Author: Phil Villarreal

John thought his package was lost when he couldn’t find a record of it with FedEx. He paid $20 more to re-ship the document. Turns out FedEx had changed the tracking number without letting him know.

He writes:

I overnighted a document using a pre-paid overnight label with my FedEx account. When I went to track it online, the package was “not found” for two days, and then the status popped up as “shipment info sent to FedEx.” After a week, no further activity, so I called and they explained this meant that the package never reached their hands. I printed out another overnight and sent it off. I come to find out that the first package was not lost and actually made it to FedEx, except FedEx changed the tracking number on my package and didn’t inform me of this or put it into the list of shipments on my account. All along, I thought my package was lost (and they confirmed this theory with me). I ended up shelling out an extra $20 to send the same document twice overnight. I just discovered this two weeks later when I called to get credited for the first shipment (I found it odd I was charged for something that never shipped). They informed me that it was “tough luck” that I had to pay twice to ship the same thing and could not explain why my original package was reassigned a tracking number and I was never notified. Thankfully, American Express cares about their customers and took the charge off my statement with no issue. Still, it’s frustrating. I use FedEx so I can track shipments in my account profile. It’d be nice if they let me use that feature.

Also, yes, I know, I could have checked with the recipient to see if they got the package, but that’s why I pay FedEx. They’re supposed to tell me these things.

Bonus points to John for admitting his mistake in not checking with the recipient. If you have any tips for him to keep tabs on his package in case something like this happens again, please share.

Delta Airlines gave Treat a $400 voucher when it bumped him from a flight, but it turned out to be something of a trick. When he used $345 of that to buy another flight, Delta’s computer system wouldn’t let him access that final $55.

He writes:

Last summer, Delta bumped me from a flight and gave me a $400 voucher. This past week I was able to use most of the voucher and had $55. left over.

I tried to check my bag with the gal at the ticket counter (she was very nice) and had no problem until I tried to use the remaining funds on the voucher as payment. She checked the system and Delta would not allow it, or there was no provision for it. This is fundamentally wrong for them to extort more money out of the consumer when they still owe me. I should be able to pay them with the money they owe me. I can’t wait for Southwest to come to my city.

Jet-setters, have you ever been unable to use the remainder of a voucher? Any advice for Treat?

The jumbo-sized DS redesign, the DSi XL, which came out in Japan in November, will make its way to the U.S. March 28 and cost $190.

To position the giant, non-pocket-sized handheld as a Kindle rival, Nintendo will publish a cartridge with 100 e-books. Expect a bunch of public domain works you could download for free on the Kindle, iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad.

As a DSi enthusiast, I can’t see much of an advantage in getting less portable version of the system I love for its portability. What are your thoughts?

Nintendo DSi XL Will Hit Stores March 28 [PC Magazine]
Eat this Kindle: Nintendo announces 100 classic books [Destructoid]

Amid the Toyota recall hubbub, a little, tiny — though related — GM recall of the Pontiac Vibe went largely unnoticed, unless you happen to own a Vibe, like Mitch.

He writes:

Just letting you know that today I received a recall letter regarding the Toyota recall. This came as a surprise to me since I don’t OWN a Toyota vehicle. It turns out that the GM-made Pontiac Vibe is essentially a Toyota Matrix under the hood – and apparently in the pedals as well! GM Canada is calling in all Pontiac Vibes to help take care of the issue. Just thought I’d let you know!

If your vehicle has been recalled, how has the repair process gone?

If you’d like to save more money but find yourself unable to set anything aside after you pay your bills and buy such necessities such as MAD Magazine and lottery tickets, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance editor Janet Bodnar is out to help you. She put together 10 ways to trick yourself into saving.

Here are the top 6:

1) Round Up. When you subtract a check from your account, round up the amount to the next dollar. That way, you’ll always have a slush fund. Your bank may even do this for you. Sounds like small potatoes, but even if it’s only $100 every couple of months, that’s still money in the bank.

2) Know Your Plastic Personality. Disciplined credit-card holders can earn rewards points by using their cards for all their purchases and paying the bills in full each month. Consumers with less self-control may want to use debit cards to make sure that they don’t spend more than they have. In either case, your monthly statement provides a handy record of areas where you’re leaking cash.

3) Bag Savings from Brown-Bag Lunches. Each time you bring your lunch to work or pass up the temptation to buy a latte, take the money you would have spent and put it in your cash jar. It’s an immediate reward for your self-discipline.

4) Pay Yourself After You’ve Paid Off a Debt. Once you finish paying off a loan or credit-card balance, keep writing the check but send it directly to a savings or investment account.

