I'm tired of thinking a business might finally be correcting course (see anything I've written about Comcast, which uses bait-and-switch tactics for basic income flow the same way AOL uses their pitiful remnant of remaining dial-up customers) only to have them turn tail on me as soon as I say nice things about them and try to get on with my life.
Case in point: yes, Comcast has taken back my credits on last month's bill. Yes! Again. For something like three months running they've gleefully pulled this Lucy at Charlie Brown "I promise I won't pull the football away" trick. I'm thinking I'm not going to fight it directly, but still might give them one more call for Old Time's sake, because how am I supposed to go more than a few weeks without calling them? I wouldn't be me anymore, not after playing almost three solid years of their games.
When I call it'll be just like good Old Times: they'll offer me the world, or at least to fix what they've done wrong, I'll get all weak-kneed and goo-goo eyed at such soothing promises, then as usual they won't fix it and I'll have to call them back because for the thousandth time they've lied to me again, but then instead of duking it out with them, this time I'll pursue some other option. It is that time of year, after all, when I do things like that.
And nope, I don't mean another blog. At least not anytime soon. But I can't say exactly what I might or might not do (because I'm still too white-hot-mad to think about it; it can take time for me to stop boiling and start planning) only that it shall be dealt with.
In the meantime, the lovely folks at BoA who I'll never trust again have finally agreed, after hours of phone calls over the span of the last three days, to rescind the $12 fee for a check I asked the check writer to cancel last week and (after many more calls, call transfers and hold-wait times) to lift the hold on the new check the check writer wrote to replace the cancelled one. So they finally made things right.
But they should never have done those things. If it's "illegal", as one rep told me a little over a week ago, for their bank to accept a check without endorsements on the back of it, then what are they charging a $12 fee to process it for? Why are their ATMs even programmed to accept checks without endorsements? If their ATMs can "read" the front of a check - and boy, they sure can - then their ATMs can "read" the back of a check and spit the damn thing out if it looks blank; it can't be that hard, really.
So if I've got this straight, they'll accept a check that's illegal to accept, then charge a $12 fee for what every rep has told me is "processing", though it's illegal for them to process it in the first place, right? I mean, I can see a good lawyer in my future should I choose to pursue this - which just for fuck's sake, I might - because I've got reps basically admitting to me that BoA is breaking the law by "processing" unendorsed checks.
Besides getting this check mess straightened out, we also managed to sell a few hundred dollars worth of stuff this week, but because work isn't what it should be - that's all around - we'll still barely make rent. And by "barely", I mean next week's lack of budget - there's nothing left after paying rent to budget for - is enough to make me not know whether to laugh or cry. Because of that I've resorted, as usual, to drinking (because I might just do both, which scares me).
But once the rent's paid and Other Person's phone gets renewed next week I'm leaving that fucking bank. It's down to Gulf Winds or some other credit union now because I'm done with Bank of America, done done done. No one has the right to deny me the use of my money, or to take it away from me, especially on what's possibly their totally illegal whim.