This new complaint relates to the complaint already in progress submitted   XXXX   XXXX   , 201  7  #  XXXX , with  Bank of America , provider of the  XXXX  card for the  State o f California temporary  XXXX  insurance program.     Summary :   XXXX   XXXX  , I noticed a transaction made with the card at  XXXX  while I was at home asleep in my bed. It was a pinned transaction made at a local ATM that I frequently have used . 6 ho urs after the transaction was made, I had discovered it, reported it, and at the directive of BOA I had called the local police and reported the transaction.     This new complaint is in regards to the willful and wanton delays in reimbursing the funds, in violation of not only the regulation cited in the original complaint   ( CFR Regulation " e '' ) but now under the controlling attachments regarding Fiduciary Duties of Banks under the DTPA.
Timeline   :   XXXX   XXXX  , Filed Dispute With Bank   XXXX   XXXX  , Having no credit issued or reimbursement made, I called and spoke with a supervisor, "  XXXX  '' several times. She informed me that because the transaction was " pinned '' that there was no evidence of fraud. ( Although the notes on regul ation " e '' specifically state that whether a transaction is pinned may not be used to determine its validity and that rather the only requirement for reimbursement is that a customer report the transaction as unauthorized within 48 hours here I reported in 6. ). Furt her,  XXXX  informed me that my own statement was not sufficient evidence that the transaction was unauthorized ( criminalizing the victim ). Further,  XXXX  informed me that this was status quo policy regarding disputes in their department at BOA, and " she dealt with this every day and knew regulation  " e ''  thoroughly. She also refused to connect me with any lateral or higher supervisor and would not provide contact information for a regulation compliance or legal department. She did offer to have her  manager call me within 24hours, a call I am still waiting for.      XXXX   XXXX  , I also initiated contact with this bureau to seek resolution with or without the help of the BOA disputes department.       XXXX   XXXX  , I tried calling disputes and claims department and asking for a supervisor again. She "  XXXX  '' who conveniently seems to be the only supervisor voice at the disputes call center, promised m e a manager c all again which never came on the  XXXX  or  XXXX . I insisted that  XXXX  place the police report ( vague as it was ) that I had gathered from  XXXX  and add it to my file and reopen my claim as she had informed me that the department had already ruled my claim invalid.     On   XXXX   XXXX  , I finally made contact with the regulation compliance person from BOA   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , who informed me that she would act as a  liaison be tween the bank and I throughout the complaint process and that she would have the situation resolved by her own decided resolution date of   XXXX   XXXX  . I informed   XXXX   that this further violated regulation "  E  '' which requires reimbursement be complete within  seven days, with a maximum customer liability of {$50.00} if timely reported. I also informe d her that the BOA card agreement presented to me when I was given the card stated that timely reporting was supported by a "  Zero Li ability '' policy thus negating the federal allowance of {$50.00} of customer responsibility.   XXXX   did not seem to be concerned with my reimbursement ( although she did apologize ) nor the timeline.       XXXX   XXXX  , I receive to conflicting pieces of mail. First, a letter from this Bureau stating that the bank has requested more time to prepare a response and that could be 60 days. I also receive a letter from  BOA d ated   XXXX   XXXX  , which states the additional review I requested has been completed and there was no decision error found. These are highly conflicting statements ...     While my first complaint focused on the handling of my claim and the lack of reimbursement ( STILL!!!! ) in violation of CFR  " E '', I w ould like to now file a complaint that is separate yet related to the original about the timeliness of responses indicative of a willful and wanton disregard for my consumer rights protected by federal regulation with instructive ( clearly worded  ) n otes on how to treat regulation "  E  ''. I now wish to enforce my rights violated by  BOA  ( hereafter " the bank '' ) enumerated by the DTPA clauses regarding Banks obligations and duties as a fiduciary.     Regulation "  E '' i s very clear as to the requirements of its application :  1. An unauthorized transaction was made and the only stipulation that designates transactions as unauthorized is a " reporting by the cardholder within 48 hours. '' Here I reported the charge as unauthorized and in only six hours. The bank  does not disputed this fact.    2. The regulation application notes specifically state that whether a transaction is " pinned '' is irrelevant unless the person conducting the transaction had at one time been an authorized user and now was not. The suspect in this case was never authorized to use my card and never authorized to even possess the card, Bank of America has provided no evidence ( and can not unless they manufacture it )  that I have ever authorized anyone to use the card.    3. The maximum liability of a customer by Federal Regulation " E '' is {$50.00}. When timely reported. Banks may create more lenient but not stricter liability on the part of the consumer. BOA did choose to be more lenient than the fed, because in my card agreement presented when I got the card, I was informed that BOA imposes " ZERO LIABILITY '' for unauthor ized use so long as reported timely. Because the time of reporting is not in dispute,   BOA admits that I was in compliance with this policy and therefore also the more strict federal policy.
4. Regulation " E '' requires that in any case, when timely reported, any funds removed from the customer account must be reimbursed no longer than 7   business days after the unauthorized transaction is reported.   XXXX   XXXX   from  BOA,  when I spoke to here on   XXXX   XXXX  , did not dispute the  seven d ay requirement of regulation  " e ''. In fact she had no answer as to why this was not already reimbursed, but told me not to worry because they had determined they would provide resolution of this complaint by a promised deadline with the Bureau of   XXXX   XXXX  . Imagine my surprise when I received notice that the BOA had asked fo r additional time to prepare an answer when  XXXX  had appeased me by telling me I would have resolution by   XXXX   XXXX  .  Imagine my  further surprise to learn that BOA had already decided the second opening of this dispute against me on   XXXX   XXXX   when I received a letter to that effect today in the mail.     NEW OFFENSE : THE NEWEST VIOLATION OF BAN  K OF AMERICA IS NOT A VIOLATION OF REGULATION E, BUT RATHER A NEW PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION OF THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES ENUMERATED UNER THE DTPA.
THE VIOLATION OF THE SEVEN BUSINESS DAY REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENT ( STILL TOLLING ) AND IT HAS AMOST BEEN A MONTH NO  W ) WHILE BAD ENOUGH, IS NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS THE WILLFUL & WANTON ACTIONS UNDER THE DTPA, BUT I NOW SEE THAT NOT ONLY ARE THERE CONTINUES ACTIONS WILLFUL AND WANTON, BUT POSSIBLE WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, ADDING A PUNITIVE ELEMENT TO THE DAMAGES IMOSED UPON THE OFFENDER ( HERE BOA ).     The facts here are not disputed. I made the report to the correct department on the correct date within the time pe riod allotted by " E ''. F urther, I was patient in allowing a grace period before I called back  XXXX  and  XXXX . What is bothering me now is that even after speaking with   XXXX   XXXX   and being further patient :  1.   I STILL HAVE NOT BEEN REIMBURSE  D 2. HER PROMISE TO ME THAT RESOLUTION WOULD OCCUR BY THE NINTH IS OBVIOUSLY BELOGNA AND THERE IS STILL NO REIMBURSEMENT OR CORRECTIVE ACTION IN PLACE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
3. BOA HAS ASKED THE BUREAU FOR MORE TIME, BUT CLEARLY BY BOA 's OWN ADMISSION THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE ANOTHER REVIEW   AND RULED NOT TO PAY IT AS DENOTED IN THE LETTER I RECEIVED. THUS BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED AS APPLIED TO THE TIMELINE, BOA 'S DECISION TO REMAIN AWARE OF MISSED OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER SOME BELIEF THAT THE CONTINUED DELAY IS ACCEPTABLE.     I FIND IT MORE DISTURBING THAT BOA 'S CONTINUED DENIAL WHEN BOA HAS UNDISPUTED  PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THE CLAIM IS LEGITIMATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH REG E. ( THE ONLY REQUIREMENT BEING TIMELY ) CONTAINS A CONFLICT OF INFORMATIO N BETWEEN SUE 'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TODAY AND THE LETTER I RECEIVED TODAY    XXXX      DATED   XXXX   XXXX  , SAYING THE SECONDARY EVALUATION OF THE CLAIM HAD BEEN SATISFIED.     BECAUSE OF THE WILLFUL AND WANTON DISREGARD OF THE FACTS OF THIS TRANSACTION, AND THE CHOICE OF BOA TO CONTINUE TO DENY THE CLAIM, THEY ARE CLEARLY NOW IN VIOLATION OF THE DTPA WHICH IN THE LEAST PROVIDES THAT A {$400.00} REIMBURSEMENT IS NO LONGER ACCEPTIBLE, BUT RATHER  TREBLE  DAMAGES OR IN THIS CASE {$1200.00} BECAUSE THE BANK HAD NOTICE AND CHOSE WILLFULLY AND WANTONLY TO IGNORE THE FACTS AND FAIL TO REIMBURSE THE ACCOUNT.     I NOW BELIEVE THAT SUE 'S CONTINUED DELAY AS REQUESTED TODAY, FURTHER ESCALATES MY DTPA CLAIM TO A WILLFUL AND WANTON STANDARD BUT NOW ADDING WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.     HERE   XXXX   XXXX    NEW  OF MY COMPLAINT, NEW THAT BOA WAS IN REGULATORY VIOLATION BY FAILING TO PROVIDE RELIEF WITHIN  XXXX  BUSINESS DAYS, AND HAS FURTHER DELAYED THE PROCESS BY " NEEDING MORE TIME TO RESPOND, WHEN CLEARLY THE LETTER MAILED WITH A   XXXX   XXXX   DATE IS  PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT B OA IS NOT INVESTIGATING FURTHER AS STATED. THUS  XXXX  KNOWINGLY FURTHER DEPRIVED ME OF MY ALREADY TARDY PAVEMENT AND THUS SUBJECTED HER ORGANIZATION TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN ADDITION TO MY NOW  TREBLE  DAMAGES.     PLEASE BE ADVISED IF I DO NOT RECEIVE  TREBLE D AMAGES IN MY ACCOUNT BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS TOMORROW, I DO INTEND WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO SEEK A COURT ORDER, UNDER THE DTPA AND BECAUSE I AM SO INCONVENIENCED BY THE ENTIRETY OF THE EVENT, I ASSURE YOU I WILL MAKE CERTAIN THAT PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE ASSESSED WHERE NEEDED.