Consumer complaint received 2020-09-03
Company: DISCOVER BANK
State: MD
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems
Sub-issue: Other problem

Complaint:
- The issue concerns a Discover credit card security deposit that was supposed to be returned to me, but I have yet to receive it after nearly two months. 

- XX/XX/XXXX : I received an email indicating that I became eligible to have my security deposit returned to me in the form of a physical check. The security deposit was {$200.00}, so Discover indicated in this email that I " should receive the check in the mail in 5-7 business days '' in the amount of {$200.00}. There was no action needed on my part for the check to be mailed ; it was presumably mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX. 

- XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : This was the time frame in which I should have received the check in the mail going off the " 5-7 business days '' stated in the initial email. 

- XX/XX/XXXX : I contacted Discovers support team via the Discover mobile app. I was connected to a support agent named XXXX in our XXXX XXXX XXXX location. She stated that the check was processed on XX/XX/XXXX [ one day before I received the initial email ] but can take up to 30 days to be received. I know that the letter [ initial email ] that was sent to you said 5-7 [ business ] days. Im sure sorry about that. She then stated that if I still have not received it by XX/XX/XXXX ( 30 days from XX/XX/XXXX ) I should contact them again. I responded by asking Why was I quoted 5-7 [ business ] days [ in the initial email ]. She replied It usually takes 5-7 [ business ] days but can take up to 30 days. This 30 days was not stated in the initial email. The chat sat idle so we got disconnected, so I contacted them again. 

- XX/XX/XXXX : I reached the agent XXXX here in XXXX XXXX XXXX via the app shortly after I was disconnected from XXXX. He stated that Discover had today ( XX/XX/XXXX ) forward [ XXXX ] [ me ] information for an investigation and resend of [ my ] security deposit. I never received this information, which would have been sent via the apps secure inbox platform or via email. I was then transferred to another support agent. 

- XX/XX/XXXX : I reached XXXX in XXXX, who stated that the check usually takes 3-7 business days to arrive. This 3-7 business days figure was slightly inconsistent with the 5-7 business days quoted elsewhere, but concern was relatively insignificant. He then stated that Discover must allow up to 30 days before resending a check to account for possible mailing delays. His statement indicated that 30 days after the initial processing date ( which was XX/XX/XXXX per XXXX ), Discover would be able to resend the check. In other words, his statement led to the reasonable conclusion that the check would be resent ( mailed out ) on XX/XX/XXXX. This was later shown to be incorrect, as a later support agent would go on to detail there being a lengthy investigation process required after the 30-day mark. The check would not be resent until after the investigation was complete, so it certainly could not have been resent on XX/XX/XXXX as XXXX suggested. XXXX then asked me to confirm my mailing address, which I did. I was then transferred to another agent. 

XXXX XXXX : I reached XXXX in our XXXX XXXX XXXX who stated that the mailing address I typed matched the one on file. XXXX then stated that the check was requested on XX/XX/XXXX, which contradicted the XX/XX/XXXX indicated by XXXX. He said that if I havent received it within 30 days from this date XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX, we can request a new check [ to be ] reissued and this one stopped. This led to the reasonable conclusion that a new check would be requested on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX prior statement indicated the check could be mailed out on the 30-day mark ( no mention of an intervening investigation process ), and XXXX also failed to mention this investigation process. Without knowledge of this process, I took requested to mean resent or mailed out. XXXX may have been unaware of the intervening investigation process, or assumed that I had already been informed of the process and intended the word requested to indicate the launch of the investigation process that, once concluded, would then lead to the check getting mailed out. Thus, my conversations with XXXX and XXXX led me to believe the check would be resent/mailed out on either XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. In reality ( as I would later discover ) this would be the point at which the investigation would be launched, not when the check would be mailed out. 

- XX/XX/XXXX : I contacted Discover again via the app, and connected with XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX. It had only been 28 or 39 days since the check was first requested/processed/mailed out, but I wanted an update before the check was resent on day 30. XXXX stated I have sent the information to the department that can arrange to have your deposit resent. I have requested it to be deposited into your checking account on file. XXXX  statement led me to believe that on the 30-day mark ( XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX ), Discover would initiate a direct deposit to my checking account in lieu of a physical mailed check. I asked how long it would take to see the funds in my account, and he responded The [ y ] would need to review the information on the old check befor [ e ] it can be resent, with [ in ] 3 to 7 days. This was the first time I heard of a review/investigation process, but his phrasing did not indicate that it would be a significant amount of time. I made the reasonable conclusion that he meant to say that the direct deposit would be initiated 3-7 [ business days ] after the 30-day mark, meaning I would see the funds in my bank account between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. In hindsight, XXXX  mistake-ridden, broken English should have made me ask for clarification to confirm that he meant the direct deposit would be initiated on the 30-day mark, rather than when they would begin to review the information. 
- XX/XX/XXXX : I contacted support via the app to confirm that the direct deposit had been initiated, and reached XXXX from Utah. She stated that on XXXX we set up [ an ] investigation to have your security deposit mailed out which can take 23-27 days. This statement was extremely vague ; I wasnt sure whether she meant the investigation would take 23-27 days from XX/XX/XXXX, if the investigation would take 23-27 days from the 30-day mark, of if the check would take 23-27 days to arrive after being mailed out at the conclusion of the investigation process. In a later conversation, I discovered that none of these assumptions were correct. This conversation continued on XX/XX/XXXX. 

- XX/XX/XXXX : Picking up the previous conversation, I asked XXXX why she mentioned the second check getting mailed out when XXXX had previously stated that I would be receiving it via direct deposit. She replied I am very sorry for the information you received from XXXX previously and I know this must be frustrating for you. Unfortunately, we are not able to do a direct deposit of the security deposit return. A check must be mailed out for that. XXXX had thus given me incorrect information. Furthermore, if XXXX had requested it to be deposited into [ my ] checking account on file as he claimed, the responsible department would have told him that this was not possible. Thus, XXXX either never submitted this request, or he submitted it and was informed that it was not possible, but failed to notify me of this. I should have been informed by support at that time, instead of five days later when I had to proactively contact them myself. 

XXXX also stated that the department re-issuing the check must first research that the first check was not cashed before they can reissue a new check which can take up to 10 business days. This was the first genuine mention of the investigation being a lengthy process, rather than a quick double-checking. Somehow, this two-week investigation process had not been mentioned by any of the prior support agents. With this in mind, the review process should have begun on XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, and concluded on XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX ( 10 business days later ). By XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, the check should have been resent/mailed out. 

XXXX then stated that once the check is reissued after the two-week review process, it can take an additional 13-17 days for the check to arrive. All previous support agents indicated that that the mailing time would be anywhere from 3 to 7 business days. To be conservative, factoring in a potential 1 or 2-day gap between the date it is issued and the date it is mailed out all previous agents indicated that, at most, I would receive the check in my mailbox within 9 business days. This is yet another example of contradictory information provided by support. 

XXXX then stated that We did not submit a new check request previously because 30 days had not passed. Im happy to take care of this now. Since the 30-day mark was either XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX, this is incorrect. My prior conversation with XXXX was on XX/XX/XXXX, at which point the reissue/investigation process should have commenced. Even if XXXX had genuinely believed the 30-day mark had not been reached on XX/XX/XXXX, she should have commenced the investigation on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, or XX/XX/XXXX without me needing to once again proactively contact her myself. There is zero accountability here ; nothing happens in this process unless I hold their hand like a child and tell them to do it. Without my constant prodding, my case would inevitably get lost by Discovers support staff. 

XXXX asked me to confirm my address, which I did. The request for a new check was finally submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, pending the two-week review process. 

I responded by explaining how upset I was over this entire ordeal, to which XXXX responded that we did send the initial check out on XX/XX/XXXX. If she knew that the check was mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX, then she should have also known that the 30-day mark would have been reached on XX/XX/XXXX. Somehow, she failed to initiate the review process during our conversation on XX/XX/XXXX despite knowing that the 30-day mark had been reached. This contradicts her assertion on XX/XX/XXXX that the 30-day mark had not been reached by the time of our prior conversation on XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX then states that the check should arrive no later than XX/XX/XXXX. This claim seems to be following the maximum 30-day mailout time ( she is suggesting that the new check is getting mailed out today on XX/XX/XXXX ). This contradicts her earlier assertion that a review process ( maximum of 10 business days ) would need to be conducted before the check was mailed out. Prior agents have contradicted each other, but XXXX has somehow managed to contradict herself once again. At this point, it is still unclear whether I should receive the check no later than XX/XX/XXXX, or no later than XX/XX/XXXX ( factoring in a maximum of 10 business days for the investigation process that was supposedly initiated by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ). 

XX/XX/XXXX : I contact support via the app seeking a status update, since I am not confident that XXXX actually initiated the request, and reach XXXX from Delaware. She asks if I am referring to the check we had requested to be sent back out on XX/XX/XXXX. She responds I certainly understand your concern with the check we had sent back out, which implies that the second check has already been mailed, and had already passed through the review process. She reiterates that It will arrive no later than XX/XX/XXXX, and with the maximum 30-day mail-out window in mind, she is again implying that the check was mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX. Either the review process took less than a day XXXX unlikely given maximum of two weeks ) and the check was mailed out the same day it was requested on XX/XX/XXXX, or XXXX is ignorantly parroting the 30-day rule after skimming over my past conversation with XXXX and ignoring the lengthy review period. I then asked for clarification. 

Despite implying that the check had been mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX contradicts herself by stating that the review process is ongoing, and only once Discover find [ s ] that the first check wasnt cashed, theyll send [ me ] another [ check ] but it does take a bit of time for that investigation. Since the review process began on XX/XX/XXXX, today ( XX/XX/XXXX ) would only be two business days into the maximum 10-business day investigation. 

XX/XX/XXXX : I contact support via the app seeking an update, since they are now 6 business days into the review process if they indeed began the investigation on XX/XX/XXXX. Given their track record of lacking accountability, I wanted to again confirm that the review process had begun. I reach XXXX in Delaware. She says I see the check was requested again on XX/XX/XXXX. This contradicts XXXX and XXXX assertions that the check was requested on XX/XX/XXXX. However, she then states that the delivery time could take 13-17 days from when it is mailed out and that I can expect the new check within 17 calendar days from the XXXX. Given the two aforesaid statements, XXXX seems to be implying that the check was mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX, contradicting her claim that the request was submitted on XX/XX/XXXX. Optimistically, I believe at this point that the check was indeed requested by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( review process also began on this day ), and that the review process ended quickly and the check was mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX, and that XXXX is simply conflating requested and mailed out. 

I respond Are you saying that the review process ended on XX/XX/XXXX, and that the check was also mailed that day?. XXXX replies Yes on the XXXX [ XX/XX/XXXX ] is when it was mailed to you. 

XX/XX/XXXX : Despite Ashleys unequivocal statement that the check was mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX, I once again contacted support via the app and reached XXXX  in XXXX XXXX. He stated that On XX/XX/XXXX, your previous check was stopped and our team that does review these checks was sent the information to issue a new check Please allow 7-10 days for delivery. If you do not receive it by XX/XX/XXXX, please let us know. XXXX  seems to be implying that the request for a new check was submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, instead of the check actually getting mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX, contradicting XXXX. By quoting XX/XX/XXXX as the maximum delivery window and considering the established 30-day rule, XXXX  implies that the check wasnt mailed out until XX/XX/XXXX. This is another example of agents contradicting each other. 

XX/XX/XXXX : I contact support again via the app seeking an update, and reach XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX. He states that my check of {$200.00} was sent XX/XX/XXXX. Please allow 7-10 days to receive it. By stating that it wasnt sent until XX/XX/XXXX, he directly contradicts both XXXX  ( who implied it was mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX ) and XXXX ( who outright stated it was mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX ). I am then transferred to another agent. 

XX/XX/XXXX : I am transferred to XXXX in XXXX, Utah. She states that the check was resent on XX/XX/XXXX, contradicting both XXXX  and XXXX but lining up with XXXX  claim. When I asked XXXX why XXXX and XXXX had stated the check was sent a week prior, she dismisses my claim by stating that there is a 2-day discrepancy. This vague excuse may have been concocted by XXXX when she noticed that I spoke to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and saw that the check was mailed out two days later, hence the 2-day discrepancy. However, this doesnt make any sense, since XXXX was simply confirming that the check had been mailed out by the prior agents ( XXXX  ), and no action was taken on XX/XX/XXXX. Either XXXX crafted this XXXX discrepancy lie in place of a real explanation, or XXXX failed to have the check mailed out and it wasnt mailed out until my prodding on XX/XX/XXXX prompted XXXX to have the check mailed out. In the latter case, XXXX was thus lying when she stated that it was mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX if she had indeed handled the mail-out herself on XX/XX/XXXX. 

After I went into more depth explaining my conversation on XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX ( in which XXXX states the check was mailed out on XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX states I am sorry for the incorrect information provided by XXXX and do show the check was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX asks me to confirm my mailing address, which I do. 

XX/XX/XXXX : The most recent mail-out claim, XX/XX/XXXX, was 9 days ago. At this point, its abundantly clear that I will not be receiving a check and that cycling through Discovers vacuous support agents wont do anything to change that. I find it hard to believe that Discovers staff can be this incompetent, and am concerned that there may be more to this story. Given the immense financial strain put on consumer financial firms such as Discover by the ongoing pandemic, I am fearful that I could be the victim of some form of impropriety. I remain optimistic that this is not the case, but I will continue to pursue all possible avenues until I am made whole. I opted not to attach screenshots of my conversations with support due to the large amount of personal information scattered throughout, but can provide this to CFPB or Discover upon request.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief