Product: Checking or savings account

Preface: There are two products involved in this complaint; Key Bank XXXX Checking Account, and XXXX XXXX Account. The issue/issues stemming from these two products/two companies would otherwise be very convoluted, but Key Bank personally made this case entirely their own responsibility. This assuming of responsibility occurred on XX/XX/XXXX, when we (XXXX XXXX XXXX), were advised to cease all communication with XXXX  and told that Key Bank would handle the entire issue at hand.

In following the instruction of Key Bank to cease communication with XXXX, and fast forwarding to this point, we now have discovered that our entire existence on XXXX has been completely wiped out (to the extent that we are not able to even log in to see PAST transaction history or have documentation of anything which occurred on our accountthis being a catalyst to a separate issue, forcing us to file for an extension to file taxes as we have zero access to the abundance of sales and reports which were handled through XXXX  its as if we never had an account at all). Furthermore, even if we wanted to delve into going another avenue and handling the issue of fraud with XXXX, after this disaster with Key Bank (despite all of their promises), we are no longer able to do that! Since we ceased all communication with XXXX past a deadline they had set for the fraud investigation, we ceased everything having to do with them. 

The act of stopping all communications with XXXX was solely based on Key Banks advisement, as well as the advisement of the bank manager we were handling this fraud case with. This Manager, telling us multiple times, that she would ensure Key Bank would handle the fraud case ultimately in our favor (Key Banks branch manager stated this several times, specifically that she would personally ensure the case be handled appropriately as she knew, through review of our many forms of proof we provided during our many meetings with her, that the transactions we filed as unauthorized were in fact fraudulent).

Our Complaint: The product is XX/XX/XXXX Checking Account, specifically at Key Bank. This complaint is based on our filing an extensive case for unauthorized transactions (82 total transactions); when reviewing our account, we noticed a plethora of transactions pulling funds from our account through XXXX  which we did not recognize, nor did we authorize.

This case, filed on XX/XX/XXXX, at the XXXX  Branch with XXXX XXXX. At the time of filing, we arrived at the bank with a spreadsheet of all our XXXX  transactions (each of the unrecognized/unauthorized transactions highlighted; this spreadsheet is what we used throughout this entire case to log happenings individually on each of the transactions  ATTACHMENT #1a).

The original filing contained 82 transactions total (the total number of transactions ultimately grew, as the Vendor was not blocked from our Key Bank account and continued to process transactions which were also unauthorized - we had ceased all use of the account as soon as we discovered the problem, therefore these additional transactions were very easy to see/find/report). A letter from Key Bank followed our fraud filing, informing us that the cases were filed (ATTACHMENT #1b).
On XX/XX/XXXX, we inquired if we should file this dispute with Key Bank (where the funds were coming out of), or with XXXX. XXXX XXXX advised that we cover all bases and files with Key Bank as well as have open communication with XXXX to encourage them to review and process the chargeback requests. So, we communicated and then also filed a case with XXXX on each of the transactions identically to the information we supplied to Key Bank. By filing with both institutions, 
we thought that it would be a positive influence on this extensive issue; firstly, we viewed filing with both could be helpful for communication purposes between Key Bank and XXXX, as we had record of each XXXX transaction placed from which device login making the identification of the unauthorized XXXX transactions fairly easy by using our logs from XXXX XXXX identifies each transaction with a transaction number which is a unique identifier for every single of these transactions, but obviously Key Bank does not have at hand these identifying numbers therefore by going in backwards and ensuring the correct transactions were flagged with XXXX it should then help to correctly identify which Key Bank transactions went with which XXXX transactions (or so we imagined it happening in this manner). Secondly, we wanted to be certain that all items lined up with both institutions to remove the possibility of issues when investigation of the transactions began.

Moving forward (from XX/XX/XXXX) we visited the XXXX Key Bank every 2 days following our filing, during this time also calling the fraud center to follow up on the case and inquire if they needed further detail or documentation. We were also communicating regularly with XXXX While speaking with XXXX, specifically on XX/XX/XXXX, we were given an explanation by a customer service representative which has been disregarded by all parties concerned (ATTACHMENT #1c).

