Thread: unauthorized electronic check quest

I have a question. My husband had a mishap with this checking account and he had a 4.96 check that was returned, but was paid upon redeposit through electronic means. I have been on bedrest for the past 6 months due to a complicated pregnancy and he's been covering the bills on his own after depleting our savings account. It's not something that we're proud of, but it happens. So, the check was paid electronically and that was fine. The problem came when we noticed a $35.00 check that was the same check number and was being deposited as KT100. We contacted the bank and were told that it didn't give any more information. We knew that we hadn't authorized another check and sent the check back unauthorized. Today, we get a letter in the mail from a company called EFUND payment services who says that they followed all the rules of the debt collection act and they were right in collecting their fee this way. I have to argue with that. They expected to take a $35 fee for a check that was represented and paid for electronically by taking it out of an account without the knowledge of the account holder? Does this sound like a practice that is now being done? It's been YEARS since we've had any kind of bounced check, but this just sounds like deceptive and illegal practices. What do you all think? 1. It COULD be legal for them to collect a fee for a check that has been paid by his bank. 2. Is it legal for them to collect the fee the way that it was done ... without any kind of written notice for the account holder and by electronic means?

I appreciate any input. We are going to approach our bank first and then approach the company regarding the way that this was handled.

Tangy, I did not look closely if you have or not, but you might want to post this in Credit Talk instead. This is just a random posting room.

Here are my 2 cents.

I believe they have a right to collect on the $35 dollars.

Why? Simple, the check was originally rejected by your bank and returned to the payee. The payee could of had fines associated with the check being rejected.

The fact that the payee decided to resubmit the check electronically, and was able to be paid does not change the fact that it was originally rejected. The payee could of also tried to resubmit the check in the form of a paper check and be paid as welll..

Further, when you are discussing whether or not its legal you may want to check the policy of whoever the payee is regarding returned checks. sometimes they will place a stamp on the back of the check where you initial authrorizing this, other times, it is in plain site at the location of where you are writing the check.