Author Topic: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment  (Read 5246 times)

APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Location: Colorado
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #100 on: November 27, 2023, 01:58:46 PM »
what would be the additional information that supports all three:

1. no $119 transaction in your transaction
2. you have a valid permit
3. you don't need to complete a $119 payment

are you positing that the transaction register may not balance with your account balance or something? where are you going with the incomplete information angle?

I would be interested in a lawyer's take on this, although it's probably not worth their time at all lol

I wasn't positing that I didn't have to pay, fwiw. But it was clear that there was *something* screwy going on, and I was genuinely trying to figure out how this error was happening. The City didn't initially seem interested in cooperating in discovering or resolving the cause of the error. I'm not sorry for wanting to ensure I didn't miss something relevant but not obvious *before* agreeing to submit payment again.

torso2500

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #101 on: November 27, 2023, 02:17:53 PM »
what would be the additional information that supports all three:

1. no $119 transaction in your transaction
2. you have a valid permit
3. you don't need to complete a $119 payment

are you positing that the transaction register may not balance with your account balance or something? where are you going with the incomplete information angle?

I would be interested in a lawyer's take on this, although it's probably not worth their time at all lol

I wasn't positing that I didn't have to pay, fwiw. But it was clear that there was *something* screwy going on, and I was genuinely trying to figure out how this error was happening. The City didn't initially seem interested in cooperating in discovering or resolving the cause of the error. I'm not sorry for wanting to ensure I didn't miss something relevant but not obvious *before* agreeing to submit payment again.

I'm struggling to reconcile this with your responses from before you went in and straightened it out in person. Is it that there's some possibility that money did transfer from your bank account to the city, but there was no transaction listed on your end?

What is the additional information a thorough search gets you vs your records?

APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Location: Colorado
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #102 on: November 27, 2023, 03:10:31 PM »
what would be the additional information that supports all three:

1. no $119 transaction in your transaction
2. you have a valid permit
3. you don't need to complete a $119 payment

are you positing that the transaction register may not balance with your account balance or something? where are you going with the incomplete information angle?

I would be interested in a lawyer's take on this, although it's probably not worth their time at all lol

I wasn't positing that I didn't have to pay, fwiw. But it was clear that there was *something* screwy going on, and I was genuinely trying to figure out how this error was happening. The City didn't initially seem interested in cooperating in discovering or resolving the cause of the error. I'm not sorry for wanting to ensure I didn't miss something relevant but not obvious *before* agreeing to submit payment again.

I'm struggling to reconcile this with your responses from before you went in and straightened it out in person. Is it that there's some possibility that money did transfer from your bank account to the city, but there was no transaction listed on your end?

What is the additional information a thorough search gets you vs your records?

I don't know. All I know is that I knew more information exists than merely what's in the statements, and wanted to make sure I had verified all angles I could to try to figure out what was going wrong. I have gone into situations before without doing research on a thorough level, only to find out that my surface-level analysis was actually wrong; I was not about to make that mistake again with the City.

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1547
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #103 on: November 27, 2023, 03:25:26 PM »
Here's one thing we might all agree on: Can we let this thread die?

torso2500

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #104 on: November 27, 2023, 03:28:22 PM »
what would be the additional information that supports all three:

1. no $119 transaction in your transaction
2. you have a valid permit
3. you don't need to complete a $119 payment

are you positing that the transaction register may not balance with your account balance or something? where are you going with the incomplete information angle?

I would be interested in a lawyer's take on this, although it's probably not worth their time at all lol

I wasn't positing that I didn't have to pay, fwiw. But it was clear that there was *something* screwy going on, and I was genuinely trying to figure out how this error was happening. The City didn't initially seem interested in cooperating in discovering or resolving the cause of the error. I'm not sorry for wanting to ensure I didn't miss something relevant but not obvious *before* agreeing to submit payment again.

I'm struggling to reconcile this with your responses from before you went in and straightened it out in person. Is it that there's some possibility that money did transfer from your bank account to the city, but there was no transaction listed on your end?

What is the additional information a thorough search gets you vs your records?

I don't know. All I know is that I knew more information exists than merely what's in the statements, and wanted to make sure I had verified all angles I could to try to figure out what was going wrong. I have gone into situations before without doing research on a thorough level, only to find out that my surface-level analysis was actually wrong; I was not about to make that mistake again with the City.

ok I can understand that. I will say your emails to the city employee came off to me more defensive/escalating than inquisitive. Especially when you questioned that they could be a scammer not upfront but after they gave some explanations to their claim. Just saying. Could just be variation in perception of text communication.

edit to add: it was hard not to infer that you hoped the city would capitulate and honor the receipt, despite you knowing that the money had not left your bank, from your narrative early in the thread

what did you mean by what you said earlier, about how the receipt held more legal weight than bank records?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2023, 03:33:35 PM by torso2500 »

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 22145
  • Age: 65
  • Location: NorCal
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #105 on: November 27, 2023, 04:32:10 PM »
In all this back and forth, I did not see if OP actually checked their account to see if the money was actually withdrawn. Did they?

I did.

I had done a cursory, non-thorough glance at my online banking, just to see what was there, but was of the opinion (and still am) that my bank records are legally immaterial in a case where I have a clear receipt from the other party.

After the City offered a way to resolve concerns as a real person and appeared to want to take me seriously, I went to my bank and had them thoroughly verify my bank records, then went to the City office and had a nice conversation with the person who agreed that my concerns were valid and offered to ensure they were escalated to the proper people to be addressed. I paid, and received a proof of payment receipt directly from her. I expect the City will take timely steps to resolve the problem, and that it won't be an issue next year-- I will be looking to see if it actually did get addressed.


How are you able to manage your monthly personal finances if you can't verify a $119 transaction without an in-person trip to your bank??

To be honest, it's pretty rare that I have government agencies issuing me receipts and then months later claiming those receipts don't mean what they say.

This is not the first time I've had to confront claims made by people in power, and I've learned that relying on surface-level information when someone in power is claiming what they said before doesn't mean what they actually said..... is a mistake. Normal situations do not require this level of thorough verification.
Uh, there's a reason the "people in power" your are referring to are called "public servants". They're just regular people doing their jobs as best as the system they are forced to work within allows them to.

Maybe if you didn't "confront" them, this whole mess could have been avoided. Nowhere did you mention any punitive damages being levied against you. It sounds like the only one being unreasonable here is you.

If you want to run a business in a place that requires a license to do so, compliance is 100% your responsibility, even if an error was made on their end.

Imagine if you'd had a similar experience with the IRS. The onus would be on you.

APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Location: Colorado
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #106 on: November 27, 2023, 04:42:52 PM »
what did you mean by what you said earlier, about how the receipt held more legal weight than bank records?

My understanding has always been that a written receipt of payment is solid legal standing that payment was made. For instance, if I sell a car to a guy, write him a bill of sale (i.e., purchase receipt), and hand him over the title, I can't come back later if his check bounces-- he can provide the bill of sale as clear proof of payment. My bank records that don't show a deposit don't legally prove he didn't pay. His bank records that don't show a withdrawal don't prove he didn't pay. The receipt is the legal proof that I accepted payment.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I have *always* heard this caution of NEVER writing a bill of sale/receipt before actually receiving actual funds, and have *never* heard anyone say otherwise. Why would my bank records trump a clear formal document from the other party attesting payment was received? They'd have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment over and above clear prima facie evidence to the contrary.



ok I can understand that. I will say your emails to the city employee came off to me more defensive/escalating than inquisitive. Especially when you questioned that they could be a scammer not upfront but after they gave some explanations to their claim. Just saying. Could just be variation in perception of text communication.

edit to add: it was hard not to infer that you hoped the city would capitulate and honor the receipt, despite you knowing that the money had not left your bank, from your narrative early in the thread

This has been the most intriguing piece of having posted this here for me. I'm taking this as a lesson in communication skills, because I somehow missed something in my perception of how I'm communicating that really bothered most all of y'all that responded.

I'm still not sure how to identify what was wrong with my communication with the City, but it triggered enough of you to call me rude and asinine that there's something I need to learn about how to phrase/frame my communication in this sort of situation.

Was I defensive? Absolutely. I've been steamrolled by people in power enough times that I have learned to never automatically trust what I'm being told by an authority figure, *especially* when it doesn't line up with what they told me before.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7242
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #107 on: November 27, 2023, 06:28:06 PM »
Here's one thing we might all agree on: Can we let this thread die?

I mean, not really? I have my own thoughts about this thread, and some of them arenít very charitable, but if Iím at a party and a conversation Iím witnessing starts to irritate me, I walk away from the conversation. I donít ask the people having it to stop talking.

Posthumane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Location: Bring Cash, Canuckistan
    • Getting Around Canada
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #108 on: November 27, 2023, 06:53:30 PM »
My understanding has always been that a written receipt of payment is solid legal standing that payment was made. For instance, if I sell a car to a guy, write him a bill of sale (i.e., purchase receipt), and hand him over the title, I can't come back later if his check bounces-- he can provide the bill of sale as clear proof of payment. My bank records that don't show a deposit don't legally prove he didn't pay. His bank records that don't show a withdrawal don't prove he didn't pay. The receipt is the legal proof that I accepted payment.
My understanding is totally the opposite of your understanding in this matter. However, I'll caveat this with the statement that I'm in Canada and the US legal system may deal with this differently. However, what I was taught in my contract law class is that in order for a contract to be legally binding there has to be consideration (i.e. money actually changing hands). So if you sell a car and write a bill of sale and the cheque that was used to pay for the car bounces, then the sale is not complete and the bill of sale is void. Now, that doesn't mean you should go around selling cars for personal cheques, because in reality you will likely have no way to enforce your ownership of the car since the buyer will be long gone (and they probably will have been able to register the car before the cheque bounced). A receipt of sale has no legal standing if a record can be produced that shows no money being transferred.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6534
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #109 on: November 27, 2023, 07:03:15 PM »
what did you mean by what you said earlier, about how the receipt held more legal weight than bank records?

