Consumer complaint received 2023-01-31
Company: SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.
State: NJ
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card

Complaint:
Santander Bank NA has denied my requests for written communication and a two-way written response process in violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act and has misrepresented issues to extremes that warrant probe of Santanders willful deception. 
1 ) Santander reversed a phony {$63.00} charge XXXX XXXX, XXXX, from XXXX XXXX (? ) for alleged XXXX service I didnt order and didnt receive. Santander was satisfied on or about XXXX XXXX that my account was final when it accepted my full payment to close that account, as I had requested since XXXX. After XXXX XXXX, Santander resurrected without notice or explanation that XXXX XXXX charge as a line item on a new card issued later in XXXX. This is now a new dispute because 1 ) Santander is the culprit, and 2 ) its a different account and outside the 90-day original dispute window. 
I reported to XXXX its phony order ( acknowledged as a redundancy due to its internal technical issue ) on or about XXXX XXXX. XXXX told me it corrected its error and no billing would occur. I happened to see its illegal XXXX XXXX wire transaction in violation of its verbal agreement when I accessed my Santander account online about the first week of XXXX. I immediately called XXXX, whose rep said it canceled that ghost account and would return the charge to Santander. XXXX alleged the attached case number proved it. I called Santander to report fraud and inform that XXXX alleged refund was on the way. 
About two weeks later, still seeing the charge, I called XXXX again. The woman said she was returning the money in that moment. When I asked for a confirmation number proving and date-stamping the precise charge-back transaction for Santander, XXXX agent became dodgy and wouldnt respond with professional language about her charge-back process. I no longer perceived XXXX as a law-abiding company. I dont think this relates to XXXX published assertion of an email fraud scam on it, but if it does, the criminal scammed Santander independently. I decided not to renew annual service expiring XXXX XXXX, and then discovered XXXX prohibits deletion of payment data AND, despite its legal disclosure claim, prevents electronic self-removal of auto-renew authorization. I notified Santander and asked for the card account that XXXX had to be closed immediately and a new card issued. Santander denied my request but promised it would prevent further XXXX charges by issuing an account block. 
2 ) Santander made itself a conspirator in fraud by processing a second, {$130.00} fraudulent XXXX charge on XXXX XXXX in violation of its own block and in violation of my explicit prohibition. In ample diligence, I even called Santander again precisely on XXXX XXXX to warn it that XXXX would try to make this fraudulent transaction on that day, which XXXX did some hours later. Santander chose to give, allegedly, XXXX {$130.00} later that very day contrary to my repeated binding testimony to XXXX before and XXXX XXXX XXXX that I did not make a purchase or authorize the charge. 
Im Santanders legal client with its fiduciary accountability, yet Santander contends it gave XXXX money in my name and in doing so, authorized XXXX to harass me for another year! -- on the word of third-party XXXX as superior, in Santanders opinion , to my direct in-person, timely first-party testimony that I did not authorize any business with XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX. 
As such Santander has conspired in 18 USC 1343 wire fraud.

If Santander were innocent, it would use my substantial documentation and depose my testimony if necessary to claw back the money it alleges it gave XXXX. It is capable of taking its money back! 
However, XXXX consistently has told me and told Santanders fraud supervisor on XXXX XXXX, which XXXX audio recorded and offer for prosecution that XXXX has promptly returned those fake billings. 
I do not know which company is lying, or if both are, but both are acting deceitfully and in bad faith. 
3 ) Despite my persistent requests since my first dispute contact, Santander has eschewed written correspondence and denied my many requests for a mail or email address to submit my evidence. On XXXX XXXX, I was finally given a t2followup email, to which I immediately sent ample evidence, including the refund confirmation that Santanders own fraud supervisor requested from XXXX on XXXX XXXX that I confirmed I received. My emails returned incomplete read-receipt requests and no reply at all. 
Today, I received a regular XXXX reply to my XXXX XXXX phone escalation. Santander illogically and absurdly states : we determined no billing error occurred because the documentation provided by the merchant or reviewed during the investigation verified that you authorized the transaction and Upon your request, we will promptly provide you with copies of the documents we relied on. I dont have immediate access to a scanner to include it here.

Ive already requested and have been promised this proof at least four times, including in person from my branch manager when I closed all of my Santander accounts, a
ll without compliance. If Santander has proof, it was responsible to provide it 4 months ago without upon your request. This is nuts!

4 ) I believe todays letter is proof of, at best, a bad faith scheme to circumvent 12 CFR 1005.6 : : ( 1 ) Timely notice given. If the consumer notifies the financial institution within two business days after learning of the loss or theft of the access device, the consumer 's liability shall not exceed the lesser of {$50.00} or the amount of unauthorized transfers that occur before notice to the financial institution.

Certainly, notifying Santander before the bank allegedly submitted to an unauthorized transaction and again instantly upon learning it complies with my limited liability. Ive spent at least {$50.00} on photocopy and certified/priority mail costs to elevate this to CEO and authorities attention, driven by Santanders legal noncompliance. I owe nothing. I wish no further business with either Santander or XXXX. 
**** It is insufficient for CFPB to merely forward my complaint to Santander and publish results, and do nothing more. This must be elevated for prosecutorial investigation. I am a superior witness. Ive retained even more evidence than Ive shown so far, including multiple audio recordings. 
I have spoken about this with senior-services and consumer professionals who tell me theyre alarmed by this Covid-era pattern of banks and financial institutions devolving compliance with consumer laws. 
Banks, investment firms and others seem to have designed schemes around small technical details, like unidentifiable receipt days or no immediate answer on a secondary phone line, to excuse themselves from laws. They rely on authorities believing Big Bank over Miss Consumer defamed as without faculties. 
This pattern of misbehavior must be confronted. XXXX XXXX designed CFPB to do that. This requires more attention than mere paper shuffling. I hope CFPB will attend to this cry for help from all of us.

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