Pocket Communications is a pay-as-you-go, no-contract, telephone service provider that services South-Central Texas. Paul Posner is the Chief Executive Officer.
On July 31, I made my monthly payment at a Pocket Communications kiosk. Upon reviewing my credit union statement, I found Pocket had run the check electronically on Aug. 2nd, and then again on Aug. 3rd!
I called my credit union and protested. I also faxed a 4-page letter to Pocket's billing office, describing the discrepancy, with copies of my statement (that's why it went four pages), demanding satisfaction.
My credit union responded first by stating over the phone the credit union would take care of it. On my statement of the following month, my credit union credited my account for the amount in question: $44.91. This was posted Sept. 5th. I thought, at this point, the matter was resolved.
Somewhere around this time - I don't remember the date but it was shortly after the credit union credited my account - I received a phone call from a lady who described herself as a customer service representative for Pocket. She explained her call was a courtesy call to inform me that the only reason she was calling was to explain that the reason Pocket ran the check twice was because it bounced the first time. We got into a short but heated discussion. I told her the check never bounced; I had sufficient funds on BOTH occasions.in fact, there have NEVER been NSF Overcharge fees against me since I opened my checking account.
She told me that "my bank" told Pocket the check bounced. I told her that was a lie. She hung up on me. I was upset, but I thought the matter closed.
However, I received a letter from the Bexar County District Attorney Check Section, dated Feb. 27. The DA's letter explained a complaint had been filed against me "alleging the crime of Theft By Check. We are investigating this complaint to determine whether to proceed with a misdemeanor or felony prosecution."
The DA's letter demanded I pay $44.91, plus $40 DA and Merchant fees. I received the letter on a Saturday. I went to my credit union on Monday, taking time off from work. Spent two hours waiting for and then being assisted by a customer service rep. My credit union rep determined, by reviewing three months of statements, that Pocket had run the check twice, the credit union performed a "credit memo" on Sept. 5 and Pocket Communications performed an "adjustment" credit on Sept. 19.
My credit union rep said it was Pocket's error. She said she couldn't explain why their accounting system had not discovered that the credit union had already made the adjustment.
At NO time, did Pocket ever try to contact me directly to resolve this. At NO time did Pocket ever utilize a collection agency to resolve this on their behalf.
I asked my credit union rep if the credit union could write a letter explaining this mess, so that I could take that with me to the DA's office. I was told that the monthly statements should be sufficient.
I went to the DA's office the same Monday (March 3rd); the DA letter stated I had 10 days from Feb. 27 to respond or risk a warrant for my arrest.
At the DA's Check Section, I spoke to Chris Munoz. His supervisor is Joe D. Warren. I showed Munoz the three bank statements. He agreed with me that all three statements showed Year-to-Date Zero NSF fees against me. He agreed that it appeared Pocket had twice successfully drawn cash from my account.
Munoz' conclusion, however, was that this was my fault. I was stunned. I said this is the "Hot Check" office. The whole point of this place was to deal with people fraudulently running checks knowing full well they had no funds to honor those checks. How was this my fault?
Munoz' response: The check still hasn't been paid.
I said: It was paid twice!
Munoz said: And it was credited twice.
I said: How is that my error? I only asked that it be credited once.
Munoz shrugged his shoulders and said: That's how it is.
I said: And why, if I did not run a hot check, is this being handled here? Why didn't Pocket contact me?
Munoz again shrugged his shoulders and gave me another lame comment about this is the way it is.
I said: So you're saying, even if it's their error, I have to pay the check and the penalty fees?
Munoz: Yes, either that or you resolve this with Pocket and your bank.
That part in the DA's letter about "We are investigating this complaint..."
Apparently, the DA is only interested in the merchant's complaint and the merchant's evidence. Mr. Munoz handed me back my checking account statements. He did not want to keep them for the DA's record.
0 comments