Consumer complaint received 2020-06-28
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account
Sub-issue: Transaction was not authorized

Complaint:
On or about ... XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., executed an ( unauthorized ) debit transaction to XXXX/Cardholder 's  Checking-Debit Acct. in the amount of ... " [ {$390.00} ] or thereabouts deducted from the Covid-19 Pandemic Stimulus Check '' in the amt of ... {$1200.00} via XXXX 's [ Direct Deposit ], after XXXX contacted WFargo Bank on or about ... XX/XX/XXXX after XXXX 's " S.S.D.I. Dir. Dpst. in the amt of ... {$1200.00} had occurred, '' which was determined and complaint of the 1 ) unlawful ... {$390.00} deduction explained at such time was [ unauthorized, lacked consent or any agreement by XXXX/Acct Cardholder ]. 

Although Wells Fargo Bank ( Rep ) XXXX or XXXX in WFARGO Credit Card ( C/C ) Dept, was apprised while applying for a ... {$200.00} C/C increase & filing a Claim for Acct. Reconciliation on or about ... XX/XX/XXXX with the unauthorized, " illegal '' & untimely ... alleged {$390.00} ATM ... OD/NSF Fee deduction in addition to unspecified accumulative Over-Draft ... ( {$35.00} ) Fee ( s ) that manifested as a result thereof pending reconciliation. 

In addition ; to the aforementioned 2 ) XXXX/Acctholder also received a subsequent email msg from Wfargo Bank on or about ... XX/XX/XXXX indicating that ... '' XXXX 's Account will be debited and the temporary credit that occurred as a result of the untimely & unlawful deduction which usurped the law under the Covid-19 Stimulus Ck mandate which prohibited [ " any '' ] deductions would be reversed on ... XX/XX/XXXX. 

This action remains unclear in addition to " no explanation '' to articulate what [ " mechanism 's were being utilized to justify the initial deductions from the Covid -19 Pandemic Stimulus Check in the first place '' ], this reflects a business practice that's ... arbitrary, bias & capricious deliberately being selective for self enrichment or profit motive & Wells Fargo Bank bottom-line. 

CASE & POINT : Before " XXXX/Acct Cardholder '' reconciliation dispute resolution had been resolved, WFargo Bank is reversing credits or temporary credits with impugnity or inexplicable biases, never providing any logical, legal or cognitive theory of mind explanation to articulate what internal mechanism 's determine when OD-Fees are authorized or ... DECLINED, e.g., 3 ) during the mth-of-XXXX XXXX XXXXAcct Cardholder set out to test the credibility & integrity of Wfargo Bank system as it applies to past & pending OD/NSF Fees by attempting to withdraw an amt of ... $ XXXX {$180.00} which would generally be covered by XXXX/Secured Credit card Acct linked to Over-Draft Protection Svcs., if funds were exceeded in XXXX/Checking-Debit Acct. 

However, when the initial ... ATM withdrawal transaction of ... $ XXXX {$180.00} was [ not ] approved and ... DELINED, XXXX subsequently retried by being approved to withdraw ( 3 ) consecutive ... {$40.00} ATM Transactions, thus incurring a ... '' {$35.00} '' Ovr-Draft/NSF Fee for each individual ( ATM ) Transaction, this process again appears to be selective, arbitrary & capricious potentially racial motivated, due to-the-fact that XXXX/Acct Cardholder had inquired about past inexplicable & negative unresolved OD/NSF transaction ( s ) & Fraud Alert Status preventing any processing when monies were availabl in XXXX/Cardholder 's Acct. during his State-to-State travels mid-XXXX, however, WFargo Bank ( Rep ) failed to express what ; " mechanism 's were being utilized to reach decisions that continue to negatively impact XXXX/Cardholder 's Acct. 

Therefore, it infers as a result of Wells Fargo Bank ongoing " inexplicable '' business practices, WFargo Bank knew, know or should have known that the Stimulus Ck deduction that usurped the law under Gov. XXXX 's mandate did in-fact compound & exacerbate XXXX 's existing unresolved Acct before being reconciled and now reversing a temporary credit serves as a " double down '' when accountability with why XXXX 's in tial ATM withdrawal transaction of ... $ XXXX {$180.00} was ( " DECLINED '' ) which would have incurred a one-time ( {$35.00} ), yet, ( 3 ) consecutive {$35.00} OD/NSF fees were incurred for ( 3 ) {$40.00} ATM Withdrawal Transactions that can't be explained as being arbitrary, biased & selective not ... random.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation