downloaded transaction mis-matched to previous transaction

Options
Recently downloaded transactions are mis-matched to previous transactions with the statement that payment has changed. Cannot delete downloaded transaction, only accept. End result is a duplicate transaction in the register that is reconciled. Any ideas?

Answers

  • UKR
    UKR SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    I don't have any downloaded transactions waiting to be accepted right this moment, but, IIRC, ...
    You can right-click a downloaded transaction in the Downloaded Transactions tab. This brings up a popup with Delete as on option.
    Now, if, e.g., the downloaded transaction's amount differs from an already existing register transaction's amount (occasionally happens to me on credit card payments when a refund is processed this period), I can usually edit the register transaction to make the amount match. When saved, the downloaded transaction should have changed to "Match" and can now be accepted.
  • rewischmann
    rewischmann Member
    Options
    The downloaded transaction is matched to a totally different transaction that happened years in the past. The only option available is to accept, I cannot delete it. The reason suggested is payment change
  • BatmanAZ
    BatmanAZ Member ✭✭
    Options
    This is happening to me as well. Transactions from May - August 2021 being "matched" with newly-downloaded transactions. Problem is, the newly-downloaded transactions don't correspond to any actual new transactions. It's like Quicken download is re-including transactions that were already downloaded sometime in the past, and reporting them as new transactions. This happened on two different accounts and two different financial institutions. THIS PART IS DIFFERENT: after I downloaded the transactions from the bank, the checking account seems to have either lost a credit, or gained a debit from sometime preceding May, 2022. This difference does not correspond to any of these mystery downloaded transactions.
  • rewischmann
    rewischmann Member
    Options
    What I have done is note the transaction it is trying to link to. Accept it, then manually go back and change it to is original information
  • BatmanAZ
    BatmanAZ Member ✭✭
    Options
    I was just reading some "HELP" on the Quicken.com site about duplicate downloaded transactions. https://www.quicken.com/support/quicken-downloads-transactions-which-are-duplicates-existing-register-entries
    It mentions changing the "Register View" to include a field called "Downloaded ID" and "Downloaded Reference". I added this to my register and discovered some new information.

    First, the field provided for the "Downloaded Reference" "Downloaded ID" is not large enough to display the entire reference number (so it's not possible to determine duplicate ID numbers).

    Second, the duplicate transactions that recently appeared in my bank download seem to have a value in the "Downloaded Reference" "Downloaded ID" field, but the transactions that were already recorded in my register do not have a "Downloaded Reference" Downloaded ID" value in the provided field. This is true whether the new/duplicate downloaded transaction is flagged as "MATCH" or "NEW".

    Third, if before ENTERING the newly-downloaded (duplicate) transaction, you add values to the missing fields (like category or memo) as you are incorporating the newly-downloaded transaction , that supplemental information DOES NOT appear in the duplicate downloaded transaction once it is entered into the register.

    Fourth, the "Downloaded Reference" "Downloaded ID" values cannot be copied/pasted from the recently entered/Accepted duplicate transaction in the register to the original transaction that was already in the register. It looks like you have to fully incorporate the newly-downloaded duplicate transaction into the register, then delete the copy of the transaction that was already in your register. This way, the transaction that is ultimately displayed in the register will have the "Downloaded Reference" Downloaded ID" field properly recorded.
This discussion has been closed.