Consumer complaint received 2023-11-10
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CT
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Seized or attempted to seize your property

Complaint:
Synopsis : Bank of America ( BOA ) unethically removed potentially exempt funds from a third partys savings account to pay an amount not due, without prior notice to any parties listed on either account. 

Timeline : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX discontinues using her BOA checking account and opens an account at a different financial institution. She leaves the BOA account open to allow any outstanding transactions to clear. 

XXXX BOA account is overdrawn by {$73.00}. NSF notice sent to XXXX. 

XXXX  Small direct deposit from XXXX XXXX, of {$50.00}, is deposited into the BOA account. Account is then overdrawn by {$23.00}. 

XXXX Dept. of Education erroneously attempts an automatic debit payment of {$220.00} from the BOA account. The debit attempt is rejected as NSF. 

XXXX BOA transfers {$240.00} from XXXX grandmothers savings account into XXXX checking account. These accounts are NOT linked. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX grandmother ) receives a mailed notice of the transfer. She contacts me, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX daughter and XXXX mother ) and I contact BOA to investigate what has occurred. 

Facts of this matter : 1. I ( XXXX XXXX ) am listed as co-owner on both XXXX checking account and XXXX savings account. 

2. I have never deposited funds into or accessed either account. I am listed on XXXX account because it was set up when she was a minor. I am listed on XXXX account because she is elderly and I may need to access the account in an emergency. 

3. I maintain active, well-funded accounts at BOA, with XXXX father. 

4. XXXX XXXX sole sources of income are from collection exempt funds, such as SSI and pensions, etc. 

5. Only one NSF notice was sent by BOA to XXXX. No collection notices or any further NSF notices were sent to anyone on the two accounts involved. The next notice BOA sent was the notice to XXXX that funds were removed from her account. This notice was mailed, via USPS, from Arizona to Connecticut, the same days the funds were removed. 

6. On XXXX at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX, I called the BOA collection department phone number listed on the notice XXXX received. During my second call I spoke with XXXX. I do not have the name of the first BOA rep that I spoke with. Below is the information provided to me over the course of both calls : A. The funds were taken from XXXX account because I am listed as co-owner on both accounts. 

B. The first BOA rep stated that numerous collection notices were sent prior to the transfer of funds. 

C. Notices of the NSF account AND an impending transfer of funds from an unlinked account could not be sent to either XXXX or myself because that would have violated XXXX  FDCPA rights. When I pointed out that the information contained in the post transfer notice sent to XXXX was the same as what would have been sent advising of an impending transfer, and asked how that wasnt considered an FDCPA violation, the BOA rep had no answer. 

D. I was advised this transfer was a legal collection. I asked how the bank was able to attach and remove collection exempt funds. I was told that when XXXX transferred funds from her checking to her savings account they were no longer considered exempt because they didnt show as coming from an exempt source, despite the fact that an examination of XXXX accounts show quite clearly that she has no other sources of income. When I questioned this stance, I was then told that because XXXX BOA issued cash back rewards credit card direct deposited her cash back rewards into her savings account, the funds were now co-mingled and could be attached. The rep also stated that if XXXX had enough cash back rewards in her savings account they could attach that because that wasnt exempt. I questioned whether or not she had that much cash back rewards in her account but the BOA rep was unable ( or unwilling ) to verify that. 

E. I then inquired why BOA transferred {$240.00}, instead of the actual NSF amount of {$23.00}, as it was clear that the amount BOA transferred included the rejected Dept. of Ed direct debit attempt. I was advised that the transfer is automatically done by their system and the system must not have recognized that the Dept. of Ed transaction was rejected. When I questioned whether or not an actual human initiated, reviewed or approved these system transfers to ensure they were accurate prior to moving a third partys money to an unlinked account I was told that there is a back office team that might review some of these transactions sometimes. 

My complaints : 1. Lack of any meaningful notice to interested parties prior to action being taken : A. One notice, with an outdated amount, does NOT constitute numerous collection notices. 

B. BOAs claim that its outdated notice sent to only one interested party because of a potential FDCPA violation is self-serving. Conveniently the bank was no longer concerned with this potential violation when it released the exact same information to XXXX AFTER her funds were transferred. Either the release of this information to anyone other than XXXX is OR is not an FDCPA violation. BOA can not have it both ways, dependent upon whichever interpretation best benefits them. Additionally XXXX also was never provided any notice of either a continuing NSF account status OR an impending attachment/transfer from her grandmothers account. 

2. If I am the only link between my mothers and my daughters accounts AND I have accounts that have more than enough funds in them to cover the NSF amount, why would my elderly mothers account be attached instead of mine? The bank purposefully chose to target an elderly consumer living on exempt funds, in a very underhanded manner. Is this because BOAs corporate culture believes that the average elderly consumer wont know enough to question or complain about the banks less than ethical behavior. 

3. Inflated amount of transfer ( {$240.00} as opposed to {$23.00} ) to cover already rejected transaction. The system generated transfer excuse is disingenuous and unacceptable. When dealing with an individuals money and the attachment/taking thereof, it is potentially harmful to allow a computer program to handle the entire transaction without actual human oversight, review and approval. This is seemingly just a more updated version of the robo-signing scandal of several years ago. Had this transaction been thoroughly reviewed by a properly trained person the issues of insufficient notifications, incorrect amount attachment and exempt funds would have been identified and rectified. 

Summation : BOA unilaterally took funds from an unlinked account, to pay an erroneous amount, in an under-handed and borderline illegal manner. At a minimum the bank should admit fault and apologize to the parties involved. Additionally the bank needs to review their policies and procedures as relates to this type of transaction as well as provide better training to their staff.

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