5) Make Savings Account Deposits. Deposit your paycheck and other money to your savings account instead of checking. You’re much less likely to spend the money if you have to transfer it from savings.

6) Limit ATM Withdrawals. Instead of hitting the cash-back button for $35 every time you go to the drugstore or supermarket, limit yourself to one ATM withdrawal per week and make your money last.

For the other four, you’ll have to click on the link below.

What are your favorite ways to sneak some money aside before you can spend it?

10 Ways to Trick Yourself Into Saving [Kiplinger]
(Thanks, Laura!)

While submitting his busted Xbox 360 for repair, Ben stumbled upon a valuable piece of info for those whose have suffered multiple system breakdowns: A special phone number that expedites the shipping your refurbished replacement console, provided you have your reference number and the extension of a CSR who helped you with your problem when you called 1-800-4MY-XBOX. We first reported the secret number (1-888-236-0927) two years ago.

He writes:

In the process of sending in my third Xbox for a Red Ring of Death repair (this one lasted an entire month!), I discovered some very interesting tidbits about the 360 repair process after filing an EECB through the e-mail addresses listed on The Consumerist.

Hours after filing my complaint, I received an e-mail from Glenn, a CSR from Microsoft, who told me some very beneficial information for the disgruntled 360 population at-large, but managed to screw up my repair even further.

The big news: If your 360 has broken down multiple times, there’s actually a phone number that you can call to initiate an expedited process. I was shocked to hear about this, especially given that the @XBoxSupport feed on Twitter told me that there was no other number through which I would be able to address my issues:

It’s pretty clear Microsoft doesn’t want this expedited process advertised. So, without further ado, here is the magical phone number:

1-888-236-0927. Have your reference number ready.

Basically, Glenn told me that Microsoft puts a hold on your credit card and sends you an XBox before yours gets to the repair center. After they receive your console, they remove the hold and everything is peachy keen. Although this is helpful to me, Glenn said it was impossible for me to take advantage of the process because I had already sent my console in a full hour before I was able to speak with him on the phone.

This infuriated me to no end – logically speaking, why couldn’t they place the hold on my credit card and send a console out to me? Another example of incredibly backward and infuriating customer service by Microsoft.

The other key piece of information Glenn relayed to me concerns the units that are being shipped back through the repair center in Texas. If you have your hopes on receiving a new unit, think again – Glenn told me all of the units that come out of that center are refurbished, so you can re-live the joys of sending in your broken 360 to Microsoft endlessly. Yay?

For what it’s worth, I sent my console in with a special note:

I’d rather wait for a regular repair than hand over my credit card number to a CSR. What about you?

Jason says Dish Network stuck him with an unwarranted $300 bill, then after it credited him back the $300, billed him another $300 for no good reason. He says Dish has corrected the errors now, but he wants to disconnect.

He writes:

Dish network has the worst customer support. I have been a customer of Dish Network for the past 4 years. In November our Dish DVR started giving error messages when we started it in the evening. After a call to tech support we were told that they would ship us a new a new one. Once we received the new one we were supposed to ship the broken one back and if it was broken and had not been tampered with they would not charge us. After waiting a few days our current DVR started working! I called tech support and they told us that that was great, just ship back the new one they shipped us and everything would be taken care of.

Fast forward to January when I notice my Dish auto withdrawal was $300 high. How could this be, well after a long phone call I found that Dish received the DVR back, but didn’t know what to do with it so it just sat and because they didn’t do anything their system automatically billed me the $300 MSRP. So how do I get my money back, should be an electronic transaction right? No, I was told that they would give me a $300 credit on my account. I was frustrated, but after more discussion and a couple of times on hold agreed to be sent a check in the next day.

If it only ended there. In February it happened again (shame on me for not watching the e-bill on this one again), but what was the charge for this time. After a 30 minute or so call I found out that the Dish system did recognize that I returned the DVR but now it was charging me $300 for getting $300 credited to my account. At this point I was done with Dish, after working through the check being sent back I asked for the disconnect line, but of course I was sent to customer loyalty. I was at first annoyed, but was glad that I spoke with them, apparently the rep once again did not set my credit correctly (I’m assured it is fixed this 3rd time). I discussed the disconnect with the customer loyalty rep and asked for either a $15 discount or to disconnect in April. The rep stated that he could not set a disconnect date more than a month out so I have to call in again. I like the service, but cannot stand two mistakes that resulted in $600 of overbilling. What should I do just disconnect and switch or try and escalate further?

Dish exiles, what did you do to get away?

Normally it’s a walk of shame for gamers to lug a pile of games to GameStop to get pennies on the dollar in cash or trade-in credit for stuff they probably didn’t finish and overpaid for. But a deal going on right now for the proverbial “limited time only” offers 50 percent in bonus trade-in credit for your games.

Joystiq did some research and discovered the following games will net you $35 in trade-in credit: Modern Warfare 2, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Dante’s Inferno, and BioShock 2.

But the zinger comes with Mass Effect 2, which will net you $52 in trade-in credit, and $57 if you’ve got a GameStop edge card. That’s only $3 less than the game costs new. So in theory you could buy a used copy of the game for $55 — or about $50 if you have an edge card, and trade it back in on the spot for a $7 trade-in credit profit.

GameStop offering 50% bonus on every trade-in [Joystiq]

After asking readers for donations late last year, the Miami Herald has given up on the program, Reflections of a Newsosaur reports:

Herald officials steadfastly refused to detail the response to the novel program, which debuted in mid-December. However, Herald editor Anders Gyllenhaal said shortly before Christmas that “the first few days of this experiment have elicited an encouraging steam of gifts, ranging from $2 to $55.”

The paper published a short article on Saturday saying it decided to discontinue the program, without explaining the reasons for the decision or the amount of money that had been raised. UPDATE: In an email at mid-day (Monday), Gyllenhaal said the paper felt the request for reader donations conflicted with a campaign for Haiti earthquake relief that has raised more than $1 million.

So what do you think, has the Haiti earthquake claimed yet another victim in the Herald tip jar, or is this just an excuse to bail on a failed idea?

‘Tip jar’ vanishes at Miami Herald website [Reflections of a Newsosaur]

Apple is bent on preventing its App Store from becoming a cesspool of pornography, according to a TechCrunch post, which says Apple’s rules are a bit constrictive, banning tight clothing and bathing suits as well as nudity.

From the post:

Earlier this week, when Apple notified developers that their applications were being removed, it said that it was removing applications with “overtly sexual content”. That sounds like the ban only extends to apps that are little more than soft core porn. But we’re hearing from multiple developers that it actually means anything that could be even the slightest bit titillating in any way — including swimsuits and fitness outfits. In short, if your app has skin, it will probably be rejected.

What do you think about the alleged censorship?

The New App Store Rules: No Swimsuits, No Skin, And No Innuendo [TechCrunch, via Kotaku]

There is no excuse for downloading or copying DVDs illegally. It’s wrong and could land you in jail. But, as is illustrated in this BSPCN post, studios could learn a thing or two from their swashbuckling, peg-legged counterparts in terms of streamlining.

Pop in a DVD and you’ll have to suffer through previous, unskippable animated menus, FBI warnings and who knows what else before you get to the actual film. With a less than legal DVD, you just pop it in and watch the movie. Or so I’m told.

Consumerists, how do you and “your friends” go about watching movies, and does the unease-of-use thing with DVDs drive “friends” to piracy?

Pirated DVD vs. Legal DVD [BSPCN]

It’s en vogue for fast food companies to section off portions of their menus as “the healthy section,” but the label doesn’t convince many diners of the fact that the grub can be part of an effective weight-loss diet.

Decision Analyst’s research shows more people trust Subway than any other fast food joint when it comes to these pseudo-healthy claims, although only 24 percent of people buy the claims.

Taco Bell came up on the short end of companies surveyed, garnering the trust of only 7.5 percent of those surveyed.

From the report:

“Subway owns the nutritional claim relative to its competition, as there is a significant gap between Subway and these other popular fast food/quick-service restaurants. In fact, Subway is the only one of these restaurants with more people who ‘completely trust’ their nutritional claims than ’do not trust’ them. This finding illustrates the challenges and opportunities facing restaurants in their quest to gain greater acceptance of their health and nutrition efforts,” said Diane Brewton, Senior Vice President of the Market Intelligence Division at Decision Analyst.

If you’ve managed to lose weight by eating fast food — not counting food poisoning — let us know.

Subway’s Nutritional Claims Are the “Most Trusted” by Consumers [Decision Analyst via Marketwire]
(Thanks, NORMLgirl!)

University of Missouri scientists have invented a soy substitute with chicken, which supposedly matches chicken’s texture, moisture content, appearance and taste, Jeannine Stein blogs for the Los Angeles Times.

Stein writes:

Leading the effort is Fu-Hung Hsieh, a professor of biological engineering and food science in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources and the College of Engineering. Many soy-based meat substitutes are basically flavored, colored and/or textured to somewhat resemble steak, sausage or ground beef, but this one is more similar to chicken, with the same stringiness found in the cooked flesh.

That’s great, but what we really need a soy substitute for is the extra crispy exterior that makes fried chicken taste so good.

Tastes like chicken–but it’s soy [L.A. Times]
(Thanks, NORMLgirl!)

Cheese is on track to blow up, baby. Global Industry Analysts projects a 20 percent worldwide increase in cheese-munching from 2008 to 2015, when the world will gobble 21 million metric tons of the stuff, according to a press release on PR Web.

From the release:

Though the ongoing economic recession put a check on the cheese consumption pattern across the world, more so importantly in the developing nations, the future outlook for global cheese market still remains bright with consumption of cheese projected to grow by more than 20% between 2008-2015. Purchasing decisions, being increasingly guided by price, cheaper yet healthy and wholesome foods are surfacing back into the spotlight. Consumers are additionally exhibiting shifting preferences from imported cheese brands to locally produced cheese. Post recession, the demand for organic cheese is slated to make a comeback, with manufacturers expected to expand their product offerings. Innovation and product diversification will be the most prominent market strategies for manufacturers and suppliers in the post recession period.

Innovations, huh? Which cheese-ular advances are you hoping for? I’d like to see Cheetos that don’t leave your hands all messy, Swiss cheese with the holes filled in (to give you more value for your Swiss cheese dollar) and Kraft Doubles, Triples or Home Runs that make Kraft Singles obsolete.

Global Cheese Consumption to Reach 21 Million Metric Tons by 2015 [PR Web]
(Thanks, NORMLgirl!)

Charles says he first canceled his Chase credit card in 2008, but was surprised to find it was still open a year later. He canceled it again, but Chase kept hassling him with mailings, and when he called to see what was up he was told the company was keeping in contact with old customers to comply with the CARD act.

He writes:

In October of 2008, I tried to cancel a credit card from United/Chase. I kept getting “convenience checks” and a year later in Oct 2009, I found out, they never cancelled my account. I did (again) and they confirmed. Big surprise when this week I got “important information regarding changes to your account”. So, I call again. First lady tells me it was a computer glitch and a lot of customers with closed accounts got that info. When I kept asking her how I can get Chase to stop sending me crap, she transferred me to a supervisor, except that I got transferred to the fraud department where I had to give all my info. Finally, I get some supervisor who tells me that she will send me another letter that my account was closed and that the CARD act actually requires them to contact customers with closed accounts as far back as 2008.

By then I had wasted another 20 minutes of my life, so I reconfirmed my address (again) and let it go.

None of the stuff I’ve read about the CARD act — which goes into effect today — mentioned such a mandate, but maybe one of you knows different. Has anyone else gotten mailings from your old credit card company?

Dan and his wife Kat are geniuses because they guilt Kat’s parents into giving them money orders, but their plans are starting to be foiled because Walmart has suddenly started sticking them with check cashing fees.

Dan writes:

My wife and I occasionally receive Walmart to Walmart money orders from her parents from time to time. We’ve always been able to cash them at our [redacted] NE Walmart for the full amount with showing our photo ID. Months later, we received 2 more money orders as an anniversary present. We went to cash them today, and apparently their new store policy is to process them as checks, incurring their $3 check cashing fee. In addition to this, the check cashing also requires them to record our social security numbers for this transaction. We inquired why we were charged this fee, considering they already charge a $0.60 money order fee, and their reply was that was how they process all money orders now.

They also gladly informed us that to not incur this $3 fee was to send a money order to ourselves. Really? I’ll send myself money for $0.60? Or to avoid this fee, I could send someone money from “themselves.” They don’t check IDs to make a money order. Anyways, my wife called her mother, and she inquired at her [redacted] Walmart. They told her that our Walmart should not have charged that $3 fee. We also brought that up with our Walmart, and they said they must have not instated that policy yet. This policy at our store went into effect last November, just in time for the holidays. I haven’t bothered to check with other Walmarts, but this sounded fishy (considering one of the Customer Service representatives mentioned how running it as a check was wrong, before she was interrupted by a manager) and I figured it would be worth emailing Consumerist about.

Has anyone else been hammered by these bizarre money order fees?

James is just fine with companies violating the merchant agreement by checking his ID when he pays via credit card. His rationale is that the practice only increases his sense of security. He writes:

I’m pretty confused by some of the comments about a store requiring a person to show ID when using a credit card. Lets assume I’ve rejected some arguments…

Violates merchant agreement – From my perspective, asking for ID enhances my security, so the merchant sticking to this part of the agreement represents no value to me.

Card holder does not have their ID – It would be virtually impossible for me to have my credit card but not my ID since they are kept together so freeing me of the burden of carrying my ID is of no value to me.

Time added to transaction – The 2 seconds it takes to validate my name and likeness against the card is an insignificant cost compared to the security it provides. Or time in general for that matter.

…why is it a bad thing to have a store validate the card holders ID against the card? It also seems that some folks are trying to make the argument that the card being signed somehow validates the person presenting the card as the actual card holder when no ID is requested. Still others seem unconcerned by the idea of having their card stolen as the credit card company has their back somewhat. It’s still a pain to clean that up and it ultimately costs us money when the card company has to eat the losses.

It seems like such common sense to me that checking ID is a good thing, that for folks to take such a counter intuitive position on the subject, at the very least suggest that I may not have a good understanding of the issues involved.

Let’s put this to a vote. Choose your side, Consumerists:

Warner Bros. has already gotten Netflix to wait four weeks before renting the studio’s DVDs, and now it’s worked out a similar deal with Redbox, Deadline Hollywood Daily reports:

Kevin Tsujihara, president of Warner Bros Home Entertainment Group, said in a statement today that “the 28-day window enables us to get the most from the sales potential of our titles and maximize VOD usage.” The new arrangement provides Redbox with reduced product costs, sufficient quantities of product and optimal stock levels four weeks after street date as well as extends Redbox’s access to Blu-ray titles, which Redbox is currently testing in select markets.

Redbox renters, can you wait four weeks to rent The Blindside for a buck, or will this deal force you to run out and buy the DVD?

Now Warner Bros Settles With Redbox [Deadline Hollywood Daily]

Remember that ad for doctored “state” $2 bills that ran in newspapers across the country? Now the “World Reserve Monetary Exchange,” the company that takes regular $2 bills and places stickers on them to turn them into state versions of the bills, has taken out a two-page spread of this week’s Newsweek.

The ad asks you to call a hotline and order four $2 bills for $12 during an unspecified 48-hour introductory period, after which the price shoots up to $17 per bill, shipping included. The bills are worth only $2 each and have no collectible premium value, according to a coin collection authority I interviewed in my article about the company in the Arizona Daily Star. The Better Business Bureau of Southern Arizona issued an alert, which is summarized in this Tucson Citizen post:

BBB offers these tips for consumers shopping for collectible coins and bills:

* When you see an offer advertising rare coins or bills, call a local coin shop to verify that the offer is legitimate. You can also visit the U.S. Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing Web site, http://moneyfactory.gov.

* Collecting is not investing; not all collectibles will gain in value over time.

* Make sure the entity issuing the collectible coin or bill is a government entity. Often times you can find this information in the fine print at the bottom of the advertisement. Be wary of any private company claiming to be selling rare, recently issued currencies.

If you notice the ad in any other national magazines this week, please let us know in the comments.

Steph says Starbucks violated her credit card’s merchant agreement by forcing her to show her ID while buying $27 worth of coffee. She writes:

Back in December I tried to make a credit card purchase for about $27 worth of stuff from a Starbucks in Bristol, VA, only to be told that I would need to show ID. Since my credit card was signed and I didn’t feel like going to the car for my ID, I argued with the clerk about their ID requirement policy. Even though I explained to her that, according to their merchant agreement with Visa, they were not allowed to deny a purchase based on my lack of ID, she refused to budge.

I recently complained to Starbucks customer relations about this incident and received the reply I’ve pasted below. They are claiming that they are indeed allowed to require ID for purchases over $25. Is this true?

In fact, Starbucks is not supposed to require you show your ID. Starbucks wrote back:

Hello Stephanie,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write to us.

I am truly sorry to hear about your disappointment with our stores requesting proof of identification with credit card purchases over $25.

In regards to your concern, due to rule changes from the credit card companies, signatures are no longer required for transactions below$25. Any transaction over $25, we will continue to request identification as is the policy. Since you have indicated that your purchase was over $25 our partners followed the appropriate credit card policy.

I want you to know that we take feedback from our loyal customers seriously. Because you know better than anyone else what you want from Starbucks, I will share this with the retail operations department here in our corporate office.

Thank you again for contacting Starbucks. If you have any further questions or concerns that I was unable to address, please feel free to let me know.

Thanks again,

Madeline A.
Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company
800 23-LATTE (235-2883)
Monday through Friday, 5AM to 6PM (PST)

Have you faced this issue at Starbucks or anywhere else?