Consumer complaint received 2017-01-12
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: CA
Product: Bank account or service
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Account opening, closing, or management

Complaint:
Within the letter dated XX/XX/2016 written by XXXX XXXX, are many explicit lies, contradictions, and unethical falsehoods that XXXX XXXX and US Bank have contrived in a nonsensical effort to fool the CFPB, Federal Reserve Claims department, and the customer regarding the illegal withholdings of a check deposited on XX/XX/2016. 

Firstly, XXXX XXXX XXXX has no business responding to a complaint himself in which brings into question his integrity and proper handling of XXXX XXXX 's complaint of the unjust withholding of his cleared check deposit. XXXX XXXX should have been professional enough to recuse himself and allow for a cohort, internal ethics review department ; or a superior to review his handling of the case and allow for a proper review to be conducted. 

2. XXXX XXXX now makes a claim that " the account number affiliated with the deposited check had produced a large number of returned items ''. However, XXXX XXXX had mentioned in previous correspondence that there were " inconsistencies '' with the check itself as reason for the withholding of funds. It should be noted that " check inconsistencies '' and a claim that the checking account of the payer on the check had produced return items are XXXX separate, distinct and contradictory reasons. Either there were inconsistencies on the check or XXXX 's account produced many return checks? Why was it not mentioned in any prior correspondence? Why was there no specific verification was ever requested? 

3. It should also be noted that it was not a personal check but came from XXXX 's account. It is a flat out lie that there would be a large number of returns on such an account. Furthermore, there is a XXXX number on the back of the check itself that verifies the check authenticity and verifies its secured funds, third party or not. XXXX XXXX 's assertion that they reached out to the issuing bank at anytime is a lie. Furthermore, according to the issuing bank itself and other US Bank reps on a recorded line, the funds were certifiably deposited into the US Bank account without issue. ( the number on the back of the check is XXXX. Us Bank would have no issue verifying the check via this number even being a third party. It simply is a lie ) both a toll free number and a toll number are provided clearly on the back of the check for the specific purpose of verification third party or not. Furthermore, the number is clearly captioned in check copy provided by US Bank in previous letter documents. Thus US Bank no good will effort to verify the check and did notjing. 

4. XXXX XXXX also makes the distinction that his referral to the XXXX XXXX XXXX Branch was not for recourse but to provide verification. Despite that being false, what difference does such a distinction make? I reached out to the Branch and talked to both co-manager and main branch manager and they told me they have no way to assist in the issue as it was out of their hands. Furthermore, the contact info in XXXX XXXX 's last response letter was not for someone at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

5. On XX/XX/2016 i was promised a credit for the XXXX in fees by the US Bank representative on a recorded line.

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