automation still calls for human review

[cellio]

I received a (paper) letter today from a health provider I use routinely. It said that in an internal audit they found that they had overcharged me, and so were enclosing a check for the over-payment.

It was for $0.02.

Did crediting my account not even occur to them? Or is there some law that requires them to send a refund, even when it produces silly results?

There's probably some interesting psychology in my response. Charities (that spend more money on fundraising than on their stated causes) sometimes send physical letters with coins visibly taped to them, I guess to get people to open the envelope. I open the ones with nickels and dimes but toss the ones with pennies. But I scanned the check.

Comments

[madfilkentist]

I've heard that in California, if you fail to cash a check for a $0.02 cent tax refund, you'll be hit with legal penalties.

[metahacker]

I once got a "bill" for -$0.03 (I had paid too much the previous month). No check was included, however. I ignored it--who needs to shlep across town for a 3 cent credit?

The next month I got a bill for $9.97, as they had added a $10 surcharge for not paying the previous month!

After some negotiations, wherein I tried unsuccessfully to explain that they now owed *me* $10.03, they dropped the whole thing.

All because some programmer wrote "== 0" instead of "<= 0"...

[cellio]

facepalm

And I'll bet they only fixed your entry, and didn't try to fix the underlying problem. :-(

[magid]

Huh. I haven't gotten fundraising letters with money taped to them, but I know I'd open them all, if only because it would feel weird to toss money in the recycling bin....