draw once on each paper check. So... where can I mail this request?

Bank's Response: There is no address for that request, because we cannot stop this from occurring. You can stop payment on a check after you see it has cashed once, but that will cost you $26.00

Me To Bank: You mean to tell me that my credit card company can draw from the same paper check, as many times as they want, and you will oblige the transaction?

My Bank : Correct. For the two transactions in question, we can credit your account the $600, and start the dispute process. We will be mailing you paperwork to fill out.

My Credit Card Company : We have no record of us clearing the same check twice for two consecutive months, we do see record of the first draw but not the second. We are willing to credit your account the $600.00 until the matter can be resolved, we will be mailing you paperwork to fill out.

Bottom Line: Both my Bank and my Credit card seem willing to work towards resolving this issue, but I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that my bank is unable to stop this sort of thing once I alert them to the situation. Is this correct, or is my bank just passing the buck, avoiding responsibility in the matter?

Thanks In advance!

Jack, Chicago Il.

Hello Jack,

From what I can tell, the problem is with your credit card company. The bank merely receives the debits/credits and posts them. So having said that, your bank is not passing the buck or avoiding responsibility in this matter.

You need to engage your credit card company and provide them copies of the portion of your bank statement showing the two debits. I recommend that you black out all other information that you don't want your CC company to see. Speak to their client relations dept ~ they are not the normal CSRs you get on the phone. You want the assistance of the unit that helps customers who have issues that have not been resolved by the normal customer service. You will ask this unit to figure out why your payments have posted twice on more than one occassion.

Hope that helps, ana

[ecmst12]

Stop sending paper checks and make your payments online.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by ecmst12

Stop sending paper checks and make your payments online.

The OP has a valid argument. Making his payments via a paper check is a viable way of upholding his agreement to make his payments. His choice should be honored and he should have peace of mind that his CC company is going to act appropriatey.

[Blue Colnago]

Originally Posted by Wirelessany1

Hello Jack,

From what I can tell, the problem is with your credit card company. The bank merely receives the debits/credits and posts them. So having said that, your bank is not passing the buck or avoiding responsibility in this matter....(Continued)

Hope that helps, ana

Ana /Wirelessany -

Thank you for your thoughtful and prompt reply, much appreciated. I'm still finding it very hard to believe my bank has no responsibility in the matter. I called them back again this evening just to get a confirmation of the bank's position here. Here is a brief recap of the conversation:

Me to Bank "So you mean to tell me that anybody can present you with a paper check, then a follow that up with an ACH electronic transaction for the same amount, or any amount for that matter, as many times as they want, and you will oblige them every time? You are simply a clearing house for anybody wanting to get money out of my checking account? Please answer with a conclusive YES or NO, so I can understand this clearly."

(And of course, when I stated the sheer lunacy of this situation, the bank csr could not give me a clear answer)

Bank CSR "Well, we don't really have any way of knowing when the ACH transaction is presented that it is fraudulant, but we do have a policy that if a customer does suspect fraudulant acitivity, we will investigate it."

Me: "Which of course, places the burden of obligation on my shoulders to catch such things, and leaves the bank which you represent, free of any responsibility."

Bank CSR: "Well I wouldn't put it that way exactly"

Me: "How would you put it?"

Bank CSR: We also have a department that looks for such things, like somebody from another country attempting to clear $1000 dollars electronically.

Me: So you might catch some things, and you might miss some others.

Bank CSR: Correct.

Me: (Trying to sound informed) Are you familiar with the Uniform Commerce Code, and its relevancy as pertaining to banking law?"

Bank CSR: Um.... no.

Me:Can you put in touch with someone who does?

Bank CSR: Um... sssure, I would just need to... can you hold?

And then I'm put on hold for 22 minutes, then I hang up.

Question: Is anybody here familiar with the Uniform Commercial Code or Banking Law in general and it's relevancy in my situation? I told my story to an acquaintance, who is a transaction service advisor for a fortune 500 company. He said my Bank is not acknowledging their fiduciary responsibility in the matter and are not acting in according with the UC Code.

