Consumer complaint received 2017-11-16
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: E*TRADE BANK (CA)

This complaint is in response to the investigation closure, and the response from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Compliance officer. 

The letter is as follows and the crux of the complaint the ( CFPB ) should review : Dear Sir, The deficient inquiry into the investigation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  for unauthorized charges of {$550.00}, beginning with my written dispute form delivered by fax on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and again XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to : ( XXXX ) XXXX, breach agreement performance as outlined in the Account Holders Agreement Duty of Care obligations and under XXXX XXXX XXXX Operating Regulations. ( Volume I General Rules, 7.4.D.3 Documentation Section 7.4.D.3.b and 7.4.D.3.c ) As indicated in writing and by phone on multiple occasions the above charges were unauthorized inclusive of over charges by account holder, a party to Account Holders Agreement. E*TRADEs Operations omits multiple communications by messaging and email, confusing two disputed transactions of {$190.00} and the later, {$550.00}. Further complications of the dispute communication arose from two transactions by the same merchant, XXXX XXXX, one for {$23.00} and the other, XXXX. 

Notwithstanding, per the statements contained in the compliance Directors letter dated, XXXX XXXX, XXXX by XXXX XXXX, states that Our records confirm that when you contacted E*TRADE to dispute the charge, you advised that you were overcharged by XXXX XXXX, not that the charge was unauthorized. contradicts all written, endorsed and faxed documentation. 

The position taken by E*TRADE Operations Management undermines the relationship and dispute process as defined in the Account Holders Agreement and is totally unsupported per all written documentation provided to E*TRADE Disputes Department as outlines in XXXX ( Regulation Section 7.4.D.3 ) Further, the agreement between account holder and E*TRADE Bank, a party to under E*TRADE Bankss Account Holder Agreement, failed to adequately protect and/or investigate authorization by account holder signature file or account holders check and/or deposit endorsements. E*TRADE Bank failures of its Duty of Care obligation compounded losses thru retaliatory account closures on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
Before all ( 3 ) account closures were decided by E*TRADE operations department, a request for documents used in support of XXXX decision to invalidate my claim was delivered on XXXX XXXX or XXXX, XXXX. 
The requested documents contained a listing for XXXX XXXX Retrieval Code, per VISA rules and regulation requirements of issuers of XXXX XXXX bearing the XXXX Logo dated, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, ( XXXX, Dispute Resolution Department, Case No. XXXX ) indicating E*TRADEs investigators predetermined retrieval code request was for merchant receipt copy only. 
Following my request for the documents all my accounts were closed and customer service statements naming me as acting in a fraudulent manner were posted to the E*TRADE messaging center. ( Retrieval Request Reason Code 28 : Transaction receipt copy bearing signature ) The documents used to determine E*TRADE Banks decision included a signed merchant receipt with someone other than the account holders signature. E*TRADE failed to investigate card holder authorization according the XXXX Rules ; 7.4.D.3.c. to account holder signatures until XXXX XXXX, XXXX by a sympatacthic customer service operator whom affirmed a mistake was made requiring an escalation of the claim and actions taken for account closures. 
Between XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX, E*TRADE customer service operators reviewed my accounts and made defamatory statements including account holder was engaged in Fraud, and was Abusing Accounts held at E*TRADE bank., XXXX failure to reasonably investigate the Authorized Charges per XXXX  regulations, as cited, or abide by Account Holder Agreement for the doctrine of Duty of Care of the dispute and/or retrieval process and, retaliatory Account Closures has undermined the relationship of the Account Holder/Creditor Bank. 
Account Holders Arbitration requirements is unenforceable due to the Creditor Banks breach of the Account Holders Agreement which they are party to. 
My intention is to file an action for damages for the purposeful malice disruption of my XXXX XXXX, personal banking and income, defamatory statements, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX as a result of anguish. Additional losses thru the termination of stock option purchase and the selling off of stock options which could have been of more value at the time of sell offer buy E*TRADE Bank Complaints have been filed with FDIC, XXXX, XXXX, Office of the Controller ( OCC ) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . ( Cal Civil Code : Section 1747.02, ( 1 ), ( 2 ) ) ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : An unauthorized charge is a purchase on your credit card that you did not make or permit anyone else to make. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX