Consumer complaint received 2026-01-08 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Opening an account — Account opened without my consent or knowledge
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
ESCALATED COMPLAINT : UDAAP VIOLATIONS, BREACH OF CONTRACT, AND RATIFICATION OF TORTIOUS CONDUCT Company : Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . Reference Case Number : XXXX ( Previous CFPB Filing ) Branch Location : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TN XXXX Key Personnel : XXXX XXXX XXXX Manager ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Banker ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I am filing this new complaint because Wells Fargos response to Case # XXXX contains verifiable factual contradictions and admits to a corporate policy that endangers public safety. The bank has : Admitted to using faulty data to deny a contractual bonus. 

Explicitly ratified the physical assault of a customer by stating the XX/XX/XXXX incident " followed policies. '' Engaged in the spoliation of evidence by purging digital correspondence during an active dispute. 

II. FACTUAL REBUTTALS & NEW EVIDENCE 1. Breach of Contract & The " New Money '' Paradox In their response dated XX/XX/year>, Wells Fargo stated : You are correct, you did not bring in {$200000.00} in new money... Therefore, you did not meet the bonus requirement. 

The Contradiction : Previously, the bank denied my bonus by claiming I did have {$200000.00} in " new money '' but needed {$250000.00}. Now, they admit the $ XXXX figure was a fabrication/error. 

The Violation : Branch Manager XXXX XXXX and Banker XXXX XXXX provided a Customized Visit Summary on XX/XX/year>, confirming my eligibility based on existing funds. The bank is now attempting to use a " lack of physical signature '' to invalidate a document generated by their own internal systems and validated by their own agents. This is a clear case of Promissory Estoppel. 

2. Ratification of Physical Assault and Discrimination Wells Fargos response states they found no evidence to support your claim and that the team followed our policies ... in how the incident was handled.

The Violation : By claiming " policy was followed, '' Wells Fargo is legally admitting that forcibly handcuffing a peaceful customer for two hours, making gender-based slurs, and threatening physical XXXX ( " I will slap you '' ) is official Wells Fargo Policy. * Failure to Investigate : The bank refuses to release security footage and ignores the presence of Police XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Badge XXXX ). If the bank truly " followed policy, '' the footage would be exculpatory. Their refusal to provide it, combined with the purging of my secure inbox, constitutes Spoliation of Evidence. 

3. Systemic Mismanagement of Deceased Account Procedures The banks response failed to address the repeated, conflicting instructions regarding my deceased husbands account. I was forced to provide death certificates multiple times due to staff incompetence, causing extreme emotional distress during bereavement. This constitutes Abusive Practices under UDAAP.

III. DEMAND FOR RELIEF Contractual Fulfillment : Immediate credit of the {$2500.00} Premier Bonus as promised in the XX/XX/year>, Customized Visit Summary. 

Compensatory Damages : A formal settlement offer for the physical assault, false imprisonment, and civil rights violations committed by Security Guard XXXX XXXX and ratified by Wells Fargos management.

Preservation and Production of Evidence : * Immediate release of branch video footage from XX/XX/year> ( to prove the Manager 's presence and promise ).

Immediate release of branch video footage from XX/XX/year> ( to document the assault ). 

Audit of Digital Records : Restoration of all purged emails and " Secure Inbox '' messages from XX/XX/year> to present. 

Disciplinary Action : Proof of internal investigation into the conduct of Guard XXXX XXXX and the bankers who provided false information. 

IV. CONCLUSION Wells Fargo is hiding behind technicalities and " proprietary information '' to cover up physical XXXX and financial deception. I request that the regulator compel Wells Fargo to produce the evidence they claim " proves '' their policy was followed. If the bank can not produce video showing I was a threat, they must be held liable for the assault and the breach of their written promises.

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