> "A refund of the excess purchase..."
So they'd be refunded the excess, i.e. $25.
Putting another $9,975 through just feels like being "too smart".
Very sloppy for a consumer financial communication, but I guess that governments can get away with it.
But anyway it just shows more UX issues - if it's the former then why didn't the balance update to show $10k; in either case why does it accept the payment before checking? It should just say no you've hit your limit this year, or you've already subscribed $25 this year you're limit is $9975.
So it is not real time system, but likely processed weekly, monthly or like. And all of the messes are bunched up and processed for single out come for period of time.
User was just stupid not to wait a week before next attempt...
But I don't see why you can't just record '25' even if it won't settle for days/weeks, and not allow >$9975 in the meantime. (If the $25 doesn't go through then fine, you just end up with $25 capacity still.)
I bet it allows you to make a single >$10k payment only to reject it (on an 8-10week time frame) if it behaves like this.
If they waited a week they wouldn’t get the 8.5% (I believe)
I'm 90% sure the author will end up with a $25 bond. There's a 10% chance it won't actually cancel the $9975 purchase, due to races between the probably bolted on email part and the thing that reconciles all the transactions by scanning their (emulated?) tape drive at night.
Either way, it's pretty clearly a bug in the server implementation (unless this behavior is accidentally required by law, which wouldn't surprise me either...)