Bringing us to our next notable date of XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, we started receiving several emails (39 total) from XXXX  stating that a conclusion on each of thirty-nine transactions had been determined and to click the link in the email to read the details in our account. The detail read that the transactions were in fact fraudulent and that they were refunding/honoring the chargeback requests from Key Bank. Subsequently, we received letters from Key Bank dated XX/XX/XXXX stating that they had issued us a permanent credit to our account for the listed transactions (ATTACHMENT #2).

We at that point assumed things were moving along, and we awaited more emails stating the same for our remaining transactions, which was not the case. When we visited the XXXX Branch again to see what was going on and could not get any factual information, we grew frustrated, leading us to our next notable date. XX/XX/XXXX. At which point we had grown frustrated with the service (or lack thereof) at the XXXX  Key Bank branch, because each visit to the bank specifically with XXXX XXXX, seemed to lead to no information or any kind of advisement on how to move forward  not only with our fraud case, but also with our XX/XX/XXXX Checking Account. We inquired several times if/when to open a new account as we still needed to XX/XX/XXXX, regardless of having this massive fraud case, and doing so without a useable/working checking account was growing increasingly impossible. Therefore, after another failed attempt at information about moving forward we chose to visit an alternative Key Bank branch to see if we could get advisement of any kind and find someone willing to help us with the two issues in hand. During this time we had very little communication on what was going on/going to happen with our account, and still needing XX/XX/XXXXwe ordered checks but were not told that account was not going to be useable (ATTACHMENT #7) this to be added onto total amount to be returned to us as well as the service, etc. charges which were charged to us when we were unable to close the account where the fraud originated (ATTACHMENT #6).

XX/XX/XXXX, we visited the Key Bank XXXX Branch and met with the VP and Branch Manager (as her business card reads) XXXX XXXX. This extensive meeting included presenting our spreadsheet of transactions, with notes, etc. again, as well as providing the details of what had happened up to that point in time. XXXX  was very apologetic and seemed extremely motivated to assist us with both of our key issues at hand. She facilitated opening our new XX/XX/XXXXChecking Account, as well as taking our documents about the fraud case and scanned them into the system logging them into a database for the investigations. She also added notes to our database investigation during our meeting. At this meeting, XXXX stated directly that she could see the obvious number of hours of work that had been put into the information and proof we were providing for this fraud case and that there would be no more long hours and grueling work needed to be put towards this because she was going to handle it moving forwardshe actually went as far as to tell us that if we received any phone calls from the fraud department to advise that she was personally assisting us with this case and to give them her contact details and then call her to let her know right away so she could be sure that she was receiving communications and able to facilitate the conversations and help with any information or clarification as needed.

We followed up with regular phone calls and visits to XXXX. We were still hopeful that there would be good news soon, but instead we began receiving emails from XXXX  stating that they were suddenly unable to complete investigations on our reported transactions due to the fact that we had filed a fraud case with both XXXX  and Key Bank, and they were requesting that we cancel our fraud cases with Key Bank immediately in order for them to continue processing our requests. This immediately seemed like a red flag, especially since through communications with both parties neither mentioned this to be an issue, nor were we ever not upfront about what we were doing and the reasoning behind filing with both institutions.

This new development was the catalyst to our next visit and set of issues, now on the date of XX/XX/XXXX. We went into the Key Bank XXXX  Branch and met with XXXX, showing her the emails from XXXX requesting that we close our cases with Key Bank. She immediately called the fraud department to discuss and ensure that we received correct advisement on what to do at that point. The fraud representative pulled up the information on our cases while on the phone with XXXX (always on speaker phone in her office when she would call to discuss our case with the fraud department), and after reviewing everything they both agreed on the advisement to us that we should not cancel our cases with Key Bank, and that their request of us to do so especially after already refunding transactions in the case which were found to be fraudulent did not seem like sound advice at all. XXXX  also stated that if we cancelled our cases, we would not be able to reopen them and any sort of help at their end would be extremely difficult at that point. So, they reiterated to NOT cancel our Key Bank cases, stated that they would handle the cases in house and THEN advised that we CEASE ALL CONVERSATION AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH XXXX FROM THAT POINT FORWARD.

