Product: Prepaid card

I have received your initial response to confirm that I did in fact file the complaint with the CFPB and, YES, I XXXX XXXX did file a complaint regarding the issues and circumstances that are mentioned. 

The claims were not given a proper investigation and definitely can not be called " Reasonable effort ''. The claims department obviously is still using the Automated Fraud Filter that was found to by the CFPB to be an " unfair act or practice '' and is a violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U S.C. Subsection 553 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; ( 2 ) Bank of America Claims Department FAILED to conduct reasonable investigations of my XXXX XXXX benefit prepaid card claim and the Notice of Error is in violation of Sections 908 and 909 of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTAO ), 15 U.S.C. 1693f and Section 1005.11 of Regulation E. The practices used to determine the validity of my claims which was deemed an " Abusive Act ''.

The reason I was unable to advise Bank of America sooner is due to the fact I was impeded by being given untrue information regarding my account status and it took over a XXXX XXXX XXXX to finally gain access to my account after physically going into the local branch to verify my identity not XXXX  or XXXX  but on XXXX separate occasions and XXXX of those visits were on the SAME DAY! At that point I learned of the status of my account and filed my claim immediately after my review of the transactions. This Impediment is in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U S.C. Subsection 5531 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).

As a " Affected Consumer " I fall under the protections of the ORDER that was executed on XX/XX/XXXX by the CFPB that has jurisdiction over this matter under Sections 1053 and 1055 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. Subsection 5563, and Section 918 ( a ) ( 5 ) of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. Subsection 1693o ( a ) ( 5 ). Due to the fact my account was froze or blocked.

The consequential harm I have suffered due to the incorrect determination that no errors had occurred based solely on the results of Bank of Americas Fraud Filter. I am certain that the Error Resolution Investigation procedures and practices REQUIRED of financial institutions as described in 12 C.F.R. Subsection 1005.11 were not followed in accordance with that policy. As it is the duty of this financial institution to investigate unauthorized EFT transactions Under EFTA, upon receiving notice of error, financial institutions may not determine NO ERROR had occurred without conducting a " good faith investigation of the alleged error '' and without " a reasonable basis for believing that the consumer 's account was not in error. '' 15 U S.C. Subsection 1693f ( e ).

Further, under Regulation E, when conducting an Error Resolution Investigation, a financial institution must conduct, at minimum, a " review of its own records regarding [ the ] alleged error. '' 12 C.F.R. Subsection 1005.11 ( c ) ( 4 ), and the Error Resolution Investigation '' must be reasonable, '' 71 Fed. Reg 1638, 1654 ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ).

The term " Good Faith Investigation '' has been overlooked in my claims, obviously, because the number of transactions and the amount of claim ( s ) we are reviewing is very lengthy and numerous cards were issued and the transactions were spread out over as MANY as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX states, to reference Arizona, Nevada, California, and possibly more. The time it would take to give a claim of that size a Good Faith Investigation, I would say a minimum of XXXX weeks possibly XXXX if I wanted to be SURE and FAIR. And upon filing my claims I was told that the actual claim investigation department probably would not receive the claim for at least XXXX to XXXX businesses days. So with that knowledge, how was the reconsideration of my claims filed on XX/XX/XXXX and then just XXXX ( XXXX ) days later DENIED on XX/XX/XXXX??? 

That XXXX simple fact, dated and completed by Bank of America, helps validate and provide significant evidence of the deliberate and willfully disregarded policies that are instituted by our Government and Governing Bureaus to maintain a procedural due process of law ensuring each citizen of our Great Country FAIR and HONEST treatment in our financial process. The negligence to conduct a investigation and determine that NO ERROR OCCURRED is a show of Abuse and Unprofessional. 

During my research I discovered that Bank of America, upon filing a claim of fraud, would send out a fraud packet consisting of an Affidavit in which the claimant declared under penalty of perjury that they had no knowledge of nor benefitted, from any unauthorized transactions, regarding the claim. The claimant was required to fill it out and return it within a set period disclosed by representative who initiated the claim. I was NEVER advised of this unspoken requirement, however, concerning Regulation E and provisional credit it's a stipulation. So I took it up on myself to find an Affidavit of Fraud and completed it to the best of my ability, under penalty of perjury, and submitted, via fax, when i requested the claims be reconsidered on XX/XX/XXXX along with other documents supporting my claims. 

As Bank of America has provided the protection of the XXXX Liability Guarantee found in the cardholder agreement, it's plainly stated that XXXX cardholder will incur NO LIABILITY for UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS up to the amount of the Unauthorized Transactions, provided the cardholder notify Bank of America within a Reasonable amount of time. Yet the disconnections and excessively long wait and inaccurate information provided when I was able to speak to a representative, I wasn't able to inquire about my account until my verification was done, yet first I I was referred back to XXXX as Bank of America advised me that in fact they were responsible for the blocked account and they would have to verify my identity first and then XXXX would forward the verification to Bank of America and I was required to verify through the bank as well. Impossible and I believe intended to evade the XXXX XXXX XXXX. The unavailable harm caused by the extensive hold times, dropped calls, and the misinformation and intentional misdirected information implying that XXXX initiated the account be frozen, which was NOT the XXXX order at all. 

It is evident that my claims were not processed nor properly investigated and as a direct result of this financial institutions intentional disregard for the required due process of law that I have been forced to suffer undue hardships and the loss of ALL my XXXX  benefits as a direct result of the failure of this financial institution to follow the guidelines set forth by the CFPB. As a result Bank of America has engaged in unfair acts or practices, in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA. 12 U.S.C. Subsection 5531 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ).

To further the placement of Liability regarding my claims allow me to remind you of a Executive Order from President Obama, on XX/XX/XXXX titled " Improving the Security of Consumer Financial Transactions '' in paragraph " ( c ) The Secretary of the Treasury shall take necessary steps to ensure that XXXX XXXX prepaid debit cards for administering Government benefits have enhanced security features, and by XX/XX/XXXX, the Department of the Treasury shall develop a plan for the replacement of XXXX XXXX prepaid debit cards without enhanced security features. '' This was a Presidential Executive Order published roughly XXXX years prior to the date Bank of America decided to begin using the XXXX chip security standards on the XXXX benefits card, yet ALL other accounts handled by Bank of America were in compliance with the order, again, deliberately neglected to secure the accounts and left them a target for fraudulent transactions from a lack of security standards. This is against the compliance orders provided to U.S. financial institutions. In support of the order, the XXXX XXXX XXXX clearly outlined the " XXXX and Credit Card Liability '' asserting that " During the transition, major financial institutions that dont provide chip-enabled cards to their cardholders remain accountable for fraudulent purchases. According to XXXX XXXX, a technology and business reporter for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Transactions still can be performed using the old card technology after the transition, but banks will be liable for any payment fraud if they do not issue a card containing a smart chip, and merchants will be liable if their teller machines do not accept the chip cards. Further stating " Government-based purchasing and benefits cards are also shifting to chip-enabled cards. In late XXXX, President Obama signed an executive order requiring that this technology be used in all government-issued credit and debit cards. The XXXX initiative requires the use of chip-and-PIN security on government-issued cards through the General Services Administration. '' Bank of America was aware yet made a conscious decision to use a less secure card for Government benefits and in doing this, knowingly and deliberately disregarded the current Minimum Requirement of Security Standards of the XXXX chip and as a financial institution of its capacity and legal advisors surely knew the grounds and protocols if such a unsecure card was used, and knowing that, " the issuing bank IS LIABLE '' it should be understood as well that Bank of America was prepared to take full accountability and responsibility of issues involving unauthorized transactions. With the decision to use outdated and unsecure debit cards is clear that they fully understood the liability their decision. 

I apologize for the length of this, however, i could continue to outline the many other issues supporting my claim but I feel this is enough to influence the decision and result in a decision in my favor and funds credited to my account.