Consumer complaint received 2023-06-24
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: WA
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Trouble using your card
Sub-issue: Can't use card to make purchases

Complaint:
XX/XX/XXXX To Whom It May Concern : Monday, XX/XX/XXXX : My Wells Fargo ( WF ) credit card was denied at XXXX in XXXX XXXX. 

Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXX : I called WF to sort out why my credit card was denied. I was on the phone for over 40 minutes. 

Customer Service 1 ( CS1 ) : It was determined that the two checks and associated WF statement stubs were mailed in on time, but WF, in error, posted my payment to the wrong account [ my wifes account ]. Simple input error. My account was charged a {$25.00} late fee and a {$13.00} interest fee [ {$38.00} total ] on an account that should have had a XXXX balance. We asked that these fees be removed. CS1 was authorized to reverse the late fee but not the interest fee. Thus, I was transferred to the next level up [ next level are their words, not mine ]. 

CS2 had authority and removed the erroneous interest fees. However, she was unable to confirm if the hold on my account was removed and if my card now worked. Thus, I was transferred to the next level up. 

I asked CS3 if the hold on my account had been removed. She told me that she saw no hold on my account. I explained there was a hold and asked if she could see it on her records. She said my account shows no hold history. 
Me : If there was no hold on my account, why didnt my card work?

CS3 : It was because my account was delinquent.

Me : My account was delinquent because of WFs error. Is your circular semantic conversation regarding a hold on my account internally referred to as a delinquent account? 
CS3 : Correct. A hold pertains to stolen or fraud concerns ; delinquent pertains to late payments. 
Me : How do you refer to a hold on a delinquent account? 
CS # : Delinquent. 
Me : So, does my card now work? 
CS3 : The information is in the system and when the system updates your card will work. 
Me : When will that system update?

CS3 : The information is in the system, but I dont know how long the system takes to update. 
I ended the conversation thinking that CS3 was intentionally uncooperative and abrasive and assumed the system would probably update by the next day. 

Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX : Stopped at XXXX to purchase propane for the barbeque. My WF credit card was denied. I called customer service and XXXX minutes and three levels of escalation later I was told : CS1 : After rehashing everything, I was informed that the system takes three to five days to update, before being transferred to the next level. 

CS2 : A minimum payment of {$25.00} would release the delinquency on my account. This was quite clever of CS2 to come up with this workaround. However, I explained that my account should have a XXXX balance. Why would I pay {$25.00} on an account with a XXXX balance? This could inadvertently imply that my payment was late. I reminded CS2 that I was charged a {$25.00} late fee and a {$13.00} interest fee when the error was thought to be my fault. Now that we know its WFs fault, logic would have it that WF should pay the {$25.00} minimum payment to correct their error to release my account. CS2 didnt have that authority and transferred me to CS3 the next level. 

CS3 was said to be part of the executive or administrative office. After regretting the same information, I was told that a complaint would be filed, a case manager assigned, and I would receive an email from, I think, a case manager in twenty-four to forty-eight hours to address my concerns. I explained that that did me no good, and reiterated the logic that WF charged the consumers their presumed explicit costs when they errored, but when WF errors, the inconvenience, and costs to the consumer are dismissed in favor of WF, and the bogus late fees and interest payments are considered implicit costs. This smacks of another WF dishonest scheme. 

From XXXX to XXXX, Wells Fargo had 123 financial offenses. Of those, 38 were consumer protection offenses, 61 were employment, 6 were competition, and 2 were government contracting violations with penalties over $ 10B. Their top five primary offenses are 18 consumer protection and 18 banking violations, 7 mortgages & 7 toxic securities abuse, and 1 fraud.

XXXX XXXX

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