Consumer complaint received 2026-03-06 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
CFPB COMPLAINT " WHAT HAPPENED? '' TEXT ( Copy and paste this into the CFPB online form ) ========================================================= In early 2024, I had XXXX daughters in college at the same time. Santander Bank targeted me with a sustained marketing campaign personalized mailers, phone calls, and in-branch pitches from tellers all promoting a " preselected '' personal loan with an implied interest rate of approximately 7 %. Out of desperation to keep my daughters in school, I accepted a {$12000.00} personal loan. The actual interest rate was approximately 17 % more than double what was advertised. This was a bait-and-switch. In XXXX 2025, I lost my job. Over the next XXXX months, I contacted Santander approximately ten times on recorded lines requesting hardship accommodation. I did not run from this debt. I communicated in good faith. No meaningful relief was ever provided. My last payment was XXXX 2025. Then, on XXXX XXXX, 2026, Santander withdrew {$340.00} from my daughter 's checking account. My daughter is a college student employed part-time by her university, earning approximately {$210.00} per paycheck. She is NOT a borrower, co-signer, or guarantor on any Santander obligation. She owes Santander nothing. The withdrawal was labeled as " SANTANDER INSTALLMENT LOAN OPS PAYMENT '' referencing my personal loan. It left her account with {$0.00}. On the same day, she received a payroll deposit of {$210.00}. Santander took more than her entire paycheck. THE CUSTODIAL ACCOUNT TRAP : My daughter 's account was originally opened when she was a XXXX minor. Santander required my name on the account because she was under XXXX this is a standard custodial requirement. At no point was I told that by signing those papers, I was giving Santander the right to later seize my daughter 's wages for my personal loan. Santander now claims a deposit agreement offset clause allows it to withdraw from " any account '' bearing my name. This creates a predatory loop : ( 1 ) Santander required my name on a minor 's account, ( 2 ) Santander aggressively marketed loans to me, ( 3 ) when I couldn't pay, Santander seized my child 's wages using the name it required in the first place. SOCIAL SECURITY VIOLATIONS : My sole income is Social Security. I periodically transferred funds from my Social Security benefits to my daughter 's account to help her cover basic living expenses. The funds in her account were a combination of her wages and transfers traceable to my Social Security. Federal law ( XXXX2 U.S.C. 407 ( a ) ) absolutely prohibits seizing Social Security for private debts. The Supreme Court in Philpott v. Essex County ( 1973 ) held these protections survive deposit into a bank account. Under 31 C.F.R. Part 212, banks must automatically identify and protect federal benefit payments before taking action. Santander conducted no analysis of the source of funds. SANTANDER 'S OWN LETTER CONFIRMS THE VIOLATIONS : On XX/XX/XXXX, I received XXXX 's only written communication a one-page form letter from Collections ( template : " Consumer Offset Letter Rev XXXX '' ). It admits the offset was to " cure a payment delinquency '' and includes a debt collection disclaimer. It provides NO legal justification for targeting a non-debtor 's account, NO indication fund sources were reviewed, NO reference to the deposit agreement, and NO acknowledgment of my XXXX hardship requests. The use of a standardized template suggests this is a routine, systemic practice affecting other consumers. PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT : In XXXX 2020, the NY Attorney General and XXXX state XXXX secured a $ XXXX settlement against Santander XXXX XXXX for deceptive subprime lending. In XXXX 2018, the CFPB settled with Santander for $ XXXX for failing to disclose auto loan terms. The conduct I am reporting deceptive rate advertising, predatory targeting, aggressive collection against vulnerable consumers is the same pattern, now extended to personal loans and the seizure of a college student 's wages from a custodial account. XXXX ACQUISITION CONTEXT : On XXXX XXXX, 2026, XXXX Santander announced a {$12.00} XXXX acquisition of XXXX XXXX XXXX requiring regulatory approval. This consumer compliance failure should be considered in that review. LAWS VIOLATED : 42 U.S.C. 407 ( a ) ( Social Security protections ), 31 C.F.R. Part 212 ( Treasury regulations ), improper setoff against a non-debtor, unconscionability/reasonable expectations doctrine, UDAAP ( unfair, deceptive, abusive acts ), NY XXXX XXXX XXXX deceptive practices ), NY Banking XXXX ( improper offset ). WHAT I AM REQUESTING : 1. Immediate return of {$340.00} to my daughter 's account 2. Written explanation of the legal basis for withdrawing from a non-debtor 's account 3. Confirmation no further seizures will be attempted 4. Investigation into whether this custodial account offset practice is systemic 5. Investigation into Santander 's deceptive loan marketing 6. Enforcement action as the Bureau deems appropriate I have filed complaints with : CFPB ( this complaint ), NYDFS ( acknowledged XX/XX/XXXX, forwarded to Santander ), XXXX ( filed XX/XX/XXXX ), and the NY Attorney General ( filed XX/XX/XXXX ). I sent formal demand letters to Santander 's XXXX XXXX and to XXXX Santander 's leadership in XXXX. Santander has asked for more time but has not returned the money, provided any justification, or offered any resolution.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation