41–50 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the best response is to not respond to him for a few days at a time, and when you do, assume the customer is acting in bad faith while you fill in some form letters?
They clearly stated that "no further actions are required" from his part.
I read over this and all I can think is that OP didn't do what he should've. Their process of pulling in funds when you have a negative balance is automated. (check) He said he'd fund it from another source, but as far as I read (got really bored about halfway through) He didn't. So the automated process pulled in money from his linked account, as expected. This money was crucial because square has to be able to refu…
No, he told them he would fund it from elsewhere and they didn't respond to that at all. They told him that the issue could be considered closed. Then, later they tried to withdraw money again (after saying the issue was closed). Square took days to respond, then complained to him that emailing them more would get him marked as spam.
Followed up with
Your funds are eligible for automated release on or around 30 April 2012 once additional confirmation is secured.
That in no way implies that he doesn't have to have backup. It clearly states the process is ongoing.
This is a long and painful process, and its OP's fault for not having a system in place for when this inevitably occurs. He should have had back up money for such an occurance and didn't. That's his fault.
Finishing reading, there is that troublesome bit at the end about them not releasing his money as quickly as they should've - but all in all they did a damn good job considering their industry and their opponents.
I find myself agreeing with the two comments that are now on the OP's page.
I'm not sure why this guy had trouble understanding that he needed money in his account as collateral against the charge back. "Yeah, he'll probably send us the money if the charge back is upheld" is not a sustainable policy.
Had Square told him in their FIRST email, things would have been fine. The problem wasn't so much that they took his money (he immediately transferred money into the account) the problem was that Square was accusatory and slow to respond.
And this is exactly how merchant accounts work. the only thing square might be guilty of is not fully clarifying this with their customer base as their base is mostly unsavvy in this realm
I have to land squarely on Square's side on this one. As far as I can tell, Square has handled this matter exactly as I would expect and hope. They communicated professionally and clearly with Jason. Jason responded with empty threats and demands, and clearly does not understand or respect his responsibilities in his business relationship. Getting money quickly from a merchant account is a privilege, not a right. Tha…
This is indisputably the most succinct account of what has transpired. I would have presumed there to be laws governing a minimal merchant balance -- placed on Square, then in turn passed on to its merchants -- to be maintained in good standing, good faith, and so as to be lawful.
Additionally, I find a poetic irony in his account with his own bank:
> At this point my bank has levied an insufficient funds fee on my account, however I was [surprisingly] able to [...] get the charges reversed.
To which I'm led to laugh: "So, Jason, you want it your way on both sides of the argument?"
Would it have a better result in terms of responsiveness if each new case was handled by a single CS rep until completed so that every response to an issue does not have to pass the entire queue before being dealt with?
Or would that increase net response time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I like to hate on Paypal because they deserve it for a variety of reasons, I'm considering lately that for financial services startups like this, it's possible they CAN'T do certain things differently, though perhaps customer service could make up for it and may not have in this case. This phrase caught my eye in the story "Per the network regulations, the debit process is automated and will continue to at…
Absolutely square could do things better. How about for starters picking up the goddamn phone and making a call to talk to the customer in person? It really shocks me that people are willing to entrust their business's finances with a company they cannot contact immediately. I do exactly what the OP poster did - have a account that receives the funds and is immediately swept to an entirely different institution. I wo…
Dude's got no one else but himself to blame. If he's taking credit card transactions, he should be holding a reserve in the relevant account for exactly this sort of situation. His lack of foresight is the root cause of the entire mess. As the saying goes, "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
Here's what should have happened. Square: There's a chargeback for 180 dollars. You can dispute it. OP: I want to dispute it. Here's the information you need. (no more than one day later) Square: Instead of just linking to our legal agreement we'll explain why we're taking money from your account. We have to withdraw the chargeback amount from your account because of regulations and stuff. There is more information a…
This guy doesn't know how electronic payments work, and has clearly never had to deal with managing a merchant account before.
I have to land squarely on Square's side on this one. As far as I can tell, Square has handled this matter exactly as I would expect and hope. They communicated professionally and clearly with Jason. Jason responded with empty threats and demands, and clearly does not understand or respect his responsibilities in his business relationship. Getting money quickly from a merchant account is a privilege, not a right. Tha…
It looks like Square adhered strictly to their end of the terms of service. They did exactly what they always said they would do. Jason is the one who screwed up and then demanded special treatment and then got huffy when they didn't give him special treatment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe the customer service was polite. They shouldn't scold the person right up front about multiple emails; maybe it's just me, but the customer pays you, they can send as many emails as they want. Also, it's confusing that he is told to respond to the first email (and that it's time sensitive) and yet they do not respond to his prompt reply.
" maybe it's just me, but the customer pays you, they can send as many emails as they want" It's just you. Emails for a company at this scale enter a ticket queue, not somebody's inbox. Adding more tickets for the same issue impedes the company's ability to help other customers and doesn't get you help any faster. They didn't scold him. They told him facts-- that it didn't help anything and that the system (i.e. the…