We followed these advisements, and then received letters DATED XX/XX/XXXX (the literal date of that meeting and receiving advisements/advice) from Key Bank stating that they were unable to process our claim for our cases of fraud!

We immediately took the letters right into the XXXX Branch to meet with XXXX. She immediately called the fraud department, at which point the representative pulled up our case and proceeded to tell her and us that they were not sure why we received those letters because the cases were in fact not closed! So, we proceeded to wait and follow up and wait and follow up againthen we decided to try calling the fraud department on our own, without XXXX assistance because waiting and getting no information (and barely a percentage of what she promised us on XX/XX/XXXXas far as assistance is concerned) was getting old.

This phone call was on XX/XX/XXXXand we were now told that the cases were closed on XX/XX/XXXX (which was the opposite of what we were told two separate times when visiting XXXX  and talking to the fraud department after the date of XX/XX/XXXX). The representative stated that we could send supporting documents via email to have the case reopened. We did exactly as we had been advised and sent an email for each remaining case (2), as well as forwarded the emails, after sending them to the dispute email address, to XXXX so she could remain informed on what was going on. We received letters dated XX/XX/XXXX that confirmed the receipt of our documents, and the letter stated that we would receive notification of their decision to reopen (ATTACHMENT #4).

We then followed up with a meeting with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, as we had not received any more information about our cases. This included calls to the fraud department which we made and were unable to get anything concrete as far as information was concerned. Our meeting with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX included a phone call to the fraud department discussing the documents that were sent to reopen the case. The representative stated that the documents were not received, and XXXX corrected her in stating that she could in fact see the documents in the system; the representative ultimately found them and stated that they were not saved in the correct location within this case system, which she then corrected their location to be where they should be. The representative, XXXX stated that the case was reopened on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX asked when there would be a definitive answer to this case which had now been dragged out for no real reason as there should have been no issues to begin with. The representative put us on a fairly long hold to discuss exactly what the timeline was going to XXXX representative returned to the call and stated that XX/XX/XXXX accounts are handled differently than XX/XX/XXXX accounts, that instead of receiving XX/XX/XXXX, there is no such thing for a XX/XX/XXXXwhen fraud is filed; also instead of 30 days for investigation, the timeline was going to be 45 days. When the representative stated that it would be 45 days, from the new date, referring to the date which the cases were allegedly reopened (XX/XX/XXXX). XXXX then clarified that she in fact said 45 days and asked for confirmation on whether it was straight 45 days or forty-five business days, to which the representative replied straight 45 days. While the representative was still on the call with us, XXXX physically counted out 45 days on the calendar and then asked the representative to confirm that the latest date of which we would have an answer would in fact be Monday, XX/XX/XXXX to which the representative said yes confirming that date. (OBVIOUSLY, EVERY OWNED CALENDAR WAS THEN MARKED FOR THAT DATE, XX/XX/XXXX).

We chose to wait until the day following the actual due date, as it could be possible for someone to be finalizing things on XX/XX/XXXX, so we wanted to be mindful of that. Upon calling the next day, XX/XX/XXXX, we were told that they not only did not have an answer but that NO ONE HAD WORKED ON IT, LOOKED AT IT AND THERE WERE NO NOTES MADE AT ALL WHICH WERE NEW AS OF THE NEW OPEN DATE OF XX/XX/XXXX.

