Consumer complaint received 2023-08-03
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: Credit Karma (CA)

My account has been intentionally Sabotaged by credit karma. 
They failed to investigate my dispute and wanted my dispute canceled so that they would not have to provide {$840.00} in provisional credit. 

They canceled my original dispute early before due date stating they found no errors. But never submitted my dispute to the merchant. 
After they canceled my dispute they did not provide any circumstantial evidence for canceling my dispute and would not communicate with me. 
I requested documentation they used to determine my dispute and they ignored my requests They changed there story of why they canceled my dispute stating they canceled my dispute due to me not providing requested documentation by due date even though they canceled my dispute 3 days early before due date. 
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- [ Regulation E 1005.11 ( b ) ( i ) ] " Specifically says, The notice of error is effective even if it does not contain the consumers account number, so long as the financial institution is able to identify the account. '' " Institutions can request written confirmation of the error but completing the error resolution investigation can not be dependent on receiving written confirmation. '' " If the institution requests written confirmation of the error but does not receive it, the institution must still complete the investigation '' Violated- Regulation E 1005.11 for original dispute that was canceled XX/XX/23 In the amount of {$840.00}, This was the sole reason for why the dispute was canceled on XX/XX/23. Credit *Karma used this violation for their denial reason, stated my dispute was canceled because I failed to turn in requested documentation for my dispute*. The reason for why they did not receive requested documentation from me was due to Credit Karma canceling my dispute 3 days prior to the due date that was given for me to turn in the requested documents '' -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- [ 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) Written Explanation ] " You must then give the results of your investigation in writing within three business days, and you also must tell the consumer of their right to request the documents you relied on in your determination. '' Violated- Credit Karma failed to issue notification after completing investigation ( 2nd investigation ).

Credit Karma failed to advise me the right to request the documents they relied on in their determination within 3 days.

Failed to provide documentation used in their determination within 3 days.

Credit Karma Provided inadequate documentation late -failed to provide it within 3 days.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- [ 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ) Debiting Provisional Credit ] 1. Alternative procedure for debiting of credited funds.

" The financial institution must comply with the requirements of this section by notifying the consumer that the consumer 's account will be debited five business days from the transmittal of the notification, specifying the calendar date on which the debiting will occur. '' Violated - Credit Karma failed to issue notice and/ failed to issue required 5 day notice that they will be reversing/removing provisional credit from my account.

Credit Karma lied to me about investigating my dispute. They stated that XXXX handled the investigation XXXX denied have any involvement with my dispute. 
XXXXXXXX XXXX who issued credit karma XXXX debits denied having any involvement with my dispute. 
XXXX XXXX deceitfully made me believe my dispute was being investigated when they predetermined my dispute to remain closed so that they would not have to provide me {$840.00} XXXX in provisional credit. They only were willing to provide {$340.00} in provisional credit. They knew all along that they were doing nothing to investigate my dispute and led me to believe they were investigating it. They had no intensions of allowing me to properly have my dispute investigated and took a personal deceitful approach when handling my dispute. They never contacted the merchant to prove the unauthorized charges, instead they provided me a single accounting receipt that shows no proof of the transactions. It was a receipt from credit karma that they lied about and stated it came from the merchant. They are deceitful and don't provide a fair process and investigation for disputed because they don't want to lose the dispute.