1. XXXX XXXX  did not address the fact that different terms were courteously provided to me at the time of opening the account.

2. XXXX XXXX has produced different information in her XXXX  response letter than what was given by XXXX XXXX at the XXXX XXXX   Branch : XXXX  stated that XXXX was used in determining which account to give me. This is not what the personal banker XXXX XXXX suggested. Described in my original complaint but unaddressed in XXXX XXXX  response is that I was advised the account was temporary because of my NEW state residency status and NEW customer status at the time of the account application. False pretenses. My XXXX  was there at the time and can witness to the dialogue. The issue isn't particularly MXXXX XXXX, but XXXX XXXX   statements 3. Account conversion eligibility requirements were abbreviated toXX/XX/XXXX ( for accounts in good standing ) or whenever I could make it into the branch thereafter, but XXXX  is enforcing alternative terms providing for up to one year.

4. XXXX   is " blaming the victim '' as she castigates me in her XX/XX/XXXX letter stating " ... [ Y ] ou qualified for ourXX/XX/XXXX product. You accepted our offer and opened account number ending in [ XXXX ] on XX/XX/XXXX. '' The banking product offer was " accepted '' under false pretenses as it was not shared with me that the decision was XXXX-motivated. Had I known THEN, I'd have gathered my documents and gone to a different bank altogether for an application. I was under the impression that it is an internal system determination for common new customers, not consumer-reporting agency stigmatization.

Please note that the account was said not to be able to incur nsf FEES in order to qualify. There were none. The semantics changes the entire meaning of the information being conveyed then and now.

The issue was originally attempted to be resolved through the XXXX with the bank. The results were unsatisfactory.

Below is the original complaint : I originally opened an account the summer of XX/XX/XXXX. I was assisted by XXXX XXXX who advised the XXXX XXXX account ( basically, a training-wheels checking account. ) She did not explain why other than me being new to the state of Louisiana and not having any history there. I knew my XXXX report and XXXX were CLEAN because I had checked them prior to my relocation as I had only just suffered identity theft. I assumed that there wasn't a financial reason for only being offered the XXXX XXXX account. I was advised by XXXX XXXX at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. branch that provided I maintained positive history ( without NSF fees ) through the end of the year, she would aid me by making the switch to a " normal '' customer account. I re-visited the branch XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX ( the soonest that I had time ) and I noticed she was not at the desk. So, I stood in the centre of the lobby hoping that she would come out. I stood for a substantial amount of time without being greeted by the teller at the counter. Incidentally, she was amicably conversing with a police officer ( XXXX male approx XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) who was leaning over the counter on a cellular phone reciting numbers to her. When she noticed me standing out there, she spoke to me and I explained why I was there. She assured me that she would be able to assist me. I approached the counter and proceeded accordingly. The teller input my credentials into her computer and LOUDLY, and RUDELY blurts out that I am " ineligible ... due to 19-overdrafts. '' The young lady took no consideration to my privacy whatsoever. I found her behaviour to be highly disdainful. I have had direct deposit consistently since mid-XX/XX/XXXX, and even entrusted Whitney Bank with my TSP Federal Retirement Withdrawal disbursement. I'm unsure as to whether the details in opening the account were mis-communicated, but whatever the case, my experience was definitely less-than-desirable.