Consumer complaint received 2023-05-10
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: KEYCORP (UT)

This complaint relates to a simple error committed by a merchant on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$100.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX I entered an agreement with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX as their debt collector. The agreement contained a preauthorized electronic fund transfer agreement, and allowed for varying amounts. On the XXXX of each month XXXX was allowed to debit from my account {$21.00}, on the XXXX of each XXXX {$53.00} ( plus the normal monthly amount ), and a {$25.00} for NSF fees. The agreement, EFTA, and XXXX  XXXX contain no authorization for XXXX to debit any amount, whether varying or otherwise, or in anyway relating to a failure to cancel any contract, on any date other than the XXXX of any particular month. Here, XXXX debited the monthly due, the yearly due, and the NSF fee ( a varying payment of {$100.00} ) on XX/XX/XXXX, rather than on XX/XX/XXXX ; constituting clear and convincing error. On XX/XX/XXXX I contacted Key Bank to dispute the transaction on the above grounds. Key immediately provisionally credited the amount in error, and began investigating. On or about XX/XX/XXXX Key finished its investigation, and planned to reverse the credit on XX/XX/XXXX, finding no error because, " Cancellation of services was not completed prior to the billing of the disputed transaction. '' However, Key did not properly notify me of the results of its investigation and the date it had scheduled to debit the provisional credit ; I had not received the letter until XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I called Key because the debit had seemed suspicious as it was not clearly labeled as a reversal. I requested an explanation of Key 's instigation and supporting documents. On XX/XX/XXXX, after having reviewed the explanation and the supporting documents I called Key to reassert the error ; this call lead to a showing of Key 's severe and systemic violation of the EFTA. After much back and forth the first employee ( XXXX ) informed me that there was a {$100.00} debit on XX/XX/XXXX ( the disputed transaction ) AND XX/XX/XXXX ( this debit did not appear on my periodic statement ). The XX/XX/XXXX debit was clearly what actually should have happened, a Preauthorized EFT in accordance with the agreement and EFTA ; rather than the XX/XX/XXXX which was clearly a merchant simply wanting to debit my account in a manner not agreed to in writing. XXXX had clearly realized this information was SUPPOSED to be hidden from me and claimed to have continuously keep " Checking This ''. After further back and forth I asked to speak to a manager. The Manager claimed the XX/XX/XXXX payment was in fact a Preauthorized EFT, and admitted there was a debit on XX/XX/XXXX and claimed it should be on my periodic statement ; I informed her I had taken a screenshot of my account and the debit most certainly was not on the statement. I quoted to 15 USC 1693f ( e ) ( 2 ) and asked her if Key Bank gives the benefit of the doubt to consumers or to merchants, and she stated merchants. Flabbergasted, I quoted numerous other portions of the contract, EFTA, Reg E, and the documents Key provided and utilized in its initial investigation. After nearly a 2 hour phone call the manager finally agreed that the transaction constituted an error, and that she would REQUEST that the investigation be reopen. After the manager found that an error occurred, Key was clearly required to credit my account the amount in error within 1 day ; rather, a letter was sent to me stating Key " received a request ... to reopen a previously denied claim ''. Now, 25 days after Key Bank found an error had in fact occurred, Key has yet to correct my account, whether provisionally or otherwise, or inform me that it has actually reopened and STARTED an investigation after my reassertion of error following review of the documents Key used to rely on to determine an error had not occurred. Key Bank 's violations of the EFTA/Reg E are clearly, at a minimum : failure to make an EFTA in a timely manner 15 USC 1693h ( a ) ( 1 ) ; failure to correct the error within one day after it determined an error occurred 15 USC 1693f ( b ) ; failure to provisionally recredit my account, make a good faith investigation, and did not have a reasonable basis for believing my account was not in error 15 USC 1693f ( e ) ( 1 ) ; knowingly and willfully concluding that my account was not in error when such conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from the evidence available 15 USC 1693f ( e ) ( 2 ) ; an incorrect EFT from my account 15 USC 1693f ( f ) ( 2 ) ; the omission from a periodic statement of an EFT 15 USC 1693f ( f ) ( 3 ) ; my request for additional information 15 USC 1693f ( f ) ( 6 ) ; violations of Reg E 15 USC 1693f ( f ) ( 7 ) ; debiting a Preauthorized EFT on a different date than the one agreed to 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ) ( vi ) ; failure to promptly investigate whether an error occurred, and complete its investigation in ten days due to its decision not to provisionally recredit my account 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ; failure to notify me of the date the provisional credit would be debited prior to debiting it 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ). These violations may relate to its initial investigation or its ( non ) investigation following my reassertion after review of the documents used to rely on 12 CFR 1005.11 ( e ). The manager made clear that these violations are rooted in Key Bank policy and are standard practice at the institution.