Consumer complaint received 2020-08-20 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
1. USAA has failed to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Act by reporting to the XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  a disputed debt.

2. Our actions were in compliance with the statute, and USAAs actions were not ( such actions are given in detail below ).

3. W was a victim of a mobile banking scam that resulted in a loss of {$2000.00} via the mobile application XXXX, which he reported timely ( with in 24 hours ) to USAA.

4. USAA determined the XXXX was liable for the fraud since his credentials had been breached by his failure to protect them according to the deposit agreement. 
5. Currently, we are not contesting the fraudfinding but ( 1 ) USAAs failure to timely respond to ourrequest for information regarding thefraud teams findings ; ( 2 ) USAAs failure to recognize our rights to dispute the debt based on their failure to justify their fraud findings ; ( 3 ) and publishing/slander while a debt remained disputed. 
6. USAAs automatic reporting to the XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to acknowledge our written notice of dispute of debt made within 30 days of USAAs notification debt/overdrawn and fraud findings. Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection statute our written notice should have stopped USAAs automatic and internal policy to publish any disputed debt. USAA violated that statute by publishing the disputed claim to a third party, and we are asking USAA to correct this slander. 
7. On XX/XX/XXXX, we received written notice from USAA ( Dated XX/XX/XXXX ) that it had determined our fraud claim in its favor and that the account was overdrawn by {$1900.00}. 
8. On that same morning ( XX/XX/XXXX ), we immediately contacted USAA by phone requesting the information or documents used in making determination which the notice said we were entitled to request. 
9. We were told by USAA we would receive these within 5-7 business days. ( To date we have yet to receive any documents and we only received pertinent information on or about XX/XX/XXXXsee telephone call with XXXX detailed herein ). 
10. During the above mentioned phone calls ( we were disconnect at least twice by USAA employees ), we gave notice that we disagreed with the fraud determination that the employees represented was based upon the fact simply there was deposit of a check made out to XXXX XXXX and a mobile transaction. There was no explanation or information given to us, only conclusory statements of facts of which we were already aware. 
11. We expressed the need to have IP address and location of said mobile transactions, and, were eventually transferred to XXXX in the CEOs office and told that someone would contact us within 3-5 days.

12. On that same afternoon ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX gave written notice that he was contesting the fraud determination by letter delivered to USAA by uploaded onto the web-portal, faxed and US mail. 
13. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  ( XXXX  's parent ) researched the many ways in which fraud can and is committed upon mobile banking customers, finding over 11 different scams and devices used to steal passwords, pins and gain access to accounts. She also found that the standard in the industry to protect consumers requires monitoring of IP addresses, monitoring XXXX and location of transactions, determining locations inconsistent with the user, monitoring unusual patterns of deposit, monitoring endorsements and refusing printed signatures. 
14. USAA had given no indication that it had even performed these any of analytics.

15. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX was contacted by XXXX ( she understood him to be from the fraud team, but later learned he was part of the CEOs office ) and told he could not speak with her since she was not on the account. During this call XXXX explained to XXXX the various things that she would expect him to provide to prove their conclusion ( such as IP address, XXXX and location and the analytics mentioned above ). XXXX   instructed that XXXX needed to call his extension and give permission for him to respond to XXXX. 
16. XXXX called immediately, authorizing XXXX to talk with XXXX XXXX did not call XXXX back that day. XXXX never received a message from or spoke with XXXX UNTIL XX/XX/XXXX ( AFTER we had reporting to the matter to CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX ). In fact, XXXX had no messages at all from XXXX or ANYONE at USAA until XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX submitted a POA for the account and let USAA know she would be acting on XXXX   behalf in his dispute of the fraud ruling and the resulting overdraft debt. The POA was also delivered to USAA by upload, fax and US mail. 
18. On XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  called XXXX extension, receiving voicemail each time. She left messages requesting a call back and explaining that we still had no information or documentation from USAA justifying their conclusions as to fraud, and thus causing the disputed debt. She requested the same. 
19. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX 's dad ) called XXXX extension, received voicemail and left a message requesting a call back and explanation, information or documentation justifying the fraud determination. 
20. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ( USAA Employee # XXXX ) called Bs cell phone to collect on a debt in which time B informed her that the debt was in dispute, and he wanted to talk to someone about the fraud determination. She was unable to address fraud and continued only to pursue the debt collection NEVER DID ANYONE AT USAA state we had a right to dispute the debt. B terminated the call. 
21. On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX called and ( despite the fact that every previous phone call she had been told consumers can not be connected with the fraud department ), XXXX with XXXX in the fraud department. XXXX gave the same conclusory information, refused to answer questions regarding the IP address and location of the devices that made the transactions in question. XXXX was transferred to a supervisor who claimed she did not have the IP. She also gave conclusory and outright wrong information. As a result of the lack of information provided by the fraud department, XXXX requested and was transferred to XXXX at the CEOs Member Relations Office who promised to investigate the issue and respond. XXXX never heard rom XXXX ever again, despite the fact XXXX called XXXX again that afternoon, leaving a request for a call back with her colleague, and again later in the month. 
22. On XX/XX/XXXX, we received a letter from USAA addressed to XXXX noticing an overdrawn balance and including a phone number to call for any error. XXXX  called the number and the message said the office was closed at XXXX CT. XXXX  called another USAA number and spoke with XXXX ( XXXX ) explaining that the fraud determination was in dispute and that she was giving notice pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act, that the debt was a disputed debt. XXXX was told, in complete contravention of the law, by XXXX, that because USAAs fraud department had already made the decision as to fraud, the debt was collectable and could not be disputed. 
23. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX delivered to USAA by web-portal upload, fax and US mail another written notice of disputed claim as to the debt/overdraft. 
24. On XX/XX/XXXX, having received no information or documentation despite numerous requests for the same by phone, chat, upload, fax and mail, we filed a complaint with the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding USAAs apparent failure to investigate our fraud claim according to standard practices in the industry and to respond to requests for information regarding the same. 
25. On XX/XX/XXXX ( Friday at XXXX EST ), we received an email from XXXX XXXX USAA Advocacy Advisor that she and her team would investigate the issues raised, leaving her phone number and stating feel free to reach me. XXXX made no reference to the CFPB claim, but given the previous inaction to our repeated requests for information and documentation, we believed the response was due to the CFPB intervention. 
26. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, ( the Monday immediate to XXXX email ) XXXX called XXXX, and received only her voice mail. 
27. At or about XXXX CT on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX received a voice message from XXXX surprisingly stating that once again he was reaching out about the fraud case, as XXXX had not heard from XXXX prior to this time. Note he gave his extension and availability from XXXX CT ( his message was left 15 min after his availability to receive a return call ). To XXXX surprise he also said, I know weve been back and forth and missed each others calls. Again, this is the first message of any kind received from XXXX since the XX/XX/XXXX telephone call and telephone records support that there has been no conversation received from USAA prior to that time other than those reflected in the narrative above. 
28. The next day on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX CT XXXX left a message for XXXX detailing her times available to receive calls that day. J did not receive a call back from XXXX on that day. 
29. On or about XXXX EST on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX received a call from XXXX XXXX She stated that she could not address the fraud claim, and that her colleague would have to call regarding the fraud claim. She addressed only our concerns of fees and slander of credit as mentioned in the CFPB complaint. She represented that there had been no credit reporting and that we did not need to worry about XXXX credit. She said that XXXX was only placed on some kind of warning list, which XXXX assumed from the conversation was an internal list. Frustrated by the continued lack of answers regarding the fraud disputeXXXX XXXX ended the call. 
30. On XX/XX/XXXX, considering the aforementioned of the lack of forthrightness demonstrated by the USAA employees, XXXX  wanted clarification of the warning list mentioned in the prior conversation and called XXXX asking for a written explanation detailing the list and what impact it would have on XXXX future. None was ever received and in fact all written communication from USAA has never stated that they had reported to the XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
31. On XX/XX/XXXX, we received USAAs letter ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) informing XXXX it had closed his account due to overdraft. The letter stated for informational purposes. There was no mention of the XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
32. On XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX CT, XXXX called XXXX and left a message. Since XXXX had failed to call her back, she requesting all information be emailed to her regarding the fraud claim. ( She had no intention of waiting another 41 days before he actually spoke with her as had occurred between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ). 
33. On the late afternoon on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX called to explain USAAs fraud determination. He provided that the transactions in question were in fact from unknown IP address and locations other than XXXX, but because the deposit used a two factor authentication, XXXX must have acted in a way that breached his credentials making the fraud his responsibility. While we do not agree with this, we do not have the time and energy to hire a security expert to prove that two factor authentications can also be hacked. Thus, during the conversation with XXXX, XXXX accepted the fraud determination based on the information provided at that time. Information that was provided for the first time since requested on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX agreed to pay the debt. XXXX said he could not handle that but would have his colleague, XXXX, to call XXXX about payment of the debt XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  ESTXXXX XXXX received a call from XXXX who explained the XXXX XXXX   XXXX which is in fact a publication of the debt to a third party. XXXX responded with the facts of this matter as detailed above. She asserted that the Fair Debt Collection Acts protections were invoked as early as XX/XX/XXXX and again on XX/XX/XXXX. The dispute concerning the debt was ongoing until the aforementioned call from XXXX which provided the information requested. This information was provided only hours prior. Thus, it was USAAs action ( or rather inactions ) that prolonged the dispute. USAA employees led the consumer to believe there was NO recourse available until well after the 45 days had passed, yet there is an internal consumer dispute request form ( apparently the customer must know to ask for it ) .Once USAA responded to our reasonable requests for information standard in the industry for fraud determination, the dispute was resolved, and we agreed to pay the debt. Thus, to publish the debt to a third party was not only unconscionable given USAAs obfuscation and delay, but was also in direct contravention of Federal Law. 
35. XXXX was told again about USAAs policies, and despite the Fair Debt Collection Act, XXXX explained that the action was automatic after 45 days and referenced the deposit agreement. XXXX stated they could do nothing to reverse the reporting. 
36. XXXX showed no willingness to understand that USAAs policies and deposit agreements are not allowed to contravene Federal Lawand essentially said there would be no recourse for the consumer and no rectification by USAA of its violation of the law. 
37. XXXX transferred XXXX to the department that would take payment and clear the debt, and {$1900.00} was paid to USAA to cover the overdraft and fees. 
38. After paying the amount stated above, XXXX asked to speak with someone who could help clear up the XXXX XXXX XXXX and was transferred to several departments. Each department represented to XXXX   that another department was the responsible department until XXXX ended up at the very first department. XXXX was not surprise to receive the complete run around, again. Thus, XXXX asked to speak to someone in the legal department. The call was disconnected, and surprisingly, the USAA employee called XXXX back at XXXX EST, but insisted that there was no way for even USAA employees to reach the legal department. She advised that XXXX would need to bring legal action, have an attorney or subpoena to talk to someone with knowledge about the Fair Debt Collection Act. 
39. On XX/XX/XXXX, we received USAAs letter dated XX/XX/XXXX warning that because the checking account was closed in an overdrawn position, We [ USAA ] may provide information about your account to a consumer reporting agency. This letter was an outright deception as per XXXX with the CEOs office, USAA had already made such a report. 
40. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  EST, XXXX called concerning this notice and again was told there was nothing to be done. XXXX asked for a call back from a supervisor. 
41. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX EST., XXXX received a call from XXXX XXXX a supervisor with USAA XXXX XXXX was the first employee to actually act as if she wanted to help. XXXX actually researched the situation and provided the Fraud/Deposits Consumer Dispute Request Form. [ Why was this not provided on XX/XX/XXXX or at any time during the multiple contacts with USAA regarding this dispute as detailed above? -- see again paragraph 34 ] 42. The fact recounted herein are on record with USAA, as they recorded every conversation. They can further be substantiated by our documents which were previously provided as stated herein. 
43. The actions of USAA have been in contravention of the Fair Debt Collection Act ; and slandered XXXX.USAA is currently threatening slander of Credit ( see USAA letter of XX/XX/XXXX received on XXXX XXXX ) in contravention of the statute. 
44. We expect USAA to comply with Federal Law and reverse any reporting to the XXXX XXXX XXXX or any other third party immediately. To cease and desist any further threatening letters and action

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation