Consumer complaint received 08/24/2016 about Bank account or service (Checking account) with UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (NY).
Issue: Deposits and withdrawals

Complaint: My bank garnished XXXX from my checking account. They claimed I had ten days warning, but as evidence of this complaint, I did not receive such a warning. They said that a mobile check deposit made on XXXX XXXX, 2016 was either not clear or was labeled as non-negotiable by the issuers bank so they could not offer details. They supposedly emailed me on XXXX XXXX, 2016 to inform me of the impending garnishment. I am now negative in my bank account because of this, with pending debts to bounce, also leaving me with the inevitable overdraft fees. I do not have overdraft protection, and should not need it for this situation. I received a confirmation that the payment went through and held onto the check for a week, which is longer than standard practice. It even states on the confirmation to ensure you shred the check after the confirmation. Why am I only hearing of this issue in XX/XX/XXXX?! Who keeps the check that long, especially when formally advised by my bank not to? When I spoke to customer service, they stated they could n't even see who the check was from-leaving me no way to know how to collect my payment from someone and to advise them of the situation. I had to rant and rave and ask to speak with a supervisor, which they said were not available. I think that 's a lie, or a flaw they have in their business. I was transferred to executive relations and spoke with XXXX. She said she had another tool to find out who the issuer was. Why not equip all the reps with said tool? Why did I have to threaten a complaint to find out this information? When USAA decided to offer mobile banking, they obviously had protocols in place for this garnishing system. Why not have protocols in place to protect the customer? Is it a scheme to collect overdraft fees from its customers? Are they offering a service they are ill equipped to fund, stand by, or understand? Are they out for the benefit of mobile deposits and the business they get from it, but not in the business of protecting it 's customers? What is the protocol for this phantom email warning me of it? The decision to email customers is a poor choice. I receive junk mail and advertisements from them three times a week in the regular mail. Why ca n't they send a real letter? I also have text alert. Why could n't they send a text? My guess is because they want the overdraft fees. Or they do n't care about customer care and convenience? When I asked XXXX about these things, she apathetically said " Well, you had ten days notice. '' That was infuriating. Clearly I did n't get the memo, otherwise I would have made arrangements for the money to be in the account. When I asked why I could n't speak to a supervisor, she said supervisors are not there for customer service issues. I asked how to contact the CEO. She said there is no way. When I said that sounds like a lie and I will put that in my complaint, she said " well I never said there was n't a way. '' So I replied, " then tell me how? '' She said well I can arrange for a callback. She then said it would n't be from the CEO. That is confusing, so clearly I was right the first time, and I am addressing it in this complaint. There should be a way to contact someone who can help, whether it be CEO, supervisor, etc. She then began to ask details about my complaint. Whether it be inconvenience, practices, etc? That should n't matter in customer service and I should n't have to tell them I 'm filing a complaint to get help. I asked her to advise me on what to do and she offered me a personal loan! I wanted them to put money back in or at least offer to waive overdraft fees should my other debts come out without me resolving it first. Obviously, they know people need time to resolve this, I 'm assuming why they gave the " email '' ten days in advance.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation