Consumer complaint received 06/26/2015 about Bank account or service (Checking account) with REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION (TX).
Issue: Using a debit or ATM card

Complaint: On XXXX/XXXX/2015 I filed claim for fraudulent transactions on my account I also called Regions before the transactions even posted on XXXX/XXXX/2015. I have phone records to prove I called so this is the actual day the investigation started. Regions canceled my card and told me to call back because the transactions were still pending. The transactions posted on XXXX/XXXX/2015 and I faxed them a written claim which I still have the XXXX page that shows the date the claim was sent. The total amount of unauthorized transactions was {$2000.00}. Once the claim was filed I had to wait 10 days then I got a provisional credit, and if anything changed I would be notified. 105 days later Regions reversed the credits because the merchant provided some document that had some personal information that just about anyone could get if they had over 3 months to-do so. On XXXX/XXXX/2015 Regions took {$2000.00} out of my account and I had no idea this was going to happen. They told me they sent a letter on XXXX/XXXX/2015, but I did not get it. Even if I would have got the letter it would take a few days for me to receive it. Regions told me on XXXX/XXXX/2015 is when they gave me notice, and even though that is incorrect they still went past 90 days ( max for any claim ) they had to investigate, but for some reason they feel they actions were within Regulation E guidelines. I asked them why they think they were within these guidelines and they would only say they were and kept trying to end the call. I asked then why they did not send the letter certified or a call me, or email me instead of supposedly mailing out a letter. I asked for a copy of this letter and all other support for their decision ion and they told me no that I could go to branch if I wanted. I replied would love to but they took al the money I had and I took vacation time at work because I did not have gas money to make it to work much less a branch. I had just enough cash on me to buy dog food, and I have been depending on neighbors and friends to get food for myself. Regions put me in a horrible situation and can care less they did so. I was lucky to have god people in my life to help me or I would not have any food. This is no means an exaggeration they came close to ruining me completely, and they are still trying their hardest to do so by kicking me while I am down. They altered my ledger on the account so that transactions that already posted or pending would be send back has unpaid and charge me an NSF fee. They did not reverse the credits until XXXX/XXXX/15, but the transactions show up has coming out of account on XXXX/XXXX/2015. The problem with their scam is I used my debit card after these credits posted. That is impossible because I do not have overdraft and my account would have been negative if the XXXX/XXXX/2015 was true. It is not and I printed an online statement that proves Regions pulled this scam and returned transactions that should have been paid. Also I do not think reversal of provisional credits can cause transactions already made by the customer. Regions think it is ok to do so and go past 90 days to reverse a claim but somehow be within Regulation E rules. They think by saying they are I will just accept it a give up. Regions is violating several rules within regulation E and someone needs to stop this and make sure they realize they can not do whatever they want and treat people like they do not mater.. Their defense is no matter what their actions are they are in within bank regulations, and are unable to provide the customer with the reason they did not violate the laws put in place to regulate them. The reason they can not is it is simple math and the math does not add up to be in their favor. Even if one decided to use written notice date XXXX/XXXX/2015 they are still 2 days past the 90 day limit if XXXX/XXXX/2015 is considered valid.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation