Consumer complaint received 2015-11-13
Company: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
State: GA
Product: Bank account or service
Sub-product: Savings account
Issue: Deposits and withdrawals

Complaint:
They have made many erroneous statement in their response to the breach of security allowing unauthorized wire transfer They have yet to answer question given to them based on the Consumer Bill of Rights, the EFT Act, their own WUD, and their security measures intended to protect their military family consumers. In their response, they are accepting no liability, and denied ever telling us that we shared accounting number and USAA membership number. USAA responded that the unauthorized transactions did not occur because of their error and that the Automated Clearing House ( ACH ) transactions were originated by an external bank listing the correct USAA routing number and a valid USAA account number. It was XXXX XXXX of the Fraud Department, who told us, XXXX membership number was identical to our account number. We were told our account number, is identical to his USAA membership number. Each time we concluded a call with USAA, my notes on the calls were placed on the Consumer Finance Bureau complaint review update. They stated that his use of our account number, and routing number is what allowed him to gain access to our savings account. But, at USAA and other banking institutions, according to EFT Act and the Consumer Bill of Rights, it 's their responsibility to have additional security measures to prevent identity theft. It 's evident after each call made to, or from USAA about our identity theft, my notes of the conversation is countered with various banking laws. This causes USAA to change the reason for the error. The fact still remains that the day we contacted them of the theft, it should have immediately should have initiated an investigation. Ten day later, we, the consumer should have received in writing what happened, followed by two days for the FSB to rectify the situation. None of this happened. We were consistently told that these mistakes happen all the time. They have also used Account Clearing House ( ACH ) and Electronic Funds Transfer ( EFT ) interchangeably, and told us yesterday they are the same. I have educated myself on banking laws, and know while the results are the same, wire transfer, the process is different. EFT mainly deals with transferring money from XXXX account to another in an electronic way, while ACH Automatic Clearing House helps transfer funds between accounts and different banking institutions. As I have written in previous updates Automatic Clearing House ( ACH ) is used when people get deposits directly into their account, for example, from their employer. ACH is a means for Bank to Bank wire transfers. No fee is taken for receiving the deposits, while some banks charge for EFT. On the other hand, when funds are withdrawn or pulled from the account, this can be done through Electronic Funds Transfer. The Electronic Funds Transfer comes into effect when paying bills or purchases with a credit or debit card. When we first noted the theft, the withdrawal of the funds was noted as a debit. XXXX XXXX XXXX debited funds via EFT, while USAA returned the funds via ACH. USAA FSB states the transfer was via ACH, I can accept that, a Direct Deposit or Direct Payment transaction using the ACH Network was initiated, using our routing and account number, from an originating institution. The originating Depository Financial institution ( ODFI ), in this case is XXXX XXXX, entered the ACH entry at the request of the Originator. The ODFI collects payments from consumers and transmits them in batches at regular, predetermined intervals to an ACH Operator. What should have been seen by USAA FSB, and verified, is the security protocols that protects their consumers from such illegal transfers. The names on the accounts were different, this should have initiated a closer look for a search of an authorization for wire transfers signed by the FSB account holder.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation