Consumer complaint received 2015-05-20
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: AL
Product: Credit card
Issue: Convenience checks

Complaint:
Wells Fargo has refused to comply with the terms of a letter that they sent to me regarding convenience checks for a credit card account. Specifically, Wells Fargo has effectively charged me a 2 % check transaction fee rather than the " 0 % introductory rate '' " for check transactions '' described in their letter. This is an unethical " bait and switch '' swindle which can not be justified based on the terms of their letter. 

In early XXXX of 2015 I received some convenience checks from Wells Fargo along with the attached cover letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX, 2015. Please note that this letter contains XXXX and only XXXX sentence regarding check transaction fees. This sentence states : '' The rate for check transactions during the promotional period is 0 % introductory rate for 12 months from account open date, subject to a 4 % convenience check fee.... " Now everyone knows that a convenience check fee is a transaction fee. Therefore, the phrases " rate for check transactions '' and " convenience check fee '' are merely different ways of stating the same thing because these phrases mean the same thing. Therefore, I assert that the only reasonable way to interpret the above quoted sentence from the XXXX XXXX, 2015 Wells Fargo cover letter is that the check transaction fee rate is supposed to be 0 % for the first 12 months and 4 % thereafter. 

I used one of these convenience checks, in the amount of the credit limit of {$20000.00}. Unfortunately, Wells Fargo placed a {$800.00} " transaction charge '' on my account as well as a {$39.00} " overlimit fee ''. Please note that the fact that Wells Fargo calls this a " transaction charge '' is further proof that a convenience check fee is a type of transaction fee. 

I attempted to resolve this problem with Wells Fargo by making numerous telephone calls to various Wells Fargo personnel. They were willing to cut the fee from {$800.00} ( 4 % ) to {$400.00} ( 2 % ) and to waive the {$39.00} overlimit fee. However, they were unwilling to waive the remaining {$400.00} ( 2 % ) fee unless I repaid the balance. 

I sent Wells Fargo the attached letter dated XXXX XXXX, 2015, in which I thoroughly debunked all of the lame excuses that were given to me for charging me this transaction fee. 

I received the attached letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX of Wells Fargo dated XXXX XXXX, 2015. I am not sure if this letter is a misdated response to my XXXX XXXX, 2015 letter or if it is merely an attempt to document Wells Fargo 's positions as a result of the telephone discussions between myself and XXXX XXXX and other Wells Fargo personnel. Regardless, XXXX XXXX makes no effort to reply to the specific arguments that I made to them both verbally and in writing regarding the only reasonable way to interpret the one and only sentence in their letter regarding check transaction fees. Instead, XXXX XXXX merely quotes this one and only relevant sentence from XXXX XXXX 's XXXX XXXX, 2015 letter and claims that it means something that it obviously does not mean while more or less ignoring the " 0 % introductory rate '' " for check transactions '' stated in XXXX XXXX 's cover letter. 

Please note that if Wells Fargo can somehow interpret their sentence to mean that they can disregard the first XXXX words in favor of the last XXXX words then this entire situation is nothing short of a bait and switch swindle because if the " 0 % introductory rate '' " for check transactions '' does n't really apply " during the promotional period '' as they state in their letter, then it never ever would apply, which in turn means that such language should never have been included in their letter because it is unethical to offer any term or condition that would never apply under any circumstances. 

Considering the explicit language in Wells Fargo 's cover letter for these checks, any check transaction fees are unjustified and unethical.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation