{"took":156,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":74,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20005235","_score":28.720146,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a dispute with Truist Bank for an unauthorized electronic fund transfer in the amount of {$1300.00}. Truist initially issued provisional credit and later removed it without providing the required written notice. Regulation E requires written notice before removing provisional credit and a fivebusinessday period before debiting the account. Truist did not provide any written notice.\n\nAfter Truist denied my claim, I contacted the bank multiple times to request the documents they relied on to make their decision. Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) requires the bank to provide a written explanation of their findings and copies of all documents relied upon when a consumer requests them. Truist refused to provide any documentation. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I called Truist and requested the documents again. The representative told me that the bank would not provide the documents unless I obtained a subpoena. This is false and contradicts Regulation E, which does not require a subpoena for a consumer to access the documents used in an error investigation. When I informed the representative that I was recording the call for my records, she immediately hung up. When I called back, another representative repeated that Truist would not provide the documents without a subpoena.\n\nAs of today, Truist has not provided : - A written explanation of their findings- Any documentation used in their investigation - Any evidence supporting their claim that the transaction was authorized - Written notice before removing provisional credit Truists refusal to provide required documentation, their false statements about needing a subpoena, their failure to provide written notice before removing provisional credit, and their handling of my dispute appear to violate multiple provisions of Regulation E. Because the transaction was unauthorized and the bank did not follow the law in handling my dispute, I am requesting that the CFPB require Truist to return the {$1300.00} to my account and provide the documentation they are legally required to disclose.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-05T17:16:06.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20910","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20005235","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-03-05T17:01:24.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As of today, Truist has not provided : - A written <em>explanation</em> of their <em>findings</em>- Any documentation used in their <em>investigation</em> - Any evidence supporting their claim that the transaction was authorized - Written notice before removing <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> Truists refusal to <em>provide</em> required documentation, their false statements about needing a subpoena, their failure to <em>provide</em> written notice before removing <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>, and their handling of my dispute appear to violate multiple provisions"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[28.720146,"20005235"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19976998","_score":28.307503,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint regarding an unauthorized or disputed transaction in the amount of {$890.00} dated XX/XX/year>, described as Transfer to XXXX XXXX I promptly reported this transaction to the company and initiated a dispute ( Reference # XXXX ). \n\nDespite my timely notification, the matter remains unresolved. The company indicates that an agent is investigating the dispute but has not provided a clear resolution timeline, written explanation of findings, or provisional credit as required under applicable federal regulations. \n\nDetails of the Issue : I did not authorize this transaction/ OR the transaction was made under fraudulent circumstances. \n\nI reported the issue to the company on XX/XX/year>. \n\nI have complied with all requests for information and am willing to provide supporting documentation. \n\nThe company has not provided a final determination within a reasonable timeframe. \n\nUnder the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and Regulation XXXX ( XXXX C.F.R. Part XXXX ), financial institutions are required to investigate reported errors promptly and provide provisional credit within XXXX business days if the investigation can not be completed within that timeframe. \n\nTo date, I have not received appropriate resolution and/or provisional credit.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T20:30:08.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"122XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19976998","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-03-04T20:24:22.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Part XXXX ), financial institutions are required to <em>investigate</em> reported <em>errors</em> promptly and <em>provide</em> <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> within XXXX business days if the <em>investigation</em> can not be completed within that timeframe. \n\nTo date, I have not received appropriate resolution and/or <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>."]},"sort":[28.307503,"19976998"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19967239","_score":28.279366,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Summary I am filing this complaint due to Currents repeated failure to properly investigate multiple dispute claims and their refusal to issue required provisional credits under federal law. \nThe disputes involve the following transactions : {$72.00} Movie ticket transaction ( service never rendered ; showing indicated location was closed ; order canceled immediately ) {$30.00} Related unresolved charge still not refunded {$150.00} XXXX XXXX  ( membership cancellation dispute ; merchant continued billing after cancellation ) {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( disputed charge ; goods/services not properly resolved ) {$1500.00} XXXX ( XXXX disputed transaction requiring full investigation ) Despite timely notice of these disputes, Current has either : Closed claims within days without meaningful investigation, Requested repetitive documentation without resolving the matter, Refused to issue provisional credits, or Failed to provide written findings explaining their determinations. \nRegulation E Violations ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) Under Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), financial institutions must : Conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of an error.\n\nComplete the investigation within 10 business days XXXX XXXX credit the consumers account while the investigation continues ( up to 45 days in certain cases ). \nProvide written explanation of findings. \nCurrent has failed to provide provisional credit for these disputes despite exceeding the 10-business-day window. They have also refused to meaningfully investigate certain claims and have prematurely closed cases.\n\nFailure to follow these procedures constitutes noncompliance with federal consumer protection law. \nPattern of Improper Dispute Handling This is not an isolated incident. There appears to be a pattern of : Rapid claim closures without full review, Denial without detailed written explanation, Failure to issue provisional credits, Shifting the burden entirely onto the consumer.\n\nThese practices may constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices ( UDAP ).\n\nFinancial Harm The total disputed amount exceeds {$1700.00}. The refusal to credit these funds has caused financial hardship and instability. One of the transactions alone ( {$1500.00} ) is substantial and should have triggered heightened investigative review.\n\nRequested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require Current to : Immediately issue provisional credits for all disputed transactions.\n\nConduct full, documented investigations compliant with Regulation E.\n\nRefund the {$72.00} and {$30.00} charges related to the canceled movie service. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$150.00} XXXX XXXX dispute. \nProperly investigate and resolve the {$55.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dispute. \nConduct a comprehensive review of the {$1500.00} XXXX transaction. \nProvide written documentation of all investigative findings. \nReview and correct their dispute-handling policies to ensure federal compliance. \nI am requesting regulatory intervention due to Currents repeated failure to follow federally mandated dispute resolution procedures.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T16:20:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77581","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19967239","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2026-03-04T16:03:04.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Regulation E Violations ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) Under Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), financial institutions must : Conduct a reasonable <em>investigation</em> upon receiving notice of an <em>error</em>.\n\nComplete the <em>investigation</em> within 10 business days XXXX XXXX <em>credit</em> the consumers account while the <em>investigation</em> continues ( up to 45 days in certain cases ). \n<em>Provide</em> written <em>explanation</em> of <em>findings</em>."]},"sort":[28.279366,"19967239"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21086823","_score":28.066395,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB SECOND COMPLAINT ( LEGAL ESCALATION WITH STATUTORY DAMAGES ) Prior Complaint Number : XXXX Date of Original Complaint : XX/XX/year> Institution : Bank of America Complaint Summary ( Formal Legal Escalation ) I am submitting this second complaint as a formal escalation due to Bank of Americas ongoing failure to comply with its legal and regulatory obligations following my initial complaint filed on XX/XX/year> ( Complaint # XXXX ). \n\nDespite receiving notice of this dispute, Bank of America has failed to conduct and communicate a compliant investigation, failed to issue required provisional credit, failed to provide required written explanations, and failed to release funds owed.\n\nThis conduct raises serious concerns regarding violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ).\n\nBreakdown of Compliance Failures 1. Failure to Timely Investigate and Provide Results Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) and ( d ), Bank of America is required to : Conduct a prompt investigation Report results to the consumer Provide written explanation Bank of America has failed to meet these requirements in any meaningful way.\n\n2. Failure to Issue Provisional Credit Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) : Provisional credit must be issued if the investigation exceeds 10 business days Bank of America : Confirmed provisional credit would be issued Failed to provide it Provided no explanation This is a direct violation of Regulation E and a failure to honor its own written representations.\n\n3. Failure to Provide Required Written Explanation Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) : A written explanation of findings must be provided I have received none.\n\n4. Obstruction Through Non-Functional Communication Assigned representative : XXXX ( XXXX ext. XXXX ) XXXX documented call attempts across all stated hours All attempts resulted in voicemail Return calls made at inconsistent times Explicit request for email communication ignored This reflects procedural obstruction rather than a good-faith effort to resolve a federally regulated dispute.\n\n5. Improper Withholding of Funds Bank of America is withholding thousands of dollars in disputed funds while failing to comply with : 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( Error Resolution Procedures ) Regulation E requirements for timely resolution and access to funds Statutory Damages and Liability Exposure Under 15 U.S.C. 1693m ( a ), a financial institution that fails to comply with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act is liable for : Actual damages sustained by the consumer Statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation Costs and attorneys fees Based on the pattern of conduct described aboveincluding failure to investigate, failure to issue provisional credit, failure to provide written findings, and failure to comply with error resolution proceduresBank of America may be exposed to multiple violations, each carrying independent statutory liability.\n\nThis exposure is in addition to actual damages associated with withheld funds and financial harm caused by delay and inaccessibility.\n\nRegulatory and Legal Concern Bank of Americas conduct reflects a pattern of non-compliance, including : Violations of 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( Regulation E ) Violations of 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( Error Resolution ) Exposure under 15 U.S.C. 1693m ( Civil Liability ) This matter now rises beyond customer service failure and constitutes a potential regulatory and legal compliance issue I am attaching some of the correspondence sent regarding provisional credit which theyve never sent out in are holding for whatever reason they may have but this is not all of it. There is still thousands of dollars out there in fraud claims.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-09T12:09:48.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"32084","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21086823","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-04-09T12:00:50.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Funds not received from closed account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to <em>Issue</em> <em>Provisional</em> <em>Credit</em> Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) : <em>Provisional</em> <em>credit</em> must be <em>issued</em> if the <em>investigation</em> exceeds 10 business days Bank of America : Confirmed <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> would be <em>issued</em> Failed to <em>provide</em> it Provided no <em>explanation</em> This is a direct violation of Regulation E and a failure to honor its own written representations.\n\n3."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[28.066395,"21086823"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21078280","_score":27.341902,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Complaint Against Chase Bank for Failure to Comply with Regulation XXXX Unauthorized Debit Card Transaction Dispute To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this complaint against Chase Bank regarding their failure to properly investigate and resolve a dispute involving a debit card transaction, in violation of Regulation XXXX under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/year>, a debit card transaction in the amount of {$300.00} was processed from my account for a product that I did not receive. Upon realizing this, I promptly contacted the merchant, who acknowledged the issue and confirmed that a refund would be issued. I have provided Chase Bank with documentation supporting this acknowledgment, including [ emails/messages/receiptsdescribe evidence ]. \n\nDespite submitting clear evidence, Chase Bank denied my dispute and failed to provisionally credit my account or conduct a reasonable investigation as required under Regulation XXXX Their response did not adequately address the documentation I provided, nor did it explain how they concluded their investigation. In response to my dispute, Chase Bank relied on a tracking number provided by the merchant as justification to deny my claim. However, the existence of a tracking number alone does not constitute sufficient proof that the merchandise was properly delivered to me. Furthermore, this does not address or outweigh the merchants direct acknowledgment that a refund was warranted and this acknowledgment on the merchants behalf was provided to Chase Bank in which they ignored. \n\nDespite submitting clear and relevant evidence, Chase Bank denied my dispute and failed to provide provisional credit or conduct a reasonable investigation as required under Regulation XXXX Their response did not adequately consider the documentation I provided, nor did it include a meaningful explanation of how their determination was reached. \n\nUnder Regulation XXXX, financial institutions are required to : - Conduct a timely and reasonable investigation of reported errors - Provide provisional credit within XXXX business days if the investigation is ongoing - Correct errors promptly when found - Provide a written explanation of findings and evidence used in their determination - Chase Bank informed me they would reopen my dispute with documentation provided in which they failed to do Chase Bank has failed to meet these obligations. \n\nAs a result, I am requesting the following : XXXX. A full refund of the disputed transaction amount of {$300.00} XXXX. A detailed explanation of their investigation findings, including all documentation relied upon XXXX. Confirmation that proper Regulation XXXX procedures will be followed moving forward I believe Chase Banks handling of my dispute reflects non-compliance with federal consumer protection laws, and I am seeking assistance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to resolve this matter. \n\nThank you for your time and attention to this issue. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-09T03:22:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"241XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21078280","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2026-04-09T03:02:59.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under Regulation XXXX, financial institutions are required to : - Conduct a timely and reasonable <em>investigation</em> of reported <em>errors</em> - <em>Provide</em> <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> within XXXX business days if the <em>investigation</em> is ongoing - Correct <em>errors</em> promptly when found - <em>Provide</em> a written <em>explanation</em> of <em>findings</em> and evidence used in their determination - Chase Bank informed me they would reopen my dispute with documentation provided in which they failed to do Chase Bank has failed to meet these obligations."]},"sort":[27.341902,"21078280"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13809351","_score":26.822958,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I used my XXXX Debit Card ( issued by PayPal , Inc. ) to make a payment of {$1200.00} to XXXX XXXX. The transaction was later canceled by XXXX XXXX, and I received written confirmation from XXXX XXXX stating that the funds would be refunded within five business days. However, the refund was never credited back to my account. I submitted a formal dispute to XXXX per Regulation E, providing the required documentation, including : - A copy of the cancellation notice from XXXX XXXX - A copy of the refund confirmation In response, XXXX simply replied : After careful investigation, we've determined that an error has not occurred and the dispute claim has not been resolved in your favor. This decision was made because our records show that this transaction was processed correctly. XXXX did not provide any evidence supporting their denial. Furthermore, when I asked for clarification and submitted additional evidence, they told me the case could be reopened only as a rebuttal, which would not entitle me to a provisional credit and would require another 90-day wait. This is in direct violation of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ), which requires : - A good faith investigation - A written explanation of the findings - Supporting evidence upon request - Issuance of provisional credit if the investigation extends beyond 10 business days ( or 20 for new accounts ) To date, I have not received a refund from XXXX nor a proper investigation, nor was a provisional credit provided. I am seeking : - Immediate refund of {$1200.00} - Full explanation of how their investigation was conducted - A copy of the documentation they used to deny the claim - Compliance with Regulation E, including provisional credit if they will take more time to investigate","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-30T14:57:18.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90066","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13809351","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-05-30T14:54:00.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is in direct violation of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ), which requires : - A good faith <em>investigation</em> - A written <em>explanation</em> of the <em>findings</em> - Supporting evidence upon request - <em>Issuance</em> of <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> if the <em>investigation</em> extends beyond 10 business days ( or 20 for new accounts ) To date, I have not received a refund from XXXX nor a proper <em>investigation</em>, nor was a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> provided."]},"sort":[26.822958,"13809351"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21066186","_score":26.672321,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"PRODUCT : Checking or savings account SUB-PRODUCT : Checking account ISSUE : Problem with a purchase or transfer SUB-ISSUE : Charged for a purchase or transfer I did not make / did not receive COMPANY : Chime Financial , Inc. \n\n-- - On XX/XX/scrub> 2026, I filed a debit card dispute with Chime for a {$900.00} transaction related to a gaming service credit that was never delivered. The merchant was unresponsive to my attempts to resolve the issue directly and subsequently closed my account, making further contact impossible. \n\nI filed the dispute through the Chime app as a \" services not delivered '' claim under Regulation XXXX. \n\nChime denied my request for a provisional credit, stating the transaction \" was not fraud. '' However, Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) requires provisional credit within XXXX business days for any error claim under investigation, not only fraud. Non-receipt of goods and services purchased via debit card is a covered error under XXXX XXXX Chime 's denial of provisional credit on that basis appears to violate federal requirements. \n\nAs of XX/XX/scrub> 2026, XX/XX/XXXX days have passed since I filed the dispute. I have not received a written final determination, a refund, or any provisional credit. Regulation XXXX requires that investigations of point-of-sale debit transactions be completed within XX/XX/XXXX days. \n\nTo summarize, Chime has : XXXX. Failed to issue provisional credit within XXXX business days of my dispute, in apparent violation of XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ). \nXXXX. Failed to complete the investigation and provide a written determination within 90 days, in apparent violation of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ). \n\nI am requesting a full refund of {$900.00} and a written explanation of Chime 's investigation findings as required by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-08T20:43:15.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"48316","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21066186","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-04-08T20:35:20.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failed to complete the <em>investigation</em> and <em>provide</em> a written determination within 90 days, in apparent violation of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ). \n\nI am requesting a full refund of {$900.00} and a written <em>explanation</em> of Chime 's <em>investigation</em> <em>findings</em> as required by law."]},"sort":[26.672321,"21066186"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16661076","_score":26.259151,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I filed a debit card dispute for multiple transactions from the merchant XXXX under Case Number XXXX on my account ( Ending in XXXX ). \n\nEgregious Dispute Processing Error ( Proof of Faulty Investigation ) : The initial dispute letter sent by UMB Bank notifying me of the investigation listed transactions totaling {$3200.00}. However, my bank statement only reflects the {$1600.00} in charges that were provisionally credited and later reversed. This massive discrepancy ( {$1500.00} difference ) demonstrates a severe processing error and that UMB Bank is investigating charges that are either incorrect or do not exist on my account, which entirely invalidates the integrity of their findings and denial. \n\nImproper Reversal Details : UMB Bank issued provisional credits, but then unilaterally debited my account for a total {$1600.00} with the transaction description \" XXXX XXXX' without notifying of me the results or that the provisional credits would be reversed on the following dates : XX/XX/year> : Reversals of {$99.00}, {$290.00}, and {$490.00}. \nXX/XX/year> : Reversals of {$99.00}, {$99.00}, {$290.00}, and {$290.00}. \nTotal Reversal Amount : {$1600.00}. \n\nBanks Policy & Regulation XXXX Violation : The initial dispute documents I received explicitly stated that I would be notified in advance of the final determination before any temporary credit would be reversed. I received absolutely no communicationneither a letter, an email, nor a phone callfrom the bank notifying me of the decision. \n\nThis lack of notification is a clear violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), specifically Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ), which requires a written explanation of findings before debiting a provisional credit, plus a 5-business-day grace period to cover resulting payments.\n\nResulting Damages : The sudden debit caused my account to go into a negative balance, potentially reversing scheduled payments, causing potential late fees, stress, XXXX  and uncertainty.\n\nRequest for Resolution : Given the clear violation of Regulation E that caused direct financial harm, and the documented processing errors that invalidate the bank 's investigation, I request that the CFPB investigate this non-compliance, compel UMB Bank to immediately refund all/potential resulting overdraft/NSF fees, rule the original dispute of {$1600.00} in my favor, provide a written statement and apology as to how and why the error occurred and provide compensation for any potential damages.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-17T14:03:43.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"731XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16661076","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UMB FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-10-17T13:26:50.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Egregious Dispute Processing <em>Error</em> ( Proof of Faulty <em>Investigation</em> ) : The initial dispute letter sent by UMB Bank notifying me of the <em>investigation</em> listed transactions totaling {$3200.00}. However, my bank statement only reflects the {$1600.00} in charges that were <em>provisionally</em> <em>credited</em> and later reversed."]},"sort":[26.259151,"16661076"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18582733","_score":26.252884,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union for violations of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ), unfair and deceptive acts ( UDAAP ) under Dodd-Frank , and failure to properly resolve an electronic funds transfer dispute. \nSummary of Facts : I filed a dispute on a credit card transaction that involved a refund from a XXXX purchase. \nI have documented proof from the restaurant that the refund was issued back to my Navy Federal credit card, with the amount of including ARN and correspondence. \nNavy Federal denied my dispute of XXXX and told me to contact XXXX myself, which is improper. Under Regulation E, the financial institution is responsible for investigating EFT errors, not the consumer. \nI provided all requested documentation. XXXX has not responded to me or to Navy Federal.