Consumer complaint received 2017-08-24 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Fee problem
Company: BB&T CORPORATION
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX, XXXX To Whom It May Concern : On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX the Federal Reserve forwarded to CFPB a complaint I lodged with them against Branch Banking and Trust ( BB & T ). On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX I was notified by the NCCOB that the bank had responded to the complaint ( please see complaint # XXXX XXXX. 

At this time, I would like to open a new complaint based on new information obtained by myself as well as information and incidences which factually contradict BB & Ts claims in their response, and may well rise to the level of creating false documentation in order to bolster their claims, which do not factually exist. 

On page 1, please see attached excerpt ( BBT 1 Opt In ), XXXX XXXX, respondent for BB & T states I opted into overdraft protection, in part, when I opened the account, for those transactions involving ATM and everyday ( one time ) debit card transactions. I hold this is patently untrue. XXXX XXXX then continues on to state that since I did not opt out on the second tier of overdraft review, I was automatically opted in. Contrary to what the confusing verbiage opt in implies, per BB & Ts overdraft policy, if I am opted in Checks, ACH transactions and recurring debit transactions ( per XXXX XXXX own specification that recurring debit transactions are applicable to this tier ) will not be honored by BB & Ts overdraft policy and will be returned NSF. As you can see from the attached excerpts ( BBT 1 Opt In B, C & D ), this debit charge of {$29.00} is, in fact, a recurring debit transaction and therefore should have been returned NSF a single time OR DENIED. 

That is if you use the manually reproduced statement provided to you by XXXX XXXX, which is inaccurate at best, or utterly falsified documentation, at worst. I hate to make such an accusation as the latter, but the evidence bears me out. 

Please refer to excerpt BBT 2 Manually Created Account Statement, attached, which is a screenshot from page 2 of XXXX XXXX response. There is indisputable evidence that this is not, in fact, my statement, but a file created to appear like a statement. Please note the two items circled in blue, both of which state the transactions occurring are from XXXX. Now, please reference the screenshot I took on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX of my account ( BBT ). You will note it clearly shows the first line item highlighted is a charge from XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the second item is a charge from XXXX XXXX, also on XXXX XXXX XXXX, and not XXXX charges. This is further supported by the bank statement I have downloaded from BB & T.com, please see both the excerpt created for your convenience ( BBT Account Excerpt ) and my actual statement ending on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ( Account Statement BBT ). 

That the bank would create an account statement as documentation instead of providing the actual statement to the NCCOB and CFPB, thoroughly discredits the integrity and authenticity of the respondents provided proof. 

Again, referring to BBT 2 Manually Created Account Statement, attached, you will note the XXXX charge from XXXX by way of XXXX, which is XXXX XXXX and BB & Ts claimed basis for XXXX in charges, is clearly under Pending Activity. It has not cleared my account. This is confirmed by my own screenshot of my account on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ( BBT ). 

Further, we have yet another discrepancy between the manually created/altered account statement and the screenshot provided and that is the notation on the former which states : Beginning Available Balance ( Less Pending Activity ), whereas the account activity on the site shows no such reference. 

It should be noted in XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX were ordered to refund {$200.00} million dollars in overdraft fees for practices which equaled profiteering in the Courts opinion. Of those practices, mentioned specifically, was : XXXX XXXX online banking system, for example, would display pending purchases in chronological order, leading customers to believe that the processing would take place in that order. A practice which BB & T itself employs. To wit : The charge for {$29.00} occurred at XXXX XXXX. XXXX or XXXX EST. As of XXXX XXXX EST when I last checked my account ( for the dozenth time on the day ), I had an available balance of {$15.00} after all the charges highlighted in BBT XXXX Cleared were showing as having cleared my account. IF, in fact, these charges were pending and had not cleared my account, they should have been showing in the Pending section, which they were not. At approximately XXXX XXXX. we made a purchase for {$10.00}, which left my account with a balance of {$5.00}, as confirmed by the online banking system at XXXX XXXX EST. 

These facts are supported by XXXX and BB & Ts own system. Today, during a call with XXXX, I learned that when a credit or debit by XXXX is made to a BB & T account, BB & T sends an electronic transmission to XXXX providing the balance of the account prior to any transaction being made. A representative there was kind enough to help me obtain a hard copy of these electronic transactions, please see file XXXX Account Activity XXXX. 

There are important points to make regarding this documentation : A. Chronologically, that {$29.00} charge takes place at XXXX XXXX a full 6 hours and 57 minutes after the very last transaction to occur on my account. 

B. At XXXX XXXX, a credit is issued to the very same card the {$29.00} was debited from, in the amount of {$42.00}, a full 7 hours and 40 minutes prior to the charge BB & T uses as a basis for {$210.00} in overdraft fees. 

a. BB & T never posted this credit to my account pending or otherwise where it could be viewed by me, yet BB & Ts very own system confirms that {$42.00} has, in fact, been credited. 

C. At XXXX PDT or XXXX EST, prior to the {$42.00} being credited to my card, BB & Ts system informed XXXX that my current available balance was {$15.00}, which supports all that I have stated. 

D. At XXXX PTD or XXXX XXXX EST, prior to the {$29.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX being charged to my card, which is the basis for all Overdraft/NSF charges, BB & Ts system informed XXXX system that my current available balance was {$64.00}. 

a. It should be further noted : i. XXXX will turn to the alternative payment method if there available balance of an account is less than the charge being posted to the debit card ; ii. BB & Ts own system acknowledged receipt of the {$42.00} credit and in BB & Ts electronic transmission to XXXX nearly 8 hours later, that credit showed as part of my available balance contrary to what the online portal showed and which BB & T is now attempting to conceal. 

Now, returning to XXXX XXXX response to my complaint, please see excerpt BBT 3 Not on XXXX Per Online Banking. Per XXXX XXXX, the {$29.00} charge was posted to my account on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. As you can see from my screenshot of my account on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX EST ( BBT2 ), it had not in fact posted to my account yet. 
However, more importantly : Per the manually created statement provided by XXXX XXXX to the NCCOB and CFPB, which you have to agree is what he is stating as facts, that credit of {$42.00} which conveniently never showed as pending on my account, was credit to my account prior to the {$29.00} charge which was the basis for the {$210.00} in overdraft fees. 

This creates yet more of a conundrum from BB & T and XXXX XXXX, as follows : A. Per BB & Ts own transmission to XXXX, the {$42.00} credit was posted to my available balance with BB & T on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX EST ; B. Per BB & Ts own transmission to XXXX, the {$29.00} was posted to my available balance with BB & T on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX EST ; CXXXX Given the {$42.00} cleared my account prior to the {$29.00} which was the basis for those fees, we have to again revisit what my actual account balance was at the time I was assessed those fees, as proven by both XXXX and XXXX XXXX own proof : a. As of XXXX XXXX EST, give or take 10 minutes, the purchase made at XXXX XXXX reduced my available balance to {$5.00} ; b. The PENDING credit of {$42.00}, which superseded the {$29.00} in posting, gave me an available balance of {$48.00} ; c. After the {$29.00} debit posting, I still had a positive balance of {$18.00} ; therefore i. The {$210.00} in overdraft fees are not legitimate as my account was never overdrawn. 

Again, the credit posted prior to the debit, and I was NEVER overdrawn not even in the world in which BB & T lives in which PENDING transactions something that MIGHT happen in the future are used against you. 

It really is rather like being arrested for XXXX today because some entity thinks you might XXXX someone two days from now. Actually, come to think of it, it is like being arrested for XXXX today because some entity thinks you might be framed for XXXX two days for now. 

Returning to XXXX XXXX response, we find yet more inconsistencies and inaccuracies in what he conveys, undermining, once again, the Bank and his credulity, please see excerpt attached ( BBT 4 Unknown Charge ). Per the fabricated statement on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, my account incurred a debit in the amount of {$3.00} and is noted as a XXXX Debit Card Purchase. There are a couple of important points to make on this : A. My account is XXXX in the negative at this point. Is anyone to actually believe the bank is going to approve a credit card transaction at this point? 

B. This charge is actually a credit from XXXX through XXXX in the amount of {$3.00}, not {$3.00}, standing as yet more evidence of this contrived documentation. Please see excerpt BBT 4 Unknown Charge Response. 

In XXXX XXXX response for BB & T we find yet more inaccuracies in the information he provides to the NCCOB and CFPB. Per the manufactured statement, my account has been charged a {$36.00} negative account fee ( BBT 5 Overdraft or Negative Balance ) whereas the web portal states this is yet another overdraft fee ( BBT 5 Overdraft or Negative Balance Response ). Once again, the contrived statement does not agree with the official information found on BB & Ts own website. 

In XXXX XXXX response for BB & T re : XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, yet more misinformation, please see the attached BBT 6 Returned XXXX Charge. Her XXXX XXXX states quite clearly that the {$29.00} charge from XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is the basis for all subsequent OD and NSF fees, has tried to represent, has been returned and assessed an NSF fee. Once more, this information is wholly inaccurate. In fact, see BBT 6 Returned XXXX Charge Response, my payment to XXXX XXXX for my electric bill represented, was returned and assessed an NSF fee. 

Now, as if the manufactured/contrived/innaccurate statements and continually inaccurate XXXX XXXX has submitted on behalf of BB & T is not bad enough, we move into outright falsehoods. Please see excerpt BBT 7 Correct Order in which XXXX XXXX emphatically states : The transactions in question included in the chart above posted in the correct order as disclosed. No transactions were reordered or held to cause an overdraft to occur. We now this is an outright falsehood because : A. BB & Ts own electronic transmittals to XXXX clearly show that as of XXXX XXXX EST on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, all transactions had been posted to my available balance, leaving me, at that time, a balance of {$15.00} ; a. These transactions were posted in chronological order, until B. The very last transaction to take place on my account on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX was a charge of {$29.00} for XXXX at XXXX XXXX EST. 

a. IF, in fact, these transaction were posted in correct order as disclosed i. That {$29.00} charge would have posted last to my account, as BB & Ts own electronic transmittals to XXXX clearly show it was ; 1. That  {$29.00} charge had not cleared my account and was, in fact, pending. 

a. Even ignoring that it was, in fact, pending, BB & Ts own electronic transmittals to XXXX show there were more than enough funds in the available balance to cover the charge, and no legitimate fees could be assessed. 

C. The {$42.00} credit, which superseded the {$29.00} debit by 7 hours and 40 minutes, as confirmed by BB & Ts own electronic transmittal to XXXX was not posted until BB & T could fraudulently charge my account {$210.00} in overdraft fees and a. Even then, the credits posting, again, superseded the {$29.00} debit which means I was never in the negative. 

D. None of the information provided within XXXX XXXX response can be given any credence and it is riddled with inaccuracies and misinformation. 

XXXX XXXX then goes on to state : BB & T can only reflect pending transaction that we are aware of and can not reflect transaction tendered that have not been presented to BB & T, see excerpt BBT 8 Unaware of. Yet again, another falsehood is presented. BB & T could, in fact, see the credit I have spoken of repeatedly, as BB & T electronically transmitted the available balance of the account : A. After XXXX submitted it, and was reflected in the new available balance ; and, B. The credit was reflected in the available balance electronically transmitted to XXXX, otherwise XXXX would have had to use an alternate form of tender for that charge, or reject it outright. 

On page 6 of XXXX XXXX response, he further alleges : Subsequently, the available balance is reduced and when the previously authorized transactions present, there may not be sufficient funds to pay the items and overdraft fees will be assessed for those transactions. Again, he invalidates his own arguments : A. The charge which is the source of the overdraft occurred at XXXX XXXX XXXX a. When the accounts available balance would have been {$5.00} IF i. The bank, as it has falsely claimed, was unaware of the {$42.00} credit, there were insufficient funds to cover this recurring debit which 1. Per BB & Ts own policies will not be covered by its overdraft review policies since I am opted in by default and have never opted out ; 2. Therefore, the charge should have been refused. 

B. Then we must take a close look at this pertinent statement : previously authorized transactions. If these authorization are already authorized then a. The available balance of the account, by his own argument, is reduced by that amount ; meaning, b. That last charge of {$29.00}, would have presented when there were insufficient funds and therefore, given the banks own policy, and given they had already authorized all other charges, should not have been authorized. 

Finally, if the following does not speak to BB & Ts duplicity, I dont know what does. As found in the closing by XXXX XXXX : Thank you again for the opportunity to address XXXX XXXX concerns. We value XXXX XXXX as a client and appreciate her feedback. To wit. 

A. Per XXXX XXXX I am a valued client, so much so that a. One hour prior to the NCCOB informing me of the Banks reply I received a certified letter informing me ( please see attached letter ) i. My account was being closed without my authorization. 

Yes, that is how you treat a valued client. 

In the course of one week, BB & Ts duplicitous, dishonest and profiteering tactics have resulted in : A. The theft from me of : a. The {$5.00} I had in my account ; b. The {$42.00} credited to my account ; c. The {$3.00} credited to my account ; i. For a total of {$51.00} B. Have then victimized me further by making me, wrongly, financially responsible for : a. {$250.00} in overdraft fees ; b. {$72.00} in NSF fees ; c. {$36.00} ( as of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ) in Negative Balance fees ; i. For a total of {$360.00} C. Have caused me undue humiliation in having to explain to XXXX XXXX why my check would be returned and given a. I am an intensely private person, have caused me significant mental anguish D. Has forced me to contact governmental agencies, in which I had to share my personal, financial information, and given a. I am an intensely private person, have caused me significant mental anguish E. Placed me in the untenable position of my power being turned off, as the electric bill prescheduled to draft from my account, for which the funds would have been deposited if not for BB & Ts malicious profiteering, placing at risk my children and exposing me to even further into financial debt as all the food stored in the refrigerator and freezer would have been ruined, all causing a. Yet more mental anguish F. Consumed my grocery money for the week, leaving my home without the basic staples causing me and my family a. Consequences to our nutritional health ; and, b. Yet more mental anguish G. Forced me, in the end, to borrow money from my child in order to purchase those staples causing me a. Yet more humiliation and mental anguish HXXXX Have subjected me to being belittled and insulted by a bank manager who suggested I should call another individual as she could clearly not simplify things enough for my understanding, causing me a. Yet more humiliation and mental anguish I. Have left me scrambling to find someone to talk to when the branch manager promised to return my call within the hour only to never be heard from again, then when I finally reached out to her, insulted and humiliated me, speaking to me as though I were a simpleton, not a woman with a XXXX IQ and 4 college degrees, causing me yet a. More humiliation and mental anguish J. Have left me without a bank account, meaning I have no way of paying many of my bills, which subsequently is the source of a. Yet more humiliation and mental anguish. 
K. Have forced me to spend dozens of hours filing complaints and making phone calls to try to get this resolved in the right and proper manner, forcing me to a. Neglect other matters of importance in my life ; and, b. Has placed an untold amount of stress on my shoulders, leaving me shaking uncontrollably several times a day ; LXXXX Then to add insult to injury heaped upon humiliation heaped upon mental anguish heaped upon compromises to my physical and mental health, I am left shell-shocked to see the people who have done this to me, the very people that are supposed to protect my financial interests, have charged me for calling customer service TWICE to try and get this properly resolved. 

Then to add insult, to the very considerable injuries to date, I receive a response to my complaint in which evidence has been fabricated and statements made are either wholly inaccurate or patently untrue. 

As I have stated in my previous complaints, I will pursue this until my treatment by this bank has been remedied. Yet, it is all the more upsetting for me to have found in speaking to friends and family members, that they, too, have been victimized continually by this bank in the form of : A. Overdraft fees assessed against items that have cleared their account for items that have not ; B. Overdraft fees for bank charges ; C. Fees for using alternate ATMs because BB & Ts promise of 24 hour banking is prevented by ATM machines that continually state they are out of service, forcing people to incur dual fees by using the competitions ATM ; DXXXX Have been caught short in their account because BB & Ts promise of 24 hour banking is prevented by ATM machines that continually state they are not accepting deposits at this time. 

If this bank has now, essentially, stolen {$410.00} from me, when I was never in the negative, through their duplicitous and profiteering tactics, how many MILLIONS have been stolen from citizens of North Carolina and any other state where this bank offers its financial services? 

I will pursue this until I get back every single penny that has been wrongfully taken from me. But I will also pursue making it right for every single other person who has been victimized by this bank and its employees as well. 

Please, take action. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, all have been held accountable for abusing their clients in order to line their pockets. BB & T must be stopped as well. 

XXXX 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