I was issued a receipt, but gov't claims they didn't receive payment

[Dicey]

[snip]
You have wasted time arguing here and with the city that would have been better spent doing that search on your account.

I believe time spent calling out authority figures/entities for shady practices is well-spent. I do not consider it wasted.

This seems to be an honest error. Now, if they were also trying to charge late fees or fine you for running the business in the interim, that would indeed be shady and you would receive a number of suggestions for dealing with it.

I agree that it seems like an honest error in the system. But instead of working with me to find and resolve the error, the messaging from the City doubled down on forcing me to pay while simultaneously claiming that there was no error except possibly on my part. That *is* a problem.

Perhaps it's not your problem to solve.

[Saffron]

In all this back and forth, I did not see if OP actually checked their account to see if the money was actually withdrawn.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?

[APowers]

[snip]
You have wasted time arguing here and with the city that would have been better spent doing that search on your account.

I believe time spent calling out authority figures/entities for shady practices is well-spent. I do not consider it wasted.

Maybe "shady" means something different to you than it does to me.  To me, it connotes (and maybe even denotes) intend to deceive, cheat, or otherwise screw. It does not mean "mistake, glitch in the system, gap in the process, or otherwise inadvertent error".  Or maybe you somehow think they were trying to screw you by... not taking your money, then asking for it later, with no late fees and no advantage to them other than making more work for their employees who have to go back an ask for payment, and then deal with unreasonable people who know they haven't paid but still want to argue the point and rub their noses in it."  If anyone in the piece is shady, I'd say it was the guy who was trying to get out of actually giving money for something he received that cost money. 

So I guess I too am in favor of calling out shady practices.  In this scenarios, those kinda seems to be yours, not the city, which was just trying to get payment for something you did receive and that, through someone's error (which very well could have been yours or your banks), didn't happen, and through the city's error wasn't caught during the initial transaction.

If you'd said, "yup, checked my bank and it wasn't paid.  I'm going to pay, but I'm also going to come in because I'd like to speak to someone about how this happened, since it is a clear gap in your system that you issue a "Paid" receipt before confirming payment,"  I'd think you were truly trying to fix a flawed system.  But you held your money and carefully skirted around admitted that yes, your bank records seem to confirm money wasn't received. 

And yet you accuse other people of shadiness?  Huh. 

Maybe we do mean different things by "shady". I think I tend to construe it more broadly, to include anything where the words don't match the actions, or the apparent doesn't match the actual.


I was clear from the beginning that I wasn't trying to get out of actually giving money for the permit I received. As someone who's butted heads with authority figures before, I've found that when I come as you suggest, I get blown off; they take my money and then don't take my concerns seriously or care to explain things to my satisfaction. Which is exactly what they appeared to want to do when I first expressed that there is confusion and a problem in the system.

So I don't take that approach to power anymore. I do hold my resources carefully, and don't admit things to people in power who don't demonstrate care about what concerns I have. This gives me more options to ensure that I actually get to express my concerns in a way that someone in power will give me a serious audience. At no point was I deceptive or intending to cheat or screw anyone in this.

[APowers]

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.

[Saffron]

 

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.

Does the bank record show that you paid it? If it doesn't show that the payment came out of your account, then just pay up. The government asked nicely enough to settle things.

It usually takes a couple days for credit and bank transactions to finalize. Clearly something went wrong. Just because you got a receipt doesn't mean that you actually paid. It shows that you made a good faith effort to pay. I don't understand why you're arguing over something that you can actually verify and settle.

[Villanelle]

[snip]
You have wasted time arguing here and with the city that would have been better spent doing that search on your account.

I believe time spent calling out authority figures/entities for shady practices is well-spent. I do not consider it wasted.

Maybe "shady" means something different to you than it does to me.  To me, it connotes (and maybe even denotes) intend to deceive, cheat, or otherwise screw. It does not mean "mistake, glitch in the system, gap in the process, or otherwise inadvertent error".  Or maybe you somehow think they were trying to screw you by... not taking your money, then asking for it later, with no late fees and no advantage to them other than making more work for their employees who have to go back an ask for payment, and then deal with unreasonable people who know they haven't paid but still want to argue the point and rub their noses in it."  If anyone in the piece is shady, I'd say it was the guy who was trying to get out of actually giving money for something he received that cost money. 

So I guess I too am in favor of calling out shady practices.  In this scenarios, those kinda seems to be yours, not the city, which was just trying to get payment for something you did receive and that, through someone's error (which very well could have been yours or your banks), didn't happen, and through the city's error wasn't caught during the initial transaction.

If you'd said, "yup, checked my bank and it wasn't paid.  I'm going to pay, but I'm also going to come in because I'd like to speak to someone about how this happened, since it is a clear gap in your system that you issue a "Paid" receipt before confirming payment,"  I'd think you were truly trying to fix a flawed system.  But you held your money and carefully skirted around admitted that yes, your bank records seem to confirm money wasn't received. 

And yet you accuse other people of shadiness?  Huh. 

Maybe we do mean different things by "shady". I think I tend to construe it more broadly, to include anything where the words don't match the actions, or the apparent doesn't match the actual.


I was clear from the beginning that I wasn't trying to get out of actually giving money for the permit I received. As someone who's butted heads with authority figures before, I've found that when I come as you suggest, I get blown off; they take my money and then don't take my concerns seriously or care to explain things to my satisfaction. Which is exactly what they appeared to want to do when I first expressed that there is confusion and a problem in the system.

So I don't take that approach to power anymore. I do hold my resources carefully, and don't admit things to people in power who don't demonstrate care about what concerns I have. This gives me more options to ensure that I actually get to express my concerns in a way that someone in power will give me a serious audience. At no point was I deceptive or intending to cheat or screw anyone in this.

So someone who makes an honest mistake is shady?  If I tell you I will meet you at noon, then I'm in a car accident and I'm not at the deisgnated meeting spot at 12 on the dot, I'm shady? 

Also, when you say it was clear you weren't trying to get out of paying... clear to whom?  Yourself?  It wasn't clear to me, and I doubt it was clear to those employees whose lived you made much harder. 

When you had checked your account and saw no withdraw, but you didn't include that info in the emails--even in response to those that directly suggested you do just that, after you already had--you don't think that was deceptive?  You knew you hadn't paid.  (The trip to the bank provided no new info. You already saw there was no withdraw in that amount.) But when they said you should try to determine that, you didn't say, "I already have, but I'm deeply concerned about the flawed process here."  It's not a direct lie, but it's hard for me to see that as anything but deception.

And now you say that you are "of the opinion that my bank records are legally immaterial in a case where I have a clear receipt from the other party."  So which is it?  You want to fix a flawed process, or you think you have legal cover that means you shouldn't have to pay again and were pushing that weight around?

[GuitarStv]

Also, this permit system is a royal pain to use, and if I can be as much of a pain to the system as the system is to me, that could be an added bonus.

Ah I'm sorry, I missed this part earlier.  I was expecting that you were being reasonable and didn't realize that being difficult was an actual stated goal of the interaction.




Do you . . . by any chance identify as a Libertarian?

[Saffron]

Do you . . . by any chance identify as a Libertarian?

lol

[Kris]

OP reminds me so much of my ex-husband in this thread. It’s actually kind of triggering. And I’m not using that term lightly.

[Catbert]

Let's hope OP takes this case to Judge Judy.  I'd love to see it.

[APowers]

[snip]
You have wasted time arguing here and with the city that would have been better spent doing that search on your account.

I believe time spent calling out authority figures/entities for shady practices is well-spent. I do not consider it wasted.

Maybe "shady" means something different to you than it does to me.  To me, it connotes (and maybe even denotes) intend to deceive, cheat, or otherwise screw. It does not mean "mistake, glitch in the system, gap in the process, or otherwise inadvertent error".  Or maybe you somehow think they were trying to screw you by... not taking your money, then asking for it later, with no late fees and no advantage to them other than making more work for their employees who have to go back an ask for payment, and then deal with unreasonable people who know they haven't paid but still want to argue the point and rub their noses in it."  If anyone in the piece is shady, I'd say it was the guy who was trying to get out of actually giving money for something he received that cost money. 

So I guess I too am in favor of calling out shady practices.  In this scenarios, those kinda seems to be yours, not the city, which was just trying to get payment for something you did receive and that, through someone's error (which very well could have been yours or your banks), didn't happen, and through the city's error wasn't caught during the initial transaction.

If you'd said, "yup, checked my bank and it wasn't paid.  I'm going to pay, but I'm also going to come in because I'd like to speak to someone about how this happened, since it is a clear gap in your system that you issue a "Paid" receipt before confirming payment,"  I'd think you were truly trying to fix a flawed system.  But you held your money and carefully skirted around admitted that yes, your bank records seem to confirm money wasn't received. 

And yet you accuse other people of shadiness?  Huh. 

Maybe we do mean different things by "shady". I think I tend to construe it more broadly, to include anything where the words don't match the actions, or the apparent doesn't match the actual.


I was clear from the beginning that I wasn't trying to get out of actually giving money for the permit I received. As someone who's butted heads with authority figures before, I've found that when I come as you suggest, I get blown off; they take my money and then don't take my concerns seriously or care to explain things to my satisfaction. Which is exactly what they appeared to want to do when I first expressed that there is confusion and a problem in the system.

So I don't take that approach to power anymore. I do hold my resources carefully, and don't admit things to people in power who don't demonstrate care about what concerns I have. This gives me more options to ensure that I actually get to express my concerns in a way that someone in power will give me a serious audience. At no point was I deceptive or intending to cheat or screw anyone in this.

So someone who makes an honest mistake is shady?  If I tell you I will meet you at noon, then I'm in a car accident and I'm not at the deisgnated meeting spot at 12 on the dot, I'm shady? 

Also, when you say it was clear you weren't trying to get out of paying... clear to whom?  Yourself?  It wasn't clear to me, and I doubt it was clear to those employees whose lived you made much harder. 

When you had checked your account and saw no withdraw, but you didn't include that info in the emails--even in response to those that directly suggested you do just that, after you already had--you don't think that was deceptive?  You knew you hadn't paid.  (The trip to the bank provided no new info. You already saw there was no withdraw in that amount.) But when they said you should try to determine that, you didn't say, "I already have, but I'm deeply concerned about the flawed process here."  It's not a direct lie, but it's hard for me to see that as anything but deception.

And now you say that you are "of the opinion that my bank records are legally immaterial in a case where I have a clear receipt from the other party."  So which is it?  You want to fix a flawed process, or you think you have legal cover that means you shouldn't have to pay again and were pushing that weight around?

That I'm not unwilling to pay I was very clear about in my OP here: "I'm not trying to get out of paying for the permit" I said. And in one of my emails to the City "I'm not unwilling to pay fees that I may owe".

I do not think it's deceptive to choose not to do something or reveal something just because I'm ordered to or it is suggested to me.

I do want the flawed system to be fixed, AND I think I may have legal cover (which is the problem here-- I *shouldn't* have this legal cover) to use as weight to push around. The point of pushing that potential weight around is to ensure they take the problem seriously.

[former player]

There is frugal, and there is cheap.

APowers, you are cheap.

Pay the damned money.

[MaybeBabyMustache]

What are acceptable outcomes for you at this point?
-The government agent to say, "you're right, our software is glitchy, and we are working on a fix to ensure you no longer receive confirmation when your payment failed. That said, please submit payment, or your permit will be rendered void."
-For an apology?
-To get your payment voided, given you have a receipt, even though you did not, in fact, pay?

I'm unclear what you're looking for. Are you clear on what is an acceptable resolution to this situation? If you have a reasonable appreciation for the perspective of a diverse set of MMMs, perhaps take the feedback that you've received so far.

[APowers]

Also, this permit system is a royal pain to use, and if I can be as much of a pain to the system as the system is to me, that could be an added bonus.

Ah I'm sorry, I missed this part earlier.  I was expecting that you were being reasonable and didn't realize that being difficult was an actual stated goal of the interaction.




Do you . . . by any chance identify as a Libertarian?

Lol! Actually, no.

[APowers]

What are acceptable outcomes for you at this point?
-The government agent to say, "you're right, our software is glitchy, and we are working on a fix to ensure you no longer receive confirmation when your payment failed. That said, please submit payment, or your permit will be rendered void."
-For an apology?
-To get your payment voided, given you have a receipt, even though you did not, in fact, pay?

I'm unclear what you're looking for. Are you clear on what is an acceptable resolution to this situation? If you have a reasonable appreciation for the perspective of a diverse set of MMMs, perhaps take the feedback that you've received so far.

I don't really need an apology, and I've been very clear here that I'm not trying to get out of paying.

Your first option is pretty much exactly what I'm looking for. And also, nearly exactly the response I got when I discussed the problem with the main employee as soon as she actually saw the information I had sent to the first contact (neither of us realized she didn't have that information until I spoke with her in person)*.

*I mentioned up-thread that this confusion happened due to different people being added to the email thread mid-discussion.

[MoseyingAlong]

@APowers I don't live in your area but I actually want to thank you for taking the time and making the effort to bring a problem or situation to the attention of the office responsible. So many times people take the "easy" road and problems linger. In this case, maybe they will change the initial acknowledgement to say the payment info was submitted and then later send a receipt that the payment was processed. That's what my electric provider does.

I question the time you've spent on this thread but props for staying engaged.