\n\nNavy Federal denied my dispute and stated that I must obtain documentation directly from XXXX, even though I submitted merchant documentation showing a refund. \nI was told by a supervisor that when I appealed the denial, my case was allegedly reviewed and denied again within two minutes because it came from the merchant, not XXXX, which does not constitute a proper investigation. \nNavy Federal continues to claim in their secure Message Center that they sent emails to me regarding the dispute, but I have not received any such emails. The only communication I received was the initial denial.\n\nNavy Federal has not provided any written explanation of the investigation, nor what documentation was reviewed, nor the basis for a denial.\n\nNavy Federal failed to ( 1 ) complete a proper investigation, ( 2 ) issue provisional credit, and ( 3 ) provide clear written findings as required by law. \nWhen I questioned their refusal to credit my account and stated that I would escalate to CFPB, the representative became hostile and attempted to end the call without resolution. \nAnother representative later confirmed that XXXX has not responded. Under card network rules, non-response from merchant should result in credit back to the consumer. \nRegulatory Violations : This situation contains multiple violations : Reg E Investigation Violation ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) Navy Federal forced me to investigate with the merchant instead of performing their own investigation. \nFailure to Provide Provisional Credit ( 1005.11 ( d ) ) Navy Federal did not issue provisional credit within 10 business days while they continued to investigate. \nFailure to Provide Written Findings Navy Federal provided no written investigation results or explanation as required under Reg E. \nUDAAP Violations ( XXXX XXXX ) Refusal to investigate, misleading explanations, and rude/retaliatory behavior constitute unfair and deceptive practices. \nRetaliation/Obstruction When I stated I would escalate to CFPB, the representative attempted to terminate the call instead of addressing the dispute. \nConsumer Harm : I am being improperly charged for a transaction that was refunded.\n\nNavy Federal is withholding funds I am entitled to.\n\nTheir failure to follow Reg E has caused financial hardship, stress, and unnecessary work on my part. \nTheir refusal to issue provisional credit or proper chargeback leaves me without access to my own money.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-08T23:10:44.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"328XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18582733","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-01-08T22:41:45.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Navy Federal has not provided any written <em>explanation</em> of the <em>investigation</em>, nor what documentation was reviewed, nor the basis for a denial.\n\nNavy Federal failed to ( 1 ) complete a proper <em>investigation</em>, ( 2 ) <em>issue</em> <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>, and ( 3 ) <em>provide</em> clear written <em>findings</em> as required by law. \nWhen I questioned their refusal to <em>credit</em> my account and stated that I would escalate to CFPB, the representative became hostile and attempted to end the call without resolution."],"company":["NAVY FEDERAL <em>CREDIT</em> UNION"]},"sort":[26.252884,"18582733"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11782310","_score":26.080637,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Follow-Up on Complaint Regarding Mishandling of Claims by Wells Fargo To Whom It May Concern, This letter serves as a follow-up to my previously submitted complaint concerning Wells Fargos mishandling of error claims on my closed account ending in XXXX. The reported errors involve unauthorized international transactions in XXXX and XXXX. I have provided additional supporting documentation, including audio recordings, notices, and timelines, to demonstrate Wells Fargos violations of **Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ) ** and improper handling of these claims. \n\nBelow is a detailed account of the issues, along with references to specific CFPB regulations that substantiate my claims. I request immediate intervention by the CFPB to ensure compliance and address the financial harm caused by these violations. \n\n1. Failure to Investigate the Correct Account ( XXXX ) Despite my explicit claims regarding errors on account ending in XXXX, Wells Fargo closed those claims and issued decisions for transactions on an unrecognized account ending in XXXX. This demonstrates a failure to investigate the correct account as required under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 4 ) ** : * '' A financial institution shall investigate the alleged error promptly and determine, within 10 business days of receiving a notice of error, whether an error occurred. \" * This negligence has caused unnecessary delays and additional financial harm.\n\n**2. Failure to Issue Provisional Credits Within 10 Business Days** Under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) **, Wells Fargo was obligated to issue provisional credits for the reported transactions if the investigation could not be completed within **10 business days**. To date, no provisional credits have been issued for the transactions reported on account XXXX, a clear violation of Regulation E. \n\n**3. Improper Combination of Multiple Claims** Wells Fargo combined my 10 separate claims into a single claim without providing any explanation or justification. While administrative grouping may be acceptable, this must not compromise the thoroughness of the investigation or the resolution of individual claims. Regulation E requires financial institutions to investigate each claim fully and transparently.\n\n**4. Lack of Transparency in Investigation and Decisions** Wells Fargo has failed to provide detailed explanations of their investigation, findings, and why decisions were issued for account XXXX instead of account XXXX. Under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) **, financial institutions are required to provide consumers with a written explanation of their investigation, including their determination and supporting evidence.\n\n**5. Mismanagement During XX/XX/year>, Call With Supervisor XXXX On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I spoke with Wells Fargo supervisor XXXX regarding my claims . During this call : XXXX stated that I could not file a claim for account XXXX without a transaction statement. ** This is incorrect, as **12 CFR 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ** allows a consumers error notice to be considered timely if it is received within 60 days of the periodic statement issuance, regardless of whether the consumer has a physical statement at the time of reporting.\n\n**She further stated that I needed to walk into a branch to file a claim for account XXXX. ** This contradicts **12 CFR 1005.11 ( b ) ( 2 ) **, which states : * '' The consumer may provide notice of error orally or in writing. \" * Consumers are not required to visit a branch to report errors, making this directive unnecessary and burdensome. \n\nXXXX transferred me to the **Executive Office** for escalation. However, the representative failed to file a complaint and instead attempted to transfer me to the **identity theft department**, which was unrelated to my claims. This demonstrates poor training and further delays in resolving my legitimate complaints. \n\n**6. Lack of Statement Delivery and Delays** On*XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I requested a statement for account XXXX to clarify the transactions in question. As of this letters date, I have not received the requested statement via regular mail or email. Wells Fargos failure to provide this statement in a timely manner further obstructs my ability to address the errors effectively.\n\n**7. Financial Harm and Immediate Demands** Wells Fargos mishandling of my claims, failure to issue provisional credits, and delays in resolution have caused significant financial and emotional distress. I respectfully request the following actions : XXXX. **Immediate issuance of provisional credits** for all transactions reported on account ending in XXXX, in compliance with **12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) **.\n\n2. A thorough re-investigation of all claims related to account XXXX, with a detailed explanation of findings provided to me, as required under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) **.\n\n3. An explanation of why decisions were issued for the unrecognized account ending in XXXX instead of account XXXX. \n4. Assurance that Wells Fargo will comply fully with Regulation E for all future error claims.\n\n**Additional Evidence for Review** I have attached the following to substantiate my claims : - **Audio recordings** of conversations with Wells Fargo representatives from XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n- **Notices and correspondence** demonstrating Wells Fargos failures to meet regulatory obligations. \n- **Evidence of delays in statement delivery** and mishandling during the XX/XX/year>, call with XXXX. \n\nI trust the CFPB will review these materials thoroughly and take appropriate action to ensure compliance with Regulation E.\n\n**Conclusion** Wells Fargos actions represent a serious breach of their obligations under Regulation E and have caused me substantial financial and emotional harm. I request the CFPBs intervention to ensure accountability and resolution of this matter. \n\nThank you for your attention to this complaint. Please let me know if additional documentation or clarification is required.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-26T12:14:35.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"21117","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11782310","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-01-26T11:43:29.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Lack of Transparency in <em>Investigation</em> and Decisions** Wells Fargo has failed to <em>provide</em> detailed <em>explanations</em> of their <em>investigation</em>, <em>findings</em>, and why decisions were <em>issued</em> for account XXXX instead of account XXXX. Under **12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) **, financial institutions are required to <em>provide</em> consumers with a written <em>explanation</em> of their <em>investigation</em>, including their determination and supporting evidence.\n\n**5."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[26.080637,"11782310"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21104658","_score":25.846743,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against XXXX ( a service of PayPal, Inc. ) and its issuing bank, The XXXX XXXX, for violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11, in connection with Dispute Case ID XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I was charged {$1400.00} by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Transaction ID XXXX ) using my XXXX XXXX debit card issued by The XXXX XXXX. I filed a formal dispute on XX/XX/year>, supported by comprehensive documentation establishing the merchant 's liability, including the merchant 's own booking confirmations showing a system-generated date error, a corrected confirmation showing the merchant 's representative compounded the error and cancelled my primary reservation, timestamped emails and phone records documenting multiple unanswered attempts to contact the merchant before my visit, GPS timeline data independently verifying my overnight travel to XXXX and physical presence at the park, and hotel records corroborating my account. \nXXXX denied my dispute on XX/XX/year>, without providing any written explanation of its findings as required. I immediately appealed and submitted a formal written appeal with all supporting documentation. On XX/XX/year>, I received an email from XXXX confirming that it was requesting additional information from XXXX XXXX in connection with my case. \nXXXX violated Regulation XXXX in the following specific and documented ways. \nFirst, under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ), XXXX was required to investigate and resolve my dispute within XXXX business days of XX/XX/year>, which was approximately XX/XX/year>. XXXX did not meet this deadline. \nSecond, under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ), the only mechanism available to XXXX to extend the investigation period to XXXX calendar days required that provisional credit be issued to my account within those same 10 business days. XXXX never issued provisional credit. When I asked why, no written explanation was provided. A chat agent later categorized my dispute as \" Service Not as Described '' and stated that provisional credit is not available for that dispute type, a position that does not excuse XXXX 's failure to comply with the statutory framework, which conditions the extended investigation window on provisional credit regardless of dispute category. \nThird, because XXXX failed to issue provisional credit within XXXX business days, it was not legally entitled to the XXXX extended investigation window. Nevertheless, today, XX/XX/year>, which is the XXXX calendar day from my dispute filing date, XXXX 's chat support informed me that it is counting the investigation window from XX/XX/year> rather than from XX/XX/year>, and that it is still awaiting a response from the merchant. This position contradicts the plain language of 12 CFR 1005.11, which measures the investigation period from the date the institution receives notice of the error, not from the date it chooses to contact the merchant. \nFourth, when I cited the XX/XX/XXXX regulatory deadline directly to a XXXX agent today, the agent acknowledged the deadline but took no action, stating only that an account specialist would handle the matter. As of the time of this filing, no credit has been issued and no written determination has been provided. The 45-calendar-day window has now expired with no resolution. \nI am requesting that the CFPB investigate XXXX and The XXXX XXXX  for failure to comply with the investigation timeline requirements of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) and ( c ) ( 2 ), failure to issue provisional credit as required to access the extended investigation window, failure to provide written findings upon denial of my dispute, and failure to complete the investigation within the applicable regulatory deadline. \nI am seeking a full credit of {$1400.00} to my account and a determination that XXXX 's handling of this dispute violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing regulation. \nI have documentation supporting every factual statement in this complaint and am prepared to provide it upon request.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-09T20:18:09.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"34748","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21104658","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-04-09T20:00:45.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting that the CFPB <em>investigate</em> XXXX and The XXXX XXXX  for failure to comply with the <em>investigation</em> timeline requirements of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) and ( c ) ( 2 ), failure to <em>issue</em> <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> as required to access the extended <em>investigation</em> window, failure to <em>provide</em> written <em>findings</em> upon denial of my dispute, and failure to complete the <em>investigation</em> within the applicable regulatory deadline."]},"sort":[25.846743,"21104658"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21010595","_score":25.521057,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union regarding their mishandling of disputed transactions and failure to comply with federal consumer protection laws, specifically the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ). \nI identified multiple transactions from the merchant XXXX XXXX that were improperly processed on my account. Each transaction, in the amount of {$800.00}, appeared both as a posted transaction and simultaneously as a pending transaction. This resulted in duplicate debits, effectively reducing my account balance twice for each individual transaction. \nUpon noticing this issue, I contacted the merchant directly and provided supporting documentation, including screenshots of my account reflecting the duplicate charges. The merchant acknowledged the error but asserted that the issue originated from the banking side, not their processing system. I retained and submitted this correspondence to Navy Federal as supporting evidence.\n\nFollowing this, I contacted Navy Federal Credit Union and was advised that the appropriate course of action was to dispute the posted transactions, as the pending duplicate holds were not resolving. I proceeded to file disputes accordingly.\n\nHowever, all disputes were immediately closed without any meaningful investigation. When I followed up via chat to obtain a written explanation, I was informed that the disputes were denied because no error was found. I was instructed to file an appeal for a second review and was further advised that : No provisional credit would be issued during the appeal process There is no defined timeline for resolution The investigation would take a significant amount of time This conduct is deeply concerning and appears to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent obligations under the EFTA. Under federal law, financial institutions are required to : Conduct a reasonable and timely investigation of disputes Provide provisional credit within 10 business days if the investigation is not complete Provide written explanation of findings and notice of rights Navy Federal failed to meet these requirements by : Closing disputes immediately without a reasonable investigation Refusing to provide provisional credit Failing to provide written denial notices or explanations Restricting my access to account records, claim details, and supporting documentation Refusing to provide claim numbers or transaction-specific information via phone or mail Additionally, I am unable to provide exact dates or claim numbers in this complaint because Navy Federal has blocked my access to this information and has refused to disclose it upon request. This lack of transparency further demonstrates a pattern of misconduct and bad faith handling of my account.\n\nDue to Navy Federal Credit Unions repeated failure to comply with federal law and their pattern of mishandling disputes, I assert that they are liable for the full amount of the disputed transactions. I am requesting immediate reimbursement of all improperly debited funds.\n\nI also request a full audit of my account, disclosure of all related records, and corrective action to ensure compliance with federal consumer protection laws moving forward.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-07T14:54:49.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"16506","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21010595","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-04-07T14:50:55.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under federal law, financial institutions are required to : Conduct a reasonable and timely <em>investigation</em> of disputes <em>Provide</em> <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> within 10 business days if the <em>investigation</em> is not complete <em>Provide</em> written <em>explanation</em> of <em>findings</em> and notice of rights Navy Federal failed to meet these requirements by : Closing disputes immediately without a reasonable <em>investigation</em> Refusing to <em>provide</em> <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> Failing to <em>provide</em> written denial notices or <em>explanations</em> Restricting my access"],"company":["NAVY FEDERAL <em>CREDIT</em> UNION"]},"sort":[25.521057,"21010595"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20859625","_score":25.454609,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I dispute Wells Fargos XX/XX/XXXX response. The banks response is insufficient, conclusory, and does not resolve my complaint. I dispute both the denial of my claim and Wells Fargos refusal to refund the overdraft fees tied to the disputed activity. \n\nWells Fargo says it completed research, but its letter does not show a reasonable, documented investigation of the disputed transfers. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, once a consumer gives timely notice of an alleged error, the financial institution must investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error occurred, and report the results to the consumer within the required time. If the institution can not complete the investigation within 10 business days, it may use provisional credit, but the investigation still must be concluded within the applicable regulatory period, and the consumer must have full use of the provisionally credited funds during the investigation. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( a ), ( c ).\n\nWells Fargos response does not provide the factual basis necessary to justify denial. The letter says only that Wells Fargo did not identify evidence that the payment was made by an alternate method, could not locate charges on an alternate Wells Fargo account, and found the disputed transactions consistent with prior undisputed activity. Those are generalized conclusions, not a transaction-specific explanation showing what records were reviewed, what merchant or network data was obtained, what account evidence was compared, or how Wells Fargo determined that the disputed transactions were actually authorized by me. Regulation E requires a real investigation and a written explanation of findings if the bank concludes no error occurred. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ), ( d ).\n\nThe CFPBs official commentary also makes clear that a financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral notice and may not delay until it receives written confirmation. It also states that if an error occurred, the institution must correct the error, including refunding any fees imposed by the institution, where applicable. 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, Official Interpretations to 1005.11 ( c ).\n\nI also dispute Wells Fargos apparent effort to rely on prior undisputed activity, receipt of benefit, or a broad transaction pattern instead of proving authorization of the disputed transfers. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers is limited by law, and the bank must comply with Regulation E before imposing liability on the consumer for an unauthorized EFT claim. 15 U.S.C. 1693g ( a ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ) ; Official Interpretations to 1005.11 ( b ). \nThe response is also deficient because it does not provide the documentation underlying Wells Fargos determination. If a financial institution determines that no error occurred, it must provide an explanation of its findings, include notice of the consumers right to request the documents relied upon, and, upon request, promptly provide reproductions of the documents it relied on. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). The CFPBs official commentary further states that the institution must provide copies in understandable form. \n\nI am therefore formally requesting that Wells Fargo produce all documents and data it relied upon in denying my claim and reversing the provisional credit, including but not limited to internal claim notes, transaction logs, account comparisons, merchant information, network records, screenshots, and any other material used to conclude that no error occurred. Regulation E expressly provides that those documents must be produced upon request. \n\nI also dispute Wells Fargos refusal to refund the overdraft fees listed in its own response. Wells Fargo identified XXXX overdraft fees of {$35.00} each, totaling {$420.00}. Those fees are : Account ending in XXXX : XXXX payment posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX Account ending in XXXX : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX * XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX NJ posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX  posted XX/XX/XXXX {$35.00} fee applied XX/XX/XXXX That is {$420.00} in overdraft fees identified by Wells Fargo . Wells Fargo also says one {$35.00} courtesy refund was issued on XX/XX/XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX transaction, which means at least {$380.00} remains outstanding even under Wells Fargos own accounting. \n\nThese fees should not have been dismissed with a blanket statement about Wells Fargos posting practices. The bank still must explain, transaction by transaction and fee by fee, why each overdraft fee remains valid, especially where the fees were tied to disputed transactions and where Wells Fargo reversed provisional credit after denying the claim. The CFPBs official commentary states that if an error occurred, the institution must correct the error, including refunding fees imposed by the institution where applicable, and that upon debiting provisional credit, the institution may not impose fees for items it is required to honor under 1005.11.\n\nWells Fargos letter also states that it reversed the provisional credit of {$74.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. If Wells Fargo debited provisional credit after concluding no error occurred, Regulation E required a written explanation of findings and notice of my right to request the documents relied upon, and those documents must be provided promptly upon request. 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( d ).\n\nWells Fargos handling of this matter also appears to raise UDAAP concerns under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The CFPB may prevent a covered person from engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with a consumer financial product or service, and it is unlawful for a covered person to engage in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( a ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). An act or practice is unfair where it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ). Here, Wells Fargo reversed provisional credit, retained overdraft fees, and provided only a conclusory explanation rather than a transparent, evidence-based explanation of how it determined the disputed transactions were authorized. That caused concrete monetary harm to me in the form of unreimbursed fees and charges, and that harm was not reasonably avoidable once the bank controlled the investigation, the provisional credit decision, and the fee determinations. To the extent Wells Fargo failed to conduct a sufficient investigation, failed to provide a meaningful explanation, or retained fees without adequate support, that conduct appears to raise unfairness concerns under UDAAP.\n\nI am asking CFPB to require Wells Fargo to : 1. Reopen the investigation.\n\n2. Produce all documents and evidence relied upon in denying claim number XXXX and reversing the provisional credit. \n3. Provide a transaction-by-transaction explanation of how Wells Fargo concluded the disputed activity was authorized.\n\n4. Provide a fee-by-fee explanation of why each of the 12 overdraft fees remains valid. \n5. Refund all overdraft fees identified in the letter, totaling {$420.00}, or at minimum refund the outstanding {$380.00} Wells Fargo still appears to owe after the single {$35.00} courtesy refund it claims to have issued. \n6. Confirm whether Wells Fargo fully complied with the timing, investigation, provisional credit, written explanation, and document-production requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E.