Product: Debt collection

Bank f America - paying off credit card debt which was closed by Bank of America in XXXX. I paid Bank of America close to {$5000.00} during the first week of XX/XX/XXXX, in doing so, I paid the entire balance which was left on the already closed credit card account w/ bank of america ( this occurred over the weekend on a Saturday, and this there was a delay until the next week ( Monday ) as many banking institutions do ). Once BOA processed the amount, the closed credit card account was no longer linked or attributed to my view of accounts online via their own member website. In such, all that was visible to my remaining open accounts was visible and live as usual. 

I reviewed my account using their financial reporting and administration tool ( their member website ). In doing so, I noticed yesterday ( XX/XX/XXXX ) that my account attributed to my closed and paid off credit card was again visible and worked as normal ( it wasn't visible after I paid the entire amount weeks before and wasn't available until another charge they assessed to the account ). 

I dispute the fact that I owe anything to them, not because of the prorated interest they do have a right to receive ; but to the proper and more importantly reasonable and expected reporting they offer as a service to their members. The issue revolves around the fact that their bank of america business rules and logic which govern how they properly report member funds and other banking information via their online tool didn't work or has a glitch. 

The glitch itself caused a breach of their expected and contractually obligated service level to active banking members with which to have access to their own accounts using their agreed upon tool ( the member website ). This instance and practice is inconsistent with how my other BOA accounts operates as it does today. 

A real world example how their logic and application of it is flawed is that at one point my checking accounts had XXXX balance, despite that ; it still was visible online and reported as so. At no point in the past or currently would it have been not visible ( even if nothing was in the account or held money or held a negative balance ) for the fair and reasonably agreed upon sake of supplying financial information the active account holder. 

Thus, carrying a XXXX open balance as a result of paying off the entire open amount/debt of the closed credit card account ( bank of america closed that account a year ago ( XXXX ) ) never should have triggered the account to be closed or not actively visible to me. The XXXX balance credit card account only became visible and active ( active meaning able to report and manipulate ie., able to pay interest and fees for the previous month 's prorated open reporting period ) for an additional payment. If they expected me to pay the credit card account for the prorated interest charge, they should have left it visible as it still is reporting and requires payment. -- -This act was and is the same with my checking account with them. My checking account is still actively reporting because it is not static -XXXX, positive, or negative ... and it would still be visible if BOA decided effectively closed it and it held a negative or a positive balance. If my checking account was at XXXX balance ( no money ) and closed by them or me, it would BE CLOSED and not visible or actively reporting- there would be no further action on any case ( me or the bank ). 

Because they want interest paid for the previous open months open amount, they should have followed their own business rules and practice that allowed that active information to flow knowing that to the closed account which required an interest payment. 

Anyway, that's my beef - if I didn't pay an open and agreed amount by an agreed and contractually obligate date- there is a penalty for a breach of the SLA that is understood and agreed upon by them and myself, the member. No business limits ( or in this case actively doesn't provide ) the customers the ability to receive timely, fair and reasonable access to information only to then choose to grant fair and reasonable information once again, in order to make up for their flawed administration and application/action of how their own billing terms and arrangements are or are not applied and reported to the customer.