Date Received: 2024-01-27
Issue: Fees or interest
Subissue: Charged too much interest
Consumer Complaint: My Wells Fargo XXXX Credit Card had a balance of {$11000.00} ( the " XXXX Statement Balance '' ) for the billing cycle XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, which is due on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I made a payment of {$10000.00}, which reduced the remaining XXXX Statement Balance to {$1800.00} ; on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I received several refunds totaling {$1200.00}, which further reduced the XXXX Statement Balance to {$680.00}. The XXXX Statement Balance remained {$680.00} until another refund of {$59.00} was received on XX/XX/XXXX, which resulted in an unpaid due of the XXXX Statement Balance of {$620.00} on the XX/XX/XXXX due date. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received my statement for the billing cycle XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, which indicated that I owed an interest of {$140.00}, calculated based on a 24.49 % APR on a {$6800.00} balance. I called Wells Fargo for a calculation of the {$6800.00} balance, and Wells Fargo responded that this was the " average daily balance '' of my " XXXX statement '' but refused to provide more detailed explanation or calculation of such {$6800.00} balance. My complaint is two-prong : 1. Throughout XXXX, Wells Fargo was showing me on their mobile app that I have {$0.00} remaining balance of my previous statement. This false and misleading information is the direct and proximate cause of my not paying off the {$620.00} remaining XXXX Statement Balance that were overdue after XX/XX/XXXX. 2. Even if Wells Fargo is not liable for providing the false information, the overdue balance I had was {$620.00} for a period of 5 days until being paid off. It is utterly unreasonable and unconscionable to charge {$140.00} interest on the {$620.00} balance overdue for 5 days, which equals to a 1648.95 % effective APR. It should not matter how Wells Fargo calculated the pretextual {$6800.00} balance, especially when Wells Fargo also failed to provide any calculation of such balance that the interest was based on.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NY
Zip: 11101
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-28
Issue: Problem caused by your funds being low
Subissue: Overdrafts and overdraft fees
Consumer Complaint: Wells Fargo charged me overdraft fees even when there is amount to cover the amount. Most fees refunded to me were half and one time I caught them and called to forcefully refund me the full amount
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 93933
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-27
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account
Subissue: Transaction was not authorized
Consumer Complaint: Received letter from Wells Fargo XX/XX/XXXX indicating they wanted to clarify a product that I might have or have not requested. ( I will include letter ). I didnt authorize XXXX XXXX and I never knew anything about it. I HAVE COMPLAINED OVER THE YEARS SINCE XXXX how Wells Fargo has violated my privacy and rights. Now all they do is send letters about 10 days as if they dont have to answer to anyone. Let me be specific, I am convinced this is racially motivated by the outcome of my complaints to continuously be ignored from the UNAUTHORIZED XXXX XXXX PRODUCT, AND A RACIALLY STIMULATED FINANCE RISK BASED PRODUCT TO CAUSE FINANCIAL HARM AND NO ABILITY TO AFFORD. I ask in this complaint, if anything here is not understood by the way Im writing about the issues, please allow me an accommodation to get further help as to why Im being ignored and totally disregarded as if my money doesnt count. As in take complete advantage of me because Im XXXX XXXX This has to stop and I will seek justice. Im open for legal guidance because Wells Fargo has been nothing but disrespectful to me and has totally violated my privacy. Wells Fargo also has TWO FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTS IN MY NAME WITH MY DAUGHTER WHO WAS A MINOR AT THE TIME SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. IM STILL WAITING FOR THE CHECK FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF XXXX PRODUCT. This was initiated XX/XX/XXXX. I HAVE GONE INSIDE A WELLS FARGO BRANCH TO FIND OUT MY IDENTITY WAS BEING USED HAVING MY MINOR CHILD SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER ATTACHED. ALL I EVER GET IS NEED MORE TIME LETTERS SINCE XXXX with no resolution EVER! I have received a couple of small checks between XXXX & XXXX. But this is unacceptable and definitely offers the opportunity to make it right but Wells Fargo still HAS RACISM IN ITS CORE!! I have a letter to hear from WELLS FARGO BY XX/XX/XXXX. I FEEL THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR AND LACK OF CARE IS TO GO TO COURT. I HAVE LEFT MESSAGES XXXX XXXX NO RESPONSE FROM ANYONE!
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: 30127
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-27
Issue: Fraud or scam
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: This is to complain against the Wells Fargo Bank ( WFB ). URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of WFB to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : XXXX ) with WFB. In order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to WFB respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. It is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. My complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of WFB to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. During the complaints process with WFB, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. General Obligation : Between XXXX and XX/XX/, I fell victim to XXXX multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my WFB account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether WFB did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of WFBs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether WFB promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether WFB was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether WFB owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether WFB did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether WFBs conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether WFB has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. In providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, WFB must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that WFB did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. WFBs Position : On XX/XX/2023, WFB wrote in a letter Recently, your fraud inquiry was forwarded to us for our review. We found that between XXXXand XX/XX/2023, you authorized multiple wire transfers totaling {>= $1,000,000} for the benefit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX As the money will not be returned from the receiving bank, we are not able to reimburse you. At this time, we consider your inquiry closed. Please note that a wire transfer is an immediate form of payment and can not be reversed after the funds have been deposited in the beneficiary 's account, even if you believe you are a victim of fraud. To learn more about protecting yourself from fraud, visit our Fraud Protection Center at wellsfargo.com/privacy-security/fraud/. Refuting WFBs arguments from a purely logical perspective : WFBs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. In WFBs view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. Imagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make WFB morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if WFB encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as WFB. I have reviewed the material hereto sent by WFB carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. It is perfectly obvious that WFB, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. It is WFB here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that WFB adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is WFB that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with WFBs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, WFBs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. Apropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all WFB has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. WFB 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 organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harmand it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financialabuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems aredeveloped using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention offraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, therebyminimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud andfinancial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detectsuspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It thenlists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a.multiple cheque books ; b.sudden increased spending ; c.transfers to other accounts ; d.multiple password attempts ; e.logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f.sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions aretransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. 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 ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact withthe customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the natureof the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. WFB are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. Rather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability WFB adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. I am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by WFB in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. Conclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only XXXX of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. Astonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that WFBs business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. WFBs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. If it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that WFB pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. In summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. I look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: CA
Zip: 91011
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-26
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Deposits and withdrawals
Consumer Complaint: I was hired by a company and did not know they were fraudulent until they sent me a check and then stopped payment of the check. The check was for {$4900.00}. I sent out three XXXX transactions for {$1000.00} and a {$1800.00} wire transfer. I have contacted Wells Fargo XX/XX/XXXX after I received an email that my account was over drafted. I filed a fraud claim on XX/XX/24. In the account was {$1800.00} of my money that they are trying to not give back. I need my money to pay bills. Wells Fargo is trying to shut down all my accounts. I have been a customer for 19 years and have never cashed a fraudulent check on my account. They have blocked all deposits that I would get as well as my husbands as well. Pleas know I was recently laid off and this money is the last of my severance check and I am supposed to get a bonus via direct deposit in a week. My account is currently in the negative and the outstanding balance has eaten up the money I had in there. Please help they are trying to not give my money back. Please note I still have my maiden name XXXX XXXX on my bank account.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-27
Issue: Opening an account
Subissue: Unable to open an account
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/2023 I had an appointment with Wells Fargo at the branch address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Maryland XXXX to open up a trust checking account. I submitted my trust to the banker and the XXXX department confirmed that the trust can be opened. The trusts name is XXXX XXXX XXXX ministry trust. As we were going through my personal information I told them that I was a non resident alien of the United States. The banker said this should not be an issue because the trust was already verified. As the banker was on the phone with the department that handles these matters he was told that they do not open any accounts for sovereigns and that the account can not be opened. The banker was surprised because hes done trusts with non XXXX citizens before but apparently he said this is a new rule. I believe this is discrimination because the account would have been opened if I was a citizen. This should not matter to opening a bank account. I gave them all the information that was needed and they accepted this until I said I was a non resident alien. This is unacceptable and very unprofessional.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MD
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-26
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Consumer Complaint: wells Fargo owes me my money of {$500.00} that was in my account that they will not give me back! Please.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: 30213
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-26
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-27
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: The suspect ( accomplice ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who received most of the XXXX XXXX transactions in XXXX as shown in the attachment. He and his other accomplices created a scam website XXXX ( now XXXX ) that I was introduced to by the main suspect known from XXXX in early XX/XX/XXXX. I registered at the website to earn commissions by taking and completing orders online ( not physical items ). The website and its scammers instructed me to deposit or make bank transactions via XXXX to the bank XXXX in XXXX to fulfill certain VIP levels to complete orders and earn commissions per VIP levels. However after many false promises to let me withdraw all my deposited capitals or funds and close the account, I still can not withdraw anything at all as of today ( see attached images ). I filed multiple complaints online at FBI XXXX ( FBI ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX crime ) after meeting the 1st agent who initiated the case on XX/XX/XXXX, and following up with the 2nd agent on XX/XX/XXXX at the local FBI office on XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Texas. However the FBI agents would not disclose their names and provide a case # and only contact me if needing more information. They encourage me to provide more relevant information which will be the cases with other involved police jurisdictions ( where the high dollar value bank transactions took place ). I filed a police report # XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. This is also required as I currently reside in XXXX XXXX. I filed a police report against the main suspect on XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX Department ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX. His email address XXXX.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: TX
Zip: 77038
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-27
Issue: Getting a credit card
Subissue: Card opened without my consent or knowledge
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter thanking me for opening a new XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I tried to contact the company via email only to be told ( on XX/XX/XXXX ) that it was the rewards account and I need to contact Wells Fargo, the issuer of the card. The card was received in the mail on XX/XX/XXXX. I called the number on the card to report that I didn't apply for the card. They said that they had XXXX the card and I asked if they could verify that no other cards were issued against the account. He asked for my phone number and I felt they should tell me what it was - and then my fiance got angry and started yelling. He was not on the phone but the rep. could hear him and ended the call because it was 'abusive '. I am not sure what is happening now but I am worried that someone else may have a card against this account. I have done research and apparently XXXX does this a lot - sending out cards to people who do apply for them.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: VA
Zip: 22192
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2024-01-27
Issue: Fraud or scam
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Reminder : XXXX The statement of complaint citation Identity Theft 18 U.S.C. Section 1028A, treasury sales promoter 's fraud on contracts, and the financial statement arrangement disclosures ; allocation name reportable, the descriptions, Excise Exempt Property 28 U.S.C. Section 791, 12 C.F.R. Part 360 reportable periods, Salaried Income Tax Refund 1040 transactions purpose means, depositing schedules, withdrawals, transfers between accounts, exchange of currencies, loans, extension of credits, purchases or sales of any stocks, bond securities, share certificates, or registered monetary instruments, or investment securities, or any other payments, transfers, or deliveries by, through, or to the financial institution ownership selected by whatever means. Notice of Creditor 15 U.S.C. Section 1635 Transaction Rescission Rights :
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: SC
Zip: 295XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2024-01-27
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A