Consumer complaint received 2026-05-05 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem making or receiving payments
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as the Receiving Depository Financial Institution ( RDFI ), processed four fraudulent ACH unauthorized-debit dispute claims submitted by one of its customers against me, an originator of legitimate ACH rent payments. Three of the four returns were transmitted outside the 60-day XXXX window for consumer unauthorized-debit returns, and the underlying claims are demonstrably false based on a fully executed lease and documented occupancy. I have engaged Wells Fargo directly through a XXXX branch and an internal investigation has been opened, but I am filing with CFPB given the systemic concerns about how Wells Fargo processed these claims initially. Background I am a residential landlord ( XXXX XXXX ) at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX. I rent to tenants who pay rent via ACH through the XXXX property management platform, which uses XXXX as its payment processor. From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, my tenant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a Wells Fargo customer ) lived at the property and paid rent via ACH from his Wells Fargo bank account. He made five rent payments during this period, all properly authorized, for which he received four months of housing as consideration. After vacating on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX filed four ACH dispute claims with Wells Fargo, asserting that the underlying rent payments were " unauthorized. '' Wells Fargo processed all four disputes and transmitted ACH return entries that pulled the funds back from my account, leaving me with a {$2400.00} negative balance with my payment platform. I have a fully executed residential lease signed by XXXX XXXX, utility records establishing his occupancy of my property during all four payment settlement periods, and platform records showing he authorized each payment. The dispute claims he filed with Wells Fargo are objectively and demonstrably false. XXXX timing concern The four returns were transmitted as follows : - Original settlement XX/XX/XXXX ACH return XX/XX/XXXX ( 128 days elapsed ) - Original settlement XX/XX/XXXX ACH return XX/XX/XXXX ( 100 days ) - Original settlement XX/XX/XXXX ACH return XX/XX/XXXX ( 72 days ) - Original settlement XX/XX/XXXX ACH return XX/XX/XXXX ( 30 days ) Under the XXXX Operating Rules, consumer unauthorized-debit returns under reason codes XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX must be transmitted by the RDFI within 60 calendar days of settlement. Three of the four returns above fall outside that window. Returns transmitted beyond the 60-day window can only properly occur through one of two paths : XXXX. Improper use of an R-code beyond the permitted window a violation of XXXX Operating Rules by Wells Fargo as RDFI ; or 2. Use of the breach-of-warranty claim path under XXXX Rules, which requires the consumer to submit a sworn Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit ( WSUD ) to Wells Fargo. If Wells Fargo processed the late returns under path ( 1 ), it transmitted ACH returns that should have been rejected as untimely. If Wells Fargo processed them under path ( 2 ), it accepted a sworn affidavit from XXXX XXXX that is provably false and must be evaluated against the documentary evidence ( signed lease, utility records, occupancy documentation ) that contradicts it. In either case, Wells Fargo 's processing of these returns appears to have failed to apply appropriate verification, with the result that I as the originating party suffered a financial loss of approximately {$4300.00} in clawed-back legitimate rent payments, plus {$2400.00} in residual platform balance liability. Independent fraud indicators in payment metadata All four disputed transactions, in XXXXXXXX XXXX records, carry an " XXXX XXXX : The address value was incomplete '' metadata flag at the time of original payment. This pattern the same address validation failure across four sequential payments by the same customer suggests the customer intentionally provided incomplete billing address information to facilitate later " unauthorized '' claims based on address mismatch. Wells Fargo, as the RDFI, would not have visibility into this XXXXside metadata, but it is part of the broader pattern indicating premeditated fraud rather than a good-faith dispute. My direct engagement with Wells Fargo On XX/XX/XXXX, I visited the Wells Fargo branch at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. I met with Branch Manager / Vice President XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), explained the situation, and provided supporting documentation. XXXX XXXX opened internal investigation ticket XXXX and indicated that Wells Fargo investigators would contact me. I am providing the supporting documentation in writing as a follow-up. I am filing this CFPB complaint in parallel with the internal investigation because : 1. The underlying conduct Wells Fargo 's processing of facially fraudulent disputes filed beyond the XXXX window represents a systemic concern that warrants regulatory visibility regardless of the outcome of any individual case ; 2. As the originating party ( not a Wells Fargo customer ), I have limited recourse through Wells Fargo 's customer-facing channels and benefit from CFPB oversight of the RDFI 's responsiveness ; and 3. The pattern of Wells Fargo accepting late-filed unauthorized-debit returns and sworn affidavits without adequate verification has implications beyond my individual case, particularly for landlords and small businesses that originate ACH transactions to Wells Fargo customers. Law enforcement and regulatory context This matter is the subject of multiple active investigations and regulatory complaints : - XXXX Police Department, Case # XXXX ( XXXX XXXX Fraudulent Schemes ; XXXX XXXX Theft of Services ) - FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( referencing potential 18 U.S.C. 1014 violation if WSUDs were filed ) - NY Department of Financial Services, File # XXXX ( against the platform, XXXX ) - Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX Complaint # XXXX ( against the platform, RentRedi ) - Arizona Attorney General Consumer Information & Complaints , File # XXXX ( against the platform ) - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX What I am asking CFPB to investigate 1. Whether Wells Fargo 's processing of the four disputed ACH returns complied with XXXX Operating Rules, particularly with respect to the three returns transmitted outside the 60-day window for consumer unauthorized-debit codes ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ). 2. Whether Wells Fargo properly verified the basis for any sworn Written Statements of Unauthorized Debit submitted by XXXX XXXX, particularly given the documentary evidence available that contradicts those claims. 3. Whether Wells Fargo has adequate policies and procedures for protecting originating parties ( such as landlords and small businesses ) from fraudulent dispute claims filed by Wells Fargo customers. 4. The status and outcome of internal investigation ticket XXXX opened by XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX.

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