Synergy Business Lawyers LLP Acct # 592405

[PatrickAHeath]

Title of ticket: [Entity number and name] or "Account Management"

ServiceNow incident: INC0098767

Contact information

Staff Name: Debbie Blythe Staff Email: Debbie.Blythe@gov.bc.ca

Description

Good morning, this is the second person I’ve been contacted by, who has had issues with their BCOnline account. Can you please have someone look into this, thanks.

Regards, Debbie

---

Please see attached PDF from our 2021-06-05 through 2021-06-11 printout.

There are a few issues with this invoice:

• The 3rd line item on page 1, this has somehow mis-posted – it should not be NR1747156 – it should be NR8632275 (which is noted on the line below this one – last page in PDF – this was done through the new portal). This appears to be a duplicate charge and we have no idea why it is showing up under the new system (user PC48073 Barbara McNab)
• We were charged on page 1 for $101.50 – which is correct, but we were also charged on page 8 under PJ48073 (Ruth Nosworthy).
• Page 8 charge was done through the old BC Online system. To sums things up, we need a credit to our account in the amount of $101.50

Right now, we are thing that we are going to go back to using the old BC Online system until all these bugs are worked out. We will be messaging this to all our Corporate Staff until further notice.

Yours truly,

Barb McNab Administrator

https://app.zenhub.com/files/157936592/ce278d86-bbbe-4ffb-9d12-b09acbbd962f/download

Tasks

• [x] When ticket has been created, post the ticket in RocketChat '#Operations Tasks' channel
• [x] Add entity or relationships label to zenhub ticket
• [x] Add 'Priority1' label to zenhub ticket
• [x] Assign zenhub ticket to milestone: current, and place in pipeline: sprint backlog
• [x] Reply All to IT Ops email and provide zenhub ticket number opened and which team it was assigned to
• [ ] Dev/BAs to complete work & close zenhub ticket
• [ ] Author of zenhub ticket to mark ServiceNow ticket as resolved or ask IT Ops to do so

[ghost]

Looks like(by going through first few pages of the PDF), that they are looking into the BC Online transaction reporting. The Fees mentioned in the Receipt for NR 8632275(101.5) is not the same on Page 1($31.5). So something is definitely wrong. @stevenc987 can you please investigate why the mismatch is occurring?

[ghost]

For NR 8632275, need to investigate:

1. If both old and new applications charged the client or just the new application charged and the receipt (on page 1) is showing just the transaction summary.
2. If client was charged by both old and new apps, we need to return $101.50
3. It should not be showing NR1747156 on page 1 as per the client.
4. Page 8 mentions only the priority fee for NR 8632275 ($101.50) but page 1 mentions $31.50. Why the discrepancy?

[ghost]

@Sienna-Blumstengel

[sienna-oldaccountdontuse]

This is the one she said was wrong and shouldn't be there. It was submitted on june 8, so that looks correct to me.

This is the one she said was supposed to be there, submitted on May 31st, which doesn't make sense since we are looking at the June BCOL transaction reporting.

Both NRs are priority in NameX, but neither receipt shows that priority fee purchase 🤔 To the client, on Name Request, it looks like they never paid for priority service.

But the email confirmation of payment shows proof of upgrade for NR 8632275 🤔❓❓ Nothing else in Name Request shows this proof of upgrade.

To investigate:

NR1747156

1. Was something weird with the client's payment for NR1747156?
2. Did they pay for regular service (31.50) then upgrade after? (101.50)? Or did they pay one lump sum of 131.50 to get priority service right away?
3. Why did the priority service show on NameX but not name request? (ask Kial for help here)

NR8632275

1. Why does the client think that NR1747156 was actually supposed to show as NR8632275? Is there any connection to these NRs in the system?
2. Did they pay for regular service (31.50) then upgrade after? (101.50)? Or did they pay one lump sum of 131.50 to get priority service right away?
3. Why did the priority service show on NameX but not name request? (ask Kial for help here)

[mengdong19]

Please see the query result of payment in new system below, I don't have permission to check the NRO payment and BCOL payment history, need someone who has permission to query more.

