{"took":403,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":12,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6864932","_score":33.81283,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing about XX/XX/2021, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX ( the Company ), which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Wells Fargo account to fraudulent investment firm. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Wells Fargo did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Wells Fargos custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-20T10:05:09.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6864932","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2023-04-20T09:54:30.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[33.81283,"6864932"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9777495","_score":32.198616,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"General Obligation : Description of the Incident Starting in XX/XX/year>, I became the victim of XXXX XXXX, resulting in my loss of money. To perpetrate the fraud at issue, XXXX XXXX has operated using the following domain XXXX XXXX \nBased on the information and documents provided, you can see that starting in XXXX, I transferred funds via wire transfer from Wells Fargo to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, where I bought XXXX which I then sent to the fraudsters. In addition, I transferred funds from Wells Fargo to XXXX XXXX. I lost XXXX USD due to this endeavour. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Wells Fargo did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/ or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Wells Fargo s custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargo s conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-11T02:38:11.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"97230","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9777495","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-08-11T02:27:10.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargo s conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[32.198616,"9777495"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7104755","_score":29.124783,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing on or about XX/XX/2022, I fell victim to XXXX multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX ( the Company ) which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX USD from my Wells Fargo account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Wells Fargo did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Wells Fargos custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Wells Fargo must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Wells Fargo did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-13T00:32:04.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"77095","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7104755","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2023-06-13T00:00:06.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[29.124783,"7104755"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6497487","_score":28.50016,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I wish to practice my right as a customer of Wells Fargo to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : XXXX ) with Wells Fargo. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Wells Fargo respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Wells Fargo to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Wells Fargo, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \n\nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or about XX/XX/2022, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( Company ), which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Wells Fargo account to a fraudulent investment firm. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Wells Fargo did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Wells Fargos custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a XXXX eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Wells Fargo must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Wells Fargo did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-27T06:40:18.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"95037","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6497487","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2023-01-27T06:34:05.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[28.50016,"6497487"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9288090","_score":28.281372,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing on or about XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to XXXX multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Wells Fargo account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX ). \n\nCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF XX/XX/XXXX When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Wells Fargo did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Wells Fargos custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the XXXX and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( XXXX ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( XXXX ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo XXXX XXXX compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo XXXX not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells XXXXrgos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Wells Fargo must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way XXXX be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Wells Fargo did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-06-18T21:14:36.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"92154","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9288090","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-06-18T20:56:10.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the XXXX and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( XXXX ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( XXXX ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo XXXX XXXX compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo XXXX not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[28.281372,"9288090"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8524599","_score":26.791601,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing approximately around XXXX XX/XX/2023, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Wells Fargo account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Wells Fargo did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Wells Fargos custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\n\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Wells Fargo must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\n\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\n\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Wells Fargo did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\n\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\n\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Wells Fargo has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\n\nWells Fargo is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the\ncustomer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\n\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-11T18:45:42.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"350XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8524599","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-03-11T18:25:54.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[26.791601,"8524599"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5778692","_score":20.992798,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, DC XXXX XX/XX/XXXX This is to complain against the Wells Fargo. \nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Wells Fargo to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : XXXX ) with Wells Fargo. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Wells Fargo respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Wells Fargo to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Wells Fargo, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. \nThey are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Wells Fargo account to these fraudulent investment companies. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following : ( i ) whether Wells Fargo did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Wells Fargos custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transactions in question despite being aware of the nature of the transactions in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent organization. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a XXXX eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Wells Fargo must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Wells Fargo did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\n\nWells Fargos Position : On XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo wrote in a letter We understand that you believe you may be a victim of a fraud scheme resulting in you wiring funds to a third party under false circumstances. We will make every attempt to recall a wire if a victim advises us the transaction was associated with a fraud scheme ; however, we can not guarantee we will able to return the full amount from a suspected fraudulent transaction. If there are insufficient funds in the recipients account or if the recipients account is closed at the time the request to recall a wire is made, we may not be able to recover the funds from the recipients account. \nRefuting Wells Fargos arguments from a purely logical perspective : Wells Fargos position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that commonsense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\n\nIn Wells Fargos view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\n\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Wells Fargo morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Wells Fargo encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Wells Fargo. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Wells Fargo carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \nIt is perfectly obvious that Wells Fargo, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Wells Fargo here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Wells Fargo adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Wells Fargo that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Wells Fargos capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Wells Fargos indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a XXXX and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Wells Fargo has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, such as the XXXX, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nWells Fargo is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nWells Fargo are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. \nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Wells Fargo adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Wells Fargo in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than selfinterest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Wells Fargos business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Wells Fargos non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Wells Fargo pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-07-17T06:20:20.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"08109","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5778692","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2022-07-17T02:17:04.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transactions in question despite being aware of the nature of the transactions in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo has within"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[20.992798,"5778692"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10325396","_score":20.380507,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year> WITHOUT PREJUDICE Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX complaint to CFPB. \n\nUpon examining the response from Wells Fargo on XX/XX/year>, I have concluded that it is inadequate and unjust.The investigation process appears to be biased against me as the victim, and lacks knowledge of good industry practices and compassion towards me as a customer. \nYour response seems to be based on a flawed understanding of my situation, and crucial information that contradicts your position. The decision made in relation to the issue I raised did not consider my vulnerability as a victim of financial crime and XXXX XXXX to protect its clients from such crimes. \nFinancial institutions have a duty to conduct business with due skill, care, and diligence, and Wells Fargo 's subpar intervention in my case clearly falls short of reasonable business conduct.I am not looking for a debate about what could have been done, but rather a transparent, evidence-based investigation that considers my vulnerability, the sophistication of the scam, the shortcomings of FSMA to identify fraudulent companies, and Wells Fargo 's failure to identify suspicious transactions in a timely manner.\n\nWhen determining what is reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability and consider the following common queries : whether Wells Fargo neglected any rule, law, or regulation that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; whether they owed a fiduciary duty to me and breached it ; whether they promoted the questionable transaction despite being aware of its nature ; whether they were in compliance with their own policies and procedures ; whether they owed duties to me, the scope of those duties, and whether they failed to uphold them ; whether their conduct was unfair ; and whether they have the ability and should compensate me for the harm that has occurred. \n\nI hope that you will take these key points into account to reach a fair outcome.Wells Fargo had sufficient information available to justify and had the capability of stopping these payments altogether, but chose not to.\n\n1. Educate clients : Banks can provide educational resources to their clients to help them identify and avoid scams.\n\nThis can include tips on how to recognize phishing emails, how to protect personal information, and how to avoid fraudulent investment schemes.\n\n2. Implement security measures : Banks should have robust security measures in place, such as multi-factor authentication, to prevent unauthorized access to client accounts. They should also regularly monitor client accounts for any suspicious activity and notify clients immediately if any suspicious activity is detected.\n\n3. Increase fraud detection : Banks should invest in advanced fraud detection systems to detect and prevent scams. This can include using artificial intelligence and machine learning to identify patterns of fraudulent activity.\n\n4. Collaborate with law enforcement : Banks can work with law enforcement agencies to identify and prosecute scammers. They can also share information about scams to help prevent future incidents.\n\n5. Provide immediate assistance : In the event that a client falls victim to a scam, banks should provide immediate assistance to help mitigate the impact. This can include freezing accounts, cancelling transactions, and providing financial support to clients.\n\nMisplaced Accountability : Victims of scams are often limited in their ability to react, as they instinctively and immediately respond to the demands of the perpetrator. It can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to consciously refrain from such reactions. Giving off signals that make us vulnerable to these schemes is not the same as being grossly negligent, given the increasingly sophisticated nature of scams that are pervasive in society.\n\nIn my case, personal circumstances made me particularly vulnerable during the victimization period, as I was financially illiterate and inexperienced in the finance sector. This made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field. Since then, I have gained a greater understanding of the scope and nature of these crimes and the operations of the financial services sector on an international level.\n\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the risks posed by these crimes to their clients, who may have limited knowledge of these dangers. It is important to note that victims of scams are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions, but rather individuals who have been tricked, lied to, deceived, and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated and aggressive sales techniques can trap unsuspecting victims who are unable to escape until most or all of their funds have been lost or stolen by the scammers. A good comparison is to a perpetrator who \" grooms '' their victim while also assaulting them and preventing them from escaping.\n\nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim : Upon scrutiny, it is evident that your claims are flawed in attempting to thoroughly investigate the available facts, let alone provide an accurate portrayal of the role of Financial Institutions in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organization 's services, and other pertinent details regarding our relationship and its historical context. By focusing on inadequate due diligence checks, inconsequential references, and one-dimensional thinking, you present a distorted view of my fundamental rights as a customer, and offer a poor model for comprehending the issue in a well-reasoned and objective manner.\n\nThis approach also serves as a deficient guide to determining whether any wrongdoing occurred on your part.\n\nRegarding the \" authorization '' argument, you argue that statements such as \" the transaction has been authorized '' and \" the duty of care has been breached '' are incompatible.\n\nHowever, you have not demonstrated that these statements are logically contradictory or improbable with regard to each other. They are not mutually exclusive when considered in the broader context.\n\nThe view that my authorization of the transaction renders me fully liable oversimplifies the situation and overlooks other relevant factors related to the breach of duty of care. Clearly, there are additional facts that must be taken into account beyond what initially appears.\n\nConclusion : Finally, as the foregoing analysis shows, Wells Fargos grossly negligent failure to stop the fraud in question played a key role in causing my damages. Wells Fargo compounded such failures by making improper factual determinations and wrongfully rejecting the allegations made. Wells Fargos failure to propose remedial action to achieve a just outcome in my case, as well as their ineffective assistance has resulted in my incurring staggering losses and runs contrary to their purported longstanding commitment to protecting the integrity and fairness of the market against any abuses.\n\nI formally request, in the name of justice as well as the points made above, that my case proceed with mediation/arbitration so that no party ends up suffering as a result of unjust actions and the refusal of anyone to take the basic responsibilities for enabling this to happen/doing nothing to set things right.\n\nThe information provided should meet the criteria for these reconsiderations.\n\nIf despite these objections, my concerns are not appropriately taken into consideration and are instead simply dismissed, you can be assured that alternative action will be taken, and I will make it a point to share our exchanges with the public so that at least pre-emptive action can be taken by other potential clients to avoid any dealings with organizations where customer security is not a priority. \nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-02T01:25:40.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"32967","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10325396","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-10-02T00:54:51.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When determining what is reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability and consider the following common queries : whether Wells Fargo neglected any rule, law, or regulation that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; whether they owed a fiduciary duty to me and breached it ; whether they promoted the questionable transaction despite being aware of its nature ; whether they were in compliance with their own policies and procedures ; whether they owed duties"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[20.380507,"10325396"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17940503","_score":18.23983,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Violation of my mother 's rights under Regulation XXXX/ Failure to investigate unauthorized transaction under Regulation XXXX/ failure to detect, identity and respond to elder fraud. \n\nI am writing to formally dispute the unauthorized transactions that appeared on my XXXX XXXX XXXX mother 's Wells Fargo checking account XXXX. A few weeks ago I noticed XXXX separate transactions, totaling {$13000.00} originating from multiple on line merchants and in bank and ATM withdrawals. \nMy mother is XXXX refugee who fled the war in XXXX. She came to this country to seek protection. She does not speak any XXXX. She does XXXX XXXX nor she does know how to use an internet or ATM. She did not authorize, approve, or initiate these transactions in any manner. \n\nUpon discovering these charges, I immediately contacted XXXX XXXX customer service and initiated a dispute. I told to XXXX that someone XXXX XXXX who had access to my mother 's house on regular basis as a XXXX could have XXXX the debit card info and used it for online purchases. I also told to XXXX that while being in the house she could have been taking the debit card from my mother 's purse XXXX XXXX to the ATM to make withdrawals and afterwards to place the card back into the purse. She, also, could have seen the pin because she was present with my mother during times when my mother paid for her groceries at local XXXX store using pin. I, also, told that there is a police report being filed on XX/XX/XXXX against XXXX and provided XXXX with police report number and the name of detective investigating XXXX for fraud .However, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX of the letters from Wells Fargo XXXX received a response stating that my claims were denied, concluding that the transactions were authorized and that a processing error did not occur. This conclusion is inaccurate, and I am formally requesting a reconsideration of my claims under Regulation XXXX ( Electronic Fund Transfer Act, XXXX XXXX XXXX ), which protects consumers from unauthorized electronic transactions. \n\nGrounds for Reconsideration : Regulation XXXX Violation Under XXXX CFR XXXX ( d ), a financial institution must conduct a reasonable investigation into a disputed electronic transaction. A blanket denial without sufficient evidence to support authorization does not satisfy this requirement. Use of PIN does not make transactions authorized either. \nA bank may not deny claims purely because a PIN was used or because the thief got my mother 's debit card from her purse and/or has managed to retrieve the PIN and used it for a cash withdrawals. The question is whether my mother authorized the transfers, and she did not. If the bank refuses to honor claims, it owes a written explanation grounded in its investigation and supportive documents that my mother authorized transactions, not a summary rejection. \n\nBurden of XXXX XXXX XXXX CFR XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ), it is the banks responsibility to demonstrate that the transactions were authorized, not the customers burden to prove they were unauthorized. Given that these transactions occurred online and at ATM and in bank ( cash withdrawals ) with the debit card of an elderly person who does not do an internet and does not know how to originate online purchases nor use an ATM and never went to bank for cash withdrawals purposes, besides does not speak XXXX, further verification should be required.Numerous times I asked that bank requested from online merchants the IP addresses in order to review the geolocation the disputed transactions were originated from or review the video footage of ATM and XXXX withdrawals that shows who indeed makes withdrawals but was refused. The bank stated that there is no indication that fraud occured because transactions were made either by my mother or by someone who she gave permission to which is in violation of XXXX CFR XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ). \n\nFailure to Provide Supporting Evidence Wells Fargo has not provided documentation demonstrating how it determined the transactions were authorized. According to XXXX CFR XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ), my mother have the right to request and review the banks investigative findings. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX If these transactions were processed via my mother 's debit card, XXXX and XXXX policies typically protect consumers from fraudulent charges, especially when the physical card was not used. In my mother 's case there were XXXX online transactions which she did not authorize. \n\nException to XXXX days liability rule due to extenuating circumstances such as vulnerability of my elderly mother XXXX XXXX CFR XXXX ( XXXX ) and Wells Fargo policy to extend time for those consumers who could not file claims within XXXX days due to events beyond their control. \n\nWells Fargo failed to comply with its own policies and procedures, and with XXXX rules, in failing to identify and respond to obvious warning signs that my XXXX XXXX XXXX mother was being financially exploited. Only XXXX transaction from XX/XX/XXXX from unknown company for {$5000.00} calls into questioning, specifically how XXXX XXXX XXXX woman who does not speak XXXX could have make online purchase for such a large sum of money if she never spent more than {$80.00} dollars in a XXXX transaction at the local store. Wells Fargo failed to generate XXXX and inform law enforcement of potential ongoing exploration in a timely manner which could have prevented all other fraudulent transactions. \n\nGiven the above, I am formally requesting : A full reconsideration of my claims. \n\nAny documentation Wells Fargo used to determine the transactions were authorized. \n\nA provisional credit of XXXX XXXXXXXX the claims are re-evaluated, as required under XXXX CFR XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) ( i ). \n\nFailure to appropriately handle these claims in compliance with federal regulations may leave me no choice but to escalate this matter to other relevant regulatory and law bodies and media. I trust Wells Fargo will adhere to its obligations and resolve this matter fairly XXXX XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T03:54:23.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"75007","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17940503","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-11-26T01:23:11.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Exception to XXXX days liability rule due to extenuating circumstances such as vulnerability of my elderly mother XXXX XXXX CFR XXXX ( XXXX ) and Wells Fargo policy to extend time for those consumers who could not file claims within XXXX days due to events beyond their control. \n\nWells Fargo failed to comply with its own policies and procedures, and with XXXX rules, in failing to identify and respond to obvious warning signs that my XXXX XXXX XXXX mother was being financially exploited."],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[18.23983,"17940503"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6900609","_score":17.832863,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"The basis of this compliant is Wells Fargos Failure to provide a Mortgage Modification per CPLR 3408, after Wells Fargo submitted a Net Present Value ( NPV ) document to my attorney showing my monthly income qualifies for a HAMP modification at 30 % of my monthly income. In Wells Fargos denial in XX/XX/XXXX, calculations came up with 42 % due to a Software Error and I got Unjustly denied. Next, after a 2nd Modification submitted showing an increase of an average of over {$2000.00} in monthly income Wells Fargo again denied in XXXX XXXX saying monthly income was still at 42 %? In addition to that, now that I have an increase of income Wells Fargo now States Investor does not participate 9 10 months later after my 2nd modification application submitted. This puts Wells Fargo in many violations of HAMP and shows they did not negotiate in good faith under CPLR 3408 ( f ). Wells Fargo continued the modification process even after the excuse of Investor does not participate for a Traditional inhouse Modification and strangely got denied again in XXXX XXXX based on again the 42 % denial. Again, this shows Wells Fargo did not negotiate in good faith under CPLR 3408 ( f ). \n\nThis complaint herein is following up my XX/XX/XXXX complaint with Wells Fargos XX/XX/XXXX answer. On XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke to XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargos Executive Process about my issues. Wells Fargo had me participate in the CPLR 3408 Mandatory Settlement Conference from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I submitted my 1st modification documents by XX/XX/XXXX. Wells Fargo Responded in XX/XX/XXXX that my modification was denied due to, your modified payment amount would be more than 42 % of your monthly income. My Attorney argued that their numbers were incorrect that my monthly income was 30 % and within HAMP guidelines and asked Wells Fargo to recalculate, but was denied again for the same reason. Denied due to Wells Fargos Software Error. \n\nWells Fargos contention of my complaint is 1 ) Your HAMP denial was due to your modified payment amount would be more than 42 % of your monthly income. Using Wells Fargo NPV Document, they sent to my Attorney ( attached to this complaint ) proves my monthly income is 30 % of my modified payment and qualifies under HAMP. Wells Fargo using 42 % when it is actually 30 % shows Wells Fargo Software Error in calculations. On XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I asked XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargos Executive Process, for the document they used showing how they came about the 42 % but they did not provide any in their XX/XX/XXXX XXXX denial letter to me. 2 ) your investor did not participate in HAMP, yet Wells Fargo has provided no Proof of that. On XX/XX/XXXX I asked XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargos Executive Process, for a copy of the Investors PSA showing any restrictions, but they have not provided one in their XX/XX/XXXX XXXX denial letter to me. HAMP Guidelines - The Servicers should know at the time of the identification of potential candidates for the HAMP programs the eligibility qualification of the candidates based upon the servicing agreement between the Servicer and the Investor, pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement ( PSA ). This is also a mandate of the Making Homes Affordable Program, Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages. Wells Fargo States 3 ) Wells Fargo is not able to provide a program or assistance option your investor does not participate in. Under Section 1.3 HAMP Guidelines Wells Fargo in writing MUST request from the Investor a Waiver of the Restrictions. On XX/XX/XXXX I requested from Wells Fargo a copy of the written request to the Investor for a waiver but they failed to provide one in their XX/XX/XXXX XXXX denial letter to me. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargos answer to my complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX stating, The proposed HAMP modification payment was used only as reference for the HAMP program and was not an offer. I never claimed it was an offer, It was a Proposed HAMP Modification. Wells Fargo submitted to my attorney Proposed HAMP Modification in their Net Present Value ( NPV ) Document ( attached here to this complaint ) around XXXX XXXX. The Proposed HAMP Modification is 43 lines of different inputs all relating to me. Wells Fargo sent a proposed modification Clearly shows it was being used for modification purposes. If this document was not an actual proposed modification, what was Wells Fargo using to come up with Your HAMP denial was due to your MODIFIED PAYMENT AMOUNT would be more than 42 % of your monthly income? For Wells Fargo to State this was only a Proposed HAMP modification and not an offer is Disingenuous in that under the HAMP Guidelines it uses the NPV to determine if a proposed mortgage qualifies. Per HAMP Guidlines - In HAMP, value-enhancing modifications are identified using the Net Present Value ( NPV ) model. The NPV Model compares the expected discounted cash flows associated with the modification of a loan. The Proposed Modification, HAMP uses the Net Present Value ( NPV ) Document Wells Fargo provided to me. \n\nUsing numbers Wells Fargo Provided to me in a Proposed HAMP Modification Wells Fargo had my Monthly income at {$6800.00}, a proposed modification of Principal and interest of {$1300.00}, monthly taxes {$640.00} and Hazzard Insurance of {$130.00}. Using Wells Fargos Proposed HAMP Modification in their Net Present Value Document the monthly mortgage total ( mtg +Taxes + Ins ) = {$2100.00} divided by Wells Fargos provided monthly income {$6800.00} = 30 % modified payment not Wells Fargos claimed 42 %. My monthly income was 30 % well within the HAMP Guidelines. \nI submitted my second Modification request in XX/XX/XXXX where my income substantially increased adding about {$2000.00} to my monthly income average. This time in XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo Denied me based on your investor did not participate in HAMP. I have documentation of Wells Fargos Attorney who Wells Fargo list as Mediation Counsel through Wells Fargo, specifically requested investor to reconsider their HAMP denial but was denied again. Wells Fargos own Mediation Counsel believed I qualified.\n\nWells Fargo had me participate in the Mandatory Settlement Conference from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX when their investor did not participate in HAMP? Wells Fargo became the servicer of the Investor in XX/XX/XXXX, yet for over 2 years they did not know their investor participated in HAMP?\n\nHAMP Guidelines - 1.3 Investor Solicitation - Within 90 days of executing a SPA, the servicer MUST review all servicing agreements to determine investor participation in HAMP.\n\nAccording to Section 1.3 of HAMP Wells Fargo became the Investors Servicer in XX/XX/XXXX so they should had determined the Investors participation by XX/XX/XXXX over 2 years Prior to my CPLR 3408 Modification. Also, the Servicer as a MANDATE potential candidates for the XXXX programs the eligibility qualification of the candidates based upon the servicing agreement between the Servicer and the Investor pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement ( PSA ). Here Wells Fargo Failing to abided by HAMP statues and Mandates. \n\nAccordin\n\ng to HAMP guidelines The Servicers should know at the time of the identification of potential candidates for the HAMP programs the eligibility qualification of the candidates based upon the servicing agreement between the Servicer and the Investor, pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement ( PSA ). THIS IS ALSO A MANDATE of the Making Homes Affordable Program, Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages. According to HAMP guidelines Failing to provide a waiver of the investors restrictions demonstrates a failure to follow the HAMP guidelines which constitute a failure to negotiate in Good Faith pursuant to CPLR 3408 ( f ).\n\nPer HAMP Guidelines Within 30 days of identifying an investor as a nonparticipant, or as unwilling to extend its participation in MHA to include any extension or expansion of an MHA program, or identifying a servicing agreement that limits or prohibits a servicer from offering any assistance available under MHA, including HAMP Tier 2 modifications ( i.e., prohibition against modification of non-owner occupied mortgages or limits on multiple modification of the same mortgage ), the servicer Must contact the investor in writing at least once, encouraging the investor to permit modifications and other assistance available under the extended and expanded MHA programs. Servicers, within 120 days of signing the PSA, must create and maintain in their records an Investor Participation List containing the following information : ( 2 ) a list of those investors who do not participate in HAMP. \n\nIn Wells Fargos answer here on XX/XX/XXXX to my XX/XX/XXXX complaint, states ; Wells Fargo is not able to provide a program or assistance option your investor does not participate in. Then Why did Wells Fargo have me for 15 months, wasting money paying attorneys during this time period, have me submit 3 modifications? Why not after the first modification denial XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo did not notify me of investors participation but incorrectly deny me based on my income was 42 % and not in HAMP guidelines? When actually proven in Wells Fargos NPV Document attached to this complaint, shows Im at 30 % and Within HAMP Guidelines. Due to Wells Fargos Software Error, they incorrectly denied me. Why when I submitted my 2nd Modification where I show over {$2000.00} a month average increase in my income did Wells Fargo deny me in XX/XX/XXXX based on Investors participation? Wells Fargo states here, Wells Fargo is not able to provide a program or assistance option your investor does not participate in, why after my denial in XXXX XXXX that investor does not participate did Wells Fargo continue to have me reapply for a Modification? Wells Fargo had me apply for a Traditional in House modification in XX/XX/XXXX and getting denied again in XX/XX/XXXX due to your modified payment amount would be more than 42 % of your monthly income. If Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo is not able to provide a program or assistance option your investor does not participate in, why did Wells Fargo continue this charade? \n\nAll Wells Fargo accomplished in the CPLR 3408 from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and after I got the Investors Denial of not participating in HAMP, not after my first submitted modification but after my second submitted modification is run up in principal and interest, fees and attorney cost into the total owed in the mortgage making it impossible to seek outside modification. Wells Fargo actually after the XX/XX/XXXX denial continued a Traditional inhouse Modification and was denied in about XX/XX/XXXX for the same reason Your HAMP denial was due to your modified payment amount would be more than 42 % of your monthly income. Why did Wells Fargo continue the HAMP modifications with me after the investor said they did not participate? 15 months of principal and interest, fees, attorney fees being added to my Mortgage Balance making it impossible for me to seek outside modification. In addition to me paying my attorney their fees for about 15 months. Wells Fargo did not follow HAMP Guidelines, Wells Fargo miscalculated my monthly income ratio per HAMP Guidelines due to a Software error. Wells Fargo Failed to Negotiate in Good Faith per CPLR 3408 ( f ). \nIn my conversation on XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargos Executive Process after she tried to justify the Denial based on the Investors Guidelines. I asked her if Wells Fargo asked the Investor for a waiver but she did not know. As I mentioned above the servicer Must contact the investor in writing at least once, encouraging the investor to permit modifications and other assistance available under the extended and expanded MHA programs Per HAMP Guidelines 1.3. \n\nAppellate XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX XXXX XXXX v XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Among other things, a failure \" [ to follow ] HAMP regulations and guidelines... constitutes a failure to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408 ( f ) '' ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v Smith, 123 AD3d at 917 ; cf. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sadeque-Iqbal , 177 AD3d 598, 600 ). \nI requested from XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargos Executive Process Under HAMP if denied a modification, I can Request a copy of the Waiver of investors restrictions that should be in the loan file. I also requested a Copy of the PSA ( Pooling and Servicing Agreements ) under RESPA for my review of the Investors Restrictions. Not only in my conversation but here also I am requesting the Waiver of investors restrictions that should be in the loan file and a Copy of the PSA ( Pooling and Servicing Agreements ) under RESPA for my review.\n\nAlso, under Section 6.5 of HAMP provides that \" [ i ] f [ a ] servicer is subject to restrictions that make it unfeasible to complete the modification waterfall steps, '' the servicer Must maintain evidence showing \" that the servicer made a reasonable effort to seek a waiver from the investor and whether that waiver was approved or denied '' ( Making Home Affordable Program, Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages, version 4.4, ch 2, 6.5 at 117 [ XX/XX/XXXX ]. Im asking Wells Fargo for a copy of the waiver if Wells Fargo asked the investor to reconsider the restrictions. \nCFPB final rules on mortgage loan servicing on XX/XX/XXXX - New national standards, changes to Regulation Z, Truth in Lending Act, and Regulation X, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. \n\nServicing Policies, Procedures and Requirements - Servicers, must establish and maintain policies and procedures- Provide accurate and timely information to borrowers, investors, courts. \nProperly evaluate loss mitigation applications per investor guidelines. \nWells Fargo in Violation of Section 1.3 of the Making Homes Affordable Program either did not comply under this section or unjustly had me apply for Mortgage Modification 2 times ( nearly 1 year ) before informing me of the Investors restrictions. After Wells Fargo notified me of the Investors restrictions in XXXX, Wells Fargo continued to have me apply for a Traditional inhouse modification into XX/XX/XXXX. Wells Fargos actions here for about 15 months added principal, interest, fees and attorney cost to the total owed making it impossible for me to seek outside financing. Also, my cost of paying attorney for 15 months. \n\nI have many Court Cases Where XXXX XXXX has offered modifications and some with Wells Fargo as Servicer. I have through an SEC Filing, XXXX XXXX for HSI Assets that they do offer Modifications. The Trust that XXXX is the Trustee of is the HSI ASSET SECURITIZATION CORP. TRUST XXXX-HE2. The following is from the SEC Filing Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as Trustee. Reconstituted Servicing Agreement, dated as of XX/XX/XXXX, by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - EXHIBIT A to Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . 's XXXX Certification Regarding Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria. 2 - Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . ( the \" Servicer '' ) is responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it under paragraph ( d ) of Item XXXX122 of Regulation AB as set forth in Exhibit A hereto in connection with the primary servicing of residential mortgage loans by its Wells Fargo Home Mortgage division 4- The Servicer used the Criteria set forth in paragraph ( d ) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the applicable servicing criteria ; WELLS FARGO BANK , N.A . By : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT. SERVICING CRITERIA - General SERVICING CONSIDERATIONS- 1122 ( d ) ( 4 ) ( vii ) Loss mitigation or recovery actions ( e.g., forbearance plans, MODIFICATIONS and deeds in lieu of foreclosure, foreclosures and repossessions, as applicable ) are initiated, conducted and concluded in accordance with the timeframes or other requirements established by the transaction agreements. \n\nSEC Filing by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX signed by Wells Fargo Executive Vice President XXXX XXXX XXXX stating under Servicing Criteria Loss mitigation or recovery actions modifications. \n\nIt is clear Wells Fargo, 1 ) did not calculate my monthly income CORRECTLY DUE TO A Software Error to the proposed modification ( NVP ) saying it was over 42 % but was 30 % within HAMP Guidelines. 2 ) After I show my income increase by over {$2000.00} per month in XXXX in my second modification, it now gets denied due to Investor does not participate and Wells Fargo has failed to provided any documentation of this. 3 ) Wells Fargo did not negotiate in good faith by offering me a Modification and taking 2 modification submittals till investor denied and then continued with me for an additional 5-6 months for a modification into XXXX. 4 ) Wells Fargo did not Negotiate in Good Faith by having me go through 15 months on Modification Negotiations even after Investor said did not participate. 5 ) XX/XX/XXXX Submitting my 3rd modification and already showing my income is less than 30 % of HAMP guidelines, Wells Fargo Denied me again saying my income is over 42 %. Wells Fargo Calculation Errors. 6 ) Wells Fargo made it impossible for me to get a modification on the outside market. 7 ) Wells Fargo Failed Section 1.3 of HAMP Within 90 days of executing a PSA, the servicer must review all servicing agreements to determine investor participation in HAMP. 8 ) Wells Fargo failed to ask the Investor for a Waiver per section 6.5 HAMP Guidelines. 9 ) Under HAMP guidelines the servicer Must contact the investor in writing at least once, encouraging the investor to permit modifications. 10 ) Per NY XXXX XXXX Among other things, a failure \" [ to follow ] HAMP regulations and guidelines... constitutes a failure to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408 ( f ) '' Bottom line Requesting from Wells Fargo per HAMP, Wells Fargos requesting the Investor for a Waiver. Also, Requesting per RESPA a copy of Investors PSA showing Investor Restrictions.\n\nWells Fargo Unjustly denied me a Modification under HAMP Guidelines when I qualified at 30 % but in Wells Fargos Calculation Error got over 42 % and Did not Negotiate in Good Faith per CPLR 3408 ( f ). Not until my 2nd modification submitted showing an increase of monthly income of over {$2000.00} a month and probably even dropping Wells Fargos calculation of 42 % into HAMP guidelines did Wells Fargo come up with Investor does not participate in the program. Wells Fargo has never provided any documentation of proving this fact even though I have requested copy of PSA showing Investors restrictions. \n\nIn my Last Complaint and in my phone conversation with XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargos Executive Process on XX/XX/XXXX, I requested Wells Fargo to Produce the Document with the Numbers used where they got my income was 42 % of the Mortgage, but they still have failed to provide any. Bottom line, Wells Fargo Document Net Present Value NPV attached to this complaint showing the proposed HAMP modification showing my monthly income is at 30 % of the proposed mortgage/taxes/ins monthly amount. 