Consumer complaint received 2025-06-25 00:00:00
Product: Prepaid card — Government benefit card
Issue: Problem with a purchase or transfer — Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer
Company: FISERV FINXACT CORE
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Introduction I am submitting this complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding multiple unauthorized and duplicate hotel charges on my public benefits debit card, as well as being denied access to my account with Money Network, the financial institution managing the California XXXX XXXX Department ( XXXX ) prepaid card program. My situation is urgent : I rely on these funds for food and shelter, I am currently unhoused, have a XXXX, and have been effectively cut off from critical public benefits due to these circumstances and the failures of Money Network to appropriately resolve my case. 
Background and Overview I receive state benefits through a Money Network prepaid debit card issued by or for the California XXXX. 
In XXXX and XX/XX/year>, I used my card to pay for hotel accommodations ( XXXX, Days XXXX, The XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX ) to avoid homelessness. All charges for those stays were properly processed and deducted from my card at the time of use. 
On XX/XX/year>, my card account showed the exact same hotel charges reappearing as pending, reducing my available balance by at least {$880.00}, despite all prior charges having cleared. 
On XX/XX/year>, these pending items were converted into posted purchases, resulting in a double charge on several transactions for the same hotel stays. This caused my account to be overdrawn, even after receiving a new XXXX benefits deposit. 
When attempting to resolve the issue, Money Network failed to provide timely or effective assistance, did not offer provisional credit, and blocked my online account access. 
Disputed Transactions I am disputing the following duplicate charges : XXXX charge of {$200.00} posted XX/XX/year>, and duplicated as pending and then purchased on XX/XX/year>. 
Days Inn charges for {$100.00} ( XX/XX/year> ), {$100.00} ( XX/XX/year> ), {$100.00} ( XX/XX/year> ) ; each charged originally and then duplicated as pending and converted to purchases on XX/XX/year>. 
The XXXX XXXX charge of {$150.00} on XX/XX/year>, likewise duplicated. 
Additional charges from XXXX XXXX, paid in early XXXX, appeared twice. 
The total disputed amount is {$1100.00}. 
Attempts to Resolve with Money Network Upon discovery, I called Money Network on XX/XX/year>, to report the issue. Their representative told me the transactions were holds allegedly placed by the hotels, would disappear within XXXX calendar days, or could be released sooner if the merchant faxed a letter. 
I contacted each hotel ( XXXX, Days Inn, XXXX XXXX ). All confirmed : They did not place new holds. 
The original charges had cleared in full at check-in/out. 
They do not use fax and would not send any such letter. 
Despite this, Money Network refused to initiate a dispute or issue a provisional credit, insisting the only options were waiting 30 days or obtaining an unattainable fax. 
On XX/XX/year>, the duplicate pending items posted as completed purchases, further overdrawing my account. 
I called Money Network again on XX/XX/year>. I was told a dispute could now be initiated, but only once I received dispute forms by mail, filled them out, and returned them. As I am unhoused and have no stable mailing address or online account access, I can not complete this process. 
Loss of Access to Funds and Account On XX/XX/year>, after my XX/XX/XXXX call to Money Network, my online account became inaccessible. The system indicated that neither my debit card number nor my Social Security XXXX was recognized. I repeatedly encountered error messages such as credentials invalid or account not found. 
I have emails, letters, and screenshots documenting failed login attempts, closed access, and conflicting balance information. 
I have not received any written explanation or official notice from Money Network that my account was being blocked or suspended. 
As a result, I am unable to monitor my balance, verify deposits, or access or download transaction records. 
Failure to Accommodate and Public Impact I am XXXX and made Money Network aware of my need for urgent resolution as I rely solely on these state-administered benefits for basic survival needs. 
Money Network refused to provide reasonable accommodations, such as expedited or alternative dispute processes, provisional credit, or access to accounts by alternative means. 
Their refusal to act has left me homeless, unable to pay for shelter or food, and has caused significant distress and deterioration in my mental health. 
A similar pattern of duplicate charge and non-resolution by Money Network previously occurred in XX/XX/year> and was never addressed. 
Supporting Evidence I am prepared to provide the following documents upon request : XXXX dispute submitted to Money Network. 
Receipts, bank statements, and correspondence with the hotels confirming full payment and denial of any duplicate or pending holds. 
Screenshots and digital records of failed login attempts, conflicting balance statements, system errors, and blocked account access. 
Documentation of all calls and correspondence with Money Network and hotel representatives. 
XXXX and XXXX XXXX Money Network is a state XXXX handling the disbursement of public benefits. Their failure to resolve unauthorized charges and blocking of account access constitutes a denial of access to critical public assistance. 
Refusal to provide reasonable accommodations to a person with a XXXX, and insistence on outdated processes ( such as requiring merchant faxes that are impossible to obtain ), is discriminatory, particularly when the customer is unhoused and unable to receive required forms by mail. 
Money Network fails to comply with the legal requirements under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( XXXX ) and CFPB regulations regarding timely error resolution, provisional credit, and fair access to accounts for benefit recipients. 
Their ongoing practices risk similar harm to other vulnerable beneficiaries, especially those without stable housing or digital access.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation