In other news today...
-
@masonwheeler so UPS lost the package. Meh. All it had in it was a slip of paper. TRWTF is that the bank cannot just cancel that bank draft and re-issue it. The money's just sitting in an account, and they're too worried about the lost bank draft getting found and (fraudulently) cashed in to release it to its rightful owners. It's a check. There is no legitimate reason why they should not be able to stop payment on it and issue a new one.
Then there's a secondary WTF:
Herbert said he has maxed out his credit cards and desperately needs the money.
Don't max out your credit cards before the money's in your account, dumbass. You know he did that the moment he got the letter saying that he was getting $846k; couldn't be bothered to wait a couple of weeks to actually cash the check.
-
@anotherusername Fair enough, but when they 1) lose a package when their entire business is delivering packages, 2) have it be an extremely high-value package that they lost, and 3) can only go ยฏ\(ใ)/ยฏ when asked to track it down, something is very very wrong with them.
-
@masonwheeler the other RWTF is that it cost $32 to ship a small box that weighs almost nothing. Even if they went for overnight shipping, that seems high.
I wonder if they went big on the shipping insurance, not realizing that UPS would not consider anything of value to have been lost, since the money was still safely in the account of the check's author -- and it should be a simple matter to stop payment and re-issue it.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
and it should be a simple matter to stop payment and re-issue it.
Yeah, that's the other mystifying part of the story: what's the deal with the bank?
But I've never had problems with that bank, while I have consistently had problems with UPS, so that's what I'm focusing on here.
-
@masonwheeler according to the article, they wanted her to sign an agreement saying that she'd have to repay the money if the original check was cashed. She agreed to this, and then they demanded that she also sign something that would allow them to put a lien on her house in the case that it happened. She refused.
Still, they should be able to just stop payment on the original check. There is no reason for them to demand permission for a lien.
-
@anotherusername Exactly. None of that should have been necessary.
-
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
There's nothing "whole new" or "that industry [doesn't know about]" about automated click fraud.
What they claim to be new here is using a IoT botnet to do it, methinks.
-
Based on what the lawyers I follow on Twitter have written about this, it's the equivalent of someone showing up to an interview for a senior programming position and not knowing the difference between a string and a thread, or even that those are terms used in programming.
-
@ben_lubar said in In other news today...:
the lawyers I follow on Twitter
-
@zecc said in In other news today...:
@ben_lubar said in In other news today...:
the lawyers I follow on Twitter
Lawyers can be cool people too
https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw
https://twitter.com/Popehat
-
Could you turn those into links instead of embeds?
They'll make this thread jellypotato like crazy.Thanks.
-
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler according to the article, they wanted her to sign an agreement saying that she'd have to repay the money if the original check was cashed. She agreed to this, and then they demanded that she also sign something that would allow them to put a lien on her house in the case that it happened. She refused.
Still, they should be able to just stop payment on the original check. There is no reason for them to demand permission for a lien.
In my experience, in that kind of story, the customer (in this case, the person sending the money) did something utterly stupid and isn't owning up to it with the reporter. Probably they got themselves informed by a non-knowledgeable third party and insisted on the wrong kind of check at the bank.
-
@pleegwat said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler according to the article, they wanted her to sign an agreement saying that she'd have to repay the money if the original check was cashed. She agreed to this, and then they demanded that she also sign something that would allow them to put a lien on her house in the case that it happened. She refused.
Still, they should be able to just stop payment on the original check. There is no reason for them to demand permission for a lien.
In my experience, in that kind of story, the customer (in this case, the person sending the money) did something utterly stupid and isn't owning up to it with the reporter. Probably they got themselves informed by a non-knowledgeable third party and insisted on the wrong kind of check at the bank.
Indeed. There are usually much better instances of Bank WTFs. Like the one I read recently, where someone received the portion of his inheritance (a not insignificant sum) and the bank promptly blocked his account for suspected money laundering.
And even sending them both the affidavit of the executor and a copy of the testament were not sufficient to unblock the account for several months.
I'm also a bit astounded by the backwards ways of the US: I also recently received a bit of money from a testament. At no point did we have to send paper around.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Don't max out your credit cards before the money's in your account, dumbass
Why would you max it out when you already have the money?
-
@jaloopa
So that you can keep the money for another month and earn that sweet, sweet 0.01% interest on it, duh.
-
@pleegwat still, the bank needs to straighten it out and fix it.
