Consumer complaint received 2020-12-08
Company: FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO
State: PR
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Problem using a debit or ATM card

Complaint:
This is the second letter informing the claim of transactions in the account XXXX not made by me. From XX/XX/2020 to XX/XX/2020, it was not possible to see the account statement through digital banking because the system was down for 4 days in First Bank Puerto Rico and we did not detect false transactions in time. They start from XX/XX/2020 and are defined in this list. 
1. XXXX XXXX XXXX  in the amount of {$100.00} 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the amount of {$4.00} 3. XXXX XXXX XXXX  for the amount of {$6.00} 4. XXXX XXXX XXXX for the amount of {$8.00} 5. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$12.00} 6. XXXX XXXX XXXX  for the amount of {$16.00} 7. XXXX XXXX for the amount of {$19.00} 8. XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$25.00} 9. XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX for the amount of {$38.00} 10. XXXX  # XXXX in the amount of {$49.00} 11. XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$61.00} 12. XXXX / XXXX  # XXXX in the amount of {$66.00} 13. XXXX XXXX # XXXX in the amount of {$87.00} 14. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$94.00} 15. Withdrawal at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the amount of {$160.00}, in this transaction it can be corroborated by a photo taken at the time of withdrawal that the person is definitely not me. 
The total of these are {$740.00}, not counting the surcharges of overdraft in the account that until today are {$120.00} dollars, not including other surcharges charged for transactions made. A claim was made with the gentleman XXXX XXXX with reference number XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, which was denied by First Bank, which nobody informed me and I had to continue contacting the service center to know the result, learning about the effect. I went to the XXXX police headquarters and filed a complaint with the number XXXX with Agent XXXX plate number XXXX explaining the situation, which no one from First Bank told me to do. 
A reconsideration was made from intrusions of the service personnel on XX/XX/XXXX with number XXXX and it was indicated that there was a complaint in the police reporting what happened, they told me to call in a week to know the result. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the service center, asked for a manager and they connected me with Mr. XXXX XXXX, he had indicated that he would be taking this information to the management as well as monitoring the situation and that I would ask for him, after a week I contacted the service center looking for the gentleman, but he was not found and I could never contact him again because he was supposedly not available. I communicated to the service person my annoyance and the poor investigation they had done and how it was possible that they would deny it without evidence, the service person tells me that the evidence was not given to the client because it was an internal investigation, which I answered my frustration and that one of the transactions was made on an ATH machine and there should be a photo of the thief. 
I contact the service center on XX/XX/XXXX to follow up on the reconsideration and I find out that this has also been denied, ask how it was possible that they reached such a conclusion without presenting evidence because that money is not theres, it is mine. 
I immediately demand a manager and I am contacted by Mrs. XXXX XXXX, she tells me that when the reconsideration was denied I should write a second letter detailing what happened, with much annoyance, but respectfully accept and it is today that I am writing to you. 
How is it possible that they make these decisions without having communicated by phone call, letter or email, having all the necessary information to let me know the decisions, as well as showing proof of how they reached these conclusions. The transactions exposed in this document were not made by me and I claim the evidence on which they say that it was me. The withdrawal of {$160.00} dollars I did not do it and supposedly there are photos of the criminal in the machine that can prove what I am saying, also no family member or close person used the card without my authorization because the card was and has always been in my possession.

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