Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:11:20 -0400 From: Jonathan Kamens To: tleetch@pfsb.com Subject: Response to your July 27 letter Dear Mr. Leetch, I am writing in response to your letter dated July 27. You wrote, "Please be reassured that our computer processing center, our information technology manager and our staff have worked diligently to correct all of the issues that you have brought forward." If that is so, then I wonder how it can be that most of them are still broken. In particular (from most to least significant): >* When my first statement after the upgrade arrived, I saw that I had been > charged a $.75 ATM fee, even though I had only used Peoples and SUM ATMs all > month, and those are supposed to be free. When I called the bank about this, > I was informed that "everyone was charge 75 cents because the upgrade messed > everything up," and that the 75 cents would be credited back to my account in > my next statement. We'll see. The incorrect 75-cent service charge which appeared on my July 2 statement for account number 18009619 was not refunded to me on my July 31 statement. If it is indeed true, as I was told, that every checking account was charged this 75 cents inappropriately, then why wasn't the error corrected in my July 31 statement? If it is not true that every checking account was inappropriately charged this fee, i.e., if this error is unique to my account, then why was I told that it happened to everyone and that it would be corrected on my next statement? In any case, you owe me 75 cents and I expect it to be credited to my account immediately. >* I can no longer access my money market account from SUM ATM machines (see > www.sum-atm.com) run by banks other than Peoples. Before the upgrade, my > money market account was accessible as my "savings" account from these ATMs. I still can't access my money market account from SUM ATM machines. >* Before the upgrade my money market account was also accessible as a "savings" > account from Peoples ATMs. Now, however, People's ATMs think that my money > market account is a "checking" account, which means that I have two checking > accounts. Therefore, when I need to access my money market account, I select > "checking" and get a menu to choose which checking account I want. The menu > looks like this: > > 1. CHECKING > 2. CHECKING > > That makes it intuitively obvious which one to select, eh? I had to figure > out through trial and error that "1" is my old checking account and "2" is my > money market account. This is still broken. >* That same menu screen tells me to press Enter after using the keypad to > indicate which account I want to access. But Enter doesn't work -- it gives > the low "error beep." I had to figure out by trial and error that when they > say "Enter", what they really mean is "the unlabeled button at the bottom of > the column of buttons to the right of the screen." This is still broken. >* The old TB system's transfer confirmation numbers were eight digits long, > which was already pushing it. The new system's confirmation numbers are ten > digits long. There is no excuse for forcing people to write down random > strings of ten digits which could just as easily have been half that length > if the UI had been designed properly. The telephone banking system's confirmation numbers are still ten digits long. >* Before the upgrade, they sent out a final statement under the old system with > a closing date of June 8. No interest was paid on that statement. After the > upgrade, the next statement they sent out closed on June 30. The interest > paid out in that statement correctly covered the period of the previous > statement (i.e., they paid about 30 days of interest instead of 22). > However, the average daily balance used to calculate the interest payment > took into account only daily balances from June 9 through June 30. > > In other words, the bank underpaid interest to any customers whose average > daily balance was higher June 1-8 than it was June 9-30. Of course, > conversely, the bank paid extra interest to customers whose averages were > lower before the upgrade, but that doesn't help the customers who were > underpaid. In your letter to me, you claimed that interest was paid out properly for the month of June. I felt it necessary to verify this for myself, so I attempted to calculate by hand the interest I should have been paid and match it up to what I was actually paid. After repeated attempts, I was unable to do so. It appears that the algorithm you use to calculate interest is so complex that it is impossible to use logical reasoning to determine it. I therefore sent the message below to Charlie Gaffney, asking him to provide me with a written description of this algorithm. He has not yet responded. I would appreciate it if you would see to it that someone responds soon to this request for information. Sincerely, Jonathan Kamens ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:42:14 -0400 From: Jonathan Kamens To: cgaffney@pfsb.com Subject: How Peoples calculates interest [deleted] ------- End of forwarded message -------