The money is still there, in the bank. They have no legal claim to it; they're just holding it temporarily until the authorized person withdraws it. Ordinarily this would occur when the check is deposited, but checks can be stopped. If the rightful owner comes and says that they lost the bank draft check and want it reissued, it should be a very simple matter to stop it and either return their money or reissue a new bank draft check. Associated fees (obtaining a bank draft often isn't free, nor is stopping a check if I'm not mistaken) should be paid by UPS, because they lost it; it should be covered under their shipping insurance policy.
-
@jaloopa said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Don't max out your credit cards before the money's in your account, dumbass
Why would you max it out when you already have the money?
Because he didn't. Always wait until the check clears before you spend the money.
-
@anotherusername but if you have the money then you don't need to spend borrowed money on credit
-
If the original draft was a cashierโs check, that means the current available balance of the account is $0; requesting a cashierโs check from the bank is effectively converting your money into a bearer bond and instructing the bank to debit the money immediately.
Which is probably what happened โ cashierโs checks donโt allow for the usual โstop paymentโ mechanisms and if someone deposited the cashierโs check after depositing the new check, the bank would be stuck trying to reverse the payment of the original cashierโs check. Hence the demand for an affidavit and lien.
-
@jaloopa said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Don't max out your credit cards before the money's in your account, dumbass
Why would you max it out when you already have the money?
From what I understand, you're supposed to pay for your stuff with credit and then immediately pay the credit with money. It earns you
good boy pointscredit score.
-
@jaloopa said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername but if you have the money then you don't need to spend borrowed money on credit
You should spend borrowed money on credit cards because it's safer, more convenient, and offers reward points, not because you "need" to.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
more convenient
It's more convenient to use a credit card, then make sure the balance is paid off than it is to use a debit card in exactly the same way?
-
You had one job...
-
@jaloopa said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
more convenient
It's more convenient to use a credit card, then make sure the balance is paid off than it is to use a debit card in exactly the same way?
I have yet to see any online vendor that accepts debit.
-
@hungrier I use my debit card on Amazon, Steam, Tesco, Asda, paypal, my mobile provider, Humble Bundle, and everywhere else that I pay via card rather than direct debit
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
I have yet to see any online vendor that accepts debit.
Amazon, and many other (not all, granted), do in the UK.
And in France, but the credit/debit distinction doesn't exist there (all cards behave as debit cards but I think that they are registered as credit when e.g. paying on the internet).
-
@carrievs said in In other news today...:
Fun story. There was another fun one, albeit not of the same style, linked from that page:
Maybe I should post that in the IoT thread...
-
@jaloopa IIRC, those debit cards (backed by a company like VISA or MasterCard) can run in either credit or debit mode. To the online vendor, it runs like a credit card, to your bank it runs like a debit card. Basically, the only differences between a credit card and a debit card these days are
- You can get cash back with a debit card almost everywhere (and without punitive rates)
- Debit cards automatically withdraw from a linked account, credit cards roll over
- Debit cards (in the US) use pin and chip, credit cards use signature and chip. Elsewhere, everything uses pin and chip.
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
I have yet to see any online vendor that accepts debit.
Huh?? I have yet to find one that doesn't. I mean sure, they are running the debit card like a credit card. But they all accept debit.
-
@polygeekery I feel like people who go for positions like that do so for a reason.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@hardwaregeek said in In other news today...:
The problem I have with repurposing old words is that it can, if it catches on, give entirely different meanings to innocuous words.
Yeah, literally.
Yeah. Right.
-
@Atazhaia said in In other news today...:
@PJH Yeah, we hear about it a few times here. Pizzas with tenderloin are shown to be pork instead of beef being the common fake. The weirdest instance I heard of faking tenderloin however were the ones who were using buffalo(!) instead of beef. That's the kind of thing they probably could get people to pay extra for if they'd have been truthful!
That can be dangerous. My brother-in-law cannot eat pork because his body can't digest it properly.
Buffalo (or bison) instead of beef is probably okay, though, because they're all bovine.
-
@izzion the money is withdrawn from your personal account, yes, and placed into the bank's account. Until the check is cashed, though, the bank has the money.
In the US, at least, cashier's checks are covered under:
A claimant may assert a claim to the amount of a check by a communication to the obligated bank describing the check with reasonable certainty and requesting payment of the amount of the check, if (i) the claimant is the drawer or payee of a certified check or the remitter or payee of a cashier's check or teller's check, (ii) the communication contains or is accompanied by a declaration of loss of the claimant with respect to the check, (iii) the communication is received at a time and in a manner affording the bank a reasonable time to act on it before the check is paid, and (iv) the claimant provides reasonable identification if requested by the obligated bank. Delivery of a declaration of loss is a warranty of the truth of the statements made in the declaration.
Upon submitting a claim, it may take effect no earlier than the 90th day after the check was issued; however, once the claim has taken effect,
the obligated bank becomes obliged to pay the amount of the check to the claimant if payment of the check has not been made to a person entitled to enforce the check. Subject to Section 4-302(a)(1), payment to the claimant discharges all liability of the obligated bank with respect to the check.
I have no idea what the laws are in Canada, but it seems absurd that they'd want to put a lien on her home.
-
@jaloopa said in In other news today...:
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
more convenient
It's more convenient to use a credit card, then make sure the balance is paid off than it is to use a debit card in exactly the same way?
My credit card gives me reward points. My debit card doesn't. Which is more convenient, the one that gives me free money for using it, or the one that doesn't?
Plus, I really only have to worry about whether my checking account has enough funds in it at one point in the month -- right before the credit card bill is paid. So if I need to transfer some money from my savings account, I know in advance exactly how much.
Also, if my credit card was stolen, I would be able to submit a claim prior to the funds actually being debited from my account. No such luck with a debit card. The money would be returned eventually, but in the meantime my account may already be overdrafted and payments from it may be declined.
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
I have yet to see any online vendor that accepts debit.
Debit cards from Visa or Mastercard can be run as credit cards, and the vendor need not even know the difference.
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
I have yet to see any online vendor that accepts debit.
I've yet to see any that doesn't. The only place I've ever had any hassle with trying to use a debit card rather than a debt card was at a rental car agency. I no longer rent cars at that agency.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Which is more convenient, the one that gives me free money for using it, or the one that doesn't?
They're both equally convenient, but one gives you free money.
-
Online vendors accepting debit
TIL. I always thought they only accepted real credit cards. But anyway I'll keep using my CC for reasons @anotherusername mentioned (rewards, protection from fraudulent transactions)
-
@anonymous234 it certainly seems convenient to me that I now and then get $25 in free money, automatically credited to my ordinary CC bill.
It's no more simple to use, but I consider the fees and rewards to be a relevant factor when considering how "convenient" a payment method is.
-
@ben_lubar said in In other news today...:
That's exactly what we need in our judicial systems, a few common idiots that don't know the ropes or anything about how to deal with them! It works out so well in all the fictions I've read!
-
-
@tsaukpaetra have you been reading Russell Greer's book?
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@tsaukpaetra have you been reading Russell Greer's book?
I do not recognize that name. But then again a lot of Fics I read are from people in their upper teens if quality is considered.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
I do not recognize that name.
I guess you don't spend enough time in the garage
-
@tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
I do not recognize that name.
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/24308/russell-greer-from-poe-or-noe/1
Have fun!
TL;DR Guy is pretty clearly mentally ill. Stalks women online; doesn't realize his behavior is really, really creepy.
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
@tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
I do not recognize that name.
I guess you don't spend enough time in the garage
You haven't either, if you haven't noticed my absence.
-
@tsaukpaetra The nature of absence makes it hard to notice
-
@benjamin-hall said in In other news today...:
@jaloopa IIRC, those debit cards (backed by a company like VISA or MasterCard) can run in either credit or debit mode. To the online vendor, it runs like a credit card, to your bank it runs like a debit card. Basically, the only differences between a credit card and a debit card these days are
- You can get cash back with a debit card almost everywhere (and without punitive rates)
- Debit cards automatically withdraw from a linked account, credit cards roll over
- Debit cards (in the US) use pin and chip, credit cards use signature and chip. Elsewhere, everything uses pin and chip.
There's also a liability difference (at least in the USA):
- Fraud with a credit card has a legally limited liability of up to $50.
- Fraud with a debit card is limited to $50 if reported within two business days, but the liability can be up to the total amount if not promptly reported.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
There's also a liability difference (at least in the USA):
- Fraud with a credit card has a legally limited liability of up to $50.
- Fraud with a debit card is limited to $50 if reported within two business days, but the liability can be up to the total amount if not promptly reported.
Which strays quite close to TDEMSYR territory, given that you don't receive a bank statement every two business days.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
My credit card gives me reward points. My debit card doesn't. Which is more convenient, the one that gives me
free moneytiny discounts for using it, or the one that doesn't?FTFY
Debit cards from Visa or Mastercard can be run as credit cards, and the vendor need not even know the difference.
Visa, Mastercard, et al. handle the fraud reporting for credit transactions, because the money transaction occurs through them. Debit transactions are directly between the card holder's financial institution and the merchant.