Product: Checking or savings account

I opened two REG-Z complaints in early XXXX with Wells Fargo and with CFPB. Both complaints were closed, without me being allowed to provide detail of REG-E violations ; or without even the labeling of my complaint as REG-E. OCC stated to me this week that I should ask CFPB to open a second complaint on the same UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTION as a REG-E complaint ( consumer debit card ) and ask for an immedaite provisional credit of the {$2600.00} back into my account, as a pandemic hardship. I am also recovering from serious XXXX illness & symptoms. 
________________ 1. REG-E VIOLATIONS : WELLS FARGO BANK SUMMARY OF REG-E VIOLATIONS A. Wells Fargo put through an UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTION of {$2600.00} on a closed debit card that cleared my account XX/XX/XXXX, over-drafting it, dislodging other legitimate charges pending, and damaging my credit score just as I was about to initiate a US Federal TSC-poly clearance. This was also an extreme financial hardship for me, costing me housing I was about to move back into from quarantine, after having caught XXXX at the vendor involved ; and then XXXX XXXX, and then XXXX XXXX and XXXX impact. 
B. Wells Fargo closed my claim wrongfully in 1 day, without investigating REG-E violations by itself or the merchant. Bank did not ask me REG-E questions, or allow me to furnish Reg-E documentation ( attached ). Complaint has been re-opened at least twice by " executive '' offices of the bank but still no provisional credit extended, almost a month later. A pandemic hardship. 
C. Wells Fargo stated in writing to me, justifying closure of my REG-E complaint : " ..we have determined the transaction was authorized or that a processing error did not occur. '' But the bank ignored my repeated requests to prove to me to show me my written authorization for this dollar amount, or for any pre-authorized installment contract or loan. 
D. I did NOT authorize this amount or this transaction. I had no expectation or warning of it. I do not owe it. 
E. Bank in verbal reviews of this unauthorized transaction with me, repeatedly refers only to my presence at this merchant you stayed there and refuses to address blatant REG-E violations by its personnel. OCC told me this week to ask CFPB and BANK to re-open this as a clear REG-E was the amount authorized? Is there proof of my written authorization AS DETAILED IN REG-E, not as the merchant or bank gloss over, etc? OCC SAID RELEVANT QUESTIONS ARE : Did I authorize this transaction in writing, for this amount, for this merchant and on this card, with understanding? I DID NOT. 
Did Wells Fargo and/or the merchant collude to violate my US Federal Civil Rights as a XXXX patient ; and /or to exploit my weakened condition as a recovering XXXX patient with serious XXXX and XXXX issues? * IF there was intentional exploiting of me as a XXXX patient that might invoke additional FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS, XXXX WHISTLE BLOWER, AND SPECIAL PANDEMIC OIG INVESTIGATION AND PROTECTIONS, FOR ME. And make punitive damages more likely. 
F. Wells Fargo forced compulsory credit onto me, by letting this unauthorized transaction clear and overdraft my account by {$1200.00} ; when I was not signed up for, had refused, Overdraft protection. See attached. ANOTHER REG-E VIOLATION.

G. Wells Fargo then tried to claim this was a pre-authorized transaction, but none of the REG-E conditions for a legal pre-authorized transaction were met by bank or merchant. 



2. REG-E VIOLATIONS BY WELLS FARGO DETAIL 1. REG-E - 1005.10 ( d ) ( 2 ) : The published policy Wells sent to me to justify its conclusion that this was an authorized transaction violates REG-E Federal Requirements and definition of Authorized Transaction. 
In a letter to me dated XX/XX/XXXX, Wells drew my attention to its published consumer account disclosures, including : " ..if you give your debit card number to a merchant with authorization to bill for payment, or to keep it on file for future purchases or payments, the merchant may receive updated card information to process such payments ... '' Wells ' rationale for deeming this an 'AUTHORIZED ' transaction, it seems, was that if I ever in my lifetime give any merchant / vendor a WF bank card, credit or debit, that merchant has carte blanche ability & permission - from myself and from WF - to put through ANY FUTURE AMOUNT AT ANY TIME WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN PRIOR NOTICE TO ME, THE CONSUMER. IT COULD BE FOR {$1.00} XXXX, ONE WF REP SAID, AND IT COULD BE 10 OR 12 CLOSED BANK CARDS AGO .. WELLS FARGO WOULD STILL SEE THIS AS AN 'AUTHORIZED ' TRANSACTION AND NOT HONOR THE TERMS OF US FEDERAL REG-E. 
Under this internal published policy and rationale, consumers can not apply Reg-E logic and restrictions because the bank simply ignores or disregards Reg-E requirements : e.g. written notification 10 days prior if the new amount varies from the last amount charged, written approval by the consumer to continue to charge that specific bank card, written approval by consumer for that specific amount, etc. 
o I HAD SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN AND VENDOR GM XXXX XXXX AND AST MGR AMIT HAD AGREED TO DELETE THIS DEBIT CARD FROM THEIR BILLING SOFTWARE / SYSTEM AND NOT TO PUT ANY FUTURE CHARGES ONTO IT. AND I HAD DIRECTED THE VENDOR REPEATEDLY NOT TO PUT ANY FURTHER UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES ONTO ANY BANK CARD WITHOUT GIVING ME A DETAILED BILL AND ASKING ME FIRST. 
2. REG-E - 1005.10 ( d ) : Notice of transfers varying in amount : Official interpretation of 10 ( d ) Notice of Transfers Varying in Amount Show ( 1 ) Notice. When a preauthorized electronic fund transfer from the consumer 's account will vary in amount from the previous transfer under the same authorization or from the preauthorized amount, the designated payee or the financial institution shall send the consumer written notice of the amount and date of the transfer at least 10 days before the scheduled date of transfer. 
THIS WAS NOT DONE BY THE MERCHANT. 
WELLS FARGO NEVER GAVE ME A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN OR TO CITE THEM THIS REG-E REQUIREMENT. Instead, the bank said repeatedly that the amount doesnt matter. If you gave them your card once, they can charge it forever. 
The Unauthorized amount of {$2600.00} was over 600 % higher than the prior authorized amount, of {$440.00} ; or for the most immediately unauthorized amount of {$130.00}, charged without my approval or advance bill / warning, on XX/XX/XXXX. 
I never signed or authorized in writing a recurring, pre-authorized transaction, per REG-E. 
FEDERAL PRECEDENT FOR INTERPRETING REG-E AS I HAVE, IN THIS CONTEXT : This is exactly the offense that XXXX and other banks were fined tens of millions for, XXXX - XXXX : Not applying Reg-E to protect consumers on old, expired, or pre-authorized transactions. 
3. REG-E 1005.10 ( a ) ( 2 ) Pre-Authorized Transactions : 1005.10 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) ( a ) Preauthorized transfers to consumer 's account WHY THIS WAS NOT PRE-AUTHORIZED Show ( 1 ) Notice by financial institution. When a person initiates preauthorized electronic fund transfers to a consumer 's account at least once every 60 days, the account-holding financial institution shall provide notice to the consumer by : ( WELLS FARGO DID NONE OF THESE. I HAD TO CHECK MY LEDGER TO SEE THIS UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTION, AND WAS ONLY ALERTED WHEN I ATTEMPTED TO USE MY DEBIT CARD AND IT SUDDENLY DID NOT CLEAR. BUT I HAD OVER {$1700.00} IN MY ACCOUNT, READY FOR RENT. ) ( i ) Positive notice. Providing oral or written notice of the transfer within two business days after the transfer occurs ; or ( ii ) Negative notice. Providing oral or written notice, within two business days after the date on which the transfer was scheduled to occur, that the transfer did not occur ; or ( iii ) Readily-available telephone line. Providing a readily available telephone line that the consumer may call to determine whether the transfer occurred and disclosing the telephone number on the initial disclosure of account terms and on each periodic statement. 
( 2 ) Notice by payor. A financial institution need not provide notice of a transfer if the payor gives the consumer positive notice that the transfer has been initiated. MERCHANT DID NOT DO THIS.

( 3 ) Crediting. A financial institution that receives a preauthorized transfer of the type described in paragraph ( a ) ( 1 ) of this section shall credit the amount of the transfer as of the date the funds for the transfer are received. THIS WAS NEVER DONE OR GIVEN TO ME. WELLS NEVER CONSIDERED THIS. 
4. 1005.10 ( C ) ( c ) Consumer 's right to stop payment Official interpretation of 10 ( c ) Consumer 's Right to Stop Payment Show ( 1 ) Notice. A consumer may stop payment of a preauthorized electronic fund transfer from the consumer 's account by notifying the financial institution orally or in writing at least three business days before the scheduled date of the transfer. 
( 2 ) Written confirmation. The financial institution may require the consumer to give written confirmation of a stop-payment order within 14 days of an oral notification. An institution that requires written confirmation shall inform the consumer of the requirement and provide the address where confirmation must be sent when the consumer gives the oral notification. An oral stop-payment order ceases to be binding after 14 days if the consumer fails to provide the required written confirmation. 
Bank REFUSED on XX/XX/XXXX when I visited a XXXX branch near the XXXX XXXX XXXX to let me put a stop payment order on my debit card or against this merchant. Bank said Wells Fargo lacked this capability. But under REG-Z Wells is compelled to provide this capability. Bank said that just opening a new debit card would be sufficient protection for me from this merchant or any other future fraud. THAT WAS NOT TRUE. 
5. ( e ) Compulsory use Official interpretation of 10 ( e ) Compulsory UseHide See interpretation of 10 ( e ) Compulsory Use in Supplement I ( 1 ) Credit. No financial institution or other person may condition an extension of credit to a consumer on the consumer 's repayment by preauthorized electronic fund transfers, except for credit extended under an overdraft credit plan or extended to maintain a specified minimum balance in the consumer 's account. This exception does not apply to a covered separate credit feature accessible by a hybrid prepaid-credit card as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.61.

Official interpretation of 10 ( e ) ( 1 ) CreditHide 1. General rule for loan payments. Creditors may not require repayment of loans by electronic means on a preauthorized, recurring basis. 
This provision of REG-E basically addresses the use of mandatory credit or overdraft extension to consumers without their prior written consent or authorization, to pay a merchant debt. I had / have no overdraft protection on the checking account or debit card ( closed or current ) used by the merchant for this unauthorized transaction : THIS OVERDRAFTED MY ACCOUNT BY {$1200.00} or provided me with forced or compulsory credit from Wells Fargo for a transaction I never authorized and am liable for only the first {$50.00} of, under REG-E. And now Wells Fargo also expects me to repay the overdraft of {$1200.00}, and has started to add interest to this owed amount, and is making collection calls against me! 
XXXX WHY THIS COMPLAINT WAS MIS-INTERPRETED BY WELLS FARGO AND CFPB AND A NEW COMPLAINT SHOULD BE OPENED PER THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY SO THAT I HAD FAIR TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW : 1. Wells categorized both the {$130.00} and {$2600.00} Unauthorized Transaction complaints on internal postings and in discussions with me in person at branches and over the phone as REG-Z ( credit card, billing dispute ) ; and not REG-E ( consumer debit card, UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTION, BANK ERROR ), as my concerns should have been classified as. 
2. CFPB also classified and labeled this as something OTHER THAN A REG-E COMPLAINT calling it an account management complaint against Wells. But that is NOT REG-Z. CFPB PER THE OCC, MUST OPEN A PROPER REG-Z COMPLAINT BY ME AGAINST THE BANK. 
HERE IS THE WELLS FARGO VERBAGE THAT VIOLATES REG-E, CITED BY ITS PERSONNEL TO ME REPEATEDLY, STATING THAT ONCE ANY MERCHANT HAS ANY CARD NUMBER / AUTHORIZATION FROM YOU, THEY MAY USE THAT FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, TO INFINITY, FOR ANY AMOUNT. This was an invalid reason for closing my REG-Z claim or for determining that this was an authorized transaction. Because it violates federal consumer law. 

-- - MISC BACKGROUND my complaints regarding the conditions and illegal retaliation against me for reporting the hotels sanitation were valid, but OCC says they are REG-Z ( consumer credit ) just as is the merchants billing assertions. However, to the extent to which merchant behavior might be used to construe integrity or honesty or intent for purposes of evaluating REG-E compliance, in this current pandemic situation, here are highlights of my conditions and illegal retaliation remarks, as background only, made to Wells Fargo : Merchant cut off heat to my suites, or rather stopped the engineering team from scheduled repairs to the heat, after I raised XXXX XXXX and health dept sanitation concerns. And stated this openly. 
Merchant caused me to develop XXXX XXXX and worsened symptoms, if not XXXX itself, per my doctors XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Merchant openly taunted me to just go into the hospital and took back its space heater in XXXX degree weather, after it overheard me speaking on phone about the conditions and possibly speaking to a law firm about personal injury damages. I could not leave, first due to XXXX, and as that came under control, XXXX impact -- if I even stood up my XXXX would either drop to XXXX - XXXX bpm and i would have to sit or lay down not to pass out ; or it would race erratically out of control. typical XXXX XXXX XXXX. The hotel robbed me of a peaceful recovery -- my doctors said repeatedly that they felt I caught XXXX due to the conditions there ; but also, that had I been anywhere else, I might not even have developed symptoms. The hotel was that physically stressful. 
Merchant put new guests, incl myself, into infected rooms without sanitation and engaged in numerous blatant CDC violations see https : XXXX. 
Merchant was billing me a pre-negotiated 'responder ' rate of $ XXXX/day, no tax. And had agreed that I owed nothing for XXXX, and that I would pursue with its owners XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX settlement over its treatment, abuse, failure to protect. When merchant billed me {$130.00} XX/XX/XXXX and I rang the front desk to ask about it, they stated that was the entire amount owed. 
Merchant endangered, per CDC and prevailing global Covid19 insight and historical evidence this is a field of expertise for me, as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Innovator of the Year and the XXXX  of XXXX of the top pending global anti-viral products : the entire DC XXXX XXXX  based on guests staying there, including Mayor XXXX  office, the White House, XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX Airports, etc. And in XXXX if you remember, just XXXX XXXX at a hotel led immediately to XXXX infections and over XXXX deaths in that state. This merchants behavior was unconscionable. And could have killed me. And others.