30 %, Well Within HAMP Guidelines and there is no Documentation of Wells Fargo Claims of investor does not participate.\n\nSection 1.6 Compliance with Applicable Laws Each servicer and any sub-servicer that the servicer uses will be subject to and must fully comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including statutes, regulations, ordinances, administrative rules and orders that have the effect of law, and judicial rulings.\n\nWells Fargos contention of my complaint is your investor did not participate in HAMP, yet Wells Fargo has provided no Proof of that. \n\nWells Fargo States Wells Fargo is not able to provide a program or assistance option your investor does not participate in. Under Section 1.3 HAMP Guidelines Wells Fargo in writing Must request from the Investor a Waiver of the Restrictions. On XX/XX/XXXX I requested from Wells Fargo a copy of the written request to the Investor for a waiver but they failed to provide one in their XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX denial letter to me. \nHAMP Guidelines - 1 Servicer Participation in MHA - Section 1.3, participating servicers are required to use reasonable efforts to remove any prohibitions and obtain waivers or approvals from all necessary parties in order to carry out the requirements of the SPA.\n\nIn Violation of HAMP Section 1.3 Wells Fargo has failed to provide any proof they contacted the Investor and request to remove any prohibitions and obtain waivers or approvals. In my conversation on XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargos Executive Process I requested a copy of the Waiver they asked the Investor for and on XX/XX/XXXX I received a XXXX mail from Wells Fargo stating the reason for the denial of my complaint on XX/XX/XXXX and they did not provide the Waiver I requested. \n\nHAMP Guidelines - 1.3 Investor Solicitation - Within 90 days of executing a SPA, the servicer MUST review all servicing agreements to determine investor participation in HAMP. Within 30 days of identifying an investor as a nonparticipant, or as unwilling to extend its participation in MHA to include any extension or expansion of an MHA program, or identifying a servicing agreement that limits or prohibits a servicer from offering any assistance available under MHA, including HAMP Tier 2 modifications ( i.e., prohibition against modification of non-owner occupied mortgages or limits on multiple modification of the same mortgage ), THE SERVICER MUST CONTACT THE INVESTOR IN WRITING AT LEAST ONCE, ENCOURAGING THE INVESTOR TO PERMIT MODIFICATIONS and other assistance available under the extended and expanded MHA programs.\n\nIn Two ( 2 ) more Violation of HAMP Section 1.3 Wells Fargo failed to review and Identify the Investor as a participant in HAMP. Wells Fargo failed to contact the Investor in writing encouraging the Investor to permit Modifications. \nSection 2.2 Documentation - Servicers are required to maintain appropriate documentary evidence of their MHA-related activities. Required general documentation applicable to all MHA Programs includes but is not limited to : Evidence of assessment of investor willingness to participate in MHA programs and any specific outreach to investors or attempts to obtain waivers on either a portfolio or loan by loan basis, including copies of any contracts with investors relied upon in denying modifications. This should include, where applicable, documentation relating to specific parameters or limitations on participation required by investors for steps in the waterfall.\n\nAll documents and information related to the servicers consideration of the borrower for other loss mitigation alternatives.\n\n6.5 Prohibitions on Modification Waterfall Steps- If the SERVICER IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS THAT MAKE IT UNFEASIBLE TO COMPLETE THE MODIFICATION waterfall steps, the SERVICER SHOULD IDENTIFY THIS PRIOR ( PRIOR ) TO PREFORMING THE NPV EVALUATION and NOT PREFORM AN NPV EVALUATION. Servicers must maintain evidence in the loan file documenting the nature of any deviation from taking any sequential modification step in the modification waterfall and the fact that the applicable servicing agreement, investor guideline or law restricted or prohibited fully performing the modification waterfall step. The documentation must show that the servicer made a reasonable effort to seek a waiver from the investor and whether that waiver was approved or denied. \n\nIn Violation of Section 6.5 Prohibitions on Modification, Wells Fargo did provide to me a NPV when its Investor had restrictions. I have asked Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX for a copy of the waiver Wells Fargo asked the Investor for but Wells Fargo has failed to provide one. \n\nSection 7 Net Present Value ( NPV ) Testing - All loans that meet the applicable HAMP eligibility criteria in Section 1 must be evaluated using a standardized NPV test that compares the NPV result for a modification to the NPV result for no modification. \nWells Fargo filled out and presented to my Attorneys my NPV document, showing my monthly income, taxes, insurance, Principal and interest payment of the Proposed HAMP modification, a revised interest rate of 2 % and a mortgage term from 360 months to 480 months. According to HAMP Section 7 loans that meet the applicable HAMP eligibility criteria in Section 1 must be evaluated using a standardized NPV test so Wells Fargo determined that I was eligible for a HAMP Modification and in so determining went to the next step and filled out the NPV document. How can Wells Fargo determine my Qualification or fill out the NPV if the Investor does not Participate? It has already been stated in Section 1.3 that Wells Fargo should had determine investor participation in HAMP.\n\nContinue of Section 7 Whether or not a modification is pursued, the servicer must maintain detailed documentation of the NPV model used, all NPV inputs and assumptions and the NPV results.\n\nAgain, Im asking Wells Fargo for the documents that show how they came up with your modified payment amount would be more than 42 % of your monthly income.\n\nI have the Wells Fargo NPV proving using Wells Fargos numbers that I qualify at 30 % of HAMP.\n\nIm asking Wells Fargo for the documents that show the written request ( per Section 1.3 ) of the investor for a Waiver of the restrictions.\n\nIm asking Wells Fargo for the documents that show the Investors PSA showing the Investors Restrictions.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-27T17:37:25.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"11725","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6900609","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2023-04-27T17:15:14.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Im asking Wells Fargo for a copy of the waiver if Wells Fargo asked the investor to reconsider the restrictions. \nCFPB final rules on mortgage loan servicing on XX/XX/XXXX - New national standards, changes to Regulation Z, Truth in Lending Act, and Regulation X, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. \n\nServicing Policies, Procedures and Requirements - Servicers, must establish and maintain policies and procedures- Provide accurate and timely information to borrowers, investors, courts."],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[17.832863,"6900609"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8234693","_score":11.17628,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is to complain against the Wells Fargo Bank ( WFB ).\n\nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of WFB to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : XXXX ) with WFB. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to WFB respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.\n\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of WFB to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\n\nDuring the complaints process with WFB, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Between XXXX and XX/XX/, I fell victim to XXXX multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my WFB account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether WFB did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of WFBs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether WFB promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether WFB was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether WFB owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether WFB did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether WFBs conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether WFB has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, WFB must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\n\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\n\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that WFB did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\n\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\n\nWFBs Position : On XX/XX/2023, WFB wrote in a letter Recently, your fraud inquiry was forwarded to us for our review. We found that between XXXXand XX/XX/2023, you authorized multiple wire transfers totaling {>= $1,000,000} for the benefit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX As the money will not be returned from the receiving bank, we are not able to reimburse you. At this time, we consider your inquiry closed.\n\nPlease note that a wire transfer is an immediate form of payment and can not be reversed after the funds have been deposited in the beneficiary 's account, even if you believe you are a victim of fraud. To learn more about protecting yourself from fraud, visit our Fraud Protection Center at wellsfargo.com/privacy-security/fraud/.\n\nRefuting WFBs arguments from a purely logical perspective : WFBs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\n\nIn WFBs view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\n\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make WFB morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if WFB encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as WFB.\n\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by WFB carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\n\nIt is perfectly obvious that WFB, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.\n\nIt is WFB here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that WFB adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is WFB that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with WFBs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, WFBs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\n\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all WFB has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\n\nWFB is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\n\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harmand it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financialabuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems aredeveloped using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention offraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, therebyminimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud andfinancial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detectsuspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It thenlists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a.multiple cheque books ; b.sudden increased spending ; c.transfers to other accounts ; d.multiple password attempts ; e.logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f.sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions aretransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\n\ng.a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h.a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i.financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\n\nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact withthe customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the natureof the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\n\nWFB are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified.\n\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability WFB adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\n\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by WFB in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only XXXX of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that WFBs business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. WFBs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\n\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that WFB pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\n\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\n\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\n\nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-27T15:35:22.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"91011","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8234693","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-01-27T15:11:05.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether WFB promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether WFB was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether WFB owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether WFB did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether WFBs conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether WFB has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[11.17628,"8234693"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9072091","_score":8.519279,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"15 U.S. Code 1681- Congressional findings and statement of purpose a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. ( b ) Reasonable procedures : It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. As you can see there is a need to protect my right to privacy. 15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction : The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. The term consumer means an individual. The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living. ( XXXX ) Exclusions : ( A ) ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; XXXX XXXX history is illegal. XXXX. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [ XXXX XXXX. XXXX ] In general. Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency XXXX furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : XXXX. In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. This means you can not report without my consent. You need my written consent to add anything to my consumer report if you did not give this authorization that is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) which is a law that backs the code, that is even stricter as it states that any agency can only get my report in response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency ( or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency ). 15 U.S. Code 1681c - Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports Except as authorized under subsection : ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information : Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. No adverse item besides the conviction of crimes should be on a report. Any item that is a derogatory mark is not allowed into consumer reports, this is another violation. 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title. ( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. By violating section 1681b for permissible purpose and 1681c for information contained in consumer reports they are also violating compliance procedures under this title. 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; Every company in their agreements with consumers said they would follow the law and agreed to do so. They are aware that they are breaking the law. 15 U.S. Code 1681o - Civil liability for negligent noncompliance In general : Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure Negligent noncompliance means the law was violated not on purpose but just due to a lack of knowledge on the required reporting procedures. 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies : ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. ( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. Once you notify the consumer agencies that there is inaccurate information they must immediately stop reporting that information until they can prove that it is valid. Privacy Act of 1974 ( 5 U.S. Code 552a ) Important Definitions : ( 4 ) the term record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph ; This includes consumer reports : ( b ) Conditions of Disclosure.No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be : ( 12 ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711 ( e ) of title 31. Again you need prior written instruction of the individual to whom it relates. Section 3711 ( e ) of title 31 States : ( 1 ) When trying to collect a claim of the Government under a law except the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ( 26 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ), the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency shall disclose to a consumer reporting agency information from a system of records that a person is responsible for a claim if : ( E ) the head of the agency has established procedures to ( iii ) get satisfactory assurances from each consumer reporting agency that the agency is complying with all laws of the United States related to providing consumer credit information ; and Either way you have violated not only the Fair Credit Reporting Act but also the Privacy Act of 1974. 15 U.S. Code 6801 - Protection of nonpublic personal information ( a ) Privacy obligation policy It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information. Nonpublic personal information means personally identifiable financial information ( i ) provided by a consumer to a financial institution ; ( ii ) resulting from any transaction with the consumer or any service performed for the consumer; or ( iii ) otherwise obtained by the financial institution. 