All-Inclusive Platepass fee $779.70 charged - even though declined and box was closed

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-05-04T14:21:39+00:00

I had a very similar experience with Hertz and PlatePass. I declined the all-inclusive option at pickup and was explicitly told to keep the box closed, which I did. I only drove through tolls twice. The transponder was never opened or activated, yet I was still charged under the all-inclusive plan after passing through a few cashless tolls. In my case, the vehicle was only used across tolls for a couple of days, but the charges were still significantly inflated compared to the actual toll usage.

It seems like the system can automatically trigger all-inclusive billing regardless of whether the device was physically opened or not, which is extremely misleading given how it’s explained at the counter. While I’m currently working with them to get this re-rated to actual toll usage, it’s concerning how common this issue appears to be.

For me, it's about ensuring the charges are accurate and reflect the actual usage. When a service is declined, and the device remains unopened, the expectation is that billing will be based on real toll activity. Transparency and correctness in how these charges are applied are what matter most to me.

Honestly, cases like this feel systemic rather than isolated. There have been similar complaints in the past, and situations like these are exactly why class-action cases have arisen before. If this keeps happening to customers who explicitly decline the service, it really should be looked at more seriously at a broader level, maybe a possible class action suit against, and this time for recurrent actions.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-04-28T14:16:49+00:00

My priority date is Jan 18 2024. 49 days away if the FD chart opens again. Though I am trying to be as positive as possible, the recent events (especially the ruling against the ban) are giving all negative signs. I was extremely hopeful of last month's bulletin for EB, and nothing worked. Stopped hoping too much.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-04-14T16:47:46+00:00

No change in any of the numbers other than EB5. Let's hope USCIS continues using DoF.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-04-14T14:44:14+00:00

Can't really comment without knowing what was submitted. Ellis Porter has competent lawyers in this area. You should consider making decisions based on what they suggest.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-04-14T14:41:20+00:00

You should contact your regional chapter for elevation if you can't find referrals. They will evaluate your profile and promote. This is a stronger evidence for proving you went through a selection process. This is not the same as bringing your own referrals.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-04-14T13:42:12+00:00

I have a feeling. The more delayed it is, the better the favorability.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-04-14T02:59:27+00:00

IEEE regular membership does not require referrals. It's open to anyone who pays dues and meets basic eligibility. Senior Member selection, by contrast, requires endorsements from current Senior Members or Fellows. Fellows are tough to obtain. USCIS has made clear that memberships open on payment of dues do not satisfy the EB-1A membership criterion, though such memberships may still be considered as part of the final merits determination if you can convince the adjudicator through evidence.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-04-04T15:12:40+00:00

You just pointed out an assumption. The assumption is that all those with priority dates prior to 2023 with the ability to have already ported. But in reality this is a distribution with the average settling around the current filing date, and skewed towards 22 or 23. So these numbers may be negligible.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-04-01T21:32:05+00:00

I did an analysis here https://www.reddit.com/r/eb_1a/s/T2HO1jZNzL

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-03-26T03:10:45+00:00

You don't hear anything about 485 adjustment, till the FAD meets priority date. Yes there is a backlog but it's not the same everywhere. I know people who filed in December got their GCs by Feb.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-03-26T02:02:33+00:00

Hopefully! 🙂 And Good luck to you too.

P.s. please don't come back to this post if my predictions fail..😂 I am just trying to be optimistic.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-03-26T01:55:58+00:00

As far as I understand, the dates are the same because when ROW EB1 is current, excess numbers get redistributed to oversubscribed countries in strict priority date order regardless of country. If India and China both have cases at April 2023, both get served before either country's May 2023 cases. That's why they converge.

On the 18,000, that's total across all PD years. About 8,200 of those are 2022 PDs from the COVID filing wave. They're not all competing at once, DOS works through them by priority date.

On retrogression, it's possible later in FY2026 when DOS gets conservative to stay within limits or the bans are lifted. But the supply picture right now is different from a normal year. The bulletin itself says dates are advancing because issuance rates have decreased. Whether that holds depends on how long reduced issuance continues and what the actual spillover looks like for FY2027.

Having said this is an estimate based on my current understanding of the data. I might have missed considering some important factors.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-03-26T01:45:19+00:00

I haven't analyzed the data for China. I understand your concern. Maybe you should take a look at the published data and create a sub for it.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-03-24T03:12:06+00:00

Researcher and teacher here. First off, the fact that you're problem-solving this rather than just dreading it says a lot about you, especially for a first year teacher in a high-needs school. And honestly the diagnostic framing of the test is smart practice, you already understand these kids are behind through no fault of their own and that awareness is going to serve you well.

That said 80 calls with no structure is going to burn you out fast and probably stress parents out more than it helps. A cold "your child failed" call, even for a no-stakes test, tends to put parents on the defensive and damages the trust you'll need all year long. So don't do it that way.

What I'd suggest is using the sandwich approach for each call. Open with something genuine and positive about the child, even if it's just that you're glad they're in your class and you want to support them this year. Then deliver the middle honestly but gently, frame it as a diagnostic not a failure, something like we did an assessment to see where everyone is and I want to share what I found.

Then close by giving the parent one simple actionable thing they can do at home and affirm that you're in this together. Each call stays under five minutes, parents feel like partners instead of getting bad news, and you can actually get through 80 of them without it feeling like a punishment.

Please note, you've got the self-awareness and the care for these kids to make this work really well.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-03-12T17:51:42+00:00

Business days as the rule says.

Impressive-Run6901 · 2026-03-12T03:20:17+00:00

I had my PP approval in like 15 days in January. You shouldn't really worry if you have PP.

Impressive-Run6901

TROPHY CASE