Product: Checking or savings account

Now I want to reference the stipulation in this enforcement action with document number ( XXXX ). So I want to mention that the signature that were observed by the CFPB as described in section " Respondents Strategy for Prepaid Debit Cardholders Filing Notices of Error and Seeking Liability Protection '' ( 16, 18,19 ) were the crux of the problem I personally experienced with the Bank of America prepaid card program from XXXX of XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX of XXXX. 

Furthermore, signatures also observed by the CFPB in sections " Respondents Strategy as Applied to EDD Cardholders '' ( 30-34, 36 ) is what I also experienced for the aforementioned time periods. I was told that the Bank of America had a liason that had been in contact with my sponsor ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) notifying them that the sponsor should flag my account as described in the same section mentioned in this paragraph, specifically section ( 39 ). 

And now finally, i have also identified further signatures in sections " Findings and Conclusions as to Respondent Impeding EDD Cardholders from Filing Notices of Error and Seeking Liability Protection from Unauthorized EFTs ( Unfair Practices ) '' of this enforcement action, specifically stipulations, ( 61-71 ). I would like to highlight stipulation ( 72 ) of the section mention in this paragraph, because audio discussions that I have attach to this complaint highlight and confirm by Bank of America respresentatives on XXXX and XXXX of XXXX, that the representative, in the claims initiations department, incorrectly filed my claim, in failing to capture the entire activity reported. As stated in this enforcement action, there had only been one process with no other alternatives to report errors against this account. 

I have also attached banks statement from this account. After filing claims in XXXX, In the three years of processing these claims, the Bank of America stated that it had to divide my one claim that was reported in XXXX into XXXX subsequent claims. The claim went from XXXX and became XXXX claims that were partially paid. And then ultimately after being instructed by the bank to refile the claims in XXXX, the bank had to create XXXX additional claims creating further complexity to the process, thus violating section " MONETARY PROVISIONS VIII. Order to Pay Redress '' section ( 98 ), creating the conditional processing of these claims, by subjecting the claims for " reconsideration '' several times and paying me only for the " fees '' from the transactions that were reported in XXXX and treating the claim as though the items were just recently reported. 

The statements show adjustments title " Bank of America XXXX '' and " credit '', for the transactions contained in the only active claims that I had reported in XXXX, that Bank of America instructed me to filed in XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). The bank acknowledges that the claims were reported and the bank is " partially '' compensating me for the transactions in paying me only for the fees connected to the transactions reported in XXXX. The Bank of America falsely states, that the reason why the claims were paid because of the length of time the claims took to process. The bank understands why it has to provide redress for these claims but has failed to do so thus far. The credits cover the periods of XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. The bank statement is inaccurate as it does not describe the exact origin of the fees for the specific transaction that were being credited. I believe that this is mask the identity transactions being compensated. There are patterns of credits applied that suggest the fees are in fact connected to transactions reported as errors in XXXX.