Consumer complaint received 2018-10-16
Company: FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: NC
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated a credit card dispute case with Fifth Third Bank regarding a number of transactions with transaction dates ranging from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. All of the transactions are directly related to the business entity known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXfor short and are part of XXXX  bilking scheme as it is detailed in the FTCs complaint document. The cumulative amount of the dispute case is {$9200.00}. 

At the time my dispute case was initiated, the outstanding balance on my card was {$7900.00}. And, all of the transactions which create this sum are the result of XXXX bilking scheme. 

Unfortunately, I can not provide you with an image of the actual credit card statements denoting these transactions because my computer system is not equipped with a document scanner. All I can provide you with are pdf images of the statements for XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Fifth Third Banks dispute center nullified a small number of the disputed transactions without hesitation or question and without requesting any additional information. The transactional amount that was nullified was {$1400.00}. This action decreased by cards outstanding balance to {$6400.00} and decreased the overall dispute case amount to {$7700.00}. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Fifth Third Banks dispute center informing me that the remaining transactions in the dispute case were not eligible for relief due to them being more than 60 days old. The cumulative transactional amount that they were declining to nullify was {$7700.00}. 

Of note here is that the transactions that the refused to nullify are no different from the transactions that they somewhat automatically nullified on XX/XX/XXXX because the funds were directed to the same merchantXXXXand for the same two purposes. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed them a letter stating that the transactions they were refusing to nullify were not typical transactions because they came into existence as part of XXXX  bilking scheme and that it was understandable that the transactions would have some age on them because one does not always know within 60 days that one has become the victim of a bilking scheme. The letter also requested that the dispute center reopen my dispute case for the reason described in the preceding sentence. Attachment CFPB_ATCH_A will show you the letter that was mailed to the dispute center and will denote the transactions that the dispute center refused to nullify. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, after noticing that no temporary credit had been applied to my account, I telephoned the dispute center to ask them if they had received my letter. I was told that my letter had been received on XX/XX/XXXX, that my dispute case had been reopened, and that a secondary investigation and-or review had been initiated. I was also told that a temporary credit of - {$7700.00} would be applied to by current balance, that my minimum payment would be set to {$0.00}, that my due date would be set to Not Available, and that all of these changes would remain in effect until they had completed their investigation and arrived at a ruling. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, after noticing that no temporary credit had been applied to my current balance, that my minimum payment had been set to {$120.00}, and that my due date had been set to XX/XX/XXXX, I again telephoned the dispute center to find out why what I was seeing online regarding my account did not coincide with what they had said to me during my XX/XX/XXXX telephone conversation with them. Their response was that what I was seeing online was the result of an automated computer-system process. They went on to tell me that everything was all right, that my dispute case was still active and being reviewed, and that I was not responsible for making the payment as it was displayed online. In essence, what the dispute center was telling me was to completely disregard everything about my account that I was seeing online. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I made no payment against my cards outstanding balance because the dispute center had told me that I was not responsible for making any payments until after the dispute case had been closed and they had arrived at a ruling. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, my account was assessed a late payment fee of {$25.00}, my outstanding balance was increased to {$6400.00}, my minimum payment had been increased to {$250.00}, and my due date had been set to XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I again made no payment against my cards newly-increased outstanding balance because the dispute center had told me that I was not responsible for making any payments until after the dispute case had been closed and they had arrived at a ruling. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, my account was assessed a late payment fee of {$35.00}, my outstanding balance was increased to {$6400.00}, my minimum payment had been increased to {$380.00}, and my due date had been set to XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I telephoned the dispute center to find out why my dispute case was not being handled in the manner that I was told it would be handled during the previously described XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX telephone conversations, why my account was being assessed late payment fees, why my outstanding balance was being increased on a monthly basis, and why I had received no updates of any variety regarding my dispute case. Their response was that they had no explanation as to why my dispute case was being handled in the manner that it was. They went on to say that I hadnt received any updates from them because the case had been closed and ruled in my favor and that I had been given a permanent credit for the entire disputed amount ( {$9200.00} ). They also said that they would send an email to the dispute investigator ; that I would receive a call from the dispute investigator within 24 hours ; and that the dispute investigator would explain to me why my dispute case had been handled the way that it had been, why I had received no status updates, and when I would be able to see that the permanent credit to my account had been applied. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an alert from XXXX  informing me that Fifth Third Bank had reported to both XXXX  and XXXX  that I missed two consecutive payments against my credit cards outstanding balance. 

Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I again telephoned the dispute center when the call from the dispute investigator that I was promised to receive by XXXX EDT on XX/XX/XXXX never took place. During this XX/XX/XXXX telephone conversation, I was told essentially the same things that had been told during the XX/XX/XXXX telephone conversation. I was also told that the dispute investigator had attempted to reach me by telephone, but that I did not answer. This was a deliberate lie. For, if my phone had registered a missed call, it would have appeared on my phones log of missed calls. There was no missed call on my phone on XX/XX/XXXX. In fact, the last time my phone registered a missed call was from another business entity and occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. When I pointed this out to the dispute representative I was speaking with, she remained silent. When I suggested that my case could be more quickly resolved if the dispute center would just transfer me over to the dispute investigator, I was told that the dispute investigator entity does not accept incoming calls and that the dispute investigator would call me within 1 to 2 business days. Here is where a communication barrier comes into existence. For, if the dispute investigator calls me at a time of day when I can not field the call, then how am I supposed to return that call if the dispute investigator does not accept incoming calls?

On XX/XX/XXXX, which is the first of the two business days that I was told I would receive a call from the dispute investigator, no call from the dispute investigator took place. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, which is the second of the two business days that I was told I would receive a call from the dispute investigator, no call from the dispute investigator took place. 

In summary, since the XX/XX/XXXX initiation of my dispute case, all of the following statements hold true as of XX/XX/XXXX. 

The only formal documentation I have received from the dispute center a letter telling me that some of the disputed transactions had been ruled in my favor on XX/XX/XXXX, a XX/XX/XXXX letter telling me that the rest of the disputed transactions were not capable of being disputed, and an XX/XX/XXXX letter telling me that my dispute case was closed and that they had ruled in my favor. However, the transactions denoted on this XX/XX/XXXX letter were the exact same transactions that had been reversed or nullified in my favor on XX/XX/XXXX. And, it was the receipt of this XX/XX/XXXX letter that prompted me to initiate the XX/XX/XXXX telephone conversation with the dispute center as it is described above. 

There has been no formal request for additional information regarding any of the transactions involved in the dispute case. 

A temporary credit of the dispute-case amount was never applied to my account, which violates Federal law as I know it to be. 

My payment due process was never put on hold, which violates Federal law as I know it to be.

Fifth Third Bank has reported to both XXXX  and XXXX  that I have missed two consecutive payments, which violates Federal law as I know it to be. 

I have been provided with no along-the-way updates as to the present status of my dispute case. 

If XX/XX/XXXX is stipulated as the dispute case initiation date, then the dispute case is now over 60 days old. 

If XX/XX/XXXX is stipulated as the dispute case initiation date, then the dispute case is now over 100 days old. 

I do not know whether or not this will be of any benefit. But, I am going to provide it to you just the same. What follows is a direct quote from Counselor XXXX XXXX, one of the trial attorneys involved with the FTCs case against XXXXwhich is case XXXX. Counselor XXXX quoted statement is as follows : When you dispute a charge, federal laws require your credit card company to immediately credit the disputed charge to your account and then investigate whether your dispute is valid. 

I realize that Fifth Third Bank is a private bank. Nevertheless, I do not feel that their status as a private bank should allow their dispute center to operate outside and above Federal law whichconsidering what you have readthey have done. 

Pursuant to what you have read, I am seeking your assistance in getting my dispute case with Fifth Third Bank resolved in my favor because there is no logical reason for them to be handling my dispute case in the manner described in this document and also no logical reason for them to have nullified some transactions and not have nullified other transactions when all of the involved transactions are identical with the exception of having different transaction dates. 

The dispute center will more than likely tell you that they refused to nullify the eight of the transactions involved in the dispute case because their individual transaction dates fell outside a 60-day notification window. So, heres a rebuttal argument you can use. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, they nullified a transaction having a transaction date of XX/XX/XXXX. The 60-day window for notifying them about this particular transaction would have closed on XX/XX/XXXX. The notification date of this particular transaction was XX/XX/XXXX. However, they nullified the transaction even though its transaction date fell outside their 60-day notification window. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, they nullified a transaction having a transaction date of XX/XX/XXXX. The 60-day window for notifying them about this particular transaction would have closed on XX/XX/XXXX. The notification date of this particular transaction was XX/XX/XXXX. However, they nullified the transaction even though its transaction date fell outside their 60-day notification window.

Since they did this for two of the transactions have transaction dates that fell outside their 60-day notification window, there is no logical reason for them not to have nullified all the other transactions having transaction dates that fell outside their 60-day notification window. 

Attachment Descriptions : CFPB_ATCH_A is a copy of the letter that I mailed to the dispute center on XX/XX/XXXX. 

CFPB_ATCH_B is a pdf image of the XX/XX/XXXX credit card statement which denotes the nullification of a small number of the disputed transactions and the absence of the required temporary credit regarding the remainder of the disputed transactions. 

CFPB_ATCH_C is a pdf image of the XX/XX/XXXX credit card statement which denotes the assessment of a {$25.00} late payment fee and the increase of the current balance by that amount. 

CFPB_ATCH_D is a pdf image of the XX/XX/XXXX credit card statement which denotes the assessment of a {$35.00} late payment fee and the increase of the current balance by that amount. 

CFPB_ATCH_E is an XXXX spreadsheet containing downloaded transactions from a different card which denote the paying of XXXX  monthly {$19.00} membership fees for the months of XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, the paying of these monthly membership fees was moved over to the Fifth Third Bank credit card.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief