Date Received: 2018-01-09
Issue: Problem caused by your funds being low
Subissue: Overdrafts and overdraft fees
Consumer Complaint: My account had a restaurant charge on my debit card. However, I did not realize the restaurant did not put in the tip amount. So, this resulted in a $XXXX overdraft on my account which cost $XXXXI think to charge $XXXX is gouging, when they could have sent an email alert to clear up the $XXXX overage.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 33433
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-08
Issue: Closing an account
Subissue: Company closed your account
Consumer Complaint: on XX/XX/XXXX I opened two new accounts ( Checking and Money Market ) at SunTrust and initiated ACH transfers to move funds from XXXX XXXX savings accounts into the new accounts. The entire process was done on-line according to SunTrust 's instructions. In total, {$27000.00} in funds was removed from my XXXX accounts on XX/XX/XXXX. During the process, SunTrust deemed the transfers to be a internal rule violations and terminated my customer relationship and closed the accounts. No one at SunTrust will tell me where the money is or what rules may have been violated and no additional information has been provided. While I do have someone at a local branch attempting to help me with the situation, all of the SunTrust customer support representatives ( including Managers ) either refuse to tell me the reasoning for closing the accounts or have stated that they have no such information. At the moment, SunTrust took {$27000.00} of my money and no one seems to know where it is.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: VA
Zip: 23451
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-08
Issue: Opening an account
Subissue: Unable to open an account
Consumer Complaint: I attempted to open a business checking account today ( XX/XX/XXXX ) as I have just recently launched my own company. To my surprise, and sadness in what should have been a very happy day, I was turned away from XXXX XXXX due to a prior reporting by SunTrust. I was not turned away due to poor credit, or bounced checks, or not providing the necessary business paperwork ... but due to an odd decision on top of an odd decision made by SunTrust. XXXX provided an adverse action notice on the new account due to SunTrust reporting fraud on a previous checking account that I had with them ( ending in XXXX ). This was a shock as SunTrust, in XX/XX/XXXX, closed the account abruptly with no information. At the time I was frustrated, and after talking and escalating many times with SunTrust I learned that the account was closed due to me opening " too many disputes '' and due to their internal regulations/tolerance to have the account. As much of a pain as it was to have a checking account closed with no notice, and as questionable a practice as it now seems in hindsight, I shrugged it off at the time and went to another banking institution. Now, years later, this odd decision which was originally a question mark is now haunting me again in the form of not letting me establish new banking relationships. As a consumer I would expect a bank, and still do with my current financial institution, to act as an intermediary when it comes to a dispute with a merchant. If there are questionable charges or a merchant is uncooperative, I ( as do many other consumers I presume ) seek aid from the financial institution who facilitated the transaction via the dispute process. How should this lead to ramifications to the consumer in the form of an abruptly closed account or adverse consumer reporting on an account with a {$0.00} balance? It should n't. Further, I have researched with XXXX ' consumer reporting agencies and XXXX XXXX XXXX does not have record of this " fraudulent '' account. I am still awaiting feedback from XXXX ' other provider, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Lastly, I have attempted to resolve directly with SunTrust to no avail. When the account was closed in XX/XX/XXXX I was a confused consumer that had minimal harm from the ordeal - now I am a baffled consumer that is being held back from finalizing a business start up. The case number with SunTrust is XXXX. SunTrust 's customer care and credit reporting departments evidently have no knowledge of this adverse reporting and have no abilities/desires to correct the issue.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NC
Zip: 28214
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-07
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account
Subissue: Transaction was not authorized
Consumer Complaint: A creditor submitted a redraw of {>= $1,000,000} to my personal bank account of which I did not authorize, did not know about and caused the account to be frozen by the bank. As a result, I have no means of taking care of my family, even buying food and household items needed for them. I can not pay my mortgage or buy gas to take children to school or go to work. The background reason is that this amount is from a debt. I borrowed XXXX XXXX to open a restaurant that failed. While I am the guarantor for the loan, this amount and other debt from other businesses are all being included in a bankruptcy. With the bankruptcy, the Suntrust bank where I have my personal checking should not have posted the amount submitted by the creditor and should have at least called or written me to verify. I would have informed the bank that I am in bankruptcy and that the account should not be frozen. As I understand, when in bankruptcy, all debt collection should stop until the Court decides on all debt. So I do not understand why my bank will allow this. When I called the bank, no information would be given to me except to call a phone number. When I called the phone number it went to a place that sounded like a law firm or debt collection business but no one answered me.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MD
Zip: 211XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-07
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-04
Issue: Opening an account
Subissue: Unable to open an account
Consumer Complaint: Ive had a bank account with Suntrust bank for some time now, and just recently I started receiving mail saying that my account had been closed due to some fraud activitys that I know absolutely nothing about. This was my only bank account and Im confused ... Ive never opened up another bank a account or did anything fraud in my life. I wish to resolve this as soon as possible, thank you. I can and will send over all of the necessary documents proving that I was a victim of identity theft. XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: 30311
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-04
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-04
Issue: Problem caused by your funds being low
Subissue: Overdrafts and overdraft fees
Consumer Complaint: They have been GOUGING me with EXCESSIVE OVERDRAFT fees from about XX/XX/XXXX- XX/XX/XXXX, but the most recent is on XX/XX/XXXX for {$36.00}. I check this account daily and I am noticing that it 's something not right. I 've spoken with someone several times and they 've all came up with different stories and reasons as to WHY I keep getting charged.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 33771
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-04
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-04
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: We have a mortgage with SunTrust bank. We moved into our brand new walk out basement style home XX/XX/XXXX We are presently paying PMI. We requested to have the PMI removed. On XX/XX/XXXXwe had our first appraisal by XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,XXXX out of XXXX XXXX, Fl, one county south of our home. The appraisal came back 1% off (a little over $3,000 off) from the required 75% LTV rate.Upon our assessment of this appraisal, there were many concerns and factual errors. One of them including the use of XXXX standards of measurements of GLA (gross livable area) on our basement home but not on the first comparable basement style home next door to us. That was at XXXX assessment. Then the appraiser had the "actual age" of the first comparable incorrect. His report stated 0 years when in fact it was 2 years old, a XXXX assessment. There were other concerns and a letter was written regarding our concerns to SunTrust Bank. After much confusion as they had misplaced this letter, SunTrust responded with a new appraisal at "no cost to us." Unfortunately, they did charge us a XXXX bill (above an beyond the cost of our original appraisal of XXXX.). After much hassle, we were able to get the money reimbursed back into our account.Due to the errors on the first appraisal and not having an appraiser from our local area (as much of the errors were due to not having knowlege our local market), we fairly requested the second appraiser to be from our county, XXXX XXXX County. SunTrust would not match our request despite our written concerns. The second appraisal was performed on Saturday, XX/XX/XXXX by XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX out of XXXX XXXX Florida. This again is in another county, XXXX County. After waiting 6 weeks for the report, we were called by XXXX XXXX with report that the appraisal is $10,000 less than the first report. We were told the bank would be gracious enough to use the first appraisal. We then asked for a copy of this report for review. Upon review on XX/XX/XXXX, It was apparent there were some issues again. First, we had 1805 sq ft of unfinished basement space apparently not assessed on this appraisal. Second, we did not see any documentation showing any value or acknowledgement given to the over $60,000 worth of home improvements. Actually, we have a XXXX assessment for our "condition" when compared to comparables in our neighborhood. Except with one comparable, which is 12 years old, we are equal in condition assessment. On the first appraisal in XXXX we were given a XXXX assessment. We notified SunTrust through XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX of these concerns. With many email communications sent to SunTrust regarding status of our new review, we finally received a response via email from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXXIt states the appraiser was unable to find any similar style homes as we have a walkout basement style home. However, we have 2 others on our street. It further states this unfinished basement (which is centrally heated/cooled, has power/lights, dry with a sump pump, and insulated) is an "amenity" and has "no market reaction as to assigning any more value that would be given to a storage area." No further cause for reconsideration of value with the appraiser. Still no response to the lack of assessment to the upgrades .With much surprise, as the bank surly was OK IN ACCEPTING value to this unfinished space when trying to get the home loan, but now, trying to remove PMI, it is no longer of value. Actually, the other 2 homes next door to us that also have unfinished basement space "amenities" was also shown to have value upon selling and appraising of their homes for their required mortgages. We fail to understand how it is OK to accept the above reasoning for not assigning value when in fact there is proof in our VERY local market of value, including in our original home appraisal by the bank completed onXX/XX/XXXX So today we called our XXXX XXXX elected county Appraiser, XXXX XXXX. He has been aware of the issues with our appraisals. Upon further research, he stated his main red flag with this second appraisal is that it comes in almost $4,000 LESS than our assessed taxes.(This is all public knowledge by going online to do a property search and XXXX XXXX has in the past welcomed any calls by SunTrust or out of county appraisers). XXXX XXXX then explained, our property taxes are based on a Market Value Approach. This is based on recent home sales in our local area. The assessed tax value is 75%-80% of the True Market Value. He is unsure how a fair appraisal would then come in LESS than the taxed assessed value. He stated it can only happen if our home was run down or had a big decline in sales and values in our area. This is not the case as seen by recent sales in our area. He did a computer assessment which can be off by as much as 10% and our lot/home value came up as $450,000. Even at a 15% decrease that is XXXX. Our assessed taxes are at XXXX (Lot XXXX and home XXXX). The second appraisal came in at XXXX. He understands as an appraiser for the county, appraisals are not based of price per sq foot, however he states there should not be a huge difference in price per square foot if the homes compared are good comparables in location, size, features and condition. He was surprised to see our home price valued at XXXX a sq ft while the other 3 comparables (1 including a basement home) ranged from XXXX - XXXX per sq foot. Even our next door neighbor's home, which is a basement home, sold 1 1/2 years ago at a value of XXXX a sq ft. He is puzzled at how these appraisals continue to be so low, as are we. Unfortunately, it appears fraudulent, at the minimum, with inaccurate and unfair appraisals being performed in order for us to continue our PMI payments. SunTrust response times were exceptionally long (now with 6 payments made since our first appraisal). SunTrust bank has copies of all our letters, appraisals, and correspondences.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 32086
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-04
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-04
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Consumer Complaint: The following is being forward to Inspector General, F.B.I., Florida CFO, XXXX Police, IRS, SEC, CFPB, and FINRA. To make sure that this matter is properly handled you can close the transaction or the professionals can instruct you to close it but I have a right to the offering and I am willing to enforce that right to the fullest unless you comply with services advertised, offered, and that as escrow agent you are contractual obligated to provide. The only role you had in this transaction was to make sure that I could secure/insure my interest in the offering I provided that. You then come to hinder that with intrusive inquire into my trust only to deny establishes malice when you role is insurance verification. On XXXX XXXX, 2017 I went to the escrow agent for a closing on the acquiring of a digital asset ( ICO ) XXXX XXXX. To qualify for this closing I was required to provide an insurance product to secure insurable interest in the goods being sold. Suntrust Wealth Management Team/Escrow Agent XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX sent me to a few departments When I only needed them to verify my insurance product was valid, issue the letter of credit, and place the asset in a trust account. They first lead me to believe that as escrow agent they would handle the closing. I have approximately 60 emails covering this correspondence arranging closing getting financials over to wealth management team and insurance product so that my trust interest would be protected. As an insurers agent the parties involved are aware that to provide false information regarding business related to the policy is insurance fraud. But because they feel that the can hide under the color of florida state law F.S. 672.722 to deprive me of my right to private trust property. The state was aware that an organization could use legislation that was passed like F.S. 672.772 to deprive individuals of their right to private property, so Florida legislatures enacted F.S. 70.001 to protect those rights. Because of the wealth management teams willful denial to close out and lawfully closed transaction means they are attempting to use F.S. 672.722 to deny me a right to insuring interest in a transaction that I executed lawful subscription contracts to XXXX USD in XXXX ICO. The wealth managment team are depriving me of a right to F.S. 70.001 under the color of the law F.S. 672.722. Title 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 states that if a person or organization does this that it is criminal. I am willing to hand over all emails and financials to prove the merits of this criminal claim. Title 18 U.S.C. 241 states : If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same ; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both ; and if XXXX results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include XXXXXXXX or an attempt to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or an attempt to commit XXXX XXXX XXXX or an attempt to XXXX, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to XXXX. Title 18 U.S.C. 241 states : Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both ; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both ; and if XXXX results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include XXXX or an attempt to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or an attempt to commit XXXX XXXX XXXX or an attempt to XXXX, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to XXXX.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 33162
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-04
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-03
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Problem using a debit or ATM card
Consumer Complaint: My debit card was lost/stolen and many unauthorized transactions appeared on my account. I disputed these charges and they were denied. I called Suntrust and they said they were denied because of inconsistencies. The only possible inconsistency was the date I lost the card. I said it was XXXX XXXX, XXXX because that was the date they had for a transaction at XXXX for {$53.00}. This was the last I used the card. It turns out that was the posting date, not the transaction date of XXXX XXXX, XXXX. So when I faxed the affidavit to them I put XXXX XXXX, XXXX as the last time I had my card. That is the only inconsistency and it can be explained. Ive been waiting over two weeks now for my stolen money to be returned. Also, theyve charged me two overdraft fees as a result of this fraud. The can look up the claims with claim numbers XXXX and XXXX. There are about {$2800.00} in fraudulent transactions. Im not going to lie down and let them help these crooks take my money.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: OH
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-03
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-01-03
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: Since around XXXX 2017 I have been communicating with Suntrust Bank and I made them aware of the situation regarding my account. The Suntrust account and the vehicle financed with the Suntrust loan was ordered to be paid my my ex-husband but he failed to finance the car and pay off the account as ordered by the court. Since my account was late several times because of this I decided to contact XXXX to have the vehicle repossessed by the, sot hat they can get their money back. Me and my husband spoke to XXXX repossession department and provided them information about the whereabouts of the car so that they can reposes the vehicle and sell the vehicle, Since our first contact with Suntrust we explain the situation and explained then that we were trying to settle the account. The vehicle finally was repossessed and once again we contacted the repo department to have them auction sell the vehicle ASAP since we did n't not want to incur any more charges. however we were told that we have to wait. we obtained the information of the recovery department and we contact them and we were told that we had to wait to settle the account. Once the account finally was at the recovery department we were able to settle the account, the representative stated that the account was going to be reported as paid in full, we agreed to that and we sent the payment to settle the account, however the account is still being reported as " Charged off '' After all the communications that we had wit Suntrust they failed to acknowledge that we were trying to settle the account with them since my ex-husband failed to do what that was ordered by the court, and up to this date my account still shows as charged off when I was told that it will be reported ad paid in full.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: UT
Zip: 840XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-01-03
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A