Ventra - Bugs, Feedback, and Questions

[Busjack]

I guess it was bound to happen. Tribune reports that someone filed a class action lawsuit about bogus charges on his Ventra account. So, so much for it having "occurred only twice."

Of course, as usual, Brian Steele tried to comment on it and apparently lied without thoroughly studying the situation.

Anyway, there is now a lawyer who any of you who has proof can contact.

[jajuan]

I guess it was bound to happen. Tribune reports that someone filed a class action lawsuit about bogus charges on his Ventra account. So, so much for it having "occurred only twice."

Of course, as usual, Brian Steele tried to comment on it and apparently lied without thoroughly studying the situation.

Anyway, there is now a lawyer who any of you who has proof can contact.

Although, I haven't had any issues with my Ventra card (seems few who bought theirs at a rail station or maybe in some cases a retailer has), CTA kind of brought this on themselves in not taking more of a lead in making sure Chicago Card and CCP users had their email information up to date as well as making sure Cubic was making proper use of that database so that there wouldn't have been the botch ups in mailing Ventra cards and those users missing the email with the activation instructions. They also dropped the ball in not following up on Cubic in making sure they had enough phone operators in place long BEFORE October 7 to help riders out who had problems in a timely manner. If it was taking a long time for folks to get through to an operator when there were relatively fewer people calling to get issues resolved, they should have known that the call center would be overwhelmed as the date to transition more Chicago Card, CCP and transit card (by virtue of out the sell of new transit cards at vending machines) users to Ventra came upon them. As I said some weeks ago, Ventra has a number of good features that gives it potential but CTA management seems predisposed to set it up for failure by letting smaller issues balloon into unnecessarily much larger screwups than they need to be.

[Busjack]

Although, I haven't had any issues with my Ventra card (seems few who bought theirs at a rail station or maybe in some cases a retailer has), CTA kind of brought this on themselves in not taking more of a lead in making sure Chicago Card and CCP users had their email information up to date as well as making sure Cubic was making proper use of that database so that there wouldn't have been the botch ups in mailing Ventra cards and those users missing the email with the activation instructions. They also dropped the ball in not following up on Cubic in making sure they had enough phone operators in place long BEFORE October 7 to help riders out who had problems in a timely manner. If it was taking a long time for folks to get through to an operator when there were relatively fewer people calling to get issues resolved, they should have known that the call center would be overwhelmed as the date to transition more Chicago Card, CCP and transit card (by virtue of out the sell of new transit cards at vending machines) users to Ventra came upon them. As I said some weeks ago, Ventra has a number of good features that gives it potential but CTA management seems predisposed to set it up for failure by letting smaller issues balloon into unnecessarily much larger screwups than they need to be.

While all true, I'm sure it is not the source of the lawsuit. One doesn't suffer damages from not getting the card, other than the commenter on the CTA Tattler who said he was going to charge CTA for the time he spent on the phone on hold, which probably isn't actionable.

You (and owine) should remember that I said a month ago that CTA was engaged in deception in the consumer protection law sense over such things as what fare applied to what kind of swipe, and then we had the various posts about double billing for the same ride. Amtrak41 noted complaining to the banking commissioner, which I said would be futile, but since these charges went through the banking system, maybe there were violations of the federal banking laws, which got the lawyer into federal court.

As usual, allegations aren't proof, I'm not going to predict the outcome of litigation, and I didn't suggest bringing a class action, but you (and owine) can't argue that I didn't state a basis for a suit when the consumer fraud first was reported. And since Steele argued about the facts, it won't be dismissed on the merits; the only way it is dismissed early is if the plaintiff's claims don't hold up to the extent that he would not be a proper representative, but as I implied with my "lawyer to contact" comment, I'm sure there are other potential plaintiffs out there, one of which we all know.

[BusHunter]

I guess it was bound to happen. Tribune reports that someone filed a class action lawsuit about bogus charges on his Ventra account. So, so much for it having "occurred only twice." Of course, as usual, Brian Steele tried to comment on it and apparently lied without thoroughly studying the situation. Anyway, there is now a lawyer who any of you who has proof can contact.

I know people who have been double charged. It shows up right under the ride tranactions as being billed twice same route same time. The problems don't seem to be happening for pass holders just ex transit card users. I advise people to buy multiple cards if riding not using passes and pass holders to only put the money for the pass on the card. Sign up with bogus info and if the card goes negative throw it out and start another card. At least you can protect yourself.

