Product: Checking or savings account

On the afternoon of XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX  blocked access to my online bank account and locked my ATM/Debit card without notification, cause or warning. 

This occurred after a call with XXXX customer service on the afternoon of XX/XX/year>. The message on my account when attempting to login with my credentials ( login ID and password ) that I have used for more than 4 years stated, We are unable to validate your information, please try again. No explanation for the restriction on my account was provided by XXXX XXXX. 

Therefore, on the morning of XX/XX/XXXX I contacted customer service and spoke with service representative XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX confirmed that the account was indeed locked and noted it had been forwarded to what he called XXXX, or the Fraud Department of the Bank. XXXX XXXX had no notes or visibility into the reason it was moved to Fraud. 

The only way to unlock the account, he stated, was to contact the Fraud Dept., which is not open over the weekend. With Monday, XX/XX/XXXX being a Federal holiday, I was forced to wait until Tuesday XX/XX/XXXX to contact the Fraud Department. I had no access to my account and no ability to use my XXXX debit card for transactions for four consecutive days. Transactions were being declined, by XXXX, at the point of purchase, causing me direct monetary harm and inconvenience. 

This unlawful, anti-consumer action adversely impacted my financial well-being and livelihood, as further documented below in this Complaint. 

On XX/XX/year> I spent more than 90 minutes on the phone with XXXX customer service and XXXX Fraud to determine why my account was locked and in the Fraud Department. After two dropped calls and much double-talk by XXXX representatives , the Fraud representative finally revealed that, according to customer service representative notes from XX/XX/XXXX, my account was moved to the Fraud Dept . and locked because, as the notes states, they were unable to validate my phone number. This is an absolute falsehood. I was validated every step of the way and there was no legitimate reason for my account to be blocked and sent to Fraud. 

XXXX Utilizes Conflicting Technology Systems, Causing Confusion and Harm to Consumers : This action and the notes on my account stem from the fact that XXXX XXXX  utilizes two separate technology systems that dont talk to each other related to validating customer profile information. 

The Online Banking system includes my international phone number and, in fact, prompts me to receive a one-time validation code to verify my identity. Whether I login on my laptop or my XXXX, the bank sends the code to my phone and I am validated. 

On the contrary, and unbelievably, when a bank client calls customer service or the Fraud Department, their system does not allow for a verification code to be sent to my international phone number. So, XXXXXXXX XXXX customer service system platform does not integrate with its own online banking system that customers use every day, creating counterproductive interactions when calling for assistance. 

In summary, the only reason XXXX erroneously locked my account and put me in Fraud is solely due to conflicting internal technology systems that they operate. These two systems dont talk to each other and have different protocol capabilities related to my current profile information. This results in unnecessarily confusing customer interactions. The problem and the errors are of the Banks making due to their conflicting systems. 

Departure from Bank Policy : It is vitally important to note that the above actions and treatment of my account represent a direct departure from the Banks procedure over the last four years. Whenever there was any indication of potential fraud or suspicious activity on my account, I always received a direct email message from XXXX XXXX. That email normally contained a phone number to call with a case number and automated system to verify recent transactions. Once verified, any hold on the account was lifted. 

When my account was disabled on the evening of XX/XX/XXXX, I received no correspondence from XXXX Fraud Department indicating possible fraud or suspicious activity. There was no communication indicating why my account was disabled and transferred to the Fraud Department. Customer service representative XXXX, on XXXX XXXX, had no direct notes or information regarding the transfer to the Fraud Department. 

Evidence of Abusive Practices and Direct Harm : My account was disabled and blocked from my access for four consecutive days, starting the afternoon of XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXX continued to decline charges on my XXXX debit card. 

After reestablishing access to my online account on XX/XX/XXXX, the Bank began denying transactions again on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX. This included ATM withdrawals, which left me without access to any cash whatsoever. When viewing the Manage Card function in my account online, the notes indicated Restricted. This, despite the fact that all travel notes were were current and updated. 

Therefore, I was forced to call customer service again on Saturday XX/XX/XXXX because now I was faced with an emergency situation with no ability to charge transactions or retrieve cash from an ATM machine. The same duplicitous engagement with customer service ensued again because of the conflicting technology systems deployed by the Bank between online banking and customer service, wasting my time and harming my financial livelihood. 

I am a XXXX XXXX on a fixed income consisting mainly of Social Security. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, online access to my account was disabled without warning or normal notification causing me direct financial harm and the inability to verify transactions on my account, representing a security risk. 

I am engaged in close monitoring of my account on a daily basis, which is vital to maintaining security over it, since I have multiple XXXX  transactions every month. I had no visibility into my account activity, without explanation or notification, for more than four consecutive days, and then transactions were declined again on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX. The above abusive actions by XXXX XXXX  are in direct violation of the Consumer Finance Protection Acts provisions.