Date Received: 2023-07-12
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Problem making or receiving payments
Consumer Complaint: XX/XX/XXXX XXXX AMEX credit card balance of {$2300.00} with XXXX XXXX XXXX check # XXXX ( XXXX Routing # XXXX. Checking account balance at that time : {$39000.00}. I was notified by AMEX undated email " Return Reason : Can not be processed. Please refer to your financial institution ''. XX/XX/XXXX AMEX Cust Svc spoke to XXXX : said Credit Team told him the check was presented four times and always returned and to call my bank. XXXX Cust Svc spoke to XXXX : no record of the check being presented. He believes AMEX tried to convert it to an e-check and used wrong XXXX #. They have experienced this before with AMEX. This check never showed on my account as being returned. Two more checks have ben handled by AMEX in the same manner : check # XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX for {$1700.00} returned XX/XX/XXXX ( my checking acct balance at that time {$32000.00} ) ; check # XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX returned XX/XX/XXXX ( my checking acct balance at that time was {$28000.00}. Multiple conversations with AMEX Cust Service always telling me the checks were returned by my financial institution as " 'Admin Returns '' and it isn't their problem. Sent letters to AMEX on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX explaining what was happening to me and asking for someone to explain and fix. Executive Cust Service Rep was assigned to this case and kept telling me the same thing, that it is all my banks problem, talk to them. This circuitous nonsense of responses has been going on since XX/XX/XXXX, and going nowhere because no one at AMEX will give me a straight answer as to why checks from my XXXX account that I have used for 20+ years to payoff my AMEX balance monthly, is suddenly no longer acceptable in XXXX.
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: 48170
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-13
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: I have opened a dispute with American Express on my Gold Card for an amount of {$640.00} with XXXX due to not receiving an item from a seller on XXXX. The seller has repeatedly forwarded documentation claiming I received the item such as a forged signature from USPS ( the package did not have signature confirmation ) and another PDF showing that it was delivered in/at a mailbox ( which it couldn't have been if it was signed for as they claimed. ) I have provided all of this information as well as pointed out the discrepancies in their argument and spoken with the local post office who informed me that the package was delivered to another address in the same zip code, but American Express is taking my side for a few weeks and removing the charge before turning around and rebilling me due to the seller submitting more false and misleading documentation that provides no evidence that I actually had the package in hand.
Company Response:
State: TX
Zip: 75010
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-13
Issue: Problem when making payments
Subissue: You never received your bill or did not know a payment was due
Consumer Complaint: I applied for an American Express Platinum Card on XX/XX/XXXX, for one after I was approved it said the card did not have a spending limit. But after about two weeks my spending limit was lowered to {$35.00} " until '' I made a payment. I called American Express and asked them why my purchases were being declined they informed me I was at the alleged spending limit. They told me I could log in to check my spending tool on their virtual app. However, I got an error message when I tried to create an account. I called American Express and explained this matter to the customer service rep, he got really nasty with me. Basically telling me to log in to view my bill. Then I asked him about how they extend credit When banks can not loan money. The rep got very hostile saying, they loaned me the money. I informed the rep I would like paper statements. I receive the billing statement, however, I still wasn't able to log in to the portal to pay my bill and I'm still unable till this day. To me, I felt like this was purposely happening so they could ruin my credit and possibly get extra money from me for interest fees. All of this lead me to do some research about how loans work and to my surprise, I feel like I have been defrauded by American Express and I do not feel like they acted in good faith. I would like to share what I found. GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES 3. Banks are required to adhere to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ). GAAP follows an accounting convention that lies at the heart of the double-entry bookkeeping system called the Matching Principle. This principle works as follows : When a bank accepts bullion, coin, currency, checks, drafts, promissory notes, or any other similar instruments ( hereinafter instruments ) from customers and deposits or records the instruments as assets, it must record offsetting liabilities that match the assets that it accepted from customers. The liabilities represent the amounts that the bank owes the customers, and funds accepted from customers. In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system. It is important to note that the banks generate the majority of funds lent to borrowers, which are classified as assets of the banks. This is in contrast to the belief that these funds are simply transferred from one group of depositors to another group of borrowers. RELEVANCE OF SUBTLE DISTINCTIONS ABOUT TYPES OF MONEY 4.Through thorough research and analysis of historical and economic writings, it has become apparent that there exists a widespread misconception about the nature of money within the US monetary and banking systems, particularly since the 1930s. As per classical economic theory, there are two distinct types of money that emerge once economic exchange moves beyond the bartering stage : money of exchange and money of account.. For nearly 300 years in both XXXX and the United States , confusion about the distinctiveness of these two concepts has led to persistent attempts to treat money of account as the equivalent of money of exchange. In reality, especially in a fractional reserve banking system, a comparatively small amount of money of exchange ( e.g., gold, silver, and official currency notes ) may support a vastly larger quantity of business transactions denominated in money of account. The sum of these transactions is the sum of credit extensions in the economy. With the exception of customary stores of value like gold and silver, the monetary base of the economy largely consists of credit instruments. Against this background, I conclude that the Note, despite some language about lawful money explained below, clearly contemplates both disbursement of funds and eventual repayment or settlement in money of account ( that is, money of exchange would be welcome but is not required to repay or settle the Note ). The factual basis of this conclusion is the reference in the Disbursement Request and Authorization to the repayment of {$4500.00} to American Express from the proceeds of the Note. Also, there is no reason to believe that American Express would refuse a substitution of the credit of another bank or banker as complete payment of my repayment obligation under the Note. This is a case about exchanges of money of account ( credit ), not about exchanges of money of exchange ( lawful money or even legal tender ). 5. Ironically, the Note explicitly refers to repayment in lawful money of the United States of America ( see Promise to Pay clause ). Traditionally and legally, Congress defines the phrase lawful money for the United States. Lawful money was the form of money of exchange that the federal government ( or any state ) could be required by statute to receive in payment of taxes or other debts. Traditionally, as defined by Congress, lawful money only included gold, silver, and currency notes redeemable for gold or silver on demand. In a banking law context, lawful money was only those forms of money of exchange ( the forms just mentioned, plus U.S. bonds and notes redeemable for gold ) that constituted the reserves of a national bank prior to 1913 ( date of creation of the Federal Reserve Banks ). See, Lawful Money, Websters New International Dictionary ( 2d ed. 1950 ). In light of these facts, I conclude that America Express and I exchanged reciprocal credits involving money of account and not the money of exchange ; no lawful money was or probably ever would be disbursed by either side in the covered transactions. The conclusion drawn is unequivocally supported by the bookkeeping entries that serve as the unassailable foundation for the disputed loan account. It is utterly perplexing that American Express would employ a dated phrase like " lawful money of the United States of America '' in their otherwise modern Note. This phrase may simply be a remnant from a bygone era before 1933. In contemporary credit agreements, repayment language like " The obligation to repay under this agreement will persist until payment is received in full and finally collected funds '' is used to sidestep the issue of what form of payment the obligation should take. 6. Legal tender, a related concept but one that is economically inferior to lawful money because it allows payment in instruments that can not be redeemed for gold or silver on demand, has been the form of money of exchange commonly used in the United States since 1933, when domestic private gold transactions were suspended ( until 1974 ) .. Basically, legal tender is whatever the government says it is. The most a common form of legal tender today is Federal Reserve notes, which by law can not be redeemed for gold since 1934 or, since 1964, for silver. See, 31 U.S.C. Sections 5103, 5118 ( b ), and 5119 ( a ). Note : I question the statement that fed reserve notes can not be redeemed for silver since 1964. It was Johnson who declared on 15 March 1967 that after 15 June 1967 that Fed Res Notes would not be exchanged for silver and the practice did stop on 15 June 1967 not 1964. I believe this to be an error in the text of the authors affidavit. 7. Legal tender under the Uniform Commercial Code ( U.C.C. ), Section 1-201 ( 24 ) ( Official Comment ), is a concept that sometimes surfaces in cases of this nature. The referenced Official Comment notes that the definition of money is not limited to legal tender under the U.C.C. Money is defined in Section 1-201 ( 24 ) as a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations. The relevant Official Comment states that The test adopted is that of sanction of government, whether by authorization before issue or adoption afterward, which recognizes the circulating medium as a part of the official currency of that government. The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender is rejected. Thus, I conclude that the U.C.C. tends to validate the classical theoretical view of money. HOW BANKS BEGAN TO LEND THEIR OWN CREDIT INSTEAD OF REAL MONEY 8. Based on my opinion, the most reliable sources for gaining insights into the history and application of credit as currency are XXXX XXXX XXXX renowned publication " MONEY, CREDIT & COMMERCE '' ( published in 1929 ) and Charles P. Kindleberger 's acclaimed " A FINANCIAL HISTORY OF XXXX XXXX '' ( published in 1984 ). Through a comprehensive analysis of these sources and their relevance to the present scenario, we can confidently infer that commercial banks and private bankers ( referred to as discount houses ) in XXXX and XXXX XXXX initiated lending money to borrowers primarily through the extension of credit to them or to third parties, using drafts or bills of exchange as the customary mode of credit expansion. These drafts and bills essentially constituted claims on the credit of the drawers, rather than actual disbursements of money in the form of bullion, coin, or other currency, and were commonly employed in transactions with third parties. The third parties had to determine for themselves whether such credit money had value and, if so, how much. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was drafted with this model of the commercial economy in mind and provided at least two mechanisms ( the discount window and the open-market trading desk ) by which certain types of bankers credits could be exchanged for Federal Reserve credits , which in turn could be withdrawn in lawful money. Credit at the Federal Reserve eventually became the principal form of monetary reserves of the commercial banking system, especially after the suspension of domestic transactions in gold in 1933. Thus, credit money is not alien to the current official monetary system ; it is just rarely used as a device for the creation of Federal Reserve credit that, in turn, in the form of either Federal Reserve notes or banks deposits at Federal Reserve Banks, function as money in the current monetary system. The Federal Reserve has the power to expand the money supply by adjusting banks ' reserve requirements, which are currently set at around ten percent of demand liabilities. This action compels banks to lend money to borrowers, thus creating credit money. Moreover, non-bank providers of credit, like credit card companies, can extend credit to customers without setting aside reserves, which also leads to an increase in credit money. The information presented in paragraphs 11 and beyond supports this explanation of how bank credit has emerged as a form of money. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AS THE EQUIVALENT OF MONEY 9. Plaintiff apparently asserts that the Defendants signed a promise to pay, such as a note ( s ) or credit application ( collectively, the Note ), in exchange for the Plaintiffs advance of funds, credit, or some type of money to or on behalf of Defendant. However, the bookkeeping entries required by application of GAAP and the Federal Reserves own writings should trigger close scrutiny of Plaintiffs apparent assertions that it lent its funds, credit, or money to or on behalf of Defendants, thereby causing them to owe the Plaintiff {$400000.00}. According to the bookkeeping entries shown or otherwise described to me and application of GAAP, the Defendants allegedly were to tender some form of money ( lawful money of the United States of America is the type of money explicitly called for in the Note ), securities or other capital equivalent to money, funds, credit, or something else of value in exchange ( money of exchange, loosely defined ), collectively referred to herein as money, to repay what the Plaintiff claims was the money lent to the Defendants. It is not an unreasonable argument to state that Plaintiff apparently changed the economic substance of the transaction from that contemplated in the credit application form, agreement, note ( s ), or other similar instrument ( s ) that the Defendants executed, thereby changing the costs and risks to the Defendants. At most, the Plaintiff extended its own credit ( money of account ), but the Defendants were required to repay in money ( money of exchange, and lawful money at that ), which creates at least the inference of inequality of obligations on the two sides of the transaction ( money, including lawful money, is to be exchanged for bank credit ). MODERN AUTHORITIES ON MONEY 11. To understand what occurred between American Express and I concerning the alleged loan of money or, more accurately, credit, it is helpful to review a modern Federal Reserve description of a banks lending process. See, David H. Friedman, MONEY AND BANKING ( 4th ed. 1984 ) ( apparently already introduced into this case ) : The commercial bank lending process is similar to that of thrift in that the receipt of cash from depositors increases both its assets and its deposit liabilities, which enables it to make additional loans and investments.... When a commercial the bank makes a business loan, it accepts as an asset the borrowers debt obligation ( the promise to repay ) and creates a liability on its books in the form of a demand deposit in the amount of the loan. ( Consumer loans are funded similarly. ) Therefore, the banks original bookkeeping entry should show an increase in the amount of the asset credited on the asset side of its books and a corresponding increase equal to the value of the asset on the liability side of its books. This would show that the bank received the customers signed promise to repay as an asset, thus monetizing the customers signature and creating on its books a liability in the form of a demand deposit or other demand liability of the bank. The bank then usually would hold this demand deposit in a transaction account on behalf of the customer. Instead of the bank lending its money or other assets to the customer, as the customer reasonably might believe from the face of the Note, the bank created funds for the customers transaction account without the customers permission, authorization, or knowledge and delivered the credit on its own books representing those funds to the customer, meanwhile alleging that the bank lent the customer money. If Plaintiffs response to this line of argument is to the effect that it acknowledges that it lent credit or issued credit instead of money, one might refer to Thomas P. Fitch, BARRONS BUSINESS GUIDE DICTIONARY OF BANKING TERMS, Credit banking, 3. Bookkeeping entry representing a deposit of funds into an account. But American Express 's loan agreement apparently avoids claiming that the bank actually lent me money. They apparently state in the agreement that I am obligated to repay the principal and interest for the Valuable consideration ( money ) the bank gave the customer ( borrower ). The loan agreement and Note apparently still delete any reference to the banks receipt of actual cash value from me and exchange of that receipt for actual cash value that American Express returned. 12. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, money is anything that has a value that banks and people accept as money ; money does not have to be issued by the government. For example, David H. Friedman, I BET YOU THOUGHT.... 9, Federal Reserve Bank of New York ( 4th ed. 1984 ) ( apparently already introduced into this case ), explains that banks create new money by depositing IOUs, promissory notes, offset by bank liabilities called checking account balances. Page 5 says, Money doesnt have to be intrinsically valuable, be issued by the government, or be in any special form.... 13. The publication, Anne Marie L. Gonczy, MODERN MONEY MECHANICS 7-33, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago ( rev. ed. June 1992 ) ( apparently already introduced into this case ), contains standard bookkeeping entries demonstrating that money ordinarily is recorded as a bank asset, while a bank liability is evidence of money that a bank owes. The bookkeeping entries tend to prove that banks accept cash, checks, drafts, and promissory notes/credit agreements ( assets ) as money deposited to create credit or checkbook money that are bank liabilities, which shows that, absent any right of setoff, banks owe money to persons who deposit money. Cash ( money of exchange ) is money, and credit or promissory notes ( money of account ) become money when banks deposit promissory notes with the intent of treating them like deposits of cash. See, 12 U.S.C. Section 1813 ( l ) ( 1 ) ( definition of deposit under Federal Deposit Insurance Act ). American Express acts in the capacity of a lending or banking institution, and the newly issued credit or money is similar or equivalent to a promissory note, which may be treated as a deposit of money when received by the lending bank. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas publication MONEY AND BANKING, page 11, explains that when banks grant loans, they create new money. The new money is created because a new loan becomes a deposit, just like a paycheck does. MODERN MONEY MECHANICS, page 6, says, What they [ banks ] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers transaction accounts. The next sentence on the same page explains that the banks assets and liabilities increase by the amount of the loans. COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 14. American Express apparently accepted my Note and credit application ( money of account ) in exchange for its own credit ( also money of account ) and deposited that credit into an account with my name on the account, as well as apparently issuing its own credit for {$4500.00} to American Express for my account. One reasonably might argue that American Express recorded the Note or credit application as a loan ( money of account ) from me to the them, then became the borrower of an equivalent amount of money from my account. American Express in fact never lent any of its own pre-existing money, credit, or assets as consideration to purchase the Note or credit agreement from myself. ( Robertson Notes : I add that when the bank does the forgoing, then in that event, there is an utter failure of consideration for the loan contract. ) When American Express deposited my {$4500.00} of newly issued credit into an account, the Plaintiff created from {$4500.00} to {$5000.00} of new money ( the nominal principal amount less up to ten percent or {$4500.00} of reserves that the Federal Reserve would require against a demand deposit of this size ). The Plaintiff received {$4500.00} of credit or money of account from the Defendants as an asset. GAAP ordinarily would require that the Plaintiff record a liability account, crediting the Defendants deposit account, showing that the Plaintiff owes {$4500.00} of money to the Defendants, just as if the Defendants were to deposit cash or a payroll check into their account. It's unclear if Plaintiff loaned their own money or assets to Defendants. Plaintiff recorded a {$4500.00} loan from the Defendants, which may have been their deposit. When Plaintiff repaid them using their own credit, the transaction was complete. There's a dispute over whether Plaintiff disclosed all the material facts in the credit application or Note. It's not clear if Plaintiff suffered any financial loss or damages. The " lawful money '' language in the repayment clause is confusing. I believe my Affidavit is true.
Company Response:
State: PA
Zip: 19144
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-13
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: XXXX account was charged off. Still reporting on credit report with a balance. The account and charges are not mine I have not supplied proof under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens ( Mo ) 281 SW 715 719 I May Presume that no proof of the alleged Debt, nor therefore any such debt in fact exists.
Company Response:
State: MS
Zip: 390XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-13
Issue: Problem when making payments
Subissue: Problem during payment process
Consumer Complaint: ( I will upload a PDF of this called " Breach of Contract '', in case this loses its formatting ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX of American Express is in violation of Breach of Contract with XXXX, XXXX to the principal XXXX XXXX for the following reason : XXXX, XXXX has accepted all titles, rights, interest, and equity owed to XXXX XXXX, and has provided both American Express Payments Processing Center and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with a notarized Durable Power of Attorney to support the agents right to claim. XXXX, XXXX then instructed American Express Payments Processing Center to apply the principals balance to the principals account for each and every billing cycle for set-off. American Express Payments Center denied receiving tender of payment ; and later admitted to destroying tender of payment. XXXX, XXXX then informed XXXX XXXX , CFO about American Express Payments Processing Centers failure to perform, and instructed XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX an additional two more times to apply the principals balance to the principals account. XXXX XXXX has also instructed XXXX XXXX , XXXX to respond in writing within 5 business days to either confirm instruction has been completed OR to provide the reason for not performing his fiduciary duties. XXXX XXXX, XXXX has neither performed his fiduciary duties nor provided an acceptable reason for non-performance. The principals account remains uncredited and has been inaccessible to both the principal and the agent for over 60 days. As per Federal Reserve Act Section 29 Civil Money Penalty, ( c ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX is liable to pay a daily penalty of up to 1 million dollars ( {>= $1,000,000} ) or 1 % of American Expresss assets ( whichever is less ) from the inception of violation because XXXX XXXX, XXXX has knowingly breached his fiduciary duties, and this pattern of misconduct has caused a substantial loss.
Company Response:
State: OR
Zip: 972XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-11
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Reporting company used your report improperly
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/2023 I filed an Identity Theft Affidavit with the Federal trade Commission for illegal reporting from the credit reporting agencies. 15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer Identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt. It has been 30 days and you are in VIOLATION of this law because I am a victim of identity theft! Please delete these items IMMEDIATELY! These accounts should not be furnished on my consumer report as they are in VIOLATION!!! Under, 15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports ( a ) IN GENERAL Subject to subsection ( c ) any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : ( 2 ) in accordance with the WRITTEN INSTRUCTION of the consumer to whom it relates. I NEVER gave any consumer reporting agency WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS to report anything on my consumer report which violates my rights as a federally protected consumer. NO CONSENT IS IDENTITY THEFT. As a consumer I am demanding the deletion of the accounts listed IMMEDIATELY!