After some deep breathing exercises, I waited one more week, and called the fraud department back on XX/XX/XXXX, and again spoke with XXXX (coincidently the same representative that we received the 45-day timeline from). I did not announce that she had previously helped me, as I did not want to make her feel pressured or nervous so I stated I was calling for an update on a case which we had noted should be closed the week prior. She then pulls up the cases and proceeds to tell me that there have STILL been no updates. I communicated my concern as we were told that it would be 45 days from the date it was reopened (allegedly XX/XX/XXXX). She THEN states that she believes that for the case re-open timeline alone is 90 DAYS (this is not the timeline till the answer on the case itselfjust time to decide on it being reopened!). So, I voice my concern in general that there is 90 days for them to review the information and give an answer on if it will be reopened or notI then communicate that we were specifically told last week for a final answer, and that we were told it was already reopened! She states that she is going to have me talk to the fraud hotline so they can help me further. I speak with XXXX at the fraud hotline. This conversation starts with her pulling up my cases and immediate abundance of confusion. First she says the case was never closed, I correct herthen she states that the reopen was deniedthen she corrected herself and says it was not denied it just wasnt reopenedthen she tells me that she wants to directly speak with the caseworker assigned to the case to figure out whats going on, and asks if she can put me on hold to talk to that specific caseworker. After being on hold for over 2 HOURS waiting for this caseworker to surfaceshe comes back and tells me that the caseworker feels as though the case is too complicated and needs to be pushed up to a higher level! So, the representative states that she is going to ensure it gets pushed up to the next level and call me back in a couple of days.

On XX/XX/XXXX, I got a returned phone call with a whole lot of zero information. Frustrated I do not ask too many questions, as at that point I am just at a loss for what I can do to even get anywhere on this disaster.

Fast forward to nowNOT A SINGLE PIECE OF COMMUNICATION, until XX/XX/XXXX. We received a letter from Key Bank on ONE, NOT BOTH, ONLY ONE CASE stating XXXX  information about the documents sent to reopen the case, or the fact that the case was even closed at all! It states, we have reviewed the following items you submitted on XX/XX/XXXX unable to process the claim AS IF NOTHING HAS OCCURRED SINCE I ORIGINALLY FILED THE CASE!
Ultimately denying that case (1 out of 2), stating no real concrete reason as to why it is being denied! (ATTACHMENT #5).

We have no idea what is going on with the other case which we did not receive a letter on or around XX/XX/XXXX, about (not that the letter we did receive says anything at all). The paperwork included in the final attachment seems extremely confusing and I am not even sure what the extra documentation even means or if I am supposed to do anything with it. All we do know is that weve been refunded for part of the transactions that were in the original claim ($XXXX), as these transactions were found to be fraudulent, but the rest of the transactions in the original claim ($XXXX) were allegedly notbut who really knows what was found considering no one has ever given me factual information (this conclusion based on the numerous conversations, NONE of which we have ever received the same answer twice!).

The original claim amount remaining with the additional transactions filed after the original claim total $XXXX The Service Charges, etc. that we were charged on the account we were unable to use or close during the investigation (ATTACHMENT #6) total $XXXX. The checks that were ordered for the old account (ATTACHMENT #7), that at/during the time of the fraud filing, which no one told us we could no longer use for XX/XX/XXXX, and we were never credited as was stated would occur when we opened a new account total $XXXX. 

We want our money backnot only has this been drawn out 170 days since the initial date of case filing, but this has nearly XX/XX/XXXX. We are an exceedingly XXXX XXXX and we had just XXXX XXXX XXXX, so were literally in the start to trying to XX/XX/XXXX This money was supposed to pay one of our subcontractors, who has patiently waited in the sidelines with us through this entire timeline of insanity; this money was also supposed to help us with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where we store our equipment over the winter months (XX/XX/XXXX). Along with other minor details we are just trying to illustrate how this amount of money has a significant impact on XX/XX/XXXX, and on our survival in general XX/XX/XXXX.

We would like settlement for the amount due to $XXXX.


Thank you for your time and help with this matter in advance. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Have a wonderful rest of your day!