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section XXXX of this title. b ) Opt out ( XXXX ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless : ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section XXXX of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. Which means I can opt out. 15 U.S. Code 6805 - Enforcement ( a ) In general Subject to subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5511 et seq. ], this subchapter and the regulations prescribed thereunder shall be enforced by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Federal functional regulators, the State insurance authorities, and the Federal Trade Commission with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their jurisdiction under applicable law. I have the right to opt out of anything on my report at any time and the companies must comply as soon as reasonably practicable after they receive notice. They have given me unreasonable means to opt out so Ive written this letter directing them to stop reporting in accordance with the laws listed above and below. PART XXXX - PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION ( REGULATION P ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Purpose and scope. ( a ) Purpose. This part governs the treatment of nonpublic personal information about consumers by the financial institutions listed in paragraph ( b ) of this section. This part : ( XXXX ) Requires a financial institution to provide notice to customers about its privacy policies and practices ; Provides a method for consumers to prevent a financial institution from disclosing that information to most nonaffiliated third parties by opting out of that disclosure, subject to the exceptions in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. Every company owes you a privacy notice before they furnish any information to our consumer report. XXXX XXXX XXXX Initial privacy notice to consumers required. ( a ) Initial notice requirement. You must provide a clear and conspicuous notice that accurately reflects your privacy policies and practices to : ( XXXX ) Customer. An individual who becomes your customer, not later than when you establish a customer relationship, except as provided in paragraph ( XXXX ) of this section; and ( XXXX ) Consumer. A consumer, before you disclose any nonpublic personal information about the consumer to any nonaffiliated third party, XXXX XXXX XXXX Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. Section ( a ) ( XXXX ) Form of opt out notice. If you are required to provide an opt out notice under XXXX ( a ), you must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to each of your consumers that accurately explains the right to opt out under that section. The notice must state : ( i ) That you disclose or reserve the right to disclose nonpublic personal information about your consumer to a nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) That the consumer has the right to opt out of that disclosure; and ( iii ) A reasonable means by which the consumer may exercise the opt out right. ( XXXX ) Examples ( ii ) Reasonable opt out means. You provide a reasonable means to exercise an opt out right if you : ( A ) Designate check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms with the opt out notice ; ( B ) Include a reply form together with the opt out notice that, in the case of financial institutions described in XXXX ( l ) ( XXXX ) of this part, includes the address to which the form should be mailed ; ( C ) Provide an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be sent via electronic mail or a process at your Web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information ; or ( D ) Provide a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out. ( iii ) Unreasonable opt out means. You do not provide a reasonable means of opting out if : ( A ) The only means of opting out is for the consumer to write his or her own letter to exercise that opt out right; or ( B ) The only means of opting out as described in any notice subsequent to the initial notice is to use a check-off box that you provided with the initial notice but did not include with the subsequent notice. ( g ) Time to comply with opt out. You must comply with a consumer 's opt out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after you receive it. ( h ) Continuing right to opt out. A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. ( i ) Duration of consumer 's opt out direction. ( 1 ) A consumer 's direction to opt out under this section is effective until the consumer revokes it in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically. 16 CFR Part 313 - PART 313PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION, is under Authority of : 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq., 12 U.S.C. 5519. 16 CFR 313.7 - Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods also states, ( f ) Continuing right to opt out. A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. 16 CFR 433.2 - Preservation of consumers ' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices : 433.2 Preservation of consumers ' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to : ( a ) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. or, ( b ) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan ( as purchase money loan is defined herein ), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such purchase money loan contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : NOTICE ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. 16 CFR 433.3 - Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before November 1, 1977 from requirements of 433.2 ( a ) : 433.3 Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before November 1, 1977 from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). ( a ) Any seller who has taken or received an open end consumer credit contract before XXXX XXXX XXXX, shall be exempt from the requirements of 16 CFR part 433 with respect to such contract provided the contract does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses. ( b ) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this exemption : ( 1 ) All pertinent definitions contained in 16 CFR 433.1. ( 2 ) Open end consumer credit contract : a consumer credit contract pursuant to which open end credit is extended. ( 3 ) Open end credit : consumer credit extended on an account pursuant to a plan under which a creditor may permit an applicant to make purchases or make loans, from time to time, directly from the creditor or indirectly by use of a credit card, check, or other device, as the plan may provide. The term does not include negotiated advances under an open-end real estate mortgage or a letter of credit. ( 4 ) Contract which does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses : A consumer credit contract which does not constitute or contain a negotiable instrument, or contain any waiver, limitation, term, or condition which has the effect of limiting a consumer 's right to assert against any holder of the contract all legally sufficient claims and defenses which the consumer could assert against the seller of goods or services purchased pursuant to the contract. This applies to any company with a contract written after XX/XX/XXXX. You have committed language fraud. You signed under XXXX XXXX XXXX that you would not commit language fraud. Per the FCRA as a federally protected consumer I am now opting out of any and all authorization I the consumer may have given to any company, written or unwritten verbal and nonverbal per 15 USC 6802. \" Wells Fargo BankXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' and consumer reporting agencies ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX do not have my consent or written consent to furnish this information on my report. Any and all consent tXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX, Wells Fargo Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. All accounts listed above need to be deleted from report upon receipt of this opt out notice, according to all laws listed above. ''","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-22T18:01:33.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78653","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9072091","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-05-22T18:01:30.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Any and all consent tXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX, Wells Fargo Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. All accounts listed above need to be deleted from report upon receipt of this opt out notice, according to all laws listed above. ''"],"company":["WELLS FARGO & COMPANY"]},"sort":[8.519279,"9072091"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":12,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":12}]}},"product":{"doc_count":12,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":6},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":12,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":12,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":12}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":12,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":11},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":12,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":12}]}},"company":{"doc_count":12,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":12}]}},"state":{"doc_count":12,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":12,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":12}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":12,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}