Much Ado About Something

As a sequel to my last post, I am writing about another recent mistake which I believe was not due to my fault, unlike the last one.

Do you check your credit card statements meticulously? If unlike me, you don't, then be forewarned - you might just be paying more than what you should. And I am not talking about the exorbitant interest charges imposed on rolled-over balances here.

You see, on 25 May 2007, I was at the World Book Fair at Suntec City. Our Reader's Digest subscription happened to be expiring soon. I thought it was a good opportunity to renew a 2-year subscription at the book fair since they were offering it at a special price of $180 with a free radio and some costume jewellery thrown in as free gifts. This I did.


In June 2007, I was billed for the purchase. Nothing unusual here but I noticed that the company which billed me was called "Mobile Credit Payme(nt?)". I checked the receipt (see photo above) and indeed, there was a line "Powered by WWW.MCPAYMENT.COM" printed at the bottom of the receipt.


However, when July 2007's credit card bill arrived, there was another charge of $180.00 by "READER'S DIGEST ASI(A?)". At first, I thought I have not settled that charge the previous month. But a check on the previous month's statement confirmed otherwise.


On 25 July 2007, I sent an email to Reader's Digest highlighting the double charge. I also attached a copy of the receipt issued to me which I didn't throw away (fortunately). The email reply from Reader's Digest the next day was indeed hard for this reader to digest:

"Please be informed that we have checked our records and payment history to the credit card number you provided (xxxx xxxx xxxx 5048) and can confirm that there has only been 1 charge for $180 which justifies the charge which reflects in your statement as “Reader's Digest Asi Singapore SG”.

The charge was officially made on the 19th of June 2007 and had a slight delay in being included in your statement. The receipt you sent us indicates that payment was made directly through Readers Digest and not via an agent. As mentioned earlier, we can confirm this charge was made to us and your account has been updated with the renewed subscription.

The 1st charge you mentioned was made to “Mobile Credit Payment Singapore”. We regret to inform you that we have no record of this payment nor are we familiar with the description.

You may check with your bank on that particular charge to identify the source as it was not made by Readers Digest."

Infuriated by Reader's Digest's response, I immediately sent another email to them, attaching copies of the 2 credit card statments. In it, I said inter-alia:

"I would like to reiterate that the first payment on 25 May 2007 was made by me personally at the Reader's Digest booth at the World Book Fair at Suntec City... Are you implying that this booth at the World Book Fair was not authorised to represent Reader's Digest? If so, why then did the receipt have "Reader's Digest" printed on it? In any case, a lay customer like me cannot tell whether I am dealing with an agent or directly with Reader's Digest. Neither does that trivial fact matter to me as a customer one bit. This looks to me like a foul-up happening completely within your good company. If that is the case, it is in your best interest to put the situation right soonest. I cannot be expected to chase my credit card issuer about a problem which I didn't create in the first place and which I know that the credit card issuer is not responsible for.

I would also like to know who authorised the 2nd charge on 19 Jun 2007? I did not authorise it.

Finally, I would like to state that I expect no less than a satisfactory resolution to this issue. If I was unfairly inconvenienced due to some oversight on someone's part, I think that a sincere apology should be in order. However, in the event that it is established that I am indeed a victim of fraud, I will not hesitate to seek redress by writing to the press, blogging about the bad experience, complaining to CASE or even filing a police report. This is so that other people will not become similar victims like me.

Of course, I would also stop subscribing to Reader's Digest altogether just so that I will never have such a similar bad experience again."

The reply that came back on 27 Jul 2007 was as follows:

"Please be informed that we have forwarded the attachments you sent us to the relevant department and are currently checking to see if there was any trace of the charge.

However, the charge for $180 to Readers Digest should be the correct charge made to you for the payment you made at the book fair of which you were issued the receipt. This payment has [sic] reflected in our records.

We will check and revert back to you immediately upon resolving the issue.

Thank you and we apologize for any inconvenience caused."

So far, I have not heard from Reader's Digest again. Hence, I decided to dispute the 2nd charge with my bank. Meanwhile, the bank has temporarily credited the disputed amount back into my account, pending investigation. However, the bank was quick to add (in a way I found threatening) that should the transaction be found to be indeed authorised by me, I would be charged for the amount transacted plus $15.00 retrieval fee for each disputed transaction. Phew.

So here are some pointers for my readers to digest:

1. Keep all purchase receipts for some time in a safe place for counter-checking against your credit card statements. A double charge like the one I experienced could very easily slip by unnoticed, so check your statements carefully as soon as you receive them.

2. In my case, do you think it was a mistake of the bank or the merchant? Two weeks after I raised the issue, I am still not any wiser as to whose mistake it was.

Hmm... I don't know why they picked me but somehow I am never so lucky in their "$175,000 lucky sweepstakes draw". It remains to be seen whether Reader's Digest will terminate my subscription with them. If so, it is just as well - I can always find some other magazine to read.