Date Received: 2023-01-26
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Investigation took more than 30 days
Consumer Complaint: I am a XXXX XXXX XXXX female who tried to pay a lump sum of {$5000.00} to principle only through my mortgage equity account online. What transpired was a big mess, the {$5000.00} was not paid off the principle instead some strange method of division was used and then Truist failed to auto collect my regular monthly auto-payments. The first bill I got with not XXXX but XXXX missing payments I called to find out what on earth happened and paid the missing payments that day and assumed the person I spoke with in the bank fixed the problem. Not the case, I now see the missing payments were reported to the credit bureau several months later and XXXX points came off my hard earned XXXX score reducing it unfairly. I am very suspicious about a couple of things, why so long to report to credit bureaus? I feel sure someone from my local Truist bank did this. The bank is Truist at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have spoken to a manager at the bank who agreed paying a lump sum online will not work the way you expect it to, there is nothing on the site to warn us of what a mess would be created by trying to pay your equity line down with Truist. I have called a several times all Truist representatives I spoke with agreed with me this was just not right and they would get it fixed. No one did anything except make it worse. A local manager said she went in and fixed it, so that the lump sum came off the principle, this triggered missing payments by the bank failing to collect the regular auto-payments from my bank, I have never before missed a payment, the Truist website I paid the {$5000.00} to does not indicate you can not pay anything off the principle balance without going to the bank in fact it encourages you to pay off your equity online. My payments are auto deducted which meant the missed payments were not unpaid by me but not collected by Truist in the same way they have been collected since opening the account several years ago. I did not know there were missed payments until I got a bill with not XXXX but XXXX missing payments lumped together even though the previous bill showed nothing was owed, I called and paid them that same day even though I did not understand why paying {$5000.00} off the account could cause nonpayment. I am not sure if this will get anyones attention. I have all the documents showing the mess Truist made after I paid {$5000.00} off my equity loan, the manager at the local bank said you can not make a payment off the principle online, if this is the case the why does the bank offer that online service? I received a letter from Truist Bank Credit Dispute Dept. from XXXX XXXX after I disputed their report to the Credit Bureau 's which insisted the information was accurately reported, The letter was a standard print off, showing no investigation was ever made. The whole point of the complaint was for them to investigate all the Truist errors in calculating my equity line payment, they did no such investigation. If I had not paid the {$5000.00} off the account this whole thing would not have happened and my credit would have remained intact. I would be so grateful if someone would actually look into what happened and report Truist errors to the Credit Bureaus. If anyone needs back up documents I have all of them.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 32174
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-01-26
Issue: Trouble using the card
Subissue: Trouble getting information about the card
Consumer Complaint: XXXX prepaid XXXX will not send a verification code to verify my phone number that is already on file. No one at there office will answer the phone. I was on hold for over an hour. And was then disconnected
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MI
Zip: 48227
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-01-27
Issue: Opening an account
Subissue: Didn't receive terms that were advertised
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/2023, I first attempted to create a account using the XXXX XXXX XXXX, but as I went through the process, I then encountered an error with the website saying I can not continue and to try again, so right afterwards, I proceeded to try again and this time I received a confirmation ( attached ) showing my promo code I applied ( the XXXX previously stated ) and everything was perfect so I thought. Today ( XXXX XXXX ) I login to the Truist app and see 2 accounts? I immediately call customer support at XXXX and speak to the first representative, XXXX XXXX I believe ), to explain the problem, and most importantly determine which account to close as well as make sure the promo code will still apply. After constantly having to reiterate my issue and XXXX not understanding my issue at hand, I asked to be transferred to a supervisor, but XXXX hung up the call. After calling back again at XXXX, I informed the representative of the issue at hand and AGAIN, a lack of understanding was definitely there, so I asked to be transferred to a supervisor again and got to a supervisor named XXXX XXXX After spending XXXX hour on hold, XXXX proceeded to tell me yes you have the promotion code applied to your account because you said you do. I asked if she sees it on her end and she said no. I then asked, why would Truist pay out my promotion if you guys dont even see it on your end and why do I have 2 accounts on my name. After telling me to hold, she proceeded to hang up the line. To recap, Ive called twice, encountered an issue with the website, and have been hung up twice by XXXX different representatives ( XXXX being a supervisor ). This is all while being a first time potential long term client of Truist.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 34758
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-01-26
Issue: False statements or representation
Subissue: Attempted to collect wrong amount
Consumer Complaint: Received a letter from Truist bank stating that I owed XXXX $ for a closed and overdrawn balance on XX/XX/2022. I have never opened an account with Truist. I contacted them, and they requested I fill out this complaint while they investigate
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: PA
Zip: 15601
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-01-25
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease
Subissue: Problem with paying off the loan
Consumer Complaint: car purchased in XXXX loan with Truist bank I've been on autopayment since XXXX and was supposed to pay off my loan this month. Truist policy : on the last month of a auto loan, the automatic payment is cancelled and i have to manually pay. I didn't know this. I was charged a XXXX late fee on XX/XX/XXXX and another XXXX late fee on XX/XX/XXXX. I believe this is an unfair and deceptive practice that has led to extra charges, delinquencies and frustration. The result is I am being punished and Truist is making more revenue. I've been a good customer for then entire loan and have never missed a payment.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: VA
Zip: 232XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-01-25
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Fee problem
Consumer Complaint: I had 4 accounts with Truist Bank. They were frozen two years ago during the merge due to fraud. Trust charged my accounts monthly fees until two of them were XXXX out. I went to a branch to get the funds and they told me they couldn't get my money back??? I still have an account with {$1300.00}. In it that I can't access.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: 30904
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-01-25
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account
Subissue: Transaction was not authorized
Consumer Complaint: on XX/XX/2022 a wire was taken out of my account for XXXX without of my account without any authorization. I went to truist bank where my account is held and they told me it has to go through fraud dept and it could take up to 60 days before anything could happen. I went back 30 days later and inquired. They told me the money went XXXX XXXX XXXX and credit to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXand it was out of there hands and up to chase bank if i got my money back. I went back today XX/XX/XXXX and they said its not there resposibility. I had no authorization for them to do this and they did not even call me to ask about this transaction The bank truist says there is nothing they can do. So i lose my XXXX for no reason of mine. I hope you can help me get my money back
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 33458
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-25
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-01-24
Issue: Fraud or scam
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau P.O. Box 2900 Clinton, IA 52733-2900 TRUIST BANK BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE Dear Sir/Madam of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Please take the time to read this information pack as it will explain the reason for my complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Scammer) and innocently lost XXXX USD of my hard-earned life-savings. I advised Truist Bank of this fact on XXXX XXXX XXXX and I havent received any satisfactory response so far. Truist Bank had a duty to exercise reasonable professionalism, care, pay due to regards to the interest of their customers and follow good industry practices (GIP) to keep customers accounts safe. This includes identifying vulnerable consumers who may be particularly susceptible to scams and looking out for payments which might indicate the consumer is at risk of financial harm. Since XXXX XXXX, I have been attempting to resolve this matter with Truist Bank, but they have failed to settle this matter satisfactorily. I have been dealing with Truist Bank in good faith and am deeply disappointed in how they have handled this matter thus far. I find it baffling and reprehensible that my money has been so egregiously misused in a fashion that violates their principles, which call me to defend my rights. This is poorly thought out and vaguely defined nonsense. I doubt they care however since nonsense is what renders unscrupulous businesses financially successful. Accordingly, I respectfully insist that Truist Bank covers all overdrafts (560,000.00 USD) on the account. This is fair and reasonable given I was given no appropriate warning about the possibility of a scam. I have been a loyal customer of Truist Bank and have never had any difficulties of this kind before. FURTHER POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION The examples of good and bad practices around investment fraud. Good practice included but was not limited to: A bank regularly assesses the risk to itself and its customers of losses from fraud, including investment fraud, in accordance with their established risk management framework. The risk assessment does not only cover situations where the bank could cover losses, but also where customers could lose and not be reimbursed by the bank. Resource allocation and mitigation measures are informed by this assessment. A bank contacts customers if it suspects a payment is being made to an investment fraudster. A bank has transaction monitoring rules designed to detect specific types of investment fraud. Investment fraud subject matter experts help set these rules. Real-time payment screening against a well-formulated watch list; transaction monitoring rules designed to detect specific types of investment fraud Banks actively contacting customers if suspect payments are identified Banks placing material on investment fraud on its website Work to detect and prevent investment fraud from being integrated with a banks vulnerable customers initiative Taking into account the law, regulatory rules and guidance, relevant codes of practice and what should consider having been good industry practice at the time, Truist Bank should reasonably and reasonably consider: Have been monitoring accountsand any payments made or receivedto counter various risks, including anti-money-laundering, countering the financing of terrorism, and preventing fraud and scams; Have had systems in place to look out for unusual transactions or other signs that might indicate its customers were at risk of fraud (amongst other things). This is particularly so given the increase in sophisticated fraud and scams in recent years, which banks are generally more familiar with than the average customer; and In some circumstances, irrespective of the payment channel used, have taken additional steps, or made additional checks, before processed a payment, or in some cases declined to make a payment altogether, to help protect customers from the possibility of financial harm from fraud. Despite the regulatory and statutory requirements Truist Bank shall abide by as a licensed and regulated financial institution, instead of detecting patterns, drawing certain conclusions, and taking actions accordingly, Truist Bank may have insufficiently performed some hasty and haphazard review of the transaction(s) regarding the suspicious activities, but it seems that rather than being careful, methodical, and vigilant, they took no notice of what was happening. Please be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of Truist Bank actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). It is perfectly obvious that they could have, and should have, utilized various risk-based examination procedures and techniques, all of which are within their purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous outcome. As previously advised, they should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions): involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise; is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus violate regulations; is intentionally designed to defraud your customer; serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity. There are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, the following: The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question; The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me as a customer and other entities associated with the transactions (if any); The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including vulnerability and identification and research of high-risk services/products; Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of unusual activities; and Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud programs, and other associated policies and procedures. Relevant industry practices at the time of the victimization: Truist Bank is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is: particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. There are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that: 1) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization: A) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts: a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending; c. transfers to other accounts; d. multiple password attempts; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. g. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. B) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. My true issue with the bank is their limited understanding of the kind of recall I was requesting to raise. The most common reason for a recall is where the account holder says the transaction was not authorised; a recall can also be claimed if the goods were not received or if the cardholder paid in another way (eg., with cash). Whilst I am not denying the demand for the reason code, I am emphasizing to the bank that my case falls under a different reason code. Despite providing the bank with the required explanations of my case, Truist Bank preferred to stick with the authorisation issue which has never been raised by me which already shows the banks lack of understanding of how to treat my case. Truist Bank could have done more at the time of the payment to warn me of the risks of scams Taking steps to educate their customers about scams. Taking steps to identify higher risk payments and customers who have a higher risk of becoming a victim of scams. Providing effective warnings to customers if the bank identifies a scam risk. Taking extra steps to protect customers who might be vulnerable to scams. Talking to customers about payments and even delaying or stopping payments where there are scam concerns. Acting quickly when a scam is reported to it. Taking steps to stop fraudsters from opening bank accounts. Banks and other Payment Services Providers (PSPs) do have a duty to protect customers against the risk of financial loss due to fraud and/or to undertake due diligence on large transactions to guard against money laundering. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that a firm is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations and the terms and conditions of the customers account. But, where the consumer made the payment as a consequence of the actions of a fraudster, it may sometimes be fair and reasonable for the bank to reimburse the consumer even though they authorised the payment. I think Truist Bank shouldve had enough knowledge of this type of scam at the time. Truist Bank could have protected me from this; unlike me, the bank knows about the existence of such scams and how you prey on vulnerable victims like myself, taking advantage of lack of knowledge, awareness, and circumstance. Despite the irregularities in my spending and such untypical patterns, not a single contact was made me question what I was doing. The treatment from Truist Bank is compounded by trauma and anxiety and has left me in the awful situation I now find myself in. Although it was not Truist Bank that scammed me, they had many obligations to protect my Financial Interest - which they did not uphold if you take a quick look at the bank statements you will realise how the transactions were absolutely out of the usual pattern, there was suddenly increased spending, payments for considerably large amounts, series of payments to a new payee and of course financial activity that matched a known method of fraud or financial abuse. All of the above points were not considered by Truist Bank when I was victimised, and no actions were taken to prevent that victimisation. Of course, I appreciate that they might want to act in good faith and uphold my requests to transfer these payments but the code sets out that organisations should have a process in place, to ensure that (i) staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, (ii) challenge its authenticity, (iii) explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and (iv) discuss an appropriate plan of action. To further simplify the situation with respect to the nature of the transactions, there are circumstances, irrespective of the payment channel used, where a bank should take additional steps, or make additional checks, before processing a payment, or in some cases decline to make a payment altogether, to help protect customers from the possibility of financial harm. This is particularly so in light of the environment created by the increase in sophisticated fraud and scams in recent years - which banks are generally more familiar with than the average customer. Kindly take into account that this case against Truist Bank is not primarily about the scam that happened. My main issue with Truist Bank is its unwillingness to raise a recall under the relevant reason code. It is obvious that they did not take any of my reasonings into account and blatantly focused on the authorisation argument that does not match my case and the issue of whether the transactions were fraudulent according to what is written on the paper. Anti-Money Laundering Requirements for Financial Institutions and Other Designated Businesses 3.1 What financial institutions and other businesses are subject to anti-money laundering requirements? Describe which professional activities are subject to such requirements and the obligations of the financial institutions and other businesses. The following are subject to the requirement to maintain risk-based AML Programs: Banks, including savings associations, trust companies, credit unions, branches and subsidiaries of foreign banks in the United States, and Edge corporations. Broker-dealers in securities. Mutual funds. Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers in Commodities. Money Services Businesses 3.4 What are the requirements for recordkeeping or reporting large currency transactions? When must reports be filed and at what thresholds? Currency Transaction Reporting Financial institutions (defined as financial institutions under the BSA regulations) must file CTRs with FinCEN on all transactions in (physical) currency in excess of XXXX (or the foreign equivalent) conducted by, though, or to the financial institution, by or on behalf of the same person, on the same day. 31C.F.R. 1010.310315. It is prohibited to structure transactions to cause a financial institution not to file a CTR or to file an inaccurate CTR by breaking down transactions into smaller amounts at one or more financial institutions over one or more days. 31 C.F.R. 1010.314. Customer Due Diligence Pursuant to regulatory requirements, which became effective May 11, 2018, as part of their AML Programs, certain financial institutions (banks, broker-dealers, mutual funds, FCMs and IB-Cs) must implement formal risk-based CDD programs that include certain minimum elements, including customer identification and verification (under a Customer Identification Program), obtaining information about the nature and purpose of a customers account, ongoing monitoring of customer accounts, obtaining beneficial ownership information at a 25% threshold for legal entity customers and identifying a control person for legal entity customers (with certain exceptions). There also is a specific BSA requirement to maintain CDD programs for non-U.S. persons private banking accounts and foreign correspondent accounts. The same covered financial institutions as for CDD programs (banks, broker-dealers, mutual funds, FCMs and IB-Cs) must maintain a CDD program for non-U.S. private banking accounts established on behalf of, or for the benefit of, a non-U.S. person and foreign correspondent customers and an enhanced due diligence (EDD) program for those relationships posing a higher risk. These programs must be designed to detect and report suspicious activity with certain minimum standards. These requirements are based on Section 312 of the PATRIOT Act and are often referred to as Section 312 requirements. 31 C.F.R. 1010.610 (due diligence for foreign correspondent accounts), 1010.620 (due diligence for private banking for non-U.S. persons). 3.9 What is the criteria for reporting suspicious activity? Financial institutions and other businesses subject to the AML Program requirement (except Check Cashers, Operators of Credit Card Systems, and Dealers in Precious Metals, Precious Stones, or Jewels) are required to file SARs with FinCEN under the BSA (and for banks, under parallel requirements of their federal functional regulators). SARs are required where the filer knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect a transaction conducted or attempted by, at or through the financial institution: involves money laundering; is designed to evade any BSA regulation or requirement; has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the sort in which a particular customer would engage; or involves the use of the financial institution to facilitate criminal activity or involves any known or suspected violation of federal criminal law. See, e.g., 31 C.F.R. 1023.320(c) (SAR requirements for broker-dealers). Generally, the reporting threshold is XXXX or more. For banks, if the suspect is unknown, it is XXXX or more. For MSBs, generally, it is XXXX or more. In XXXX XXXX the office of the Senator XXXX XXXX issued a report called: Facilitating Fraud: How Consumers Defrauded on XXXX are Left High and Dry by the Banks that Created It. These are some of the most important statements mentioned in the report: In XXXX XXXX, Senator XXXX opened an investigation to determine the extent of fraudulent activity on XXXX, and to understand how the company and the banks that own and operate it make consumers whole when they are defrauded on the platform. Senators XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX wrote to XXXX seeking information about the frequency of scams and fraud and the companys policies on redressing consumers who have been defrauded. The information provided by XXXX revealed that an estimated XXXX XXXX was lost by XXXX users through frauds and scams in 2021, but that the banks that participate in the network appear not to have provided sufficient recourse to their customers. In particular, XXXX response indicated that XXXX facilitates fraudulent activity of many kinds That includes activity in which a users account is accessed by a bad actor and used to transfer a payment often called unauthorized transactions and activity in which a user is fraudulently induced into transferring a payment to a bad actor often referred to by XXXX and XXXX-participant banks as authorized transactions. Senators XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX then sent letters to the seven big banks that own and operate XXXX parent company to determine the extent of the problems with illegal and fraudulent activity, and to determine how banks were helping consumers who lost money on the platform. At nearly every turn, most of the big banks have stonewalled, refusing to provide the information requested by members of Congress. However, Senators XXXX XXXX XXXX finally obtained commitments from several of the banks CEOs that they would provide the information on XXXX to Congress during a Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs hearing on XXXX XXXX XXXX Overall, the three banks that provided complete data sets XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Truist reported 35,848 cases of scams, involving over XXXX million of payments in XXXX and the first half of XXXX. In the vast majority of these cases, the banks did not repay the customers that reported being scammed. Overall these three banks reported repaying customers in only 3,473 cases (representing nearly 10% of scam claims) and repaid only XXXX XXXX (representing 11.2% of payments). The findings of this report reveal that fraud and theft on XXXX are widespread and growing, with consumers losing XXXX each year. The banks that own and profit from the platform are failing to make their customers whole for both authorized and unauthorized fraudulent transactions, while refusing to release information publicly or to their customers that could help keep all consumers safe. Given this uncertain landscape and the banks abdication of responsibility, regulatory clarity is needed to further protect XXXX users. The CFPB has regulatory authority over peer-to-peer platforms including XXXX, and is reportedly considering issuing guidance to push banks to cover more fraudulently induced transactions, a move that would greatly improve consumer protections on peer-to-peer platforms like XXXX The agency should act to clarify and strengthen Regulation E and include fraud in the Regulations error resolution purview, increasing the responsibility of banks to keep XXXX safe and to ensure that consumers will be protected. The banks that created and profit off of XXXX should be pushed to protect their consumers from bad actors on their platform, and regulators should step in to ensure a fair and consistent process for everyone. From the report issued by the office of Senator XXXX XXXX, it is clear that the banks dont treat scam victims fairly, only 10% of scam victims get a compensation from the bank, while others just left suffering. Even more, banks keep getting their profit, while more and more people keep being scammed, hacked, simply saying, losing their hard-earned funds. As it is mentioned in the report, such organizations as CFPB should issue a guidance in which it will be written how step-by step, financial institutions need to check each and every transaction that looks suspicious, especially those which are sent to a new payee (e.g., cryptocurrency platforms). In case if the financial institution doesnt follow these rules and their customer is scammed, it shouldnt be blamed only as a victims guilt. Financial institutions need to take their responsibility as well and provide their customer with a decent compensation. Desired outcome: Truist Bank has to put things into the right perspective for me by reversing the total amount of XXXX USD paid to scammers as I have suffered a great loss because of this fraud, it had affected me personally, emotionally and financially. Yours sincerely, XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MD
Zip: 20852
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-01-24
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease
Subissue: Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off
Consumer Complaint: XX/XX/XXXX My home, car, and possessions were destroyed in hurricane Ian. I immediately contacted Regional Acceptance of the natural disaster. They informed me that even though the principal of the car was Satisfied they would still be charging me penalties and interest in the sum of XXXX and they would extend my payment until XX/XX/XXXX. That didn't happen instead reported it late. Strong holded me to sign a new agreement for a car that towed away destroyed by mechanic. I asked for a reasonable compromise. They offered me XXXX as apposed to XXXX for three more years for a car that doesn't exist. I have no car I have no home. I wish to remove this car from my credit report and to settle this with the lender. Whose clearly become a predatory lender seeking to take advantage of my weakness. The car insurance comp and collision insurance wasn't on the vehicle. They didn't notify gap when they extended my contract so they won't cover it either. The vehicle was purchased XX/XX/XXXX the principle was paid XX/XX/XXXX. At 18 % percent interest. This is damaging my credit profile and I need this removed.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 32811
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-01-24
Issue: Closing an account
Subissue: Funds not received from closed account
Consumer Complaint: A XXXX months ago I opened an account with Truist bank. I received a XXXX loan type deal from a company and it was deposited into this account. My fianc and I were using that money to pay bills, I tried to send money to him via XXXX, Truist locked the account and flagged it for fraud. I reached out multiple times to Truist and received several different answers. I was told to go to the branch to receive my money, the branch couldnt do that due to the fraud department locking my account. I reached out on the phone multiple times and was given the runaround. I was then sent a letter stating that I would receive the funds from my account in a check or could pick up at the bank. It has been months and there is still {$990.00} sitting in a closed account and they will not release the money to me. They state I owe them money and I can not use the funds in the account to pay the debt and they will not release the money or reopen the account until that debt is paid. I dont trust paying them because my money will probably sit in there another year before they decide that I can have it again. Customer service has been very unhelpful with them and I have been told so many different things by the company in multiple different departments. I would just like to be able to have the money released or mailed to me in check form, or if they insist on receiving money relating to a debt, they need to use the money in the account.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: TN
Zip: 377XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-01-24
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A