Date Received: 2022-01-13
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: Company disagrees with dispute and PURPOSELY put transaction back on the day statement generates .. not giving me a chance to appeal or to not have it affect my credit
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: FL
Zip: 32822
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-13
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX Navy provided a reply regarding this dispute in response to my response to the requests made by Navy CU. Please keep the Requirements set forth by the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) laying out consumers ' rights to dispute credit card issuers ' charges. Charges must be over {$50.00} to be eligible for dispute. They may be unauthorized, display an incorrect date or amount, or contain calculation errors. If a good or service was not delivered, that charge can be disputed. The card issuer has 30 days to acknowledge receipt of a complaint. They then have two billing cycles to complete their investigation ; during that time the issuer is not allowed to try to collect the payment, charge interest on it, or report it to credit bureaus as late. If the card issuer finds that the disputed payment was invalid, it must correct the error and refund any fees or interest charged as a result. If it finds there was no error, it must explain its findings and, upon request, provide documentation to back them up. I have not received any notice of any investigation has occurred, or the results of such investigation. If Navy did conduct an investigation, I once again request documentation to back up the findings. Please keep in mind the card issuer has 30 days to acknowledge receipt of a complaint. They then have two billing cycles to complete their investigation ; during that time the issuer is not allowed to try to collect the payment, charge interest on it, or report it to credit bureaus as late. To date, Navy has tried to collect payment for the amount in dispute and charged interest on it, violation FCBA statutes. Your reply as shown below failed to address my response to your request for documentation. Nowhere in the FCBA is there a provision requiring the consumer to provide the documentation requested. If such documentation existed there would be no dispute between myself and the merchant, which is my right to have investigated and charged back. My original reply provided the pertinent FCBA, XXXX, or XXXX dispute resolution guide requirements, and consumer rights. However, this seems to have been ignored yet again, as you are still asking for things that are not required, and had I such documentation there would not be a dispute between myself and the merchant. However, as there is a dispute I have invoked my rights under applicable laws when I submitted my original dispute, which is attached below. The key points are I invoke my rights under UCC 4214, issued 2002 to chargeback and refund this transaction. o Currently, these rights under this and other statutes are being violated by Navy. I requested a temporary credit if the dispute in question takes significant time to investigate. The dispute was according made per XXXX XXXX Reason Code 4831 or 4834 under the newest XXXX dispute resolution guide. o It indicates that the transaction amount wasn't what I, the cardholder agreed to. o These chargebacks are usually caused by a merchant failing to notify a customer of a change in the transaction amount. o When the conditions of a purchase change and the price is affected, merchants may sometimes make adjustments without first notifying the customer or seeking a new authorization approval. o When the cardholder is unaware of these adjustments and did not agree to pay the new amount, they have grounds to dispute the transaction. o In some circumstances, cardholders may be asked to approve a variable amount to be charged later. If the transaction exceeds the maximum amount they agreed to pay, they can dispute this charge on the basis that the overcharge was unreasonable. Attached are our correspondences thus far.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TX
Zip: 787XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-13
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Deposits and withdrawals
Consumer Complaint: For no reason my account has been on hold for several months ND my money has been d fr several monthsXXXXthe bank sad they will not talk to me over the phone at all and I must come in to a branch which XXXX plusmiles away I went to the branch on the XXXX # th of this month to verify my identity however the correct depFtment was closed dforr they were supposed to. I got to the bank at XXXX pm they don't close til XXXX. They refuse t help meat all I verified my identity and the sill Wont release my funds at all for no reason .they refuse y re me there name r employee number so. Can reference the whole situation. Management is not willing t help me T all they said it's because of a transactions stayed was grad which is not true I never did that. They are holding my money illeally
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CA
Zip: 93551
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-13
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Problem making or receiving payments
Consumer Complaint: On or about XX/XX/2019 Navy Federal restricted all of my accounts with its financial institution stating that I breached contract. In XXXX I allowed my mother XXXX XXXX XXXX to sign into my business online banking and sign a business check on my behalf. XXXX XXXX XXXX at the time and still is due to personal reasons is my power of attorney. Under a Power of attorney no laws or contracts could have or have been breached. Navy federal restricted all of my accounts both personal and business which prevented me access to online banking, daily transactions with my checking and savings account, credit cards and lines of credit. Navy Federal Credit Union is in violation of adhering to GAAP principles and is obstructing the banking system. I have made several attempts to overturn this matter with the security department & have been informed this decision is final. I intend on pursuing this matter also with the Attorney General and the FTC. Attached please find Affidavit of truth and POA that was in place at the time Navy Federal stated that I was in violation/ breach of contract. Navy Federal still has all of my accounts open but I have no access to them but they still want payment on said restricted accounts.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: NC
Zip: 28278
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-12
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: Rep advise me that i can get a deferral on the acct to COVID 19, advised the rep that i would like that option, still paid the acct when i received the funds, tried to fix with creditor, she advised she could do anything, she did state she seen when i talked to both reps prior to my next due date, i never been late on this acct or had this problem until i contracted XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: GA
Zip: 303XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-12
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was result of identity theft
Consumer Complaint: I had sent in a police report to XXXX for a auto loan that was the result of identity theft to all three credit bureaus. XXXX and XXXX removed the fraudulent auto loan from my credit report where my identity was stolen which was used to acquire a $ XXXX auto loan from navy federal in my name in which the thieves allowed the loan to go delinquent and leave me with a charge off after they used my identity. XXXX rejected my police report and opened a reinvestigation and haven't responded back to me with the results or even acknowledged the police report which provided all the information and there was no lack of sufficient evidence. I already spoke with the bank themselves and flagged all accounts as fraud and told them that none of the actions within Navy Federal was me.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: IL
Zip: 60450
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-12
Issue: Getting a loan or lease
Subissue: Fraudulent loan
Consumer Complaint: I was looking for a car to replace my elderly mothers death trap of a car for her birthday. I applied for a pre-approval of {$20000.00} on Navy federal credit union. I have excellent credit, XXXX and on XXXX. My only income is from veterans disability, which is more than adequate to pay all my obligations. I got the approval on XX/XX/2022, I immediately drove XXXX miles one way to the closest branch to get the check. Check in hand I find a used car on XXXX for {$14000.00}, I get the VIN and do a XXXX value check. The price came out to match, so I made an offer, did all the paperwork and scheduled a delivery for XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2022. The whole cost was way below my {$20000.00} cap. Delivery day and its XXXX pm, I call to ask wheres the car? They gave me the runaround after calling 20 different people, only to find out that navy federal had denied the check. I call navy federal and they denied it because they said the value to price was below because they didnt use KBB they used XXXX XXXX which said it was thousands cheaper, it was for my protection, not that getting blindsided emotionally distressed and nearly put into a blind rage because they felt this was a bad deal and didnt have the ethics to let me know that because they chose a different guidebook and used it as absolute, over doing an average and honoring the approval check. I now have to use the XXXX finance with higher interest, and jump through all the hoops along with the embarrassing ordeal of having to go through the process all over, the time wasted, sleep deprivation caused by such cowardly disgusting disrespectful conduct! They literally made my XXXX and XXXX XXXX skyrocket in just seconds. Its traumatizing on its own! By only using the lowest guidebook as absolute instead of doing an average of the three, literally makes getting a used car absolutely impossible! These are price guides not absolute price books. This whole interaction was unethical and absolutely unprofessional.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: CO
Zip: 81004
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-13
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: I WAS OFFERED AN SETTLEMENT AND IT WA SSUPPOSED TO BE REMOVED OFF MY XXXX ONCE PAID. I PAID AS AGREED AND THIS DEBT IS STILL SHOWING ON MY CRDIT FILE WHICH IS HIDERING ME TO OBTAIN CREDIT.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: LA
Zip: 70517
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-13
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Information belongs to someone else
Consumer Complaint: Accounts in question : XXXX XXXX XXXX I reported these accounts as fraud ( attached police report ). The accounts were removed as requested by me however no investigation was done by the credit bureaus or Navy FederaXXXX. Shortly after the account was placed back on my credit report without my notice or consent. I asked for the accounts to investigate and removed due to fraud. Navy Federal refused to investigate and provide me with original documents and statements to prove their claims. My requests were ignored which is a violation of my consumer rights. I sent a repeat FTC report and cfpb complaint regarding the fraud account and the accounts continued to be reported on my credit report. This is another violation of my consumer rights. Furthermore, I have informed Navy federal to cease communication on these fraud accounts. However, my requests have been ignored and I am still harassed several times a day for years by a robocaller phones number leading by to Navy Federal once answered. To my knowledge, this is also a violation of my consumer rights.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TX
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-01-11
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account
Subissue: Transaction was not authorized
Consumer Complaint: On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I reported a fraud claim in the amount of {$15000.00} due to ( approximately 75 ) fraudulent charges occurring on multiple days by multiple payee/company dating back to XX/XX/XXXX ( Per the bank representative, fraudulent charges that could be claimed by phone had to be within 90 days of the claim date. ) The claim was broken up into 3 different claims ( by the bank for an unknown reason ) and added up to a total of {$15000.00} ( claim # 1 - {$13000.00}, claim # 2 - {$750.00}, claim # 3 - {$880.00} ). After the investigation, I received notification that all three claims were denied with the only explanation of no error has occurred ( Attachment 1 ), and provisional credits issued for claims # 2 & # 3 would be reversed ( no provisional credit was granted for claim # 1 ). After ( 6+ ) hours of ( approximately 6 weeks of accumulated phone calls and messaging ) efforts to attempt to exercise my consumer rights in obtaining the documentation used in the decision of the claim. I was provided the below overview of reasons from NFCU to identify why the claim was denied. Per Bank Statements and Debit Card History, multiple valid transactions were completed with same merchants listed on the claim. Several transactions not reported as fraudulent were completed with other merchants in the location of XXXX. Members known mobile device was shown accessing his account before, during, and/or, after the reported fraudulent activity. Since before the receipt of the message, I had made a vast number of attempts to reach out to the investigator team to discuss the claim denial response for a better understanding and to provide additional information ( for an appeal ) as applicable. [ Without the further discussion, there is reason to believe that some of the information is not being considered and or reviewed to entirety. This is inferred from the multiple messages received with repeated information, and the claim amounts not matching. Also, the reasoning for the claim denial is inaccurate. ] All attempts ( multiple phone calls, secured messages from member account, urgent messages from the Navy Fraud team, escalation team, supervisor/management, and resolution specialist ) have been unproductive and unanswered. In the meantime, in efforts to have a continued information flow ( vs. a stagnant case ), I have made assumptions and speculations on the detailed reasoning for denial and provided the below response of information to the bank team : All charges ( both filed claim ( s ) and charges pre-dating the claim ) were fraudulent. Claims for the pre-dated charges were placed at a later date. o 81 % ( {$12.00}, XXXX ) of the charges were conducted by a single payee/company. All of these charges were confined to the initial claim filed midXXXX and occurred between ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) Members info was updated by the member upon relocation/move conducted in XX/XX/XXXX. Upon further review of bank account information, the members address was updated, but the phone number was inaccurate. A premature appeal was submitted, and a second denial was received. In efforts to not continue the inefficient loop, I have requested additional information and a call from a member from the investigation team that can provide detailed information ( which transactions are being referenced in both the completed transactions and additional transactions completed in the location of the XXXX? In what way was the member contacted for the notifications of suspicious activity? Etc. ) The below is a log of recent ( December 27-January 11 ) attempts to NFCU to discuss this matter. Each phone call has identified the status of the processing and/or denial of the appeal and additional efforts by NFCU representatives to reach out to the investigation team with no response. XX/XX/XXXX 52 minutes XX/XX/XXXX 48 minutes XX/XX/XXXX 1 hour 34 minutes XX/XX/XXXX 1 hour 51 minutes XX/XX/XXXX 45 minutes In addition, throughout the process ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ), there were ( 2 ) additional fraudulent charges ( {$96.00} and {$72.00} ) incurred on the same account from the same single ( 81 % ) payee/company mentioned above using the same debit card. These charges were reported immediately upon posting, and a claim was filed for each resulting in two additional claim denials. Considerations : Once the fraudulent charges were discovered, the member immediately reported the activity, which is in alignment with the NFCU requirements of reporting a fraudulent claim. NFCU did not notify the member of suspicious account activity through secured XXXX or email as identified by their protocol. Fraud charges that pre-dated the claim were minor ( 24 transactions totaling {$200.00} over four months ) and undetected by the member.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
State: TX
Zip: 77845
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-01-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A