Deceptive Billing Practices
To be clarify, Portside owns BART Seagil Software - BART does not have its own profile but works within the same accounting team from what my team understands. Between May and June 2024, the BART team transitioned to a new payment system. Shortly thereafter, we received two invoices within the same month, which immediately raised concerns. I contacted their accounting department and was disappointed by how much effort was required to prove our consistent payment history and to challenge an irregular billing practice we had never experienced with this company before. After a thorough review of our records, I confirmed that there had never been any prior billing discrepancies that would have warranted a correction or adjustment. Ultimately, their team acknowledged that they had adjusted our billing cycle to begin billing in advance, a change that had not been communicated to us prior to the invoices being issued. The only notification we received was from Ryan, their VP, letting us know that they were "introducing a new invoicing system that will enhance the accuracy, timeliness, and convenience of our billing procedures". This included a new invoice email to receive invoices from and an update on how to pay, nothing further. We were essentially left to identify the issue and press for clarification. It gave the distinct impression that had we not questioned it, it would not have been addressed at all. We made it clear that billing a client twice in one month for a recurring service—without added value or explanation—was unacceptable. Cherri, the associate we were working with at the time, acknowledged the concern and the invoice in question was withdrawn. However, we continued to face similar issues over the following months. I took leave starting in September, their team again issued two invoices: INV523172655 on September 23, 2024, and INV523172241 on September 25, 2024. Upon my return and final reconciliation of our accounts in preparation for the release of aircraft management, I discovered that this duplicate billing had gone through while my colleague was covering in my absence. This was disheartening, and frankly, it appeared intentionally opportunistic. Despite raising this with their team multiple times, I have been consistently dismissed. The apologies have been cursory at best, and no viable solutions have been presented. The one reasonable resolution I suggested was declined outright, without alternative proposals. Their team continues to communicate that there was no duplicate billing, citing differences in service periods. However, our records show that we were invoiced for 13 months of service within a 12-month period, which, from our perspective, constitutes an overbilling. As you can see, our experience shows that this company has been opportunistic with their deceptive billing processes has been less than delightful in the last 12 months. Their practices seem as though they are inflating their P&L by charging their customers an additional month's worth of service for 2024. Don't we all wish we could come up with a way to make 13 months worth of income in 12 months without making any additional sales. At this point the company has now stopped responding to all efforts that my team and I have reached out to resolve this. They have, however, sent a new contract to the aircraft owners to completely bypass all need to resolve any conflict with us. I am sure if the new owners decide to cancel their contract, they will be sure to bill us for the rest of the contract through January of 2026 even with all the disregard to accounting issues from the last 12 months. I do not recommend this company based off of unethical billing practices and their complete lack of ability to address issues and challenges as they arise.
By Kiersten M.