Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Navarr 5150 days ago
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 refund the chargeback should it end in the customer's favor.

I don't understand OP's problem with Square. They handled this as best as they possibly could?
2 comments
pbreit 5150 days ago
> They handled this as best as they possibly could?

I disagree. Square handled it in a manner similar to waht we've come to expect from, say, PayPal. But I think many of us were expecting Square to be better than that.

The tone of the support staff was unsympathetic, responses took too long, the reply about sending in multiple inquiries was obnoxious, there was an over-reliance on links to terms of service, funds recovery seemed over-aggressive considering the customer's legitimacy.

link
RandallBrown 5150 days ago
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.

link
Navarr 5150 days ago
Something that should've been incredibly clear here is that square required money be available as backup in the event that there was a disputed claim. SAYING that you'll fund it from elsewhere is not the same as doing so. And they said that the issue was "preliminarily closed."

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.

link