- Report: #298280
Complaint Review: Juniper Bank - Barclays Bank - Apple - Wilmington Delaware
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Juniper Bank - Barclays Bank - Apple
Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Juniper Bank - Barclays Bank - Apple Consumer Fraud Wilmington Delaware
*Author of original report: Reaction from Juniper Bank
*Author of original report: Reaction from Juniper Bank
*Author of original report: Reaction from Juniper Bank
*Author of original report: Reaction from Juniper Bank
*Consumer Suggestion: WHAT are you complaining about?
*Consumer Comment: The instructions are plain as day-light
Juniper Bank / Barclays Bank seems to be engaged in a deliberate scam to generate false late payment and other fees.
Apple Computers are in a continuous business relationship with Juniper Bank/ Barklays Bank, and may benefit financially from Juniper Bank's misleading and deceptive operations.
My account was timely paid on October 3, 2007, following the instructions given by Juniper to the letter. This was verified by Juniper by means of an e-mail communication on October 4, 2007 verifying this fact using the following unambiguous words: Thank you for your payment. This Account Alert confirms that your payment has been received. Details regarding your payment: * Amount: $727.57 * Date applied to your account: 10/03/2007. But Juniper negligently failed to parse this information correctly, and had submitted an improper transaction to my bank for which Juniper must bear full responsibility.
Since the fault is Junipers, Juniper should bear the burden of the chargeback and correct their procedures and on-line instructions to prevent similar occurrences in future.
Here follows a little background information, discovered by me with a few moments of effort on the Web, after I discovered Junipers error, and which error Juniper had failed to bring to my attention with a proper notice.
The following information is largely drawn from published information from the American Bankers Association, and other publicly-available documents.
The issue is how to properly parse the MICR line on a check. Junipers instructions are plainly incorrect and misleading.
The first field in the MICR line (at the far right) may be the Auxiliary On-Us field, especially on business checks, representing the serial check number, and is preceded and followed by MICR On-Us symbols.
The next field (or possibly the first) will be the Nine Digit Transit field, preceded and followed by a MICR Transit Symbol. This field may be easily parsed from the MICR line no matter what order the fields are presented in. This field identifies the bank or institution.
Next, (to the right), is usually the On-Us field, which is usually the business or person's bank account number, and may optionally contain the check number and MICR Dash symbols, but is always followed by the MICR On-Us symbol. An optional PC Tran Code may follow the On-Us symbol to the right of the Account Number.
On checks which have been routed through a bank or other clearing house, a MICR Amount Symbol, followed by MICR numerals indicating the amount of the check, and a following MICR Amount Symbol, may be present.
MICR Transit Symbol
MICR Dash Symbol
MICR On-Us Symbol
MICR Amount Symbol
So valid MICR lines may look like the one shown on the Juniper Web page:
XXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYY ZZZZ
Or like the MICR line printed on my checks:
XXXXXXXXX ZZZZ YYYYY YYYYY
Or this:
XXXXXXXXX ZZZZYYYYYYYYYY
Or this:
ZZZZZ XXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYY
Or this:
XXXXXXXXX ZZZZ YYYY YYYY
Where X is the Transit Code/Routing Number, Y is the Account number, Z is the check number, and O is an optional PC Tran Code.
Note that the check number may be an integral part of the On-Us field, and must either be separated into its component parts by software or the user must be given proper instructions about how to parse and remove the check number from the On-Us field manually.
The Juniper instructions pay no attention to the many compliant variants of the MICR line as defined by the American Bankers Association, thereby grossly misleading the public, who cannot be presumed to know the many subtle variations of the MICR line possible under the American Bankers Association rules, whereas Juniper is itself a bank, and must be presumed to know these details intimately. Juniper may have negligently failed to inform their Web designer about these rules, or their Web designer may have ignored their good advice and put up a sloppy page which didnt incorporate all the information given to the designer, an act of professional malpractice. Either way, the tort of professional malpractice lies within Junipers sphere of responsibility, since the Web designer was acting as their agent, although Juniper may well have a cross-complaint against the designer.
I entered the perfectly valid On-Us field printed on the MICR line of my checks, as plainly instructed by the Juniper website page instructing users how to add a payment account, including a misleading and deceptive illustration, but Junipers software processing failed to take into account the fact that it contained an embedded check number, as is permissible under ABA rules, nor did Junipers Website inform me of the possibility of an embedded check number and give suggestions which would be helpful in removing it from the On-Us field before entering this field into the online form.
I suggest that this note, based on my research and offered to Juniper gratis, might form a reasonable Statement of Work detailing the scope of changes necessary in both Junipers software and Web instruction page.
Alternatively, since the offending instructions have not been changed to this day, it might serve as evidence of continuing and deliberate consumer fraud on the part of Juniper Bank, Barclays Bank, and possibly Apple Computers.
Lee-Anne
Oakland, California
U.S.A.
Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Juniper Bank
Apple Computers are in a continuous business relationship with Juniper Bank/ Barklays Bank, and may benefit financially from Juniper Bank's misleading and deceptive operations.
My account was timely paid on October 3, 2007, following the instructions given by Juniper to the letter. This was verified by Juniper by means of an e-mail communication on October 4, 2007 verifying this fact using the following unambiguous words: Thank you for your payment. This Account Alert confirms that your payment has been received. Details regarding your payment: * Amount: $727.57 * Date applied to your account: 10/03/2007. But Juniper negligently failed to parse this information correctly, and had submitted an improper transaction to my bank for which Juniper must bear full responsibility.
Since the fault is Junipers, Juniper should bear the burden of the chargeback and correct their procedures and on-line instructions to prevent similar occurrences in future.
Here follows a little background information, discovered by me with a few moments of effort on the Web, after I discovered Junipers error, and which error Juniper had failed to bring to my attention with a proper notice.
The following information is largely drawn from published information from the American Bankers Association, and other publicly-available documents.
The issue is how to properly parse the MICR line on a check. Junipers instructions are plainly incorrect and misleading.
The first field in the MICR line (at the far right) may be the Auxiliary On-Us field, especially on business checks, representing the serial check number, and is preceded and followed by MICR On-Us symbols.
The next field (or possibly the first) will be the Nine Digit Transit field, preceded and followed by a MICR Transit Symbol. This field may be easily parsed from the MICR line no matter what order the fields are presented in. This field identifies the bank or institution.
Next, (to the right), is usually the On-Us field, which is usually the business or person's bank account number, and may optionally contain the check number and MICR Dash symbols, but is always followed by the MICR On-Us symbol. An optional PC Tran Code may follow the On-Us symbol to the right of the Account Number.
On checks which have been routed through a bank or other clearing house, a MICR Amount Symbol, followed by MICR numerals indicating the amount of the check, and a following MICR Amount Symbol, may be present.
MICR Transit Symbol
MICR Dash Symbol
MICR On-Us Symbol
MICR Amount Symbol
So valid MICR lines may look like the one shown on the Juniper Web page:
XXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYY ZZZZ
Or like the MICR line printed on my checks:
XXXXXXXXX ZZZZ YYYYY YYYYY
Or this:
XXXXXXXXX ZZZZYYYYYYYYYY
Or this:
ZZZZZ XXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYY
Or this:
XXXXXXXXX ZZZZ YYYY YYYY
Where X is the Transit Code/Routing Number, Y is the Account number, Z is the check number, and O is an optional PC Tran Code.
Note that the check number may be an integral part of the On-Us field, and must either be separated into its component parts by software or the user must be given proper instructions about how to parse and remove the check number from the On-Us field manually.
The Juniper instructions pay no attention to the many compliant variants of the MICR line as defined by the American Bankers Association, thereby grossly misleading the public, who cannot be presumed to know the many subtle variations of the MICR line possible under the American Bankers Association rules, whereas Juniper is itself a bank, and must be presumed to know these details intimately. Juniper may have negligently failed to inform their Web designer about these rules, or their Web designer may have ignored their good advice and put up a sloppy page which didnt incorporate all the information given to the designer, an act of professional malpractice. Either way, the tort of professional malpractice lies within Junipers sphere of responsibility, since the Web designer was acting as their agent, although Juniper may well have a cross-complaint against the designer.
I entered the perfectly valid On-Us field printed on the MICR line of my checks, as plainly instructed by the Juniper website page instructing users how to add a payment account, including a misleading and deceptive illustration, but Junipers software processing failed to take into account the fact that it contained an embedded check number, as is permissible under ABA rules, nor did Junipers Website inform me of the possibility of an embedded check number and give suggestions which would be helpful in removing it from the On-Us field before entering this field into the online form.
I suggest that this note, based on my research and offered to Juniper gratis, might form a reasonable Statement of Work detailing the scope of changes necessary in both Junipers software and Web instruction page.
Alternatively, since the offending instructions have not been changed to this day, it might serve as evidence of continuing and deliberate consumer fraud on the part of Juniper Bank, Barclays Bank, and possibly Apple Computers.
Lee-Anne
Oakland, California
U.S.A.
Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Juniper Bank
6 Updates & Rebuttals
Neveragain
Colorado Springs,Colorado,
U.S.A.
The instructions are plain as day-light
#2Consumer Comment
Sat, February 09, 2008
You are obviously a very intelligent person and should very well be able to see your check number that appears in the upper right corner is repeated in the line on the bottom, as well as read the instruction that says do not include the check number. Having dealt with many on-line check payments personally and professionally, it is not the card company's fault that you entered your information incorrectly.
Nancy
Steilacoom,Washington,
U.S.A.
WHAT are you complaining about?
#3Consumer Suggestion
Wed, January 09, 2008
what does the MICR line ahve to do with the payment being on time. AND FYI. I worked for a major bank in the proof departing (encoding or item processing) I was the one who put the MICR amount and other number at the bottoms of the checks. IN all the 7 years that I worked there the ONLY way the MICR line ever was or is is first on teh far right the routing number (must be 9 digets) then the account number then the check number then the amount. NO DEVIATION. Look on your checks. WHat exactly are you mad at?
Lee-anne
Oakland,California,
U.S.A.
Reaction from Juniper Bank
#4Author of original report
Wed, January 09, 2008
It goes without saying that Juniper hasn't refunded the charges, and imposed a series of charges related to the above transaction. They sent me a letter saying essentially that their charges were proper, and ignored the text and import of my letters completely. It amazes me that Apple maintains a cozy relationship with this outfit.
Lee-anne
Oakland,California,
U.S.A.
Reaction from Juniper Bank
#5Author of original report
Wed, January 09, 2008
It goes without saying that Juniper hasn't refunded the charges, and imposed a series of charges related to the above transaction. They sent me a letter saying essentially that their charges were proper, and ignored the text and import of my letters completely. It amazes me that Apple maintains a cozy relationship with this outfit.
Lee-anne
Oakland,California,
U.S.A.
Reaction from Juniper Bank
#6Author of original report
Wed, January 09, 2008
It goes without saying that Juniper hasn't refunded the charges, and imposed a series of charges related to the above transaction. They sent me a letter saying essentially that their charges were proper, and ignored the text and import of my letters completely. It amazes me that Apple maintains a cozy relationship with this outfit.
Lee-anne
Oakland,California,
U.S.A.
Reaction from Juniper Bank
#7Author of original report
Wed, January 09, 2008
It goes without saying that Juniper hasn't refunded the charges, and imposed a series of charges related to the above transaction. They sent me a letter saying essentially that their charges were proper, and ignored the text and import of my letters completely. It amazes me that Apple maintains a cozy relationship with this outfit.
