Consumer complaint received 2022-01-11
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: TX
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, I reported a fraud claim in the amount of {$15000.00} due to ( approximately 75 ) fraudulent charges occurring on multiple days by multiple payee/company dating back to XX/XX/XXXX ( Per the bank representative, fraudulent charges that could be claimed by phone had to be within 90 days of the claim date. ) The claim was broken up into 3 different claims ( by the bank for an unknown reason ) and added up to a total of {$15000.00} ( claim # 1 - {$13000.00}, claim # 2 - {$750.00}, claim # 3 - {$880.00} ). 
After the investigation, I received notification that all three claims were denied with the only explanation of no error has occurred ( Attachment 1 ), and provisional credits issued for claims # 2 & # 3 would be reversed ( no provisional credit was granted for claim # 1 ). After ( 6+ ) hours of ( approximately 6 weeks of accumulated phone calls and messaging ) efforts to attempt to exercise my consumer rights in obtaining the documentation used in the decision of the claim. I was provided the below overview of reasons from NFCU to identify why the claim was denied.

Per Bank Statements and Debit Card History, multiple valid transactions were completed with same merchants listed on the claim. 
Several transactions not reported as fraudulent were completed with other merchants in the location of XXXX. 
Members known mobile device was shown accessing his account before, during, and/or, after the reported fraudulent activity. 

Since before the receipt of the message, I had made a vast number of attempts to reach out to the investigator team to discuss the claim denial response for a better understanding and to provide additional information ( for an appeal ) as applicable. 
[ Without the further discussion, there is reason to believe that some of the information is not being considered and or reviewed to entirety. This is inferred from the multiple messages received with repeated information, and the claim amounts not matching. Also, the reasoning for the claim denial is inaccurate. ] All attempts ( multiple phone calls, secured messages from member account, urgent messages from the Navy Fraud team, escalation team, supervisor/management, and resolution specialist ) have been unproductive and unanswered. In the meantime, in efforts to have a continued information flow ( vs. a stagnant case ), I have made assumptions and speculations on the detailed reasoning for denial and provided the below response of information to the bank team : All charges ( both filed claim ( s ) and charges pre-dating the claim ) were fraudulent. Claims for the pre-dated charges were placed at a later date. 
o 81 % ( {$12.00}, XXXX ) of the charges were conducted by a single payee/company. All of these charges were confined to the initial claim filed midXXXX and occurred between ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) Members info was updated by the member upon relocation/move conducted in XX/XX/XXXX. Upon further review of bank account information, the members address was updated, but the phone number was inaccurate. 
A premature appeal was submitted, and a second denial was received. In efforts to not continue the inefficient loop, I have requested additional information and a call from a member from the investigation team that can provide detailed information ( which transactions are being referenced in both the completed transactions and additional transactions completed in the location of the XXXX? In what way was the member contacted for the notifications of suspicious activity? Etc. ) The below is a log of recent ( December 27-January 11 ) attempts to NFCU to discuss this matter. Each phone call has identified the status of the processing and/or denial of the appeal and additional efforts by NFCU representatives to reach out to the investigation team with no response. 
XX/XX/XXXX 52 minutes XX/XX/XXXX 48 minutes XX/XX/XXXX 1 hour 34 minutes XX/XX/XXXX 1 hour 51 minutes XX/XX/XXXX 45 minutes In addition, throughout the process ( XX/XX/XXXX & XX/XX/XXXX ), there were ( 2 ) additional fraudulent charges ( {$96.00} and {$72.00} ) incurred on the same account from the same single ( 81 % ) payee/company mentioned above using the same debit card. These charges were reported immediately upon posting, and a claim was filed for each resulting in two additional claim denials. 
Considerations : Once the fraudulent charges were discovered, the member immediately reported the activity, which is in alignment with the NFCU requirements of reporting a fraudulent claim. 
NFCU did not notify the member of suspicious account activity through secured XXXX or email as identified by their protocol. 
Fraud charges that pre-dated the claim were minor ( 24 transactions totaling {$200.00} over four months ) and undetected by the member.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation