- Report: #222046
Complaint Review: Merchant Services Inc. Member Of Merrick Bank Utah; 1st National Bank Of Omaha - Union New Jersey
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Merchant Services Inc. Member Of Merrick Bank Utah; 1st National Bank Of Omaha
890 Mountain Ave. , Floor 2, New Providence, NJ 07974 Union, 07083 New Jersey, U.S.A.
Phone:
908-516-5900
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
MSI, Merchant Services, Inc. Member Of Merrick Bank, Utah 1st National Bank Of Omaha power obuse, dishonest unprofessional staff members, harassment New Providence New Jersey
We have ongoing dispute with Merchant Services, Inc. (MSI) about credit card transactions and money MSI holds and don't want to deposit to our banking account without any reasonable explanation. We'd opened a new account with this company on September 19th, 2006. I sighed and faxed application to open a new account on 09-18-06, on 09-19-06 we'd received instructions from MSI sales representative Mr. Anthony Mayo that we can start to accept credit cards, the same day our terminal was programmed/activated.
On 09-19-06 we'd processed several credit cards for completed services, among them credit card for invoices# 10432, 10432-I from customer Mr. Murphy.
On 09-25-06 we were contacted by MSI representative Mrs. Gabriela Robles, who claimed that these two transactions are fraudulent, she insisted on immediate contact with customer and his notification. We contacted customer promptly and, as politely as possible, tried to explain, that we are having problem to process his credit card. Customer was very confused, because he never had any problems with this credit card. He thought, that by mistake he used his parents credit card, who live with him at the same address. We contacted MSI with this information, but were accused in conspiracy and wrongdoing. We were told to call cops (actual phrase Mrs. Robles had used) on Mr. Murphy and to credit money back to avoid dispute on these transactions. We never have any doubt about MSI staff professionalism and immediately credited back amount on invoice#10432-I and also notified Mr. Murphy by certified letter with explanation that MSI has suspicion about credit cardholder. On this letter we received, sighed by Mr. Murphy, statement where he swears that he is authorized user of credit card, he felt very angry to be accused in fraud. He immediately stopped any activities on his credit card.
According to customer statement, we conducted our own investigation and contacted bank issuer of the credit card, we verified address and name on the card. It matches information customer provided, we don't have any doubt. Customer goes by his middle name, he sighs by name Bruce Murphy, he had signature on magnetic strip of his credit card - Bruce Murphy. According instructions on agreement with MSI to verify cardholder identity, we have to check, among the other information (expiration, address, etc.), if signature on sales draft/invoice matches signature on the back of the card. It does. In this case we don't have to insist on providing any over verification or prove of identity.
MSI represented by Mrs. Robles insisted on imprint of the card, but we couldn't obtain it on 09-19-06, because we received new imprint card from MSI only on 09-29-06, but was instructed, we can start accept cc on 09-19-06. At present time we cannot make imprint of credit card, because when we contacted Mr. Murphy about fraud warning, he stopped any activities on this credit card. Credit Card doesn't exist anymore, but it doesn't mean it was used unauthorized on 09-19-06.
Despite our best effort, MSI still insists on fraudulent transactions, even since 09-19-06, when credit card was actually charged, no dispute was filed against our company. Dispute cannot be possibly filed, because again credit card was used authorized by single credit cardholder - Mr. Murphy.
At present time MSI holds funds against our company. We never had any disputes/chargebacks. Any merchant services agreement allows to create a reserve/money fund ONLY in case of dispute or if merchant account has exceeding amount/disproportionately high numbers of Disputed Charges.
We find MSI actions illegal.
We are deeply disappointed in MSI customer service and staff.
Rob
Eatonton, Georgia
U.S.A.
On 09-19-06 we'd processed several credit cards for completed services, among them credit card for invoices# 10432, 10432-I from customer Mr. Murphy.
On 09-25-06 we were contacted by MSI representative Mrs. Gabriela Robles, who claimed that these two transactions are fraudulent, she insisted on immediate contact with customer and his notification. We contacted customer promptly and, as politely as possible, tried to explain, that we are having problem to process his credit card. Customer was very confused, because he never had any problems with this credit card. He thought, that by mistake he used his parents credit card, who live with him at the same address. We contacted MSI with this information, but were accused in conspiracy and wrongdoing. We were told to call cops (actual phrase Mrs. Robles had used) on Mr. Murphy and to credit money back to avoid dispute on these transactions. We never have any doubt about MSI staff professionalism and immediately credited back amount on invoice#10432-I and also notified Mr. Murphy by certified letter with explanation that MSI has suspicion about credit cardholder. On this letter we received, sighed by Mr. Murphy, statement where he swears that he is authorized user of credit card, he felt very angry to be accused in fraud. He immediately stopped any activities on his credit card.
