Consumer complaint received 2024-03-13 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: KEYCORP
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
I opened and funded a savings account with Laurel Road in early XX/XX/2024. Toward the end of XX/XX/2024, Laurel Road ran a promotion to encourage opening and funding through direct deposit ( a bonus of up to {$340.00} ) a checking account. I did so without problems. I have had XXXX deposits of payments for work done made to this account from the business account of my son for whom I have performed a variety of services ( I am a business consultant and litigator as well as a semi-retired medical doctor ). 

The first of these direct deposits ( {$100.00} ) was promptly posted on or about XX/XX/2024, and I transferred these funds without problems. On XX/XX/2024, I received a direct deposit of {$1700.00} from the same business account of my son and I promptly set up with Laurel Road to transfer these funds to another account. On XX/XX/2024, my son again through his business account sent me a direct deposit to this Laurel Road checking account for {$700.00}. 

On Saturday, XX/XX/2024, I happened to review my checking account and found that my account was frozen and I had no access. I was given a number to call but no live rep was available until MONDAY, XX/XX/2024. I called the number XXXX and soke to XXXX but even after XXXX min of waiting while she talked to the security division I could not get a straight answer. 

Apparently all the deposits from my son 's business account ( he is a sole proprietor ) were listed as him being the recipient, though they had been sent to my checking account. These were sent through the XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) which uses XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX to make transfers. 

I could not understand why there was a fuss since they posted the first {$100.00} and I transferred it without any problems. XXXX said the Security Department wanted to know if it was ok to change the title of my Laurel Road account to make it a joint account with my son. I told them no, this is my personal account, an individual account. 

I was told someone would call me later and at XXXX XXXX on Monday, XX/XX/2024, I received a call from XXXX of the Resolution Dept, based in Connecticut. He told me that Security was working on resolving the issues but that my account would be frozen for XXXX business days. He said he would try to send back the last direct deposit of {$700.00} since it had not posed. 

I told him that Laurel Road had effectively stolen {$2400.00} of my money causing me to default on a series of monetary obligations and causing my medical condition to worse. I am recovering from a XXXX XXXX and have additional problems including a XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX making my left eye useless at the moment. 

On Wednesday, XX/XX/2024, XXXX called about XXXX XXXX  to give me an update. He told me that the {$700.00} would be sent back to my son 's account in about XXXX business days. He stated that the Security Dept was still working on unfreezing my account but that I could speed up the process if both my son and I sent a letter with an affidavit notarized by a notary public stating that the funds my son sent were for me. 

I thought this was absurd. My son and I did not cause the problem. In fact I have never heard of such a problem. Commons sense would dictate the if the wrong recipient was named, the transfer would simply be declined. 

Here is seems like Laurel Road is trying to blame me and my son and has stolen {$2400.00} of my funds to boot. My suspicion is that they have broken a variety of banking laws and want to cover it up by making my account a joint account so that the transfers alleged to be for XXXX XXXX XXXX would be ok. Further this idea of a notarized document seems designed to avoid any blame placed on Laurel Road XXXX This seems like a CYA ( cover your a -- ) maneuver. 

To add insult to injury, XXXX asked me to contact the Security Dept at XXXX and cite XXXX no. XXXX to speed up the process of resolution. XXXX seems like a sincere genuine person who is being used as a front for an incompetent Security Dept. 

When I called the number, I spoke to XXXX who stated that I should contact Laurel Road at XXXX which I did. I spoke to XXXX who told me that I should speak to XXXX. 

Laurel Road and Key Bank have stolen in excess of {$2400.00} of my money and have given me no good reason why I can not access my funds. The only people who have made errors here are the banks, namely Laurel Road, Key Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  and probably the XXXX XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation