Consumer complaint received 2024-01-30 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: DISCOVER BANK
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern ( both at the CFPB and Discover ), I apologize in advance for the lengthy documentation, however, this alone should serve to, at the least, warrant an investigation and, most certainly, ethical redress. 

XXXX. On XXXX XXXX XXXX I called Discover Card 's Customer Service Dept to request a settled payoff of my credit balance ( {$2200.00} ) which would NEITHER close the account negatively NOR remove the possibility of having my account unsuspended. I was told by the Customer Service Representative ( calls are recorded ) that I could pay the amount of {$1800.00} ( removing interest and late fees ) AND still retain the possibility of my account being considered for unsuspension. I repeatedly asked for specific clarity as to whether the account would be unsuspended if I, in " good faith, '' demonstrated my reliability by essentially paying the balance in full. I was instructed that the Review Department would have to make the determination. When pressed for details as to what conditions, specifically, would be considered for removing my XXXX XXXX, I was told that the Customer Service Department could not speculate. Therefore, having had my account open since XXXX and only falling behind in monthly payments starting in XXXX of XXXX, due to severely restricted financial circumstances ( I am XXXX XXXX  and receive only {$1200.00} per month in XXXX  ), I decided to make the payment, again in " good faith, '' and follow-up with the Review Department XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( when I was told by the XXXX that XXXX the XXXX Department XXXX XXXX starting on the XXXX of next month '' ). Please note that this would fall within 30 Days. Subsequently, I made the {$1800.00} payment, TRUSTING that my " good faith '' effort, coupled with my history with the company, would warrant unsuspension. 
XXXX. On XXXX XXXX  ( within Discover 's Thirty Day policy ) I called to check on the status of my Suspension Review. I was told that the account was still under review and that no additional details could be provided as to whether or not the account would be unsuspended. When pressed again for specific details, I was again advised that the XXXX Department could offer no additional details, but that I would be contacted shortly, either by email or letter. My intention was, if the account would not be unsuspended, to retrieve my {$1800.00} payment and proceed with monthly payments of {$64.00} ( as back in XXXX of XXXX ). 
XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I called the Review Department directly and was advised, again, that additional details were not forthcoming and that the account was still under review. When pressed for details as to the parameters measured, i.e., XXXX XXXX, profile, debt utilization ratio, etc., to determine my eligibility for unsuspension I was, yet again, advised that no details could be given. 
XXXX. Finally, on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX days after my initial call, and intention to recover my payment, and within the XXXX timeframe ) I called the XXXX Department XXXX and was advised that, despite my " good faith '' payment in full ( as agreed on XX/XX/XXXX ), my long history of timely payments ( with the exception of XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ), and any other factors ( such as paying off XXXX other credit accounts in arrears, XXXX with XXXX and XXXX other with XXXX XXXX ) my account would remain suspended due to even XXXX 'charge off ' ( XXXX years old ) in my credit profile. I was astonished. I immediately contacted XXXX XXXX and was advised that THEIR company ( as with most credit card lenders to my understanding ) look at a borrower 's ENTIRE credit profile and " re-open accounts all the time, even with 'charge-offs! '' XXXX. On the same day, Friday, XX/XX/XXXX I called the Customer Service Department and demanded to speak with a supervisor, a lady ( although the name escapes me, again, all calls are recorded and Discover can easily retrieve the substance and specific PROMISES made ). I advised her that I made my XXXX payment in good faith. Furthermore, I am Totally XXXX and {$1800.00} is a LOT of money. I demanded a refund and to be placed back into monthly payment status. This supervisor placed me on hold and reviewed my account. She then came back on the line and advised me that the BEST she could do would be to EXPEDITE a refund of {$1200.00} and Discover would keep {$550.00} to bring my account current. She advised that she herself had several kids to support and that she understood that the {$1200.00} ( again more than I receive in XXXX each month ) was a lot of money. She said nothing about additional reviews. To the contrary, she advised me, twice, that I could expect to see the {$1200.00} back in my checking account within XXXX - XXXX hrs. I reluctantly agreed, again, based on her ASSURANCE ( nothing contingent ) that the {$1200.00} would be refunded quickly. So, naturally, speaking on behalf of Discover, I took her assurance and hung up. 
XXXX. On Monday, XX/XX/XXXX I called Customer Service to inquire as to 'why ' the funds ( as promised to be expedited ) had not appeared in my checking account. I was then transferred to the XXXX Department ( which turned out to be the wrong division ) and explained the situation, yet again. Then I was transferred back to Account XXXX XXXX XXXX Again, I explained the situation to yet ANOTHER agent. I was placed on hold while the Account XXXX reviewed XXXX notes. She then came back on the phone and advised me that the request was being " processed. '' XXXX. On Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX I called Account XXXX Customer Service XXXX to inquire as to XXXX ' my refund ( promised ) was. I was placed on hold while the agent reviewed the notes. The XXXX, another lady, came back on the phone and advised me that the request was still " processing '' and that it could take between XXXX - XXXX business days to appear in my checking account ( NOW dated from Monday, XX/XX/XXXX, rather than the PROMISED, EXPEDITED refund of Friday, XX/XX/XXXX ). In consternation I disconnected and expected the refund, by Monday, XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX days from my call in which I was PROMISED an EXPEDITED refund ). 
XXXX. Today, Monday, XX/XX/XXXX I called Account XXXX XXXX and XXXX to speak with a supervisor. A man by the name of XXXX took the call. I advised him of the situation and he placed me on hold to review the notes in my account. To my UTTER frustration and consternation he advised me ( " apologetically '' ) that because the requested refund was placed outside the XXXX window of Discover 's refund policy my refund was denied. I quickly advised him of XXXX salient, ETHICAL points : First, a supervisor in Account Management had PROMISED me an EXPEDITED refund of the {$1200.00}, without ANY mention of 'conditions, ' 'reviews, ' etc. and thus, Discover was/is BOUND to honor the pledge ( whether given in error or not ). I demanded my refund and advised him that this was not only UNPROFESSIONAL but UNETHICAL. He advised me that the decision was made " at XXXX 's, '' in the " highest '' echelon. I advised XXXX that ( as I had advised the Supervisor I spoke with on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX, when I was PROMISED the EXPEDITED refund ) that omission is as bad and dishonest as commission, i.e., throughout this unnecessarily lengthy and tiring process, key details were kept from me. First, as to a XXXX refund policy. Second, as to the parameters of determining my account re-instatement ( even by the Account XXXX Department ). Third, that my refund was " under review '' -- AFTER -- the initial, XX/XX/XXXX call in which I was, again, PROMISED an EXPEDITED refund of the {$1200.00}! When I asked if I could speak directly with this " highest XXXX '' division he advised that I could not and that ONLY Account Managers and supervisors " could speak on their behalf. '' Flabbergasted, I advised him, yet again, that on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX an Account XXXX HAD spoken, de facto, on behalf of the " highest '' XXXX at XXXX and, thus Discover was/is BOUND to honor the PROMISED refund! He persisted in advising me that he was " sorry '' but the persons responsible for the decision CAN NOT be reached directly by ANY account holder. Logically, again, I advised him that if he ( or any other Account Manager/supervisor " speaks on behalf of XXXX '' then, OF COURSE Discover must HONOR the pledge, not only for a refund but, also EXPEDITED, per the promise made on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Furthermore, even if Discover attempted to 'weasel " out of its commitment with a XXXX refund policy ( which I had ONLY ever been advised of for the first time BY XXXX, today XXXX NEVER in ANY conversation with ANY other agent, again, please check the recordings ) my INITIAL call to ascertain if I could retrieve my payment WAS MADE ON XX/XX/XXXX ( within the XXXX window of the {$1800.00} payment of XX/XX/XXXX ). XXXX, advised me that he would " take notes '' of our conversation and forward them on to the " highest '' echelon at XXXX. When I persisted in ascertaining 'when ' I would hear back from these non-contactable agents he advised me that he could not say. At this point I advised him that I would be filing a complaint with the XXXX and the XXXX ( I meant XXXX ' ). I also asked him to make sure that the " higher-ups '' replay my RECORDED calls, especially the call on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX when I was PROMISED an EXPEDITED refund of the aforementioned {$1200.00}. 

This whole affair, I must say in conclusion, reeks of, at least, UNPROFESSIONAL behavior, at worst, UNETHICAL and SHADY business practices by a multi-billion dollar corporation against a person on XXXX! Thus, in closing, XXXX factors BIND Discover Card to refunding me the {$1200.00}, e.g., the PROMISED/EXPEDITED refund statement ( given twice ) on Friday, XX/XX/XXXX -- AND -- the fact that my initial call to determine whether or not I would need to request a refund was placed ON XX/XX/XXXX ( WITHIN Discover 's OWN policy window! ). In my humble opinion, to allow this sort of " business '' practice ( in fact, a form of THEFT from a Totally XXXX individual attempting, in " good faith '' to repair my credit ) MUST be redressed. If the " highest '' echelon of an unreachable, unaccountable XXXX division can practice such behaviors, then, logically, it must follow that the " highest '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX must get involved to redress it. ( Again, PLEASE listen to the documented phone recordings, especially, those of XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX Management AND XX/XX/XXXX to the aforementioned Account Management SUPERVISOR ). Please note that it is not my intention to cause any undo harm or damage to the reputation of the lady supervisor who ASSURED me ( twice ) of the EXPEDITED refund. Rather, this goes, sadly, MUCH deeper within the questionable workings of the " highest '' division at XXXX 's!!! Thank you XXXX. I am also filing a complaint with the XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief