Consumer complaint received 2025-11-24 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
This is a new CFPB complaint related to unresolved issues in my previous case with Bank of America. Their prior response did not address the core regulatory concerns surrounding their handling of a check deposit and the application of multiple holds. I am requesting a new review because the bank ignored the substance of my complaint. 

Summary of the Issue and Regulatory Concerns On XX/XX/XXXX, I deposited a check at a Bank of America ATM. The bank placed an initial funds availability hold, which is standard. However, overnight, Bank of America applied a second, different hold on the same deposit without proper disclosure or explanation. As a result, my available balance suddenly changed and my account appeared negative for the entire weekend, before the check was returned on XX/XX/XXXX. 

This is not a complaint about the returned item itself. This complaint concerns Bank of Americas internal handling of the deposit, particularly the application of sequential holds, lack of transparency, inconsistent application of their funds-availability policies, and failure to prevent or disclose the resulting financial harm. 

Potential Violations and Regulatory Concerns XXXX. Regulation CC ( 12 CFR 229 ) Funds Availability & Hold Disclosure Regulation CC requires that financial institutions clearly disclose hold periods and any changes to those holds. The replacement of XXXX hold with a second, different hold without clear notice or explanation raises questions about compliance with : 12 CFR 229.16, which requires clear, specific disclosure of hold policies ; 12 CFR 229.13, which governs exceptions and extension of holds ; 12 CFR 229.19 ( e ), which requires timely notice to the consumer regarding changes to funds availability. 


Bank of America has not explained why XXXX holds were applied, why the second hold differed from the first, or why I received incomplete and inconsistent information about funds availability. 

XXXX. Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices ( UDAP ) 12 U.S.C. 5531 An act or practice may be unfair if it causes substantial harm to the consumer that they can not reasonably avoid.

An act or practice may be deceptive if it misleads a consumer acting reasonably. 

In this case : The unexpected replacement hold caused my account to appear negative for several days prior to the return. 

This created financial harm I could not anticipate or prevent. 

The bank has failed to provide a clear, accurate explanation for its actions. 

Their response to my prior complaint omitted the actual issue entirely. 


These actions may constitute an unfair and/or deceptive practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. 

XXXX. Failure to Provide Accurate Information Regarding Funds Availability Bank of America implied that the negative balance resulted from the returned check, when the negative balance occurred days earlier, solely due to the undisclosed application of a second hold. This requires further review because a bank must provide clear and accurate information regarding when funds will be available. 

XXXX. Inconsistent Application of Bank of Americas Own Published Policy The banks publicly available funds availability disclosures do not reference the practice of placing a second, replacing hold overnight without specific notification to the consumer. Bank of Americas own policy does not support the sequence of events that occurred.

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