NR 1747156: There's only one payment 31.5 in Pay-db (new payment system). In @Sienna-Blumstengel 's comments this NR is priority NR, so please check NRO see if there's more payment related to this NR.

NR 8632275: This NR paid regular service on May 31 and then upgrade on June 9, which matches the payment receipt from new system.

@kialj876 Are you able to get more information regarding these NRs?

[mstanton1]

I have sent a request to the BA Hometeam to pull a list of transactions from BC Online.

[thorwolpert]

NR 8632275 was created and paid for in NameRequest They then paid a priority fee upgrade in BCOL. The priority flag was then set on the NR (see below) What doesn't get copied across is financial transactions from legacy BCOL to NameRequest, hence the combined receipt on NameRequest will NOT show the priority upgrade fee completed in another system.

As they did receive their upgraded priority examiner review, no refunds should be done for this one. Please advise the client to begin/modify/complete NRs in the same system, not mix and match.

   id    |   nr_num   | priority_cd | state_cd
---------+------------+-------------+----------
 2110075 | NR 8632275 | Y           | APPROVED

[thorwolpert]

Exact same patter for NR 1747156 no refund for this one either

[mstanton1]

A detailed analysis completed by Meng with support from Louise and myself is attached.

https://app.zenhub.com/files/157936592/883ef987-1edf-4af4-ae81-de8b03f050ee/download

High Level Summary of Findings:

• Concerns with transaction report inaccurancy stem from the client drawing lines at incorrect locations on the statement. The NR that a transaction is for is listed below the transaction value so a transaction record starts on the line with the user ID and ends with the line containing the NR. When lines are in appropriate locations the reporting is accurate.
• Client was charged NR priority fee for NR 8632275 in both GlobalP and the new system. The NR was not processed within 24 hours after the upgrade took place though as the priority flag did not transfer over into the new Name Request.

Actions:

• Send message to Debbie B to confirm what to refund. Will coordinate a response for the client.

[mstanton1]

Debbie B has noted: please process both refunds. (NR 8632275).

One refund was completed through the old BC Online and has been sent to BCOL Help cc'ing Joanna to request the refund. Details from BCOL payment were pulled from GlobalP.Payment where bcol_key = 'NR 8632275'.

BCOL Account Number: 592405 BCOL RACF ID: PJ48073 Folio Num: 13812-00 Payment Total: 101.5 Payment Date: 2021-06-09 15:00:28 NR: 8632275

The second priority fee came through the Business Registry but paid with the same BCOL account. There is no manual approach so this has also been sent to the BC Online.

BCOL Account Number: 592405 User ID: PC48073 Payment Total: 101.5 Payment Date: 2021-06-09 21:56:49 NR: 8632275 Fee Code: NM606

[mstanton1]

Sent to client and Debbie B. SBC IT Ops and BCROS BA Inbox has been sent the email as well.

Good Afternoon Barb,

Thank you for reaching out about the transaction reporting concerns. We have reviewed records in BC Online, the new system, and then the report to better understand what is happening.

In the report we noticed that lines were added. They ended up splitting up the transactions differently than they were intended to be read. On page 1 the first transaction should start with the user ID and conclude with the NR number. I’ve added in lines below to show visually what was intended.

As far as payment, we confirmed you were charged twice for the priority fee for NR 8632275. Both priority fee amounts have been refunded through your BC Online account. When looking into how this happened it appears to stem from messaging between our two systems. We noticed the name reservation was completed in the new Name Request but the upgrade to priority took place through BC Online. It did not properly send to the new Name Request. The second priority fee was applied as a result of a user logging into the new Name Request and upgrading to priority there.

On our side we have dedicated a team member to look at the issue where the priority that was added through BC Online was not reflected in the new application. A fix has been made. That being said, we would still recommend that when name reservations are being completed they are done in one system. If the name request is submitted through the new application the best approach for an upgrade to priority would be to complete that through the new system as well.

Please contact me if you have further questions or concerns.