\n\n7. Evaluate whether Wells Fargos conduct also constitutes an unfair act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act/UDAAP provisions. \n\nMy position is straightforward : Wells Fargo has not shown a sufficient basis to deny my claim, has not provided the records it relied upon, and has not justified retaining the overdraft fees listed in its own response. I request that CFPB continue to pursue this matter and require a substantive response with supporting documentation.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-01T20:14:33.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"282XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20859625","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-04-01T20:09:33.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If the institution can not complete the <em>investigation</em> within 10 business days, it may use <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>, but the <em>investigation</em> still must be concluded within the applicable regulatory period, and the consumer must have full use of the <em>provisionally</em> <em>credited</em> funds during the <em>investigation</em>. 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( a ), ( c ).\n\nWells Fargos response does not <em>provide</em> the factual basis necessary to justify denial."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[25.454609,"20859625"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14772564","_score":25.244986,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern at Wells Fargo, I am writing to express my outrage and demand immediate action to overturn the baseless denial of my fraud dispute ( Claim # XXXX ) and the unconscionable removal of the provisional credit of {$580.00} from my account ending in XXXX. Your actions have left my account negative by approximately {$580.00}, exacerbating my financial hardship and violating federal consumer protection laws. This is not only unacceptable but also a clear breach of your obligations under the XXXX XXXX Transfer Act ( XXXX ), 15 U.S.C. 1693g and Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11. I demand you reverse this decision, permanently restore the {$580.00} to my account. \n\n\n\nTheft and Fraudulent Transactions : On XX/XX/year>, my XXXX was stolen in XXXX XXXX, FL, as documented in police report # XXXX, which I provided to you. Unauthorized XXXX XXXX transactions totaling {$580.00} were made using my stolen phone. My physical debit card remained in my possession, and I promptly notified Wells Fargo, fully cooperating with your process. \n\n\n\nYour Mishandling : Your representative incorrectly added an unrelated ATM transaction to my claim, causing confusion and delay. I never authorized the withdrawal of my claim on XX/XX/year> ; this was your error, which you later corrected by reopening the claim on XX/XX/year>, after removing the erroneous {$150.00} ATM transaction. \n\n\n\nProvisional Credit : You issued a provisional credit of {$580.00} on XX/XX/year>, which was already delayed beyond the XXXX requirement under Regulation XXXX Now, you have outrageously removed this credit on XX/XX/year>, leaving my account negative by approximately {$580.00} and plunging me into a financial crisis. \n\n\n\nFalse Claim Denial : Your letter, allegedly sent on XX/XX/year>, claims the transactions were \" authorized by me or someone with my permission. '' This is patently false. I never authorized these transactions, nor did I grant anyone permission to use my XXXX XXXX. My phone was stolen, and I provided a police report to prove it. Furthermore, your assertion that {$310.00} of the transactions \" did not post '' is irrelevant and confusing, as I never referenced this amount in my complaint or discussions. The disputed amount is {$580.00}, as you acknowledged when issuing the provisional credit. \n\n\n\nLack of XXXX : You failed to provide timely, clear, or adequate communication throughout this process. I received no phone call, email, or verifiable mailed notice explaining your denial, which violates XXXX XXXX requirement for a written explanation of denial ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ).\n\nLegal Violations Your actions constitute multiple violations of federal law : Failure to Issue and Maintain Provisional Credit : Under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ), you were required to provide provisional credit within XXXX business days of my notification ( by XX/XX/year> ). While you eventually issued the credit on XX/XX/year>, your decision to remove it on XX/XX/year>, without conclusive evidence of my authorization, violates the EFTAs protections for consumers in fraud cases ( 15 U.S.C. 1693g ). \n\n\n\nInadequate Investigation : Regulation XXXX requires a prompt and thorough investigation. Your claim that the transactions were authorized lacks any supporting evidence and contradicts the police report and my clear statements. You have provided no documentation or reasoning to justify this determination, which is legally insufficient. \n\n\n\nFailure to Provide Written Notice : Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ) mandates that you provide a written explanation of your findings, including the-Or evidence that the transactions were authorized. I have received no such explanation, only a vague letter with no substantiation, which is a direct violation of this requirement. \n\nFinancial and Emotional Harm Your removal of the {$580.00} provisional credit has left my account negative by approximately {$580.00}, rendering me unable to pay rent, bills, or other essential expenses. This has caused significant distress and financial instability, directly attributable to your negligence and unlawful actions. I am a victim of theft, and your refusal to acknowledge this is not only disrespectful but also predatory. \n\nDemands I demand the following immediate actions : Reverse the Denial : Overturn the denial of my claim ( # XXXX ) and permanently restore the {$580.00} to my account ending in XXXX. \n\n\n\nProvide Written Explanation : Comply with Regulation E by providing a detailed written explanation of your investigation findings, including any evidence you claim supports your denial. If no such evidence exists, you must admit your error. \n\n\n\nCompensate for Harm : Provide compensation for the financial and emotional distress caused by your unlawful removal of the provisional credit and failure to properly handle my case.\n\nCease Unlawful Practices : Ensure compliance with the EFTA and Regulation E moving forward to prevent further harm to consumers.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-21T18:19:01.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33311","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14772564","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-07-21T18:12:57.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Provide</em> Written <em>Explanation</em> : Comply with Regulation E by providing a detailed written <em>explanation</em> of your <em>investigation</em> <em>findings</em>, including any evidence you claim supports your denial. If no such evidence exists, you must admit your <em>error</em>. \n\n\n\nCompensate for Harm : <em>Provide</em> compensation for the financial and emotional distress caused by your unlawful removal of the <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> and failure to properly handle my case."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[25.244986,"14772564"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3516843","_score":25.15882,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This company has zero regard for government regulation nor contractual obligation. First issue arose with a non-dispense ATM dispute filed on XX/XX/XXXX for amount of {$200.00}. The requested written correspondence was returned XX/XX/XXXX and confirmed receipt of this by the company that same day. I then followed up on this request XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. I inquired about the provisional credit after both the 10 and  20 days provided by the two possible circumstances had expired. I was given zero explanation for their violation of regulation E, no correspondence or reasoning for them violating the law nor any type of resolution to the issue itself. Their response was always that the issue/error/violation had been \" escalated '' and nothing further was ever heard on my end. This company has zero regard for federal regulation misleads its customers and violates both VISA and their own contractual language. This was further exemplified when I had a return to XXXX department store that was completed via PIN Debit transaction for the amount of {$110.00}, of which I have receipt. This return was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. When my account was not credited on XX/XX/XXXX I again inquired with the support team regarding this new issue. I was told on XX/XX/XXXX that it could take up to 5 business days for the transaction to \" settle '' and the funds would be in my account no later than XX/XX/XXXX. I followed up with on XX/XX/XXXX when the 5 business had expired and the funds were STILL not in my account. I was advised they would post some time THAT DAY but for sure that day. Now today XX/XX/XXXX the funds are still not in my account. I was told by support that yet again now THIS ISSUE/ERROR of theirs was \" escalated. '' the same response i received regarding the still unresolved and regulation E violating Dispute. Enough is enough. This company is illegal holding back the credit to my account on the dispute and now holding funds they have confirmed for a week they actually show they received from XXXX yet have not posted to my account. I want my credit and I want my money they have and are holding for this return, released to my account immediately as both should have occurred a long time ago. Both from regulatory requirements, their contract of adhesion given to customers, and the statements made by their own customer support team on MANY occasions as referenced earlier. \n\nReg E reference The Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), as implemented by Regulation E, provides basic protections for consumers with electronic direct deposits or who use debit cards to access their deposit account held directly or indirectly at a bank. These protections include timeframes by which a bank must investigate and determine whether an error occurred when you notify your bank of an error and, in some cases, requirements to provide provisional credit while the investigation is performed. \n\nFor example, if you notify your bank of a potential account error, Regulation E requires a bank to investigate and determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving your notice ( or 20 business days for new accounts ). If a bank is unable to complete its investigation within the appropriate timeframe, it may take up to 45 days to determine whether an error occurred. But in these cases, banks must generally provide consumers with a provisional credit to their account within 10 days of the bank receiving the error notice. Also, banks must notify consumers about the provisional credit within two days of providing the credit.\n\nSome banks may require you to submit an error notice in writing after you provide notice orally. If the bank does not receive written confirmation within 10 business days of receiving the initial notice of an error, the bank is not required to provide provisional credit. The time period for the investigation may be extended to 90 days if the error involved an electronic transfer initiated outside of the United States, a point-of-sale debit card transaction, or a transaction involving a new account within 30 days of being opened.\n\nIf the bank determines there is an error on your account, it must correct the error within one business day after confirming it and report the results to you within three business days after completing its investigation ( including, if applicable, notice that a provisional credit has been made final ).\n\nIf a bank determines that no error occurred or that an error occurred in a manner or amount different from that described in your notice, the bank must send a written explanation of its findings and note your right to request the documents the bank relied on for its investigation. When the bank debits the funds provisionally credited to your account during the investigation, it must provide you with the date and amount debited. In addition, the bank must inform you that it will honor checks, drafts, or similar instruments payable to third parties and preauthorized transfers from your account ( without charge as a result of an overdraft ) for five business days after the notification.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-02-01T15:45:04.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"54313","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3516843","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2020-02-01T15:38:05.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If a bank determines that no <em>error</em> occurred or that an <em>error</em> occurred in a manner or amount different from that described in your notice, the bank must send a written <em>explanation</em> of its <em>findings</em> and note your right to request the documents the bank relied on for its <em>investigation</em>. When the bank debits the funds <em>provisionally</em> <em>credited</em> to your account during the <em>investigation</em>, it must <em>provide</em> you with the date and amount debited."]},"sort":[25.15882,"3516843"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17894460","_score":25.07786,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I am supplementing my earlier complaint with additional information about identity theft affecting several of my financial accounts. Over the past few months, unauthorized transactions totaling roughly {$4000.00} {$5000.00} appeared on my Chime, XXXXXXXX XXXX ( issued by XXXX XXXX ), XXXX, and XXXX accounts . I filed disputes under claim numbers XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. When I reported these transactions, Chime representatives assured me that provisional credits would be issued within XXXX business days. Federal rules require banks to investigate reported errors promptlygenerally within XXXX business daysand, if they cant complete the investigation in that time, to issue a provisional credit while the investigation continues. Despite this requirement, Chime canceled my credits without explanation and asked me to refile, causing further delay and financial hardship. \n\nI specifically informed each institution that the transactions were the result of identity theft. XXXX proactively shut down my account for security reasons, and XXXX has begun returning the funds. However, Chime has still not provided provisional credit, and XXXX XXXX has said that my entire account must be locked before they will act. My XXXX account was also compromised without resolution. Several other accounts, including my XXXX and XXXX XXXX cards, remain unaffected, illustrating that the fraud targeted specific institutions. I have kept screenshots of the disputed transactions and communications with each bank. \n\nRegulationE requires institutions to correct errors, inform consumers of their findings, and provide provisional credits during investigations. By withholding these credits and delaying their investigations, the banks mentioned above appear to be out of compliance. The lack of support has left me without access to thousands of dollars while I am dealing with the fallout from identity theft. \n\nThe ongoing delays have also had severe personal consequences. With my funds tied up, I have been kicked out of hotels and forced to sleep outside in the cold. This situation has effectively left me homeless, and the exposure to harsh weather has created serious safety concerns for me. \n\nI respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this complaint and ensure that Chime, XXXX XXXX XXXX , and XXXX comply with federal errorresolution requirements. I seek immediate provisional credit for the disputed transactions, timely investigation and resolution, and confirmation that these institutions have adequate fraudprevention procedures. \n\nThank you for your assistance. I appreciate your attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX [ XXXX XXXX ]","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-25T01:06:30.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"58201","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17894460","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-11-25T00:38:57.000Z","state":"ND","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Federal rules require banks to <em>investigate</em> reported <em>errors</em> promptlygenerally within XXXX business daysand, if they cant complete the <em>investigation</em> in that time, to <em>issue</em> a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> while the <em>investigation</em> continues. Despite this requirement, Chime canceled my <em>credits</em> without <em>explanation</em> and asked me to refile, causing further delay and financial hardship. \n\nI specifically informed each institution that the transactions were the result of identity theft."]},"sort":[25.07786,"17894460"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14769576","_score":24.638807,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this complaint against CHIME Financial , Inc. for their mishandling of a disputed transaction and repeated failures to comply with federal consumer protection laws, specifically the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation E ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a dispute with CHIME regarding a transaction of XXXX XXXX insert amount ], which was either unauthorized or processed in error. CHIME denied my initial dispute, at which point I submitted a rebuttal on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nDespite the legal requirement to resolve disputes promptly, CHIME did not respond to my rebuttal for 11 days, and only then to deny it again without providing a clear explanation or detailed outcome of the investigation. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I reopened the dispute again due to the continued mishandling and lack of transparency. \n\nAdditionally, throughout this process : CHIME failed to issue a provisional credit while the dispute remained unresolved beyond the 10-business-day limit, as required under Regulation E.\n\nCommunication has been vague, inconsistent, and unhelpful, and I have not been given access to the investigation findings or rationale behind the denial decisions. \n\n\nThis has caused unnecessary financial hardship and frustration, and I believe CHIME is in clear violation of federal dispute-handling standards. \n\nI respectfully request the CFPB investigate this issue and ensure that CHIME is held accountable for failing to follow lawful procedures in dispute resolution, including the timely issuance of provisional credits. \n\nI am willing to provide supporting documentation ( correspondence, timelines, screenshots ) if needed.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-21T22:42:56.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"10467","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14769576","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-07-21T22:27:19.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I respectfully request the CFPB <em>investigate</em> this <em>issue</em> and ensure that CHIME is held accountable for failing to follow lawful procedures in dispute resolution, including the timely <em>issuance</em> of <em>provisional</em> <em>credits</em>. \n\nI am willing to <em>provide</em> supporting documentation ( correspondence, timelines, screenshots ) if needed."]},"sort":[24.638807,"14769576"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16058157","_score":24.588774,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"* * Complaint Description USAA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I reported an error to USAA because my * * XXXX  XXXX benefits * * were applied to cover a negative balance in my checking account. The negative balance came from a reversed external transfer, but USAA used my protected VA deposits to reduce the overdraft.\n\nThis action violates * * 38 U.S.C. 5301 * *, which provides that VA XXXX benefits shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt. Despite this clear federal protection, USAA took my VA funds to offset my overdraft.\n\nI also filed this as an * * error under Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) * *. Regulation E required USAA to : * Investigate my error claim within * * 10 business days * * ( by XX/XX/year> ), * Provide * * provisional credit * * if the investigation could not be completed within that time, and * Provide a written explanation of their findings. \n\nUSAA did none of these things. Instead, they closed my account, locked my online access, and stated the matter was resolved by citing my negative balance. Closing the account does not resolve my Regulation E complaint. The bank is now * * out of compliance * * with Regulation E because no provisional credit was issued within the required timeframe.\n\nAdditional issues : * USAA posted documents in my online account labeled as Regulation E disclosures, but none of them would load, meaning they did not provide disclosures in a form I can keep, as required by law. \n* I have requested call transcripts and written records relating to my complaint and have not received them.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-19T16:10:06.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"210XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16058157","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-09-19T15:45:00.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Regulation E required USAA to : * <em>Investigate</em> my <em>error</em> claim within * * 10 business days * * ( by XX/XX/year> ), * <em>Provide</em> * * <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> * * if the <em>investigation</em> could not be completed within that time, and * <em>Provide</em> a written <em>explanation</em> of their <em>findings</em>. \n\nUSAA did none of these things. Instead, they closed my account, locked my online access, and stated the matter was resolved by citing my negative balance. Closing the account does not resolve my Regulation E complaint."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[24.588774,"16058157"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20399780","_score":24.188353,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"\" } I am submitting this complaint regarding unauthorized transactions on my Chase Freedom credit card totaling {$890.00}. \n\nMy account shows multiple transactions from different merchants, including XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, all within a short period of time. These transactions were not authorized by me. \n\nI reported these charges to Chase promptly after discovering the activity. However, despite being notified in a timely manner, Chase failed to initiate any investigation into these transactions. \n\nChase did not : - Open a fraud or billing error investigation - Provide any written explanation of findings - Issue any provisional credit - Request additional information or follow up with me - Take reasonable steps to address the unauthorized activity The pattern of transactions across multiple merchants within a short timeframe is consistent with unauthorized use. This should have triggered a formal investigation under standard banking procedures. \n\nUnder the Fair Credit Billing Act ( Regulation XXXX  ), Chase is required to conduct a reasonable investigation when unauthorized charges are reported. In this case, Chase failed to meet that obligation. \n\nThis complaint is not only about the unauthorized transactions, but also about XXXX  failure to act after being properly notified. \n\nI am requesting that Chase : XXXX. Conduct a full and proper investigation into all disputed transactions XXXX. Remove all unauthorized charges totaling {$890.00} XXXX. Provide all documentation and findings related to the investigation XXXX. Explain why no investigation was initiated when the fraud was originally reported XXXX. Confirm what actions, if any, were taken after my repo","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-19T04:40:06.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"98056","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20399780","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2026-03-19T04:36:55.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, despite being notified in a timely manner, Chase failed to initiate any <em>investigation</em> into these transactions. \n\nChase did not : - Open a fraud or billing <em>error</em> <em>investigation</em> - <em>Provide</em> any written <em>explanation</em> of <em>findings</em> - <em>Issue</em> any <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> - Request additional information or follow up with me - Take reasonable steps to address the unauthorized activity The pattern of transactions across multiple merchants within a short timeframe is consistent with unauthorized use."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"],"sub_issue":["<em>Credit</em> card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[24.188353,"20399780"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14074411","_score":24.153547,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":": On XX/XX/year> I was charged {$15.00} by a merchant through Cash App for a transaction at their business. During the transaction, the merchants credit card machine went offline ( it was a food truck ), and I paid the amount in cash to complete the purchase. Despite this, my Cash App account was still charged. I filed a dispute with Cash App on XXXX XXXX. \n\nCash App denied my dispute on XX/XX/year>, stating the transaction was processed in accordance with the payment information received and no error occurred. I believe this denial was improper, as Cash App failed to adequately investigate the dispute as required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), which mandates a thorough investigation within 10 days ( or 45 days maximum ) and provisional refunds if the investigation exceeds 10 days. I was not provided with a provisional refund or detailed explanation of their findings. I find this to be cash apps, automated response to almost any dispute. They provide an arbitrary explanation for a denial without actually attempting to reach out to the merchant. When you request evidence, they will just repeat their original response for denial, transaction was processed in accordance with the payment information received and no error occurred but in the form of a PDF to suffice the request for documentation used in their decision. \n\nFollowing the dispute denial, on XX/XX/year>, Cash App closed my account without prior notice or clear justification, citing suspicious fraud activity. I have been a Cash App user for four years, using the service for direct deposits of my paycheck, and had no prior issues. The sudden closure has prevented me from accessing my funds and required me to update my direct deposit to a new bank account, a process that can only be done by mail and will take 34 weeks. This delay has left a huge financial burden and unable to pay for basic needs.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-13T06:42:01.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"337XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14074411","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-13T05:59:02.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I believe this denial was improper, as Cash App failed to adequately <em>investigate</em> the dispute as required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), which mandates a thorough <em>investigation</em> within 10 days ( or 45 days maximum ) and <em>provisional</em> refunds if the <em>investigation</em> exceeds 10 days. I was not provided with a <em>provisional</em> refund or detailed <em>explanation</em> of their <em>findings</em>. I find this to be cash apps, automated response to almost any dispute."]},"sort":[24.153547,"14074411"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17196493","_score":23.564884,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal dispute under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) regarding an unauthorized ATM withdrawal made using my Cash App card issued by XXXX XXXX I reported the transaction to Cash App promptly, but my claim was denied without a proper investigation or written explanation, in violation of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ). \n\nBecause XXXX XXXX  is the issuing financial institution, I am requesting a formal investigation and written report of your findings as required under Regulation E. In addition, the transaction occurred at a XXXX XXXX  ATM XXXX and I am requesting an investigation into whether XXXXXXXX XXXX  failed to properly maintain or secure the ATM, which may have allowed skimming or other unauthorized access to occur. \n\nI believe Cash App ( Block, Inc. ), XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX have failed to uphold their respective obligations to protect consumers from unauthorized electronic fund transfers and to conduct good-faith investigations under federal law. \n\nSummary of the Issue On XXXX XXXX XXXX an unauthorized withdrawal of {$980.00} occurred from my Cash App debit card at a XXXX XXXX ATM located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  XXXX. \n\nI did not authorize this withdrawal, and my physical card remained in my possession at all times. Based on the sequence of events, I believe my card information was skimmed or electronically compromised at that same ATM during a prior legitimate visit on XX/XX/year>. \n\nI immediately filed a fraud dispute through Cash App ( Block, Inc. ), but the claim was denied without proper explanation or resolution. Cash App has refused to provide any details of a proper investigation or any provisional credit all of which are required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ). \n\n\n\nRegulation and Compliance Concerns Failure to properly investigate the unauthorized transaction as required under Regulation E 1005.11.\n\nFailure to issue provisional credit within 10 business days while the investigation was pending. \nFailure to provide a written explanation of investigation results or supporting documentation. \nXXXX XXXX  lack of oversight of its third-party partner ( Cash App ) in ensuring compliance with federal consumer protection obligations. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX potential failure to maintain ATM security, which may have allowed a skimming device or other compromise to occur posing a risk to consumers.\n\nRegulation and Compliance Concerns Failure to properly investigate the unauthorized transaction as required under Regulation E 1005.11.\n\nFailure to issue provisional credit within 10 business days while the investigation was pending. \nFailure to provide a written explanation of investigation results or supporting documentation. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX  lack of oversight of its third-party partner ( Cash App ) in ensuring compliance with federal consumer protection obligations. \nXXXX XXXX  potential failure to maintain ATM security, which may have allowed a skimming device or other compromise to occur posing a risk to consumers.\n\n1. Violation of Regulation E 1005.11 Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ), when a consumer notifies a financial institution of an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the institution must investigate promptly and complete the investigation within 10 business days ( or 45 days if more time is needed ). \nCash app denying my dispute within 48 hours without contacting the ATM operator, reviewing footage, or examining the transaction data can not reasonably constitute a good-faith investigation.\n\nA financial institution is required to review all relevant evidence before making a determination not just look at whether the card number was used.\n\n2. Failure to Issue Provisional Credit ( 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ) If the investigation could not be completed within 10 business days, the institution must provide a provisional credit to your account for the disputed amount while it continues the investigation. \nCash Apps denial in under two days suggests no provisional credit was provided, which is a violation if the claim was not fully and properly investigated within that time frame.\n\n3. Failure to Provide Required Written Explanation ( 1005.11 ( d ) ) If the financial institution determines that no error occurred, it must provide a written explanation of the results, including : A summary of the investigation, The evidence relied upon, and A notice of the right to request supporting documentation. \nSimply stating You authorized the transaction because your card was used does not meet this requirement. \n\n4. XXXX XXXX Oversight Obligations Although Cash App ( Block , Inc. ) operates the platform, XXXX XXXX is the regulated financial institution under the EFTA and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that its third-party service provider ( Cash App ) complies with all consumer protection laws. \nIf XXXX XXXX allowed Cash App to deny your dispute without a proper Regulation E investigation, XXXXXXXX XXXX may also be liable for noncompliance.\n\n5. XXXX XXXX ATM Security Duty Because the fraudulent transaction occurred at a XXXX XXXX-owned ATM, the bank may have a duty of care to maintain and secure its machines against skimming devices and other fraud risks. \nIf the ATM was compromised, XXXX XXXX could share liability for damages resulting from negligent maintenance or security. \n\n\nSupporting Facts On XXXX XXXX XXXX I spoke with the branch manager at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who confirmed that the machine has an active security camera and that footage should be available. \n\nI have filed a police report regarding this fraudulent withdrawal. \n\nCash App has numerous ongoing complaints and class-action lawsuits related to denied fraud claims. \n\nI have documentation of all transactions, dispute communications, and proof of possession of my card at the time of the fraudulent withdrawal.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-12T15:05:10.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"337XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17196493","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-12T14:56:17.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to <em>Issue</em> <em>Provisional</em> <em>Credit</em> ( 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ) If the <em>investigation</em> could not be completed within 10 business days, the institution must <em>provide</em> a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> to your account for the disputed amount while it continues the <em>investigation</em>. \nCash Apps denial in under two days suggests no <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> was provided, which is a violation if the claim was not fully and properly <em>investigated</em> within that time frame.\n\n3."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"],"sub_issue":["<em>Credit</em> card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[23.564884,"17196493"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15534985","_score":23.551983,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I made a {$1000.00} debit card payment to XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX. This transaction was tied to an invalid and fraudulent vehicle purchase, which I have since documented in federal court filings and in a separate CFPB complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX. Santanders written CFPB response confirms that I have no valid loan or financing account related to this transaction. \nI filed a Regulation XXXX dispute with my bank, Chime ( Claim ID : XXXX ). I provided Chime with : The dealerships cash receipt for the {$1000.00} deposit ; XXXX CFPB letter confirming no loan exists ; Documentation showing I did not receive valid goods or services for the transaction. \nDespite this, Chime denied my dispute. I only learned of the denial after calling to check the status. Less than XXXX hours later, Chime sent me a generic email stating my claim was denied, without explanation. \nWhen I called back to request documentation of the investigation, the Chime representative said my dispute was denied as untimely. However : Chime never provided written notice of any timeliness issue, as required by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) ; Chime did not provide copies of the evidence it relied upon, as required by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( d ) ; Chime failed to demonstrate that my dispute was outside of the statutory XXXX window from the date the error appeared on my account statement ; and Even if timeliness was at issue, Chime was still required to conduct a good-faith investigation and provide documentation of its findings. \nInstead, I received only a one-page email ( attached ) showing my transaction details, with no explanation or evidence supporting the denial. \nThis conduct violates Regulation XXXX under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, specifically : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) : requiring a good-faith investigation and timely resolution ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) : requiring a written explanation of findings and evidence relied upon ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) : requiring banks to acknowledge and investigate timely reports of error ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) : requiring a provisional credit if the investigation is not concluded within XXXX business days. \nBy denying my dispute without explanation, failing to provide evidence, and falsely claiming it was untimely, Chime deprived me of my rights under federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-26T17:01:23.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"60016","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15534985","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-08-26T15:24:45.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This conduct violates Regulation XXXX under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, specifically : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) : requiring a good-faith <em>investigation</em> and timely resolution ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) : requiring a written <em>explanation</em> of <em>findings</em> and evidence relied upon ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) : requiring banks to acknowledge and <em>investigate</em> timely reports of <em>error</em> ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) : requiring a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> if the <em>investigation</em> is not concluded"]},"sort":[23.551983,"15534985"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20362648","_score":23.367811,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint regarding Navy Federal Credit Unions handling of multiple unauthorized transaction ( fraud ) claims and the subsequent actions taken on my account. \n\nI reported unauthorized debit card transactions totaling approximately {$900.00} and {$1000.00} in separate incidents. Navy Federal initially issued provisional credit in at least one instance, then later denied my claims and reversed the credit, stating that no error occurred. However, the explanations provided were generic and did not include specific details or documentation supporting their decisions.\n\nDespite informing me that I had the right to request the documentation relied upon, I was not provided with any meaningful evidence ( such as transaction verification, merchant documentation, or investigative findings ) explaining why my claims were denied.\n\nFollowing these denials : My debit card access was restricted for approximately one year, significantly limiting my ability to access and use my funds.\n\nMy checking account went negative after provisional credit was reversed and was later closed.\n\nMy access to prior secure messages and communications related to my claims is no longer available within Navy Federals system.\n\nThese actions caused significant financial disruption and loss of access to my funds over an extended period.\n\nI am requesting that Navy Federal : 1. Provide all documentation and evidence relied upon in denying both fraud claims.\n\n2. Conduct a full and fair re-review of both unauthorized transaction claims.\n\n3. Address the extended restriction of my debit access and the circumstances surrounding the closure of my checking account.\n\nI believe the handling of my claims and subsequent account actions were not consistent with the requirements of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTA ), including the obligation to provide clear explanations and supporting documentation upon request.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-18T06:12:25.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"48602","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20362648","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-03-18T05:54:17.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am submitting this complaint regarding Navy Federal <em>Credit</em> Unions handling of multiple unauthorized transaction ( fraud ) claims and the subsequent actions taken on my account. \n\nI reported unauthorized debit card transactions totaling approximately {$900.00} and {$1000.00} in separate incidents. Navy Federal initially <em>issued</em> <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> in at least one instance, then later denied my claims and reversed the <em>credit</em>, stating that no <em>error</em> occurred."],"company":["NAVY FEDERAL <em>CREDIT</em> UNION"]},"sort":[23.367811,"20362648"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17198394","_score":23.07047,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal dispute under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) regarding an unauthorized ATM withdrawal made using my Cash App card issued by XXXX XXXX. I reported the transaction to Cash App promptly, but my claim was denied without a proper investigation or written explanation, in violation of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ). \n\nBecause XXXX XXXX  is the issuing financial institution, I am requesting a formal investigation and written report of your findings as required under Regulation E. In addition, the transaction occurred at a XXXX XXXX  ATM , and I am requesting an investigation into whether XXXX XXXX  failed to properly maintain or secure the ATM, which may have allowed skimming or other unauthorized access to occur. \n\nI believe Cash App ( Block, Inc. ), XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX  have failed to uphold their respective obligations to protect consumers from unauthorized electronic fund transfers and to conduct good-faith investigations under federal law. \n\n\nSummary of the Issue On XX/XX/year>, an unauthorized withdrawal of {$980.00} occurred from my Cash App debit card at a XXXX XXXX  ATM located at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX. \n\nI did not authorize this withdrawal, and my physical card remained in my possession at all times. Based on the sequence of events, I believe my card information was skimmed or electronically compromised at that same ATM during a prior legitimate visit on XX/XX/year>. \n\nI immediately filed a fraud dispute through Cash App ( Block, Inc. ), but the claim was denied without proper explanation or resolution. Cash App has refused to provide any details of a proper investigation or any provisional credit all of which are required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ). \n\n\n\nRegulation and Compliance Concerns Failure to properly investigate the unauthorized transaction as required under Regulation E 1005.11.\n\nFailure to issue provisional credit within 10 business days while the investigation was pending.\n\nFailure to provide a written explanation of investigation results or legitimate supporting documentation. \nXXXX XXXX  lack of oversight of its third-party partner ( Cash App ) in ensuring compliance with federal consumer protection obligations. \nXXXX XXXX  potential failure to maintain ATM security, which may have allowed a skimming device or other compromise to occur posing a risk to consumers. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Violation of Regulation E 1005.11 Failure to Conduct a Proper Investigation Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ), when a consumer notifies a financial institution of an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the institution must investigate promptly and complete the investigation within 10 business days ( or 45 days if more time is needed ). \nCash app denying my dispute within XXXX hours without contacting the ATM operator, reviewing footage, or examining the transaction data can not reasonably constitute a good-faith investigation. \nA financial institution is required to review all relevant evidence before making a determination not just look at whether the card number was used. \n\n\nXXXX. Failure to Issue Provisional Credit ( 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ) If the investigation could not be completed within 10 business days, the institution must provide a provisional credit to your account for the disputed amount while it continues the investigation.\n\nCash Apps denial in under two days suggests no provisional credit was provided, which is a violation if the claim was not fully and properly investigated within that time frame.\n\n3. Failure to Provide Required Written Explanation ( 1005.11 ( d ) ) If the financial institution determines that no error occurred, it must provide a written explanation of the results, including : A summary of the investigation, The evidence relied upon, and A notice of the right to request supporting documentation. \nSimply stating You authorized the transaction because your card was used does not meet this requirement. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX  Oversight Obligations Although Cash App ( Block , Inc. ) operates the platform, XXXX XXXX  is the regulated financial institution under the EFTA and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that its third-party service provider ( Cash App ) complies with all consumer protection laws. \nIf XXXX XXXX  allowed Cash App to deny your dispute without a proper Regulation E investigation, XXXX XXXX  may also be liable for noncompliance. \n\n\n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX  ATM Security Duty Because the fraudulent transaction occurred at a XXXX XXXX ATM, the bank may have a duty of care to maintain and secure its machines against skimming devices and other fraud risks. \nIf the ATM was compromised, XXXX XXXX  could share liability for damages resulting from negligent maintenance or security. \n\n\n\n\nSupporting Facts On XX/XX/year>, I spoke with the branch manager at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ATM, who confirmed that the machine has an active security camera and that footage should be available. \n\nI have filed a police report regarding this fraudulent withdrawal. \n\nCash App has numerous ongoing complaints and class-action lawsuits related to denied fraud claims. \n\nI have documentation of all transactions, dispute communications, and proof of possession of my card at the time of the fraudulent withdrawal.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-12T14:55:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"337XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17198394","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-12T14:40:44.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to <em>Issue</em> <em>Provisional</em> <em>Credit</em> ( 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( i ) ) If the <em>investigation</em> could not be completed within 10 business days, the institution must <em>provide</em> a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> to your account for the disputed amount while it continues the <em>investigation</em>.\n\nCash Apps denial in under two days suggests no <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> was provided, which is a violation if the claim was not fully and properly <em>investigated</em> within that time frame.\n\n3."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"],"sub_issue":["<em>Credit</em> card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[23.07047,"17198394"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16038853","_score":23.03466,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year> I received a fraud alert from Navy Federal regarding a charge they believed to be suspicious. I called Navy Federal within minutes and filed a claim for a pending charge of {$510.00} and informed the representatives that the charge for {$690.00} was also unauthorized. \n\nProvisional credit was provided to me and my card was deactivated.\n\nOn the same day I went to the NCFU location on XXXX XXXX to obtain a new card. \n\nA couple days later I called NFCU to inquire about any additional action that had been taken and was told the issue had been resolved and I should receive communication by mail informing me of the outcome. \n\nOn XX/XX/year> I reviewed my account and noticed that the provisional credit was reversed on XX/XX/year> and when I called NFCU to inquire that told me that I could file an appeal but that was the only recourse I had. They were not able to provide me with an oral statement of the findings and I requested a copy of the initial investigation. To date I have not received a copy of the report requested. On XX/XX/year> I filed an appeal online and in person at the NFCU XXXX location. Additionally I filed a report with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nCase XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX It had been sixty days since I filed the initial claim on XX/XX/year>. \n\nFailed to conduct a reasonable investigation of my claim ( 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) ).\n\nFailed to provide a written explanation of findings and the right to request supporting documents ( 1005.11 ( d ) ).\n\nFailed to honor consumer liability protections for unauthorized electronic fund transfers ( 1005.6 ).\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau guidance clearly states that financial institutions can not deny a claim without a reasonable investigation and must explain their determination in writing. Similar failures have resulted in enforcement actions, such as the CFPB 's consent orders against major financial institutions for mishandling Regulation E error resolution claims.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-18T02:14:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"78253","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16038853","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-09-18T00:52:27.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/year> I reviewed my account and noticed that the <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> was reversed on XX/XX/year> and when I called NFCU to inquire that told me that I could file an appeal but that was the only recourse I had. They were not able to <em>provide</em> me with an oral statement of the <em>findings</em> and I requested a copy of the initial <em>investigation</em>. To date I have not received a copy of the report requested. On XX/XX/year> I filed an appeal online and in person at the NFCU XXXX location."],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card"],"company":["NAVY FEDERAL <em>CREDIT</em> UNION"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"]},"sort":[23.03466,"16038853"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":74,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":74}]}},"product":{"doc_count":74,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":53,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":50},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":3}]}},{"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":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":5},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":2},{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":2},{"key":"Payroll card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1},{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Bank account or service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other bank product/service","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":74,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":33,"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":15},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":8},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":6},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":3},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":15,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":14},{"key":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":5},{"key":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":5},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account opened without my consent or knowledge","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other service problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unexpected or other fees","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":74,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":71},{"key":"No","doc_count":3}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":74,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":65},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":6},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":74,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":74}]}},"company":{"doc_count":74,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":16},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":9},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":8},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":8},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":7},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":4},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":3},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":3},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Comerica","doc_count":2},{"key":"Netspend Corporation","doc_count":2},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"OFG BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Skrill USA, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Synovus Bank","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"UMB FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":74,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":13},{"key":"TX","doc_count":10},{"key":"CA","doc_count":6},{"key":"MI","doc_count":6},{"key":"NY","doc_count":5},{"key":"MD","doc_count":4},{"key":"IL","doc_count":3},{"key":"NV","doc_count":3},{"key":"AR","doc_count":2},{"key":"IN","doc_count":2},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"WA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MN","doc_count":1},{"key":"ND","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"PR","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1},{"key":"WV","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":74,"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":14},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":8}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":74,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":15},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_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":{"2":[23.017029,"16038853"],"3":[17.517769,"22467165"]}}}