[Busjack]

I know people who have been double charged. It shows up right under the ride tranactions as being billed twice same route same time. The problems don't seem to be happening for pass holders just ex transit card users. I advise people to buy multiple cards if riding not using passes and pass holders to only put the money for the pass on the card. Sign up with bogus info and if the card goes negative throw it out and start another card. At least you can protect yourself.

For the most part you are correct, but there were reports of passholders having essentially a passback--i.e. a ride recorded at no charge and a negative balance of $2.25 for the same ride.

Your recommendation works only if the user doesn't have autoload, but then the question is whether they will be refused at some point.

[sw4400]

This is exactly why I said avoid the optional Debit Card. I advocate that again.... get the Ventra Card for transit only!!! Also, don't link your card to any accounts of any kind!!!If you want a Debit/Credit Card, go to your local bank and apply for one through them, or fill out one of those Credit Card applications you get in the mail.

From the Tribune Article...

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Chicago, asks that plaintiff James Kenger be joined in a class action on behalf of "all persons who have a Ventra card that is linked to an asset account, i.e. not a prepaid Ventra card."

According to the suit, on Sept. 24 Kenger was charged twice for a single fare under the new Ventra system. Two days later, Kenger was charged $8.50 within 1 minute and 10 seconds, the suit states. The charges were labeled "CTA Customer Call Center."

[Busjack]

This is exactly why I said avoid the optional Debit Card. I advocate that again.... get the Ventra Card for transit only!!! Also, don't link your card to any accounts of any kind!!!If you want a Debit/Credit Card, go to your local bank and apply for one through them, or fill out one of those Credit Card applications you get in the mail.

From the Tribune Article...

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Chicago, asks that plaintiff James Kenger be joined in a class action on behalf of "all persons who have a Ventra card that is linked to an asset account, i.e. not a prepaid Ventra card."

According to the suit, on Sept. 24 Kenger was charged twice for a single fare under the new Ventra system. Two days later, Kenger was charged $8.50 within 1 minute and 10 seconds, the suit states. The charges were labeled "CTA Customer Call Center."

You misread it.

Read again what I said about auto-reload.

They weren't arguing that the debit card was charged. They were arguing that the Ventra account was double charged.Then, because it was linked to a credit card or the like, their credit card either was or eventually would have been charged.

If it had to do with the debit card, MetaBank would be a defendant, but the Sun-Times article says the only defendants are CTA and Cubic.

Also, while the prepaid debit card is a rip-off, the Truth in Lending Act required that MetaBank make the disclosures they did. On the other hand, as I keep saying, CTA engaged in deception, and somebody engaged in double billing.

And as far as call center charges, Steele acknowledged (in the Tribune) that they were on his account, but claimed that they were Chicago Card rides or something like that.

"Based on a preliminary review, we believe all of the transactions in this customer's account are transit rides and reloading his account," CTA spokesman Brian Steele wrote in an email. [emphasis added]

Now, maybe the newspapers are misrepresenting the basis for the suit (which is also common), but it doesn't look like the complaint is about the debit card feature.

[mkohut]

While there is a value point of being overcharge.

What else can be gain in the lawsuit?

[Busjack]

While there is a value point of being overcharge.

What else can be gain in the lawsuit?

• If successful, the plaintiff's attorney gets a fee paid by the defendants (which is usually the point of most class actions).
• As usual in a class action, the Sun-Times points out:

  While the amount Kenger claims he was overcharged was relatively small, the suit seeks class action status, stating that over 1 million Ventra card users could be similarly charged. If true, that could position the CTA to collect a windfall in overcharges.

• All other members of the class (who don't opt out) get a maybe $10 settlement without having to bring suit themselves.
• Adverse publicity wasn't enough to get CTA's and Cubic's attention, but a lawsuit does. Let's see if Brian Steele quits lying about the legitimacy of the charges and Cubic actually cleans up its act.

[mkohut]

Needless to say the bigger the lawsuit more money for lawyers.

As bad as Steele is lying.

Claypool probably is more clueless.

[Busjack]

Needless to say the bigger the lawsuit more money for lawyers.

As bad as Steele is lying.

Claypool probably is more clueless.

True on the first two.

On the third I was about to agree, but something made Claypool announce Wednesday noon that the cutoff on selling mag cards was going to be rolled back until the call center mess was straightened out.

[mkohut]

True on the first two.

On the third I was about to agree, but something made Claypool announce Wednesday noon that the cutoff on selling mag cards was going to be rolled back until the call center mess was straightened out.

He had no choice.It was probably a top topic at the CTA meeting.

[Busjack]

He had no choice.It was probably a top topic at the CTA meeting.

The news report was that it wasn't even discussed:

...Claypool said after a CTA board meeting in which the issues with Ventra were not raised.

Knowing the CTA Board, I believe that.

[BusHunter]

In buying another card I notice one more misleading sentence. The ventra machine tells you as the farewell message OK your card is ready for use. When actually in my instance putting in $6 not yet registering leaves me a negative balance if I then follow what the ventra machine just said. So there clearly is not the correct message there either.

[mkohut]

The news report was that it wasn't even discussed:

Knowing the CTA Board, I believe that.

Something doesn't sound right about it.How can you come out of a meeting and make a announcement without it being talk about it.Too me that is a lack of communication between Claypool and the Board.

Perhaps Emanuel gave Claypool a script to read.

Claypool can get ready for the WWE by following the scripts.

[sw4400]

You misread it.

Read again what I said about auto-reload.

They weren't arguing that the debit card was charged. They were arguing that the Ventra account was double charged.Then, because it was linked to a credit card or the like, their credit card either was or eventually would have been charged.

If it had to do with the debit card, MetaBank would be a defendant, but the Sun-Times article says the only defendants are CTA and Cubic.

Also, while the prepaid debit card is a rip-off, the Truth in Lending Act required that MetaBank make the disclosures they did. On the other hand, as I keep saying, CTA engaged in deception, and somebody engaged in double billing.

And as far as call center charges, Steele acknowledged (in the Tribune) that they were on his account, but claimed that they were Chicago Card rides or something like that.

Now, maybe the newspapers are misrepresenting the basis for the suit (which is also common), but it doesn't look like the complaint is about the debit card feature.

This is probably why that auto-reload option shouldn't be used. There's enough retail locations and rail stations to get value and passes at. This is just as bad as the optional Debit Card, IMO

[jajuan]

While all true, I'm sure it is not the source of the lawsuit. One doesn't suffer damages from not getting the card, other than the commenter on the CTA Tattler who said he was going to charge CTA for the time he spent on the phone on hold, which probably isn't actionable.

You (and owine) should remember that I said a month ago that CTA was engaged in deception in the consumer protection law sense over such things as what fare applied to what kind of swipe, and then we had the various posts about double billing for the same ride. Amtrak41 noted complaining to the banking commissioner, which I said would be futile, but since these charges went through the banking system, maybe there were violations of the federal banking laws, which got the lawyer into federal court.

As usual, allegations aren't proof, I'm not going to predict the outcome of litigation, and I didn't suggest bringing a class action, but you (and owine) can't argue that I didn't state a basis for a suit when the consumer fraud first was reported. And since Steele argued about the facts, it won't be dismissed on the merits; the only way it is dismissed early is if the plaintiff's claims don't hold up to the extent that he would not be a proper representative, but as I implied with my "lawyer to contact" comment, I'm sure there are other potential plaintiffs out there, one of which we all know.

No I know the not getting a card isn't the source of the lawsuit. I was just mentioning it as being one example of several problems that could have just been minor issues in the relative sense but they let snowball into huge very major problems because they were slow to react before it became major.

I know people who have been double charged. It shows up right under the ride tranactions as being billed twice same route same time. The problems don't seem to be happening for pass holders just ex transit card users. I advise people to buy multiple cards if riding not using passes and pass holders to only put the money for the pass on the card. Sign up with bogus info and if the card goes negative throw it out and start another card. At least you can protect yourself.

For the most part you are correct, but there were reports of passholders having essentially a passback--i.e. a ride recorded at no charge and a negative balance of $2.25 for the same ride.

Your recommendation works only if the user doesn't have autoload, but then the question is whether they will be refused at some point.

I must be one of a lucky few. I am a passholder with my card, don't have autoload and haven't run into that one thank goodness. I wonder though if the delayed reads that some have encountered could also be a contributor to this. On that part I would also suggest resisting the legitimate urge to immediately to tap again before seeing what the reader says. I'd rather have the personal complaint that the particular reader in question is too slow than inadvertently giving myself a negative balance. I also forward that suggestion in case the operator of that bus is one of those who has the notorious habit we've all encountered here and there of just sitting there and not communicating anything as I've seen some passengers encounter the slow reader and the operator would say the card took so don't tap again.

[jajuan]

This is probably why that auto-reload option shouldn't be used. There's enough retail locations and rail stations to get value and passes at. This is just as bad as the optional Debit Card, IMO

Keeping auto-reload off turned is a legitimate suggestion for now, but since they still can't charge your credit or debit card unless you authorize it, running to a retail location or rail station to reload is an unnecessary extra step to put on yourself. Just keep autoload turned off and load the card manually online with a pass or transit value as needed.

(Edited for grammatical mistakes and typos I found upon rereading my post )

Edited October 13, 2013 by jajuan

[Busjack]

Something doesn't sound right about it.How can you come out of a meeting and make a announcement without it being talk about it.Too me that is a lack of communication between Claypool and the Board.

Perhaps Emanuel gave Claypool a script to read.

Claypool can get ready for the WWE by following the scripts.

The board meeting was an open session, and there was the news report about people complaining about not reinstating the old 31 bus, so if something were said, someone from the media would have picked it up.

Emanuel giving Claypool a script is a much more likely scenario.

[Busjack]

Keeping auto-reload turned is a legitimate suggestion for now, but since they still can't charge your credit or debit card unless you authorize it, running to a retail location or rail station to reload is an unnecessary extra step to put on yourself. Just keep autoload turned off and load the card manually load your card online with a pass or transit value as needed.

Although the class appears to have been defined as those with an associated bank or credit card account, that might have been only because it is a legal requirement that the class be defined in some manner. I'm not sure that the problem is restricted to those with autoreload, except the distinction, guessed earlier, that those without it will be refused rather than allowed to run a negative balance.

[sw4400]

Keeping auto-reload turned is a legitimate suggestion for now, but since they still can't charge your credit or debit card unless you authorize it, running to a retail location or rail station to reload is an unnecessary extra step to put on yourself. Just keep autoload turned off and load the card manually load your card online with a pass or transit value as needed.

Although the class appears to have been defined as those with an associated bank or credit card account, that might have been only because it is a legal requirement that the class be defined in some manner. I'm not sure that the problem is restricted to those with autoreload, except the distinction, guessed earlier, that those without it will be refused rather than allowed to run a negative balance.

I think this guy has auto-reload on and a personal account linked via that so that when he runs low on money/his ride pass runs out, it automatically reloads whatever he has set it for. So, personally, I hope his case is thrown out of court. This is clearly a case of "use at your own risk". Common sense dictates do not turn auto-load on and link nothing. Refill your card manually.

[KedziePink]

The only experience I've had with a negative balance was when I was transferring to State/Lake one day. I tapped my U-Pass just as someone was going through the turnstile. The reader said go, but when I tried to go through, it didn't let me. I tapped again, and went through normally. But after that, my card recorded a balance of -$2.25, and it would take a lot longer to scan than normal. (For some reason, several transactions before and after this event were duplicated in my transaction history, as shown in the screenshot attached.) So, two weeks ago, after leaving a message on the Ventra hotline and getting no response, I decided to go down to the Ventra office. They credited $2.25 to my account, and my card started scanning normally again.

EDIT: Forgot to attach the screenshot. D'oh!

[Busjack]

I think this guy has auto-reload on and a personal account linked via that so that when he runs low on money/his ride pass runs out, it automatically reloads whatever he has set it for. So, personally, I hope his case is thrown out of court. This is clearly a case of "use at your own risk". Common sense dictates do not turn auto-load on and link nothing. Refill your card manually.

That still doesn't explain why there are bogus charges for stuff like calling customer service. Even if Steele comes out with that they were mislabeled (which I still doubt), it is fraud.

Nobody has established that fraudulent charges appear only on autoreload cards. As I mentioned earlier, the only difference is that you will be refused boarding if the cash transit value runs out, but someone has stolen the card holder's money in any event.

[Busjack]

The only experience I've had with a negative balance was when I was transferring to State/Lake one day. I tapped my U-Pass just as someone was going through the turnstile. The reader said go, but when I tried to go through, it didn't let me. I tapped again, and went through normally. But after that, my card recorded a balance of -$2.25, and it would take a lot longer to scan than normal. ....

EDIT: Forgot to attach the screenshot. D'oh!

Most of these seem explainable by what appears to be double taps. One of the guys on the CTA Tattler said he intentionally left the paid area because his train was coming, and his pass wouldn't subsequently work, but others seem to be false indications that the reader didn't accept the card. In any event, though, the whole city of Chicago shouldn't have to go downtown to get $2.25 off their account.

[Busjack]

Thinking over KedziePink's and mk's prior posts, there is another purpose for the class action: to get an order requiring that the defendants preserve their records and let the plaintiff analyze them. Then, the real extent of the fraudulent charges will come out. The plaintiff will not have to rely on that he, Kevin, and KedziePink saved screenshots.

If a large pattern of multiple charges in the same minute turns up, I doubt that CTA will be able to explain them as all legitimate passbacks.