Product: Checking or savings account

XXXX is one of the most evil, horrible, deplorable, monstrous companies to have ever existed. It is beyond help and should dissolve as a corporation and wind down all accounts in order to stop harming consumers. I have never seen a company that is so cruel, callous, and uncaring, so hateful of its own customers. 

There are numerous ONGOING, SYSTEMIC ISSUES REQUIRING REGULATORY ACTION BY THE CFPB on the part of Square : Their agents do not provide ID numbers or any other identifiers other than their first name, which is insufficient to document conversations the corporation has hundred or thousands of agents, and when first names are common ( that is, because if customers only have the agents first names, the company can say that they have many agents with the same name and are unable to identify the agent or the prior conversation based solely upon a first name ) ; as shown below, the agents provide inconsistent information and explanations for their failure to provide adequate identifiers ; and They knowingly fail to maintain a staff of adequate supervisors, and as a result refuse to transfer customers to speak with supervisors ; and as shown below, the agents provide inconsistent information and explanations for their failure to allow customers to speak with supervisors, instead coming up with as many justifications as possible to refuse to transfer customers ; and They repeatedly hang up the phone on their customers- I have been hung up on several times today by Square representatives, as detailed below ; and The original issue- they lack a mechanism to assist customers with research of transactions when the transaction is more than sixty days old. 

I have a checking account with Square for my business, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 

On today, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I called to get information about two transactions on my Square debit card that had posted on XXXX XXXX, XXXX from XXXX - {$210.00} and {$91.00}. 

I had previously on today contacted the merchant, XXXX, and they said they had no information about the two transactions that they could provide. They provided a corporate office address to write a letter and said they were unsure if I wrote a letter, whether they would provide the information. They suggested I contact my bank, which in this case is Square. 

Conversation # 1 - Pressed option for Square banking/debit card. Spoke with XXXX. He said for security reasons he could only provide his name. This is unacceptable because, as explained above, people need to be able to document and reference conversations with agents with enough information to uniquely identify the agent. Also, there is no security reason not to provide an internal employee ID number ; theres nothing insecure about providing customers with a unique identifier that does nothing more than identify the agent for documenting and referencing the conversation. Im not requesting a social security number or a date of birth, Im requesting an employee ID number ; and it is not clear what I could do with such a number besides reference a phone call. Its not like I going to show up at Square headquarters wanting to take phone calls using someone elses employee ID - that would be absurd. He also said he could provide no additional information about the transactions, could not dispute the transactions because it had been more than sixty days, and could not reach out to the merchants to obtain the information. I asked for corporate escalations. He said he could not transfer the call, could only arrange a call back, and hung up the phone on me when I stated that was unacceptable.

Conversation # 2 - Pressed option for Square banking/debit card. Spoke with XXXX XXXX. He said he could not provide his ID but gave his last name. This doesnt make any sense because having access to someones last name is an actual security issue, whereas having access to an employee ID number internal to Square is not. I asked for supervisor. He placed me on twenty minute hold for a supervisor, then after making me wait, he insisted that he would disconnect the call and that I wait on a call back, and I refused. I said I had already been waiting twenty minutes and it was unfair, and he agreed. He hung up the phone.

Conversation # 3 - Pressed option for Square banking/debit card. Spoke with XXXX, who also refused to provide ID or any other identifying information. He said he could only say that he was with the Banking Department. I asked for a supervisor. He said he understands my concerns with wanting to speak with the corporate office. He said that if it is a general issue, I can speak with someone, but if its a banking issue that they need one to two days to respond. I said its a general issue. While I did have a banking issue originally, I decided I would take that issue up with the CFPB directly, but that I wanted to speak with a supervisor regarding my general concerns ( poor customer service, phone hung up on me repeatedly, lack of ID numbers ). He said, what was the original issue, youre not telling me? I said, I previously told multiple agents. I said I have the right to define what my issue is and whether it includes the original issue or not. He said he would speak with the Advanced Support Team, then said that no supervisor could take my call at the moment. He said youre not telling me your concerns. I said I have told you but you just dont like what they are. He said this call is unproductive and hung up the phone.

Conversation # 4 - This time, instead of selecting Square Banking/debit card, I selected from the prompts for a general concern ( something else ) and this time got general customer service. Again, this is now because I decided to take up my original banking issue with the CFPB directly and because they said that having a general concern ( rather than a banking concern ) was the only way to speak with a supervisor. Spoke with XXXX, Customer Service. He said he has no ID. ( Which is it?! Do agents not have IDs? Or do they have them but refuse to provide them due to non-existent security concerns? Pick one and be consistent and stop lying to customers. ) I asked for supervisor. He said the previous agent didnt leave any notes, and asked what was the original issue? I said the original issue was wanting transaction information, but that I dont want to be placed into a callback. He said he will let the mgr. know that I only wanted information about transaction. He transferred me to a manager ( finally! ) This goes to show Square is capable of transferring to managers, but they just dont want to. Again, stop lying to customers.

Conversation # 5 - Spoke with XXXX, XXXX. mgt. Team, ID XXXX. He said, I can lament on the poor service you received. and Apologies can not do justice- to which I agree. He said the bandwidth of the management team is extremely small. However, that is a knowing, intentional, deliberate decision that the company makes despite its negative impact and harm upon its customers and upon its existing supervisors. Square knowsor should be able to determine ( 1 ) its volume of calls, ( 2 ) how many callers request a supervisor on average, ( 3 ) how many supervisors are needed to handle the volume of calls, ( 4 ) how many supervisors are already hired and trained, and ( 5 ) ( by subtracting figure three from figure four ) how many supervisors therefore need to be hired and trained. You all know what to do, you just dont want to do it because youd prefer to see your customers upset and suffering. XXXX said that customer service reps are trained to resolve issues without supervisors - what that really means is that customer service reps are determined to, and go out of their way to, create arbitrary barriers to letting customers speak with a supervisor, including by insisting that the customer declare their full list of issues and by being unsatisfied with the list of issues that the customer chooses to provide - then using this as an excuse to hang up the phone on customers. 

I explained the original issue to XXXX, which is, again, that I wanted to obtain information about the two transactions. XXXX said that other than filing a dispute, that there is no process or mechanism for a bank to contact a merchant to obtain transaction information ( There is no established process with XXXX he said ). I do not necessarily concede that it is therefore impossible for a bank to contact a merchant to obtain transaction information on behalf of a customer. However, in either case, THE CFPB SHOULD PROMULGATE A NEW RULE REQUIRING THAT A PROCESS BE CREATED FOR BANKS TO OBTAIN TRANSACTION INFORMATION FROM A MERCHANT ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT EVEN IF IT IS TOO LATE TO FILE A DISPUTE. What if there was fraud? What if there was defective merchandise that exploded or caused harm and there was resulting tort litigation, and the customer needed to confirm where they purchased the harmful product? What if the customer needs to complete some type of accounting or reporting for which they need to know what they purchased? He said, Merchants are required to keep that information, not sure if banks are required. I agree Merchants ( like XXXX ) should be required to provide this information to customers ; but if they do not, and if the purchase was made with a bank account, the bank should be able to obtain this information on the customers behalf and provide this information to the customer. He said I could file a police report and send a copy to XXXX if there is fraud, but that may or may not result in me obtaining the information. However, it is not clear whether these transactions are necessarily fraud, but I do not have a record of the transactions and XXXX can not confirm them. )