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 31069
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-11
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was result of identity theft
Consumer Complaint: My divorce was just recently final and I was in a very toxic, abusive marriage. I had zero control of bills, emails or anything of importance. After I escaped and filed for divorce I started getting letters in the mail from all different credit card companies. Here to find out these were open Freudianly from my ex husband and he had all the statements coming paperless. My attorney has filed contempt charges and fraud charges are reported also. The XXXX credit reports are attached that show all these credit cards in my name and they were not opened nor used by me. This is causing a major problem as I am receiving calls non stop and even to my employer. Can you please help with this?
Company Response:
State: OH
Zip: 44266
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-11
Issue: Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I contacted XXXX and XXXX XXXX regarding my extended fraud alert and requested that my phone number be added to the alert. I have applied for credit applications and those applications have either been placed on hold or denied because the credit bureaus have not honored my credit and added my cell phone number to the alert. XXXX XXXX and XXXX have not added the extended fraud alert to my credit report at all and it was added to XXXX credit back in XX/XX/2019. I am in the process of having two credit card applications approved and they are being held up based on the fact that my cell phone doesnt appear on the fraud alert and XXXX is delaying the process or just not getting not at all. I contacted XXXX XXXX and they told me that they never received any information that I had an extended alert and would not add the extended alert to my credit report. XXXX and American Express have both told me that they would have to re-run my credit again, resulting in an additional hard credit pull if and when XXXX and XXXX XXXX add my cell phone number to the fraud alert which should have been done back in XX/XX/2019.
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 91316
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-11
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems
Subissue: Other problem
Consumer Complaint: To Whom it May Concern : My previous complaint submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/2023 remains unresolved but was closed. So, I am submitting a new complaint. For background : I am a victim of identity theft. Someone opened an American Express ( AMEX ) account using my name and Social Security number. The stated account listed under my social security number is fraudulent. Documentation supporting my claim has been sent to the companys fraud department on multiple occasions. The documents included a XXXX of Attorney giving a remediation XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX permission to obtain information on this account and the authorization to resolve the fraudulent account. I also included an identity theft affidavit, a police report, a copy of my drivers license, social security card, proof of employment and proof of residency at the time the account was opened. We were able to obtain copies of the statements and the information used on the application. Please note the following discrepancies : The address used for the account does not belong to me. The card was issued to an address in Michigan. I live in Pennsylvania The phone number listed on the account does not belong to me I have never worked for the employer listed on the application I do not have the email address listed on the application The ISP address used to apply for the account does not belong to me, and is located in XXXX, MI. Although sufficient evidence was provided showing that I did not request this card nor authorize it to be opened using my personal information, American Express fraud department determined that since the card was used, I was responsible. Please note- I have never received the card and was not even aware this account existed until after the account was closed. The card was used by the perpetrator, not by me. On XX/XX/2023, I filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau asking for an additional review. I received a response from XXXX XXXX with the companys Customer Advocate Services Team. That response referred to a different account number than is showing on the statements and said that the claim was denied because payments and payment arraignments had been made on XX/XX/2023 and XX/XX/2023. I have never made any payments or payment arraignments on this account. I am requesting to see the proof of the payment arrangements that were made, along with a phone number and extension for XXXX XXXX with the Customer Advocate Services Team, who is listed on their letter, so that we can discuss this in more detail. Pursuant to Section 609 ( e ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I am entitled to all documentation related to this account and the investigation of the account. This request was sent to AMEX on XX/XX/2023 via certified mail. We received some of the requested documents on XX/XX/2023. Although AMEX sent a copy of the statements and the information on the application, they did not include the investigators report or any evidence of payments or payment arraignments made on the account. I am also asking for a liaison or point person who will be able to work with the fraud department to ensure that the investigation is completed properly, with the appropriate consideration taken for the extensive amount of documentation that has been provided. AMEXs response to my initial complaint is completely unsatisfactory. Despite an abundance of documents and proof submitted to AMEX that shows that this is a fraudulent account, they repeatedly continue to dismiss these facts and have given absolutely zero attempt, whatsoever, to work with me, or my remediation specialist, to remedy the situation. Never in my life ( and XXXX year professional career ) have I encountered such a dismissal of factual evidence to help resolve a situation that is so obviously incorrect. AMEXs actions to dismiss the abundance of documentation and proof showing that this is a fraudulent account is unconscionable. As part of this abysmal process, I have not received a single return phone call from AMEX and there have been countless roadblocks that they have put up regarding their unwillingness to work with my remediation specialist who, again, I have given explicit power of attorney to help remedy this situation. Again, I am requesting the following information : I would like to see the proof of the payment arrangements that were made, along with a phone number and extension for XXXX XXXX with the Customer Advocate Services Team, who is listed on their letter, so that we can discuss this in more detail and remedy this situation.