Thanks to all,

-Jack, Chicago Il

[Blue Colnago]

Originally Posted by ecmst12

Lawsuits are not about justice. They are about MONEY. If you don't want money, then you shouldn't be thinking about suing. And people post here because they are thinking about suing. Because they want money, no matter how much they don't want to admit that to themselves.

Your signature expresses a valid opinion, but I invite you to consider the possibility it is a point of view, and therefore, may or may not be accurate. The choice to acknowledge, deny, ignore, or imagine what motivates people to settle disputes in a legal format, is entirely a matter of personal invention.

Speaking for myself, my services bill at a rate of $75.00 - $175.00 per hour. I've willingly spent well over 12 hours on this $600.00 problem. Clearly, it would be more a more efficient use of my time to simply drop the issue. This is about justice. To argue the viewpoint that justice itself has no validity in legal matters, is a viewpoint I find preposterous. In my opinion, to state that the act of pursuing justice, simply for the sake of justice, is an inauthentic motivation in the hearts of men, does a disservice to the dignity of mankind.

-Jack, Chicago Il.

[justalayman]

the point of that signature is that how our system provides justice is in the form of money. They cannot replace a missing eye nor can they make all your hurt feelings go away but they can order you be compensated financially.

that is not a matter of opinion but one of fact.

In your situation, the courts cannot "undo" what has happened so you will always have the problem to look back upon. What they can do is order compensation for the mistake. That is why ecmst12 states that it is about money, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

[Blue Colnago]

Originally Posted by ecmst12

Lawsuits are not about justice. They are about MONEY. If you don't want money, then you shouldn't be thinking about suing. And people post here because they are thinking about suing. Because they want money, no matter how much they don't want to admit that to themselves

Originally Posted by justalayman

the point of that signature is that how our system provides justice is in the form of money. They cannot replace a missing eye nor can they make all your hurt feelings go away but they can order you be compensated financially. that is not a matter of opinion but one of fact. In your situation, the courts cannot "undo" what has happened so you will always have the problem to look back upon. What they can do is order compensation for the mistake. That is why ecmst12 states that it is about money, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

JustaLayman, ecmst12 -

I invite you to consider the possibility that you might be presenting a view of our legal system that is extremely narrow, and or inaccurate. Financial restitution is one of many methods to bring about justice. A lawsuit is an action brought before a court in which a party has claimed to have received damages from a defendant's actions, the plaintiff, seeks a legal or equitable remedy. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment will be given in the plaintiff's favor, and a range of court orders may be issued to 1 - enforce a right, 2 - award damages, 3 - impose an injunction to prevent an act, 4 - impose an injunction to compel an act.

The choice to acknowledge, deny, ignore, or imagine what motivates people to settle disputes in a legal format, is entirely a matter of personal invention.

- Jack, Chicago Il.

[justalayman]

=Blue Colnago;2232370]1 - enforce a right

,enforce a right? and how does a court implement that? and what happens if the person ordered does not comply?

2 - award damages,

Ya, just what I said; money

3 - impose an injunction to prevent an act,

and how does a court implement such a requirement and what happens if the person ordered does not comply?

4 - impose an injunction to compel an act.

ibid

Ultimately, in most situations, all a court can do is place orders which ultimately will result in an order that causes a financial loss if the person ordered fails to comply. Dang, a court actually will not force a person to comply with the financial aspect of orders unless the state is actually the plaintiff.

Bottom line; it all boils down to money.

[Blue Colnago]

I expected that. The need for some sort of reply to my comment which should have ended any further debate is understandable and probably required by somebody with almost 8,000 posts here. I however, have no presence or ego to preserve in this forum. I have better things to do with my time than to debate with people who are not possessed of the capability to distinguish between basic concepts such as fact and opinion. Further debate from me will not be forthcoming. If anyone is determined to have the last word, as some measure of perceived victory, you are free to take it.

Later dudes, I'm outta here for good.

- Jack, Chicago Il.

[justalayman]

bye Jack.

Dang, what's that song? You know, the one that goes "hit the road, Jack"?

[JustAPal00]

Instead of sending $300, send $150!:-)