[deborah]

So you’ve already received what you want, and you’re still not paying. You’re just a troll

[Gremlin]

So you’ve already received what you want, and you’re still not paying. You’re just a troll

Actually, in #Reply 29, the OP states that once they got what they wanted, they DID in fact, pay the outstanding amount.

I offered to pay the fee, but only if she could give me honest legal proof of payment; she did, and processed my payment.

FWIW, it's probably not the way I would've gone about it, but I have to say I feel some degree of disquiet about the situation where a government body can issue a Payment Receipt and then refuse to accept their own issued Payment Receipt as proof of payment.  In my own business, a payment receipt is never issued until the payment has been confirmed into my account.  That's standard practice, but clearly not the practice of this council. 

The standard process is as follows:

1.  Invoice issued
2.  Payment made by payer
3.  Payment received by payee
4.  Payment cleared by payee
5.  Payment Receipt issued

Under no circumstances should a Payment Receipt ever be issued prior to a payment being cleared.

I can think of several legitimate cases where it may be impossible for the payer to verify after the event that a payment has or has not actually been made to the payee other than through the production of a Payment Receipt (although I think in this case it sounds like it could be verified). 

[APowers]

So you’ve already received what you want, and you’re still not paying. You’re just a troll

Maybe you missed my post earlier:

[snip]

I offered to pay the fee, but only if she could give me honest legal proof of payment; she did, and processed my payment. I also asked who I needed to speak to about the problem of sending payment receipts with no actual payment, and she said she will be personally meeting with the people in charge of the system to address this issue.

[snip]

Fees were paid yesterday, and as much as I can know at this point, the issue is being addressed. I'll probably check to see if the problem *actually* got fixed next year when I renew, but otherwise, I don't feel compelled to engage with it anymore.

[deborah]

Great!

[wageslave23]

OP is definitely an ass. But as someone who regularly deals with government entities, they need to have a system that sends out a notice that automatic payment didn't go through before accessing penalties. This wasn't the case here but it happens way too often.

[AMandM]

Under no circumstances should a Payment Receipt ever be issued prior to a payment being cleared.

But doesn't that happen all the time?
Examples:
A plumber comes to my house, does work, and hands me an invoice. I hand him a check. He writes "Paid By Ck" on the invoice.
I make multiple purchases on one day with a credit/debit card and get receipts at every store, but the total spent exceeds my credit limit/account balance so even though no one transaction was declined, when they all get processed at close of business some of them are denied.

[GuitarStv]

Under no circumstances should a Payment Receipt ever be issued prior to a payment being cleared.

But doesn't that happen all the time?
Examples:
A plumber comes to my house, does work, and hands me an invoice. I hand him a check. He writes "Paid By Ck" on the invoice.
I make multiple purchases on one day with a credit/debit card and get receipts at every store, but the total spent exceeds my credit limit/account balance so even though no one transaction was declined, when they all get processed at close of business some of them are denied.

Yeah, I can think of many ways you would get a receipt without payment.  Pretty much any time you pay for something without using cash this is a risk.

[torso2500]

this idea that the receipt holds more legal weight than a cleared bank transaction...I don't think that is correct. Receipts  don't usually contain like a release of liability to complete the payment. Otherwise accidentally writing an NSF check would be a trick to get free stuff lol

[APowers]

Under no circumstances should a Payment Receipt ever be issued prior to a payment being cleared.

But doesn't that happen all the time?
Examples:
A plumber comes to my house, does work, and hands me an invoice. I hand him a check. He writes "Paid By Ck" on the invoice.
I make multiple purchases on one day with a credit/debit card and get receipts at every store, but the total spent exceeds my credit limit/account balance so even though no one transaction was declined, when they all get processed at close of business some of them are denied.

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that in the case of a bounced check, the seller has recourse and proof of non-payment through the bank on their side. It's a hassle, which is why retailers generally charge an additional fee for resolving a bounced check, but it's resolvable without the check-writer having to produce their own bank records (or any records at all). I think this risk of hassle is why some retailers do not accept checks anymore.

Credit and debit cards are actually paid at time of sale (at least, I thought so). A debit card should decline immediately (prior to receipt generation) if funds are unavailable; or should provide funds from the bank, through a previous agreement with the account holder to overdraw, creating a legal debt for the account holder-- which the bank then resolves later as a different financial interaction. Credit card transactions are paid immediately by the credit bank, creating a debt between the cardholder and the bank; a transaction that would exceed the cardholder's credit limit should decline prior to transaction completion.

