Product: Checking or savings account

I had submitted prior complaints against Bank of America who had wrongfully and without my authority to do so disbursed {$17000.00} from my checking account to a merchant known to us but who had not been authorized to receive payment at this time. In response to this complain, I received a call from a Bank of America Representative, XXXX XXXX. The call took place in XXXX 2024. Over the course of the call, this Representative informed me that he " does not regard this issue as a matter of Fraud at all '' and this despite Bank of America 's express statements conveyed to us through seven different agents/representatives of the Bank over the course of six independent conversations about this matter which we had with the Bank over a five month period. All of those conversations, recorded by ourselves and the Bank bear that the view of every person who spoke with us on behalf of Bank of America regarded the matter as to be properly placed in the Fraud Department of the Bank. We concluded through these discussions that it would be handled as such by the Bank at the time that I wished to file a report with the Bank and all conversations bear that the Bank understood the reason for the delay in filing was simply that I wished to first conduct all good-faith attempts to resolve the matter directly with the merchant who had been known to us. We had attempted to do this but our effort bore no success in large part because this payments, about which we had, in all actuality little to no verifiable information, had, in fact, been processed by and between Bank of America and a third party vendor for the merchant with whom we maintain no prior relationship. In the event of such failure, I had been assured of an invitation from the Bank that I may turn the matter over to the Bank by submitting it to the Bank of America Fraud Servicing Department and this is what we had done. Here it should be duly noted that Bank of America, in their response to my prior CFPB complaint and in stating the matter to be " closed '' bore their express reason for not attempting to resolve the matter in my favor nor limit my liabilities in it the Bank 's determination that this matter had, in their view been authorized by myself or by " an authorized representative acting on my behalf. '' This statement was expressed by the Bank even after the Bank had assured me on recorded lines that they well-understood the fact that we had not been in active contract with the Merchant at the time of the payments and could not have legitimately authorized the payments during those months in question therefore and after apologizing for any miscommunication in this matter as well and finally after expressly stating that they understood that this mishandled transaction has resulted in us having to bear certain civil liabilities as, by forcibly being made to adhere, thereby and in actual effect, to an inaccurate payment schedule which was not subject to prior governing agreement both the merchant and us bore the brunt of legal disputes against us which arose as a consequence and pursuant to this de-facto mis-scheduling of payments for us. Several Bank of America representatives furthermore expressed that this matter may only be treated as a matter by the Fraud Servicing Department and these expressions were repeated several times and on several lines recorded by ourselves as well as, it had been stated, by the Bank. Nevertheless XXXX XXXX, the aforementioned Bank of America Representative who had called us following prior complaints expressed to us that the reason Bank of America had not taken this matter seriously nor credited me any sum of the monies I had lost and which had been summarily deducted from my account at the Bank, we maintain, without any authorization to justify the issuance of this payment. Above and beyond this, XXXX XXXX Expressed that he and the Bank did not regard this matter to be subject to the review of Fraud Servicing as he asserted the issue to be a " billing dispute '' rather than Fraud. I take no position whatsoever nor any actual interest in whether Bank of America should regard the issue as an act/acts of Fraud or otherwise as a Billing Dispute, but I wish to duly note that, by stating the matter in such terms, XXXX XXXX contradicted XXXX in that moment, the repeated instructions, statements and " guidance '' of no less than seven other representatives of Bank of America all of whom stated the contrary. It is apparent that Bank of America had grossly misguided us leading to a situation where the Bank would be able and has, in fact, proposed that they will not correct the unauthorized use/disbursement of our funds nor would the Bank wish to bear any responsibility for the significant sums lost ( neither any of those sums now lost from our account where we had held them nor the expenses pursuant to civil liabilities we have borne as a significant additional burden. The Bank has, in our view either mislead us or deceived us. Their communication with us has been unnecessarily circuitous and unclear and at times the Bank expressed representations that may only be regarded as to have been clearly self-contradictory and misleading. We face a situation where no recourse is immediately available to us bearing relief or bringing about correction. Should Bank of America fail to regard this matter seriously and thereby fail to render a satisfactory resolution to us, we shall escalate these complaints and wish to pursue legal action against the Bank for settlement of losses but moreover in seeking to account for the Bank 's behavior and in particular I am referring to what we may only regard as miscommunication of the most reckless and dangerous order as such may be regarded to be the cause for immense burdens to be placed upon us and for liabilities and damages to have been enacted upon us as these had come about pursuant to losses and liabilities as detailed above and as these, in all actuality, seem to us to have been caused by immense negligence -i.e " mistake/mistake ( s ) '' -committed by none other than Bank of America. 

XXXX XXXX, Bank of America 's Representative, actually had issued forth an apology in this afore-referenced telephone conversation with us from XXXX 2024. Our notes bear that he had expressed the following : "... yes I certainly apologize for the miscommunication ( s ) which came to you from the Bank ... '' XXXX XXXX apologized to us thereby acknowledging these actions to have been miscommunications ( as such ) but did so without proposing any appropriate remedial measures to correct these errors and their consequences. This is particularly inappropriate as we consider that the miscommunication ( s ) of the Bank which had been admitted to have occurred as such by XXXX XXXX had the effect of gross and negligent misguidance from Bank of America and that these had been repeatedly given to us in the form of instruction/guidance from Bank of America XXXX 

XXXX XXXX furthermore seemed to appreciate and did actually and expressly acknowledge the fact that the incidents I had described to him had occurred repeatedly over a period of over five ( 5 ) months ( at the time of speaking ). As such the persistent misinformation and misguidance of Bank was drawn over a period of time as to bear us unwittingly to have missed/defaulted upon key deadlines which may easily have brought us the resolution and/or relief due to us and it is furthermore clear to observe that all such deadlines are deadlines we would otherwise have easily met and we would, in fact, have observed these had we not been so comprehensively misinformed and misguided by Bank of America. 

Such actions of the Bank may only be regarded as totally and unacceptably negligent and we have no idea of whether these had been committed intentionally or if they were otherwise merely the result of recklessness and ignorance regarding matters we fully and reasonably might expect any competent bank to be in command of especially as they bear upon the ability of the institution to conduct the transactions and perform the responsibilities of the role of " banker '' and/or " bank '' in the most basic manner. The actions of the Bank may furthermore be regarded to have resulted in causing us to be rendered " XXXX '' to protect ourselves from them and, as such, may be regarded as having been actions committed to deprive us of having reasonable recourse to correct what may be exhibited to be mistakes committed by the Bank and this without regard for the damages we would bear resultant to them. 

Without prejudice to anything further, the actuality bears it with great clarity : Bank of America 's actions whether we regard them to have been " miscommunication ( s ) '' or actions more serious still, did directly result in us bearing immediate damages of more than XXXX XXXX dollars and sustaining additional and further losses/liabilities and damages above and beyond this initial sum alone.