Company Response:
State: PA
Zip: 152XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-11
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Consumer Complaint: 1. On XX/XX/XXXX, American Express charged my account {$2000.00} with the description " Amex Send : Add Money ''. I did not authorize, initiate, or recognize this charge. 2. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX credited my account {$950.00} with the description " Amex Send : Transfer to Card ''. Again, I did not authorize, initiate, or recognize this credit. 3. Within several days, I called Amex and disputed the Charge and Credit. I was assured it would be investigated, and once resolved, removed from my account. 4. After this complaint, I was sent a new American Express card. 5. Within a week, I received a phone message of a " problem '' with my account. I returned the call and was told there was another attempt to charge {$2000.00} to my account, and asked if I authorized it. I explained that I had not authorized, initiated, and didn't recognize this attempted charge. I was told the attempt was thwarted ( cancelled ) and was sent another new Credit Card. This " attempted charge '' never appeared on my account. 6. On XXXX XXXX, I attempted to pay my legitimate prior balance of {$320.00} online. I always paid the prior balance in full to avoid paying interest - I never paid interest on this account. 7. Instead, American Express transferred from my bank 's checking account the complete balance as payment on the credit account in the amount of {$1900.00}, WITHOUT my authorization, with the description " ONLINE PAYMENT - THANK YOU ''. 8. I immadiately called AMEX and had the transfer reversed, which Amex did on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, leaving the minimum payment of {$40.00}, for a credit of {$1800.00}, with a description on my statement as " MANUAL CR BAL REFUND ''. 9. In XX/XX/XXXX I called Amex again, complained about the anauthorized {$1000.00} on my account. I was told it was being investigated, and I was sent another new credit card. I discontinued using American Express and never opened or activated this last card- I have it in my possession. 10. In XXXX XXXX I made a final payment to American Express for the full legitimate balance I incurred, without any interest charges which had accumulate on the fraudulent amounts. Again, I called and complained with -0- results, and refused a new Credit card. 11. On XX/XX/XXXX, I made a final call to American Express. After speakin to XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX, I was connected to a " XXXX '' in the XXXX Fraud Department. I explained the 10 ( ten ) items above and he assured me it would be taken care of. He told me his Representative ID was XXXX. During conversation that occurred with items 3, 8, 9, and 11 above I always requested a written acknowledgement, and never received one. I further had to repeat every time that I never had or authorized any type of " AMEX SEND '' account. At some point I was told this is a " XXXX XXXX '' account, which I do not nor ever have had. Susequently, American Express has continued to bill me, adding Interest and Late Fees to the {$1000.00} fraudulent balance and it is now somewhere around {$1400.00}.??. They robo-called collection notices which I blocked from my phone. They informed me by mail that they have cancelled my card and sent it to a Collection agency. They have further tarnished my Credit Score at the Credit Bureaus. I had this Credit card with American Express for some time, ( 2 years? ), with a credit limit of {$15000.00}. I ALWAYS paid the prior balance due, without exception, and NEVER made a late payment or incurred a late fee. When this occurred, I had app. {$40.00} in " reward '' credit due me. At this time, American Express needs to straighten out all mis-information provided to all Credit Bureaus and remit my reward $ $ s to me. In addition, some punitive renumaration is in order. I filed a Police Report with the XXXX XXXX Police Department # XXXX. Please advise me of any further documentation or information I can provide.
Company Response:
State: CO
Zip: 809XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-11
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A