My understanding has always been that a written receipt of payment is solid legal standing that payment was made. For instance, if I sell a car to a guy, write him a bill of sale (i.e., purchase receipt), and hand him over the title, I can't come back later if his check bounces-- he can provide the bill of sale as clear proof of payment. My bank records that don't show a deposit don't legally prove he didn't pay. His bank records that don't show a withdrawal don't prove he didn't pay. The receipt is the legal proof that I accepted payment.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I have *always* heard this caution of NEVER writing a bill of sale/receipt before actually receiving actual funds, and have *never* heard anyone say otherwise. Why would my bank records trump a clear formal document from the other party attesting payment was received? They'd have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment over and above clear prima facie evidence to the contrary.



ok I can understand that. I will say your emails to the city employee came off to me more defensive/escalating than inquisitive. Especially when you questioned that they could be a scammer not upfront but after they gave some explanations to their claim. Just saying. Could just be variation in perception of text communication.

edit to add: it was hard not to infer that you hoped the city would capitulate and honor the receipt, despite you knowing that the money had not left your bank, from your narrative early in the thread

This has been the most intriguing piece of having posted this here for me. I'm taking this as a lesson in communication skills, because I somehow missed something in my perception of how I'm communicating that really bothered most all of y'all that responded.

I'm still not sure how to identify what was wrong with my communication with the City, but it triggered enough of you to call me rude and asinine that there's something I need to learn about how to phrase/frame my communication in this sort of situation.

Was I defensive? Absolutely. I've been steamrolled by people in power enough times that I have learned to never automatically trust what I'm being told by an authority figure, *especially* when it doesn't line up with what they told me before.

Do you actually think that if you took a check for selling a car, and the check bounced, you'd have no legal recourse if you gave a bill of sale?  Collecting might be a challenge, but of course you could take him to court and likely prevail because you could show that his check bounced. 

Like, do you really think that if the checked bounced, the guy gets a free pass because he has a "receipt"?  Do you think that if you write a check for groceries and get a receipt, the grocery store can't come after you to actually pay for your milk and ground beef?  You can't actually think that's how things work.

The reason people caution against taking a check for a car is that it would be a giant pain to try to recover your money (or your car) and you might not be successful if they don't have any money to give you, or you are 27th in line for creditors. 

Your bank records wouldn't trump a bill of sale.  But their bank records, showing the failed transaction (which would be the bounced check, or in the case of the city, they rejected bank transfer) would trump it.  They show that the payment method offered by the seller (check/electronic payment) didn't not result in the agreed upon exchange of funds. 

I just did a very quick google search but it seems most jurisdictions not only allow you to collect the amount of the bounced check, but many (most") allow you to collect additional damages as well.  But I don't think you are actually saying all this in good faith, because you seem too smart to believe that if someone bounces a check, they can just stroll off into the sunset without having to make good, whether that's for a car or a dozen eggs. 


APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Location: Colorado
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #110 on: November 27, 2023, 09:33:55 PM »
what did you mean by what you said earlier, about how the receipt held more legal weight than bank records?

My understanding has always been that a written receipt of payment is solid legal standing that payment was made. For instance, if I sell a car to a guy, write him a bill of sale (i.e., purchase receipt), and hand him over the title, I can't come back later if his check bounces-- he can provide the bill of sale as clear proof of payment. My bank records that don't show a deposit don't legally prove he didn't pay. His bank records that don't show a withdrawal don't prove he didn't pay. The receipt is the legal proof that I accepted payment.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I have *always* heard this caution of NEVER writing a bill of sale/receipt before actually receiving actual funds, and have *never* heard anyone say otherwise. Why would my bank records trump a clear formal document from the other party attesting payment was received? They'd have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment over and above clear prima facie evidence to the contrary.



ok I can understand that. I will say your emails to the city employee came off to me more defensive/escalating than inquisitive. Especially when you questioned that they could be a scammer not upfront but after they gave some explanations to their claim. Just saying. Could just be variation in perception of text communication.

edit to add: it was hard not to infer that you hoped the city would capitulate and honor the receipt, despite you knowing that the money had not left your bank, from your narrative early in the thread

This has been the most intriguing piece of having posted this here for me. I'm taking this as a lesson in communication skills, because I somehow missed something in my perception of how I'm communicating that really bothered most all of y'all that responded.

I'm still not sure how to identify what was wrong with my communication with the City, but it triggered enough of you to call me rude and asinine that there's something I need to learn about how to phrase/frame my communication in this sort of situation.

Was I defensive? Absolutely. I've been steamrolled by people in power enough times that I have learned to never automatically trust what I'm being told by an authority figure, *especially* when it doesn't line up with what they told me before.

Do you actually think that if you took a check for selling a car, and the check bounced, you'd have no legal recourse if you gave a bill of sale?  Collecting might be a challenge, but of course you could take him to court and likely prevail because you could show that his check bounced. 

Like, do you really think that if the checked bounced, the guy gets a free pass because he has a "receipt"?  Do you think that if you write a check for groceries and get a receipt, the grocery store can't come after you to actually pay for your milk and ground beef?  You can't actually think that's how things work.

The reason people caution against taking a check for a car is that it would be a giant pain to try to recover your money (or your car) and you might not be successful if they don't have any money to give you, or you are 27th in line for creditors. 

Your bank records wouldn't trump a bill of sale.  But their bank records, showing the failed transaction (which would be the bounced check, or in the case of the city, they rejected bank transfer) would trump it.  They show that the payment method offered by the seller (check/electronic payment) didn't not result in the agreed upon exchange of funds. 

I just did a very quick google search but it seems most jurisdictions not only allow you to collect the amount of the bounced check, but many (most") allow you to collect additional damages as well.  But I don't think you are actually saying all this in good faith, because you seem too smart to believe that if someone bounces a check, they can just stroll off into the sunset without having to make good, whether that's for a car or a dozen eggs.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.

My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.

I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?

Beach_Bound

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #111 on: November 27, 2023, 10:12:24 PM »
what did you mean by what you said earlier, about how the receipt held more legal weight than bank records?

My understanding has always been that a written receipt of payment is solid legal standing that payment was made. For instance, if I sell a car to a guy, write him a bill of sale (i.e., purchase receipt), and hand him over the title, I can't come back later if his check bounces-- he can provide the bill of sale as clear proof of payment. My bank records that don't show a deposit don't legally prove he didn't pay. His bank records that don't show a withdrawal don't prove he didn't pay. The receipt is the legal proof that I accepted payment.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I have *always* heard this caution of NEVER writing a bill of sale/receipt before actually receiving actual funds, and have *never* heard anyone say otherwise. Why would my bank records trump a clear formal document from the other party attesting payment was received? They'd have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment over and above clear prima facie evidence to the contrary.



ok I can understand that. I will say your emails to the city employee came off to me more defensive/escalating than inquisitive. Especially when you questioned that they could be a scammer not upfront but after they gave some explanations to their claim. Just saying. Could just be variation in perception of text communication.

edit to add: it was hard not to infer that you hoped the city would capitulate and honor the receipt, despite you knowing that the money had not left your bank, from your narrative early in the thread

This has been the most intriguing piece of having posted this here for me. I'm taking this as a lesson in communication skills, because I somehow missed something in my perception of how I'm communicating that really bothered most all of y'all that responded.

I'm still not sure how to identify what was wrong with my communication with the City, but it triggered enough of you to call me rude and asinine that there's something I need to learn about how to phrase/frame my communication in this sort of situation.

Was I defensive? Absolutely. I've been steamrolled by people in power enough times that I have learned to never automatically trust what I'm being told by an authority figure, *especially* when it doesn't line up with what they told me before.

Do you actually think that if you took a check for selling a car, and the check bounced, you'd have no legal recourse if you gave a bill of sale?  Collecting might be a challenge, but of course you could take him to court and likely prevail because you could show that his check bounced. 

Like, do you really think that if the checked bounced, the guy gets a free pass because he has a "receipt"?  Do you think that if you write a check for groceries and get a receipt, the grocery store can't come after you to actually pay for your milk and ground beef?  You can't actually think that's how things work.

The reason people caution against taking a check for a car is that it would be a giant pain to try to recover your money (or your car) and you might not be successful if they don't have any money to give you, or you are 27th in line for creditors. 

Your bank records wouldn't trump a bill of sale.  But their bank records, showing the failed transaction (which would be the bounced check, or in the case of the city, they rejected bank transfer) would trump it.  They show that the payment method offered by the seller (check/electronic payment) didn't not result in the agreed upon exchange of funds. 

I just did a very quick google search but it seems most jurisdictions not only allow you to collect the amount of the bounced check, but many (most") allow you to collect additional damages as well.  But I don't think you are actually saying all this in good faith, because you seem too smart to believe that if someone bounces a check, they can just stroll off into the sunset without having to make good, whether that's for a car or a dozen eggs.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.

My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.

I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?

Empirically proving a negative is just about impossible. That's why it's not the legal standard (IANAL). Most states have fairly streamlined processes for dealing with bad checks. Search any state and "bad check". Below are some examples from California and Maryland. In civil suits the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence." I would think a bad check with supporting bank statements proving the check bounced would meet that standard.

https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/bad-checks
https://mdcourts.gov/district/selfhelp/badcheck

Even criminal cases seem to have a lower standard of proof than you're suggesting. This report says that 135,000 people were arrested between 1997-1999 for writing bad checks (table 3, page 3). Now arrested isn't the same as convicted, but the data does suggest that people who write bad checks can be pursued for justice. Most stores that take checks will require that you show a driver's license along with the check. This is to prove that your name and address match the check, and the cashier will write the license number on the check to make it easier to charge you if your check bounces.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/nibrs_wcc.pdf




Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6534
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #112 on: November 28, 2023, 06:37:15 AM »
what did you mean by what you said earlier, about how the receipt held more legal weight than bank records?

My understanding has always been that a written receipt of payment is solid legal standing that payment was made. For instance, if I sell a car to a guy, write him a bill of sale (i.e., purchase receipt), and hand him over the title, I can't come back later if his check bounces-- he can provide the bill of sale as clear proof of payment. My bank records that don't show a deposit don't legally prove he didn't pay. His bank records that don't show a withdrawal don't prove he didn't pay. The receipt is the legal proof that I accepted payment.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I have *always* heard this caution of NEVER writing a bill of sale/receipt before actually receiving actual funds, and have *never* heard anyone say otherwise. Why would my bank records trump a clear formal document from the other party attesting payment was received? They'd have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment over and above clear prima facie evidence to the contrary.



ok I can understand that. I will say your emails to the city employee came off to me more defensive/escalating than inquisitive. Especially when you questioned that they could be a scammer not upfront but after they gave some explanations to their claim. Just saying. Could just be variation in perception of text communication.

edit to add: it was hard not to infer that you hoped the city would capitulate and honor the receipt, despite you knowing that the money had not left your bank, from your narrative early in the thread

This has been the most intriguing piece of having posted this here for me. I'm taking this as a lesson in communication skills, because I somehow missed something in my perception of how I'm communicating that really bothered most all of y'all that responded.

I'm still not sure how to identify what was wrong with my communication with the City, but it triggered enough of you to call me rude and asinine that there's something I need to learn about how to phrase/frame my communication in this sort of situation.

Was I defensive? Absolutely. I've been steamrolled by people in power enough times that I have learned to never automatically trust what I'm being told by an authority figure, *especially* when it doesn't line up with what they told me before.

Do you actually think that if you took a check for selling a car, and the check bounced, you'd have no legal recourse if you gave a bill of sale?  Collecting might be a challenge, but of course you could take him to court and likely prevail because you could show that his check bounced. 

Like, do you really think that if the checked bounced, the guy gets a free pass because he has a "receipt"?  Do you think that if you write a check for groceries and get a receipt, the grocery store can't come after you to actually pay for your milk and ground beef?  You can't actually think that's how things work.

The reason people caution against taking a check for a car is that it would be a giant pain to try to recover your money (or your car) and you might not be successful if they don't have any money to give you, or you are 27th in line for creditors. 

Your bank records wouldn't trump a bill of sale.  But their bank records, showing the failed transaction (which would be the bounced check, or in the case of the city, they rejected bank transfer) would trump it.  They show that the payment method offered by the seller (check/electronic payment) didn't not result in the agreed upon exchange of funds. 

I just did a very quick google search but it seems most jurisdictions not only allow you to collect the amount of the bounced check, but many (most") allow you to collect additional damages as well.  But I don't think you are actually saying all this in good faith, because you seem too smart to believe that if someone bounces a check, they can just stroll off into the sunset without having to make good, whether that's for a car or a dozen eggs.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.

My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.

I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?

And you really do think that, even after I, and others, have told you that's not how it works, and 10 seconds of googling supports that?  That's about 1/10th of the time you spent on your permit project.

The only proof you need is, "I have this check in my hand, and the bank will clearly tell you it bounced--in other words, I didn't get any money."  Sure, if the payor then came forward and said, "I have bank info showing that I wrote another check, or did an online transfer in the same amount" or some other proof I actually had paid another way for that same transaction", then you would lose your suit, and for good reason.  But the bounced check itself and supporting bank info is all you need.

Would it be a PITA to deal with?  Yes.  Is there a possibility you couldn't find the person, or when you did they didn't have the funds, or the declare bankruptcy and you get nothing?  Yes.  Those are the reasons you shouldn't take a personal check when you sell a car.  Not that you have no recourse at all once you sign the paperwork. 

If you truly didn't understand that, fine.  If you still don't, it's because you don't want to and aren't dealing in good faith here. So, knowing this, it is clear that receiving a receipt that says the amount is paid doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for paying if your payment method later fails. 

One of many, many, many results on a quick search:  https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/i-received-a-bad-check-what-do-i-do-36291

torso2500

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #113 on: November 28, 2023, 10:32:29 AM »

Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.

My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.

I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?

What prompted you to pay again once you went to city hall to clear things up?  What exactly do you mean by "no other successful transactions anywhere"?

APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Location: Colorado
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #114 on: November 28, 2023, 08:52:57 PM »

Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.

My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.

I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?

What prompted you to pay again once you went to city hall to clear things up?  What exactly do you mean by "no other successful transactions anywhere"?

I feel like I've somehow not been clear enough here (even though I've stated it multiple times) that it was *never* my intention to not pay for my permit.

I went to speak with the City and pay my fee as soon as it appeared they were taking me seriously as a person with legitimate concerns. They offered to provide me with a genuine proof of payment for my records, and as soon as I showed the receipt I had gotten to the employee to whom it was actually relevant, they took my concerns even more seriously, so I was satisfied they would take appropriate action to fix the problem.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2023, 11:20:31 PM by APowers »

ATtiny85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
  • Location: Midwest
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #115 on: November 29, 2023, 05:30:34 AM »

I feel like I've somehow not been clear enough here (even though I've stated it multiple times) that it was *never* my intention to not pay for my permit.


Hmmm, doubtful you can convince some of us (me for sure) that if the government employee said, "let me look into that" and it slipped off their list you would never have followed up again. And since you know damn well you did not pay for the permit, well, you are a problem. You can say whatever over and over, but when I read your words from the early posts I agree with torso2500, it really felt like you were hoping to wear down the government employee you pummeled with your attempt at being a guardhouse lawyer and have them just stamp it as paid. Hey, if we are wrong, no problem. But if we are right, just work to do better next time.

Now, if they never sent you a notification that you owed payment (government systems being what they are) and you never noticed a payment not coming out, it would be harder to find (as much) fault. Though anytime I use online systems to pay for things like vehicle registrations or other taxes I fear more that the $119 becomes $11900 so I normally keep an eye out for it.

torso2500

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #116 on: November 29, 2023, 08:40:06 AM »

Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.

My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.

I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?

What prompted you to pay again once you went to city hall to clear things up?  What exactly do you mean by "no other successful transactions anywhere"?

I feel like I've somehow not been clear enough here (even though I've stated it multiple times) that it was *never* my intention to not pay for my permit.

I went to speak with the City and pay my fee as soon as it appeared they were taking me seriously as a person with legitimate concerns. They offered to provide me with a genuine proof of payment for my records, and as soon as I showed the receipt I had gotten to the employee to whom it was actually relevant, they took my concerns even more seriously, so I was satisfied they would take appropriate action to fix the problem.

this doesn't answer what I've inquired. You said you believe a receipt means you paid, regardless of your transaction records- so why did you end up reauthorizing the payment? What was the new information that convinced you to pay again after getting that receipt, in opposition to your stated belief?

APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Location: Colorado
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #117 on: November 29, 2023, 10:10:44 AM »

I feel like I've somehow not been clear enough here (even though I've stated it multiple times) that it was *never* my intention to not pay for my permit.


Hmmm, doubtful you can convince some of us (me for sure) that if the government employee said, "let me look into that" and it slipped off their list you would never have followed up again. And since you know damn well you did not pay for the permit, well, you are a problem. You can say whatever over and over, but when I read your words from the early posts I agree with torso2500, it really felt like you were hoping to wear down the government employee you pummeled with your attempt at being a guardhouse lawyer and have them just stamp it as paid. Hey, if we are wrong, no problem. But if we are right, just work to do better next time.

Now, if they never sent you a notification that you owed payment (government systems being what they are) and you never noticed a payment not coming out, it would be harder to find (as much) fault. Though anytime I use online systems to pay for things like vehicle registrations or other taxes I fear more that the $119 becomes $11900 so I normally keep an eye out for it.

Well, maybe I can't convince you. But when the government employee *did* acknowledge that there was an error in their system and promised to address it, my response was to thank them and not continue responding as if they might be operating in bad faith.

At no point until I visited the bank immediately before my conversation and payment in-person did I "know damn well" what was actually going on with the payment. Prior to that point I knew had incomplete information and an educated guess at best that there was truly no payment.


Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 22145
  • Age: 65
  • Location: NorCal
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #118 on: November 29, 2023, 11:01:50 AM »
At no point until I visited the bank immediately before my conversation and payment in-person did I "know damn well" what was actually going on with the payment. Prior to that point I knew had incomplete information and an educated guess at best that there was truly no payment.
Are you actually saying you do not have online access to your accounts? If not, that you don't get paper statements? Does it mean that you do not reconcile your bank statements or even monitor your bank account balances?

Any or all of these could be cause for permanent loss of mustachian privileges, starting with the washroom door key.

It seems you're arguing your "case" in front of the wrong jury.

APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Location: Colorado
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #119 on: November 29, 2023, 11:17:26 AM »

Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.

My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.

I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?

What prompted you to pay again once you went to city hall to clear things up?  What exactly do you mean by "no other successful transactions anywhere"?

I feel like I've somehow not been clear enough here (even though I've stated it multiple times) that it was *never* my intention to not pay for my permit.

I went to speak with the City and pay my fee as soon as it appeared they were taking me seriously as a person with legitimate concerns. They offered to provide me with a genuine proof of payment for my records, and as soon as I showed the receipt I had gotten to the employee to whom it was actually relevant, they took my concerns even more seriously, so I was satisfied they would take appropriate action to fix the problem.

this doesn't answer what I've inquired. You said you believe a receipt means you paid, regardless of your transaction records- so why did you end up reauthorizing the payment? What was the new information that convinced you to pay again after getting that receipt, in opposition to your stated belief?

I think you're confused about what I said.

I never said that I believe "a receipt means you paid, regardless of transaction records". What I *did* say is that I believe my bank transaction records are not legally material when I have a clear receipt. Legal principles are not the same as reality, and do not define for me what is the right thing to do. Again, I thought I was VERY clear from post #1 here that I was not trying to get out of paying the permit fee, if in fact I actually owed it.

I went to my bank to get thorough verification and then the City to pay my fee as soon as they gave me a means to think they would treat me as someone with legitimate concerns.

APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Location: Colorado
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #120 on: November 29, 2023, 11:34:56 AM »
At no point until I visited the bank immediately before my conversation and payment in-person did I "know damn well" what was actually going on with the payment. Prior to that point I knew had incomplete information and an educated guess at best that there was truly no payment.
Are you actually saying you do not have online access to your accounts? If not, that you don't get paper statements? Does it mean that you do not reconcile your bank statements or even monitor your bank account balances?

Any or all of these could be cause for permanent loss of mustachian privileges, starting with the washroom door key.

It seems you're arguing your "case" in front of the wrong jury.

I mean, I guess I probably could have phoned the bank, but then it would have been very difficult to show what it was that I was trying to clear up confusion on. I already talked about how there is more information in the bank's records than are included in the transaction history in my banking app or in my paper (emailed) statements, and I wanted to make sure I didn't miss something that wasn't obvious. The person at the bank was very helpful and also agreed that me getting a payment receipt was very odd if no payment had been processed.

I generally don't reconcile my bank statements. I used to keep very tight track of every single transaction, but at some point my spending and income was so consistent that I chose to take that effort and invest it in other elements of my life instead. I do generally monitor my bank balances, but as of the last year or so, mostly only to make sure my balances are in the right range of +/- $1000ish; again, because my financial habits have been consistent enough over time.

Sibley

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7363
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #121 on: November 29, 2023, 11:48:42 AM »
You don't reconcile your bank account to keep track of your expenses. You reconcile your bank account to:

1. make sure your records are complete and match the bank, ie you didn't lose track of something
2. make sure nothing fraudulent hit your account
3. make sure a lost check or failed electronic payment isn't going to come back and bite you in the ass.

If you're not even looking at the bank transactions, then you're not going to timely identify problems. Like this instance.

Keeping track of your expenses is a different thing, though for many people it intersects with the bank rec.

torso2500

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #122 on: November 29, 2023, 11:50:41 AM »

Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.

My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.

I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?

What prompted you to pay again once you went to city hall to clear things up?  What exactly do you mean by "no other successful transactions anywhere"?

I feel like I've somehow not been clear enough here (even though I've stated it multiple times) that it was *never* my intention to not pay for my permit.

I went to speak with the City and pay my fee as soon as it appeared they were taking me seriously as a person with legitimate concerns. They offered to provide me with a genuine proof of payment for my records, and as soon as I showed the receipt I had gotten to the employee to whom it was actually relevant, they took my concerns even more seriously, so I was satisfied they would take appropriate action to fix the problem.

this doesn't answer what I've inquired. You said you believe a receipt means you paid, regardless of your transaction records- so why did you end up reauthorizing the payment? What was the new information that convinced you to pay again after getting that receipt, in opposition to your stated belief?

I think you're confused about what I said.

I never said that I believe "a receipt means you paid, regardless of transaction records". What I *did* say is that I believe my bank transaction records are not legally material when I have a clear receipt. Legal principles are not the same as reality, and do not define for me what is the right thing to do. Again, I thought I was VERY clear from post #1 here that I was not trying to get out of paying the permit fee, if in fact I actually owed it.

I went to my bank to get thorough verification and then the City to pay my fee as soon as they gave me a means to think they would treat me as someone with legitimate concerns.

Yes I am certainly confused about the totality of things you have said, haha! I am curious what is the specific piece or pieces of information that was sought from your visit to the bank and/or conversation with the person at city hall that led you to re-pay. I read your statements here as you believe that there is some situation where 2 conditions are both true: you have paid for the permit and you cannot see a debit on your account record- I draw this reading from:
1: you maintain that the receipt is as proof of payment in a legal dispute over whether you paid, and
2: you were informed before your visit to city hall that the payment failed due to error, yet you didn't seem to believe you had not paid at that point.
Here, I am not saying you are trying not to pay, but I would have expected you to maintain that you did pay since you have the receipt. So what changed?
What is the information that is material to this issue that would be in bank records not reflected on your records? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know and I want to understand.

When you were asked about a hypothetical failed check payment w/ receipt, you turned to...bank records...for how to establish whether payment occurred. So that is also confusing.

APowers

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Location: Colorado
Re: I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment
« Reply #123 on: November 29, 2023, 01:02:10 PM »

Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.

My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.

I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?

What prompted you to pay again once you went to city hall to clear things up?  What exactly do you mean by "no other successful transactions anywhere"?

I feel like I've somehow not been clear enough here (even though I've stated it multiple times) that it was *never* my intention to not pay for my permit.

I went to speak with the City and pay my fee as soon as it appeared they were taking me seriously as a person with legitimate concerns. They offered to provide me with a genuine proof of payment for my records, and as soon as I showed the receipt I had gotten to the employee to whom it was actually relevant, they took my concerns even more seriously, so I was satisfied they would take appropriate action to fix the problem.

this doesn't answer what I've inquired. You said you believe a receipt means you paid, regardless of your transaction records- so why did you end up reauthorizing the payment? What was the new information that convinced you to pay again after getting that receipt, in opposition to your stated belief?

I think you're confused about what I said.

I never said that I believe "a receipt means you paid, regardless of transaction records". What I *did* say is that I believe my bank transaction records are not legally material when I have a clear receipt. Legal principles are not the same as reality, and do not define for me what is the right thing to do. Again, I thought I was VERY clear from post #1 here that I was not trying to get out of paying the permit fee, if in fact I actually owed it.

I went to my bank to get thorough verification and then the City to pay my fee as soon as they gave me a means to think they would treat me as someone with legitimate concerns.

Yes I am certainly confused about the totality of things you have said, haha! I am curious what is the specific piece or pieces of information that was sought from your visit to the bank and/or conversation with the person at city hall that led you to re-pay. I read your statements here as you believe that there is some situation where 2 conditions are both true: you have paid for the permit and you cannot see a debit on your account record- I draw this reading from:
1: you maintain that the receipt is as proof of payment in a legal dispute over whether you paid, and
2: you were informed before your visit to city hall that the payment failed due to error, yet you didn't seem to believe you had not paid at that point.
Here, I am not saying you are trying not to pay, but I would have expected you to maintain that you did pay since you have the receipt. So what changed?
What is the information that is material to this issue that would be in bank records not reflected on your records? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know and I want to understand.

When you were asked about a hypothetical failed check payment w/ receipt, you turned to...bank records...for how to establish whether payment occurred. So that is also confusing.

I'm not enough of an expert on electronic transactions to rule out a situation where there are funds in limbo and that record hasn't shown up in surface level transaction info. Hence the need for thorough verification by my bank (not the City) to rule out something not obvious to me and to allay a fear of possible double payment.

1. Sure. I think a receipt carries significant legal weight in a payment dispute.
2. You seem to assume here that because the City asserted it, I believed them, or should have believed them. Or that their assertion provided sufficient reason why I shouldn't be skeptical. Maybe you believed the City by default. I did not. I did not trust the City's assertions as provided in their emails, and responded accordingly.

If I knew exactly what information I needed from the bank on my end, I could just ask for that-- but that's the point I made before: I don't know what that might be. What I did know is that whatever I have access to online is not a complete record of *everything*, which, again, is why I wanted thorough investigation on the bank's side where they do have access to actually every record.

Wrt the failed check hypothetical, I said that if there's non-payment, the recourse the seller would have is through the bank on their side. *Their* bank records, not the buyer's bank records, which I've been saying I think are legally immaterial-- it is not the buyer's legal burden of proof to demonstrate non-payment, whether or not they actually paid.