Consumer Protection Law
If this is too involved or outside of your expertise -
hi - if this is...
hi - if this is too involved or outside of your expertise - please say so. i am contemplating a pro se action for fraud brought in new york state (residence at time of event) - i am attaching my most recent letter to bank of america - which they treated laughingl. IN ADDITION TO THE ISSUES BROUGHT IN THE LETTER, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE AMOUNT THEY POSTED TO THE ACCOUNT EXCEEDED THE CREDIT LIMIT BY OVER $3,000. I AM CERTAIN I WILL ASK ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF YOUR RESPONSE. again, please do not hesitate to state this is too much of an issue - thank you, ***** *****Submitted: 2 years ago.Category: Consumer Protection Law
and on behalf of
and on behalf of
April 18, 2015
Customer Advocate; Office of the Chairman
Bank of America
Customer Advocate; Office of the CEO and President
Bank of America
Bank of America
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Via Email
Mail Code XXXXXXXXXXXXX
This is a plea for intervention and justice, to remedy the treatment by employees of your institution, commencing in May 2011 and continuing to the present day. I have tried, civilly, to find a just resolution to the following problem, which has its roots in interaction with your staff who oftentimes acted maliciously and to a different agenda.
During the aforementioned time, I have been ignored, lied to, treated with disrespect and even contempt. It is my conviction that I have been dealing with people of your company with no understanding of how to provide proper remedy and also with limited areas of responsibility and authority, and operating without proper oversight.
The issue concerns card number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX originally issued to Tarla XXXXXX.
Tarla is my sister; Ingeborg is my Domestic Partner. The card had a zero balance prior to our trip to Ecuador in May, June and July of 2011. Tarla also held accounts XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX .
In the spring of 2011, Tarla contacted your company and successfully added Ms. XXXXXX and me as authorized card holders. Your bank issued additional cards in our names. Ms. XXXXXX’s request was made because Ms. XXXXXX and I were taking an exploratory trip to Ecuador, a third world country, and it was reasonably assumed that the card Ms. XXXXXX and I held (Discover) was not widely accepted in South America. Tarla XXXXXX advised your staff of the reason for the cards and that charges would be posted from Ecuador. Further, anticipating renting a vehicle in Ecuador, I contacted your bank and asked what conditions had to be met for the benefit insurance to cover the rental, and was told only that I had to decline the collision damage coverage on the rental contract.
Before presenting you with the main issue of this complaint, allow me to provide you with a preamble as to how we were welcomed by your bank as users of the card. Immediately upon arriving in Ecuador, we were unable to use the card, because of holds your bank had put on the account. Numerous phone calls were made to Tarla, who continually reported to us that she had contacted your bank again and again was advised the cards would be honored. This was repeated several times. Out of frustration with the mixed messages provided by your bank and the embarrassment of multiple declines in public places, I contacted your bank directly from Ecuador by phone on June 2, 2011 and spoke with a Todd XXXXXX. Mr. XXXXXX was unapologetic and aloof and when asked why the bank was still doing this to us, he responded that we wouldn’t have to worry anymore, as he was now placing a restriction on the account prohibiting us from using the card. He was acting with malice and contrary to the intent of the usage of the cards. I had to end the call with him and call back to get another person who re-authorized the cards. This was not a minor event as our subsequent phone bill, mostly dealing with the card problem, exceeded $1500. Numerous complaints to your institution about Mr. XXXXXX have still not been satisfactorily dealt with.
The following is the main issue, for which I am seeking immediate relief. On a subsequent trip in April of 2013, I was involved in a car accident while driving a vehicle I had rented from Avis. Avis representatives told both me and my interpreter, in both English and Spanish, that they (Avis) would take care of the damages to the other vehicle and that I only had to worry about the damages to the rented vehicle. A few days later, when returning to the States, Avis presented me charges to sign which included non-negotiated damages to the other vehicle. When I objected to this the Avis representative stated that amount would be coming from the insurance. ( I took that to mean Avis’ insurance.)
Immediately upon my return to the US, I contacted your bank because I was concerned over the Avis procedures. I attempted to place a dispute on that portion of the charges representing purported damages to the other vehicle. I was advised by your bank that I was not allowed to dispute that amount as it was an international transaction which I had authorized. I felt then, as I do now, that that information was invented and untrue. I withheld payments on the account until representatives of your bank provided assurances that no dispute was allowed, however the entire claim would be considered when I made the final submittal of the accident damages. Upon those assurances I agreed to resume payments and that your bank would correct any negative payment reporting. In retrospect, it seems I was treated lightly and that those employees were only passing the problem off to future staff, while at the same time setting off a chain of events that no one seemed to know how to handle.
The submittal of the insurance claim was in timely fashion. Inexplicably I received an email accusing me of not making the submittal in time. Despite having submitted the claim well within the time limit allowed, employees of your bank withheld this email until after the allowed time had expired. That was clearly intentional. I responded that I had indeed met the requirements you set for the submittal. You denied the claim, asserting it was not submitted in time. The denial was based upon a lie from the bank. Because of that lie I again withheld payments.
During the many phone calls subsequently made to the bank, I was told that I was not allowed to be covered if I rented a pick-up truck. I had rented a pick-up truck, but was not advised of such a restriction during my prior call seeking compliant rental conditions. I ultimately was able, several months later, to speak with a manager who told me I had not submitted a required document. I responded that the language of the letter of requirements DID NOT call for that specific document. I was correct. I was then advised to submit an appeal of the original decision and further advised that I should state that I did not receive any notice that I could not rent a pick-up truck.
I submitted an articulate and truthful appeal of the original denial, which appeal was denied because I had rented a pick-up truck. The resounding statement made by the denial concluded I had made a fraudulent assertion to the bank. Odd that the same people who had already lied in processing the original claim would now point that same crooked finger at me.
For the last two years communication with your bank has been in a Kafkaesque dimension where I am directed to the wrong departments, wrong people, and people who express understanding but claim to lack authority to correct the wrongfulness of the treatment. Recently (January) a claim was instituted by a “manager” in your victim’s assistance unit for the Avis charges of purported damages to the other vehicle - the logic being that I was presented fraudulent information by Avis personnel. That claim was recently denied because of the time elapsed between the event and now. Yet, why was I not allowed to dispute that two years ago? It is impossible to defend against all the reasons made up by people at your bank.
I am dealing with people who don’t even know how to talk to me because the debt has been charged off. I have left hundreds of unanswered messages. Many of those were to people who have given me their private numbers. I have not yet been able to talk with anyone who has the authority to correct this issue. Assume arguendo, why charge off the debt internally and at the same time, report negative credit for three people, while fabricating obstacles preventing the resolution of the debt?
As a consequence of the above and failing to deal fairly and ethically:
Tarla XXXXXX has been severely and unfairly damaged by your negative reports because you have closed the account. She has two other accounts XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which have always been current and satisfactory, which you have also closed. She has a Citibank account, also current and satisfactory, which has been negatively altered, citing the negative rating by your bank. She has a SEFCU account, also always current and satisfactory, which has been closed, citing the negative rating by your bank. She has been a member of SEFCU for 45 years.
Ingeborg XXXXXX has been severely and unfairly damaged by having her terms with SEFCU detrimentally altered because of the negative rating you have applied to her. She has been a member of SEFCU for 25 years.
Although damaged, I will not claim if this issue is resolved satisfactorily and without delay by this communication.
In closing, I draw your attention to the following:
Neither Ms. XXXXXX nor I have ever received a copy of a cardholder agreement, contract or list of cardholder benefits or how to receive or protect them, from your bank. Instead, we have been left to contact the bank by phone often receiving wrong or made-up information from people at the lowest level of your dealing with your customers.
The balance in this account today exclusively represents the expense of the auto accident, less payments made for which re-imbursement is due.
As you see from our experience, this circumstance calls for your immediate and direct intervention. Further, we urge that you immediately restore the credit rating of the three of us who have been unfairly damaged by your actions.
and on behalf of
and on behalf of