Consumer complaint received 2020-02-29
Company: MUFG AMERICAS HOLDINGS CORPORATION
State: CA
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Problem using a debit or ATM card

Complaint:
This complaint is in regard to how Union Bank handled my dispute. I do not recall the exact day that I filed my dispute. My dispute was denied by MUFG Union Bank on XX/XX/XXXX. I called to check the status and the first representative I spoke with was XXXX. XXXX advised me that my dispute had been denied. She did not provide a satisfactory reason for the denial and there wasn't a request made for documentation from me. When I asked XXXX to speak with a manager, I was advised that 3 managers had already reviewed the dispute and that speaking to a manager would not change anything. XXXX also advised me that the final manager that reviewed the dispute was XXXX. 

Being that I was not satisfied with the answers provided, I called a second time and was connected with XXXX. I asked XXXX for a manager. Immediately after XXXX reviewed the records, he actually told me that they were very busy and asked me if I intended to waste everyone 's so that I could hear a manager tell me the same exact information I was just told. He also advised me that 3 managers reviewed and denied my dispute. When I asked for a manager again, he said that XXXX was right there, but was busy. 

About an hour later, I received an unexpected call from XXXX with Union Bank. She immediately began the conversation by claiming that she was calling because she reviewed the two telephone calls that I had made earlier that day. Her intention was to make it clear that she was not a manager and did not understand why she was misrepresented as such. She confirmed that she was the person that both XXXX and XXXX claimed to be a manager, but she was not a manager. She said that she was appalled when she heard both of these conversations. And despite advising me that she was not a manager, she said something that I find odd ... She advised me that she would counsel with both XXXX and XXXX concerning this matter. XXXX further advised with regard to my claim that my dispute was denied as it did not fall under regulation E. I don't know what information to trust from these people at this point. XXXX was polite and professional during the entire call, but unfortunately how can I possibly trust anything that I was told by XXXX after speaking with XXXX and XXXX. 

My dispute had to due with several purchases made using my Union Bank Debit Mastercard. The purchases for for a game from the XXXX XXXX  XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX, I caught the developer cheating players in the game. The reason used for my dispute was " Service not as described ''. I have several videos and screenshots proving this. I have sent XXXX well over 100 emails. During this period, I did receive an email from XXXX indicating that they found that the developer violated their terms of service based on the evidence I submitted. However, XXXX has maintained the position that I needed to contact the app developer directly and they needed to process the refund. I have sent well over 50 emails to the specific email address for the developer that XXXX advised me to use. The developer did not respond to any of them. XXXX advised me to dispute the charges with my bank and that is what I did. There wasn't an objection to my dispute from either XXXX or XXXX XXXX  received from Union Bank. 

Further, the app name is XXXX XXXX XXXX and according to XXXX the developer is XXXX XXXX. XXXX 's site is very specific about charges appearing in the following format : XXXX + App Name or XXXX + Developer Name. All of the charges in question appear on my statements as XXXX XXXX. I have no ides who XXXX is and I have contacted XXXX once again concerning this issue. 

I have also looked at the Mastercard rules and perhaps the basis for my dispute does not fall under Reg E> I believe that it is a valid dispute that falls under the standard Mastercard rules. " Cardholder DisputeDefective/Not as Describedfor Debit Mastercard transactions '' is listed as a valid reason for disputes for debit card transactions provided by that Mastercard provides. 

It is unacceptable that my bank would employ anyone who does not have the ability to address concerns made by consumers without jeopardizing the integrity of the institution itself. If I can not trust the information I was given during these two calls, how can I trust anything I was told or will be told in the future by any employee of Union Bank. I am still in a state of shock that a financial institution would employ anyone that would lie to its customers for any reason. The Trustee of the XXXX XXXX XXXX was going to move the account to her regular bank, but kept the Trust accounts at Union Bank based on my personal request. I hate to say it but, I am now seriously questioning that decision.

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 non-monetary relief