I asked if, since it was obvious I authorized the payment in time and have an excellent payment history with Chase, always paying each statement in full by the due date until now, they would refund the late fee. But the customer service clerk flatly refused. So I asked to speak to a supervisor then she said she would refund the late fee and asked me if I still needed to talk to a supervisor. I told her no if she was issuing the refund I didn't need to talk to a supervisor then but that I should not have had to ask to speak to a supervisor. At that point, without any reply, I just heard the tones of someone dialing a phone then hold music. After a brief wait, a man came on the phone who I assumed was the supervisor. I again explained what had happened with the online electronic payment and asked for a refund of the late fee and he agreed.
But, is this the new way banks are trying to slip in more fees on an unsuspecting public? An electronic transfer cannot occur unless both sender and receiver participate. The sending institution is including all information necessary to earmark the funds being received as to the payor's identification. Even if the computers at the receiving end must run some other subroutines to actually apply the information to a customer's account at a later date, the fact that the transmission occurred on a specific day should be the basis for recognizing receipt of the funds. Before I retired I used to design databases and know that as long as the two institutions participating in an electronic exchange have their database fields mapped properly, the exchange can be handled in a millisecond without human intervention. So why does the Federal Banking Commission allow banks to get away with slapping customers with a big late fee when the receiving institution has actually had the funds in their possession before the due date???