[APowers]

this idea that the receipt holds more legal weight than a cleared bank transaction...I don't think that is correct. Receipts  don't usually contain like a release of liability to complete the payment. Otherwise accidentally writing an NSF check would be a trick to get free stuff lol

Writing a check that you know will bounce has been a known fraud for a very long time. This is why every private party vehicle sale I've been party to involves a very careful exchange of funds vs receipt of sale.

In my specific case, there was no cleared bank transaction, nor record of one, so the idea of receipt vs cleared bank transaction is not relevant.

[torso2500]

this idea that the receipt holds more legal weight than a cleared bank transaction...I don't think that is correct. Receipts  don't usually contain like a release of liability to complete the payment. Otherwise accidentally writing an NSF check would be a trick to get free stuff lol

Writing a check that you know will bounce has been a known fraud for a very long time. This is why every private party vehicle sale I've been party to involves a very careful exchange of funds vs receipt of sale.

In my specific case, there was no cleared bank transaction, nor record of one, so the idea of receipt vs cleared bank transaction is not relevant.

hmm, I did say accidentally write a bad check. A check can also be undepositable if there is an error made when filling it out, or it is damaged or corrupted somehow before depositing. I see the entering of bank info in the payment portal as analogous to writing a check.

How is receipt vs cleared bank transaction not relevant? you have said in this thread you are:

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.

That you don't have a cleared bank transaction is the whole thing of it, no? If it came to court, you would be asked to substantiate your receipt (with bank records), and the govt would be able to show that the payment failed. It would be obvious that you didn't pay and you need to pay for the permit. That's why I don't agree with the assertion about the receipt.

That it's frustrating to deal with this is separate from the legal assertions. Your local govt definitely could be more conservative in how they handle the permit purchase process- they are essentially issuing permits on credit until transactions clear.  And they could have communicated about the returned payment better.

[BlueHouse]

[snip]
You have wasted time arguing here and with the city that would have been better spent doing that search on your account.

I believe time spent calling out authority figures/entities for shady practices is well-spent. I do not consider it wasted.

I don't see anything that transpired as shady.  and I don't mean to sound condescending, but I'm truly curious:  How old are you? 

I ask because I had a similar mindset when I was younger.  And then something changed.  You may see it as apathy, but there does come a day when you think
a) life is too short
b) pick your battles wisely
c) forgive others their mistakes (including your own)
d) you gotta go along to get along
e) worry about yourself (stop trying to fix something for everyone else)
f) any of the above

I fought a few battles in my younger years and one or two actually made a small difference.  But mostly the fights just filled me with anger and resentment and tired me out.  Once I started accepting the above, my life was better and healthier -- and that's what it's all about, isn't it?  It's not giving up.  It's accepting that the healthier outcome might just be different than getting it exactly right all the time.

[Villanelle]

I once wrote a bad check.  (I still remember the distinct burning humiliation when I got the phone call from the retailer.) Turns out that when I deposited my pay check (IIRC, I did so at an ATM, but that might be wrong as this was decades ago), I accidentally put it in my savings account instead of my checking.  (This was a catalyst for change.  Until then, I kept my checking account very tighly balanced and all extra money went into interest-earning savings.  After this, I kept a float of a couple hundred dollars.) 

I had a receipt from the store that said my items were paid for.  I guess I should have vaguely obscured about whether I thought maybe the check did actually clear, not told them I'd checked my account and seen it hadn't, and rather than paying immediately (I think in my case they took my cc info over the phone), I should have demanded process improvements.

OP, it seems you can't really explain how your situation is different than this.  Paid receipt?  Check! (No pun...)  Payment didn't actually go through?  Check!  No intent on the payer to defraud or cheat or other "shadiness"?  Check. 
 

[AMandM]

Under no circumstances should a Payment Receipt ever be issued prior to a payment being cleared.

But doesn't that happen all the time?
Examples:
A plumber comes to my house, does work, and hands me an invoice. I hand him a check. He writes "Paid By Ck" on the invoice.
I make multiple purchases on one day with a credit/debit card and get receipts at every store, but the total spent exceeds my credit limit/account balance so even though no one transaction was declined, when they all get processed at close of business some of them are denied.

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that in the case of a bounced check, the seller has recourse and proof of non-payment through the bank on their side. It's a hassle, which is why retailers generally charge an additional fee for resolving a bounced check, but it's resolvable without the check-writer having to produce their own bank records (or any records at all). I think this risk of hassle is why some retailers do not accept checks anymore.

I agree, and this seems to me exactly analogous to your situation. The seller (city) had proof of non-payment through the bank on their side (the message from the bank saying the account info was invalid). A bounced check is resolved by making a new payment (what the city asked you to do), but if the check-writer argued that his receipt was proof of payment being received, he'd be asked to show his bank record of the cleared check (as you were asked).

Credit and debit cards are actually paid at time of sale (at least, I thought so). A debit card should decline immediately (prior to receipt generation) if funds are unavailable; or should provide funds from the bank, through a previous agreement with the account holder to overdraw, creating a legal debt for the account holder-- which the bank then resolves later as a different financial interaction. Credit card transactions are paid immediately by the credit bank, creating a debt between the cardholder and the bank; a transaction that would exceed the cardholder's credit limit should decline prior to transaction completion.

Ah, we have different understandings of how card transactions work. I thought that the transaction generates an automated enquiry as to whether the amount exceeds the available credit/balance, but the transaction doesn't actually get processed till the end of the day, so the available credit/balance doesn't decrease immediately. I know that on my credit card bill, transactions often appear with a different date than the date I made the purchase.

[Gremlin]

Under no circumstances should a Payment Receipt ever be issued prior to a payment being cleared.

But doesn't that happen all the time?
Examples:
A plumber comes to my house, does work, and hands me an invoice. I hand him a check. He writes "Paid By Ck" on the invoice.
I make multiple purchases on one day with a credit/debit card and get receipts at every store, but the total spent exceeds my credit limit/account balance so even though no one transaction was declined, when they all get processed at close of business some of them are denied.

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that in the case of a bounced check, the seller has recourse and proof of non-payment through the bank on their side. It's a hassle, which is why retailers generally charge an additional fee for resolving a bounced check, but it's resolvable without the check-writer having to produce their own bank records (or any records at all). I think this risk of hassle is why some retailers do not accept checks anymore.

Credit and debit cards are actually paid at time of sale (at least, I thought so). A debit card should decline immediately (prior to receipt generation) if funds are unavailable; or should provide funds from the bank, through a previous agreement with the account holder to overdraw, creating a legal debt for the account holder-- which the bank then resolves later as a different financial interaction. Credit card transactions are paid immediately by the credit bank, creating a debt between the cardholder and the bank; a transaction that would exceed the cardholder's credit limit should decline prior to transaction completion.

This.  The whole point of credit cards is that they release payment immediately.  Hence a receipt can be offered immediately.  The bank then accepts the liability of the customer. At least that’s how it works here.

Any payment made by credit card, I can issue the receipt immediately the transaction is processed.  Any transaction made by direct deposit (or, theoretically, cheque, but I’ve never seen one in my business because our financial system is not still in the dark ages) the payment receipt is not issued until the funds clear.

[deborah]

There is a problem with debit accounts and different time zones. I always have to check how much money I have in my debit account, and when it was put in when I buy something in America, since we’re so many time zones ahead. If I put enough money in today, and it’s still yesterday there, the account is billed for yesterday, even though the money was added before the withdrawal.

[APowers]

I once wrote a bad check.  (I still remember the distinct burning humiliation when I got the phone call from the retailer.) Turns out that when I deposited my pay check (IIRC, I did so at an ATM, but that might be wrong as this was decades ago), I accidentally put it in my savings account instead of my checking.  (This was a catalyst for change.  Until then, I kept my checking account very tighly balanced and all extra money went into interest-earning savings.  After this, I kept a float of a couple hundred dollars.) 

I had a receipt from the store that said my items were paid for.  I guess I should have vaguely obscured about whether I thought maybe the check did actually clear, not told them I'd checked my account and seen it hadn't, and rather than paying immediately (I think in my case they took my cc info over the phone), I should have demanded process improvements.

OP, it seems you can't really explain how your situation is different than this.  Paid receipt?  Check! (No pun...)  Payment didn't actually go through?  Check!  No intent on the payer to defraud or cheat or other "shadiness"?  Check.

Did you verify that it was actually the retailer calling? Did you reconcile your bank records with the retailer's claims of non-payment to your own satisfaction? Did you *want* process improvement?

If I got a call unexpectedly from a retailer claiming my check had bounced, I absolutely would not disclose anything about my own records or information-- this is an identity theft risk. I would thoroughly verify with my bank to know what was going on *before* offering a re-payment (I think a cursory glance at my transaction history is not the same as a thorough examination). I did those things. I also happened to care about this process improving. Maybe you didn't feel a need to change anything in your case. That's fine.

Did the retailer contact you promptly? The City did not, in my case. Did the retailer claim, from a position of power as a government agency, that your receipt wasn't actually a receipt? And that there was no problem with their system that has a seemingly obvious problem? That happened in my case, and felt like an abuse of power to me.

A lot of mistakes feel genuine and excusable with a quick acknowledgement and offer of solution. Most mistakes are, imo. In my case, this interaction with the City didn't feel that way to me, and I was immediately defensive.

[GuitarStv]

I think that the biggest problem  you've uncovered is a government agency issuing your permit before confirming receipt of payment.  This should not have occurred, which would have resolved all your complaints.  Thus would have placed the burden of resolving the issue firmly on you, which (judging from your responses in this thread) would have been your preferred method of solving the problem.

The main mistake on the part of the government that has been identified was letting you operate with a permit that wasn't paid for.

[APowers]

I think that the biggest problem  you've uncovered is a government agency issuing your permit before confirming receipt of payment.  This should not have occurred, which would have resolved all your complaints.  Thus would have placed the burden of resolving the issue firmly on you, which (judging from your responses in this thread) would have been your preferred method of solving the problem.

The main mistake on the part of the government that has been identified was letting you operate with a permit that wasn't paid for.

That sounds about right; although I think the issuance of the permit isn't *technically* the problem-- it's the confirming payment when payment didn't occur-- though the permit shouldn't have been issued either. 

In the end, I came away reasonably satisfied that the City is taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again, to me or anyone else.

[GuitarStv]

I think that the biggest problem  you've uncovered is a government agency issuing your permit before confirming receipt of payment.  This should not have occurred, which would have resolved all your complaints.  Thus would have placed the burden of resolving the issue firmly on you, which (judging from your responses in this thread) would have been your preferred method of solving the problem.

The main mistake on the part of the government that has been identified was letting you operate with a permit that wasn't paid for.

That sounds about right; although I think the issuance of the permit isn't *technically* the problem-- it's the confirming payment when payment didn't occur-- though the permit shouldn't have been issued either. 

In the end, I came away reasonably satisfied that the City is taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again, to me or anyone else.

Hopefully you achieve your goal of loss of rental permit in the future.

[partgypsy]

I think that the biggest problem  you've uncovered is a government agency issuing your permit before confirming receipt of payment.  This should not have occurred, which would have resolved all your complaints.  Thus would have placed the burden of resolving the issue firmly on you, which (judging from your responses in this thread) would have been your preferred method of solving the problem.

The main mistake on the part of the government that has been identified was letting you operate with a permit that wasn't paid for.

agree. I agree with the op that their process is ob flawed. At the same time even if they did make an error issuing the permit before getting payment, you do still need to pay them. Theoretically they could take you to small claims for this.

[Verdure]

This kind of reminds me of the Seinfeld bit about reservations—“But that’s the whole point of the reservation”

[APowers]

I think that the biggest problem  you've uncovered is a government agency issuing your permit before confirming receipt of payment.  This should not have occurred, which would have resolved all your complaints.  Thus would have placed the burden of resolving the issue firmly on you, which (judging from your responses in this thread) would have been your preferred method of solving the problem.

The main mistake on the part of the government that has been identified was letting you operate with a permit that wasn't paid for.

That sounds about right; although I think the issuance of the permit isn't *technically* the problem-- it's the confirming payment when payment didn't occur-- though the permit shouldn't have been issued either. 

In the end, I came away reasonably satisfied that the City is taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again, to me or anyone else.

Hopefully you achieve your goal of loss of rental permit in the future.

?

Not sure how this is my goal. Ideally, this mistake should have been resolved way back in September during the renewal process. If all works as it should next year, I'll get prompt notification if my payment doesn't go through, and can resubmit correct payment and upon cleared payment, receive a receipt and permit as normal.

[APowers]

I think that the biggest problem  you've uncovered is a government agency issuing your permit before confirming receipt of payment.  This should not have occurred, which would have resolved all your complaints.  Thus would have placed the burden of resolving the issue firmly on you, which (judging from your responses in this thread) would have been your preferred method of solving the problem.

The main mistake on the part of the government that has been identified was letting you operate with a permit that wasn't paid for.

agree. I agree with the op that their process is ob flawed. At the same time even if they did make an error issuing the permit before getting payment, you do still need to pay them. Theoretically they could take you to small claims for this.

Did you miss the part where I went and spoke with the City employee, *paid*, and was able to express my concern to the appropriate parties?

[GuitarStv]

I think that the biggest problem  you've uncovered is a government agency issuing your permit before confirming receipt of payment.  This should not have occurred, which would have resolved all your complaints.  Thus would have placed the burden of resolving the issue firmly on you, which (judging from your responses in this thread) would have been your preferred method of solving the problem.

The main mistake on the part of the government that has been identified was letting you operate with a permit that wasn't paid for.