According to customer statement, we conducted our own investigation and contacted bank issuer of the credit card, we verified address and name on the card. It matches information customer provided, we don't have any doubt. Customer goes by his middle name, he sighs by name Bruce Murphy, he had signature on magnetic strip of his credit card - Bruce Murphy. According instructions on agreement with MSI to verify cardholder identity, we have to check, among the other information (expiration, address, etc.), if signature on sales draft/invoice matches signature on the back of the card. It does. In this case we don't have to insist on providing any over verification or prove of identity.
MSI represented by Mrs. Robles insisted on imprint of the card, but we couldn't obtain it on 09-19-06, because we received new imprint card from MSI only on 09-29-06, but was instructed, we can start accept cc on 09-19-06. At present time we cannot make imprint of credit card, because when we contacted Mr. Murphy about fraud warning, he stopped any activities on this credit card. Credit Card doesn't exist anymore, but it doesn't mean it was used unauthorized on 09-19-06.
Despite our best effort, MSI still insists on fraudulent transactions, even since 09-19-06, when credit card was actually charged, no dispute was filed against our company. Dispute cannot be possibly filed, because again credit card was used authorized by single credit cardholder - Mr. Murphy.
At present time MSI holds funds against our company. We never had any disputes/chargebacks. Any merchant services agreement allows to create a reserve/money fund ONLY in case of dispute or if merchant account has exceeding amount/disproportionately high numbers of Disputed Charges.
We find MSI actions illegal.
We are deeply disappointed in MSI customer service and staff.
Rob
Eatonton, Georgia
U.S.A.
1 Updates & Rebuttals
Georgia
New Providence,New Jersey,
U.S.A.
Explanation Offered
#2UPDATE Employee
Tue, November 28, 2006
On 09/19/06 this Clear Image Auto Glass signed a contract to process credit card sales with MSI, Merchant Services. This legal document explained the parameters of the new merchant account. Clear Image was approved for 90% swiped and 10% keyed with imprint transactions. According to our contractual rights we have the legal authority to hold and investigate transactions which violate these parameters. On 09/19/06 Clear Image ran four keyed transactions. My analyst Gaby contacted the business on 09/25/06 and spoke with Lena, an employee, about these sales. We requested copies of the signed imprints as per their contract's requirements. Lena explained that they did not obtain any imprints and only had invoices. Because the sale was keyed and not swiped, the ONLY way to prove full authorization is by obtaining the imprint. So from the start, this transaction was never fully authorized or protected. We received invoices from Clear Image on 09/26/06 with Mr. Murphy's information. Gaby contacted the cardholder's bank AT&T Universal to verify the name and address given. Mr. Murphy's name was not on the credit card, nor his address. Clear Image then gave us the parents of Mr. Murphy and claimed it was their card. We once again contacted AT&T Universal 800-423-4343 to verify this new information. We were again told the name and address did not match. Mr. Murphy's personal address was given a second time and was denied by AT&T. Gaby contacted Lena on 09/27/06 to let her know the information was wrong for a third time. Gaby told Lena to get an imprint of Mr. Murphy's credit card. Lena contacted Gaby later that day and said that Mr. Murphy would not provide an imprint and she felt he was lying. There is no reason a valid cardholder would be unable to get a manual imprint. Lena and Gaby discussed the next option, issuing a refund to avoid chargeback fees. On 09/28/06 Lena issued a refund for one of two the invalid transactions on "Mr. Murphy's" card. 10/05/06 Gaby and Lena spoke again about the second transaction not being refunded. Lena explained that her boss wouldn't allow her to run another refund because he communicated with Murphy. Gaby explained that if they did not refund the funds would be held to cover any chance of a chargeback. The transaction will remain on hold for maximum of 270 days from the transaction date, which is allowed contractually by MSI. I contacted AT&T Universal again today to verify the name and address of card but I was told the account is no longer active. The main point of this rebuttal is that Clear Image violated their merchant contract with MSI. They were not allowed to take keyed transactions without imprints and had no valid information for the credit card. This transaction has created a potential loss to the merchant and MSI. Georgia Stavrakis Risk Management MSI, Merchant Services Inc.