That sounds about right; although I think the issuance of the permit isn't *technically* the problem-- it's the confirming payment when payment didn't occur-- though the permit shouldn't have been issued either. 

In the end, I came away reasonably satisfied that the City is taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again, to me or anyone else.

Hopefully you achieve your goal of loss of rental permit in the future.

?

Not sure how this is my goal. Ideally, this mistake should have been resolved way back in September during the renewal process. If all works as it should next year, I'll get prompt notification if my payment doesn't go through, and can resubmit correct payment and upon cleared payment, receive a receipt and permit as normal.

You were upset that they issued you a permit to allow you to continue to rent for two months while not having made payment.

[Villanelle]

I think that the biggest problem  you've uncovered is a government agency issuing your permit before confirming receipt of payment.  This should not have occurred, which would have resolved all your complaints.  Thus would have placed the burden of resolving the issue firmly on you, which (judging from your responses in this thread) would have been your preferred method of solving the problem.

The main mistake on the part of the government that has been identified was letting you operate with a permit that wasn't paid for.

That sounds about right; although I think the issuance of the permit isn't *technically* the problem-- it's the confirming payment when payment didn't occur-- though the permit shouldn't have been issued either. 

In the end, I came away reasonably satisfied that the City is taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again, to me or anyone else.

Hopefully you achieve your goal of loss of rental permit in the future.

?

Not sure how this is my goal. Ideally, this mistake should have been resolved way back in September during the renewal process. If all works as it should next year, I'll get prompt notification if my payment doesn't go through, and can resubmit correct payment and upon cleared payment, receive a receipt and permit as normal.

You were upset that they issued you a permit to allow you to continue to rent for two months while not having made payment.

Don't forget that in the future, if OP mistypes his account info (which may or may not be what happened here), they could now also potentially be charged late fees if the mistake isn't noticed and corrected before the deadline.  Maybe even a "payment failure" type of fee piled on, too. 

So much better than what happened, which is that the city noticed its error and reached out to the [non-]payer to rectify it, will allowing them to continue to operate their business based on the assumption everyone was operating in good faith.  Shady!

[Sibley]

I love how everyone is thinking that credit card payments are instantaneous. They are not, though are faster than paper checks. The existence of the greyed out pending transactions when you log into your credit card website should tell you that.

[Villanelle]

I love how everyone is thinking that credit card payments are instantaneous. They are not, though are faster than paper checks. The existence of the greyed out pending transactions when you log into your credit card website should tell you that.

Isn't the lack of instantaneous payment also how people end up over their credit limit?  Otherwise, how would that ever happen?  (Genuine question as maybe there's some other reason, or maybe cards don't actually consider the limit an actual limit and it's just a way to charge an extra fee?)

[Gremlin]

I love how everyone is thinking that credit card payments are instantaneous. They are not, though are faster than paper checks. The existence of the greyed out pending transactions when you log into your credit card website should tell you that.

It depends what you mean by "instantaneous".  As a merchant, I will be instantly guaranteed, by the bank, that payment will be made.  The default risk of a major bank is far, far less than the default risk of some random stranger, so it is an appealing proposition.

The risk of non-payment or incorrect authorisation is passed from merchant to bank, something which does not happen with a cheque or debit transaction.  So, in effect, from the merchant's perspective, it is instantaneous in terms of a payment guarantee.  The actual $$ landing in the account may take a couple of days.  (Note that if the transaction is fraudulent, the bank may attempt to reverse the transaction, but if it is unable to do so, the cost is borne by the bank, not the merchant at this point)

From a customer's perspective, it may not be considered instantaneous as it may take a couple of days as 'pending' before the bank verifies the legitimacy of the transaction. 

In that context, I would absolutely issue a payment receipt upon a successful credit card authorisation, but would NEVER do so on a cheque or debit transaction (be it direct debit, funds transfer or debit card) until the money has cleared in my account.

[GilesMM]

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??

[APowers]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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.

You believe that your own online bank statements (which verify everything the government clerk is telling you) are 'surface information'?

[APowers]

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.

You believe that your own online bank statements (which verify everything the government clerk is telling you) are 'surface information'?

I think that's what I said. Does the bank include in those statements information about payment attempts that ended up unsuccessful? No. Does the bank include the pictures of cashed checks in those statements? No. There's background information that just doesn't end up in the monthly statements for various reasons; they are not total and complete records of everything related to my accounts. Therefore, they are surface level information, and not thorough. And I expect that the transaction list summary in my banking app (which is where I looked for a cursory glance at my account in initial response to the City's emails) to be even less thorough of a record than the online statement.

[torso2500]

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