Consumer complaint received 2015-05-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — 
Issue: Credit determination — 
Company: DISCOVER BANK
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
I applied online and received instant approval for a Discover It credit card, with a credit line of {$1000.00}. The card is specifically designed for students, or as promulgated by Discover. I immediately began using my card upon receipt, making large purchases and most notably rendering large payments subsequently. The intent was show not activity and establish credit for a revolving account, rather to also show that I have income and not just max-ing the credit line and submitting minimum payments for the next six months. I am self-employed and receive financial aid from my PhD degree pursuits. Often times during my studies, there have been delays in direct deposits from the financial aid disbursements. However, albeit delayed, it 's essentially guaranteed funds. On XXXX XXXX, 2015, I made an online payment authorizing an ACH transfer from my checking account ( which is customary practice for most and had been for me ). There was an error with the bank and funds were not available. I immediately contacted Discover and advised them of the situation. Instead of assisting me with rescheduling the payment, they told me that it would continue to " hit '' my account XXXX more times. As can easily be deduced, this resulted in monetary losses for me - NSF fees charged by my bank because the account had not yet been reconciled. It 's straightforward common sense that there should be a " fail safe '' for all banks and creditors per ACH processing and the automatic recurring attempt to debit from one 's account should be ILLEGAL ... especially if the consumer immediately notifies the creditor of such uncontrollable circumstances. So not only did I pay {$100.00} to my bank, but I also immediately submitted payment of {$450.00} again to Discover as previously advised to reconcile the initial returned payment. Notably, my Discover statement instead reads that " I '' resubmitted my payment of {$450.00} XXXX times in addition to the initial payment making it appear as if I 'm the evil consumer with no intention to make good on my payments. In XXXX, a similar occurrence happened - I submitted an online payment for {$770.00} - same method, again under now the confirmation of a direct deposit notice. There was another " XXXX '' with the bank and availability of funds. I immediately contacted Discover. I did not immediately use the funds that appeared available after my payment posted. It was over a week later before even the bank or I knew what had occurred. Discover did it again. Instead of processing some form of " fail safe '' to mitigate money and other damages for all involved parties, they keep reprocessing the payment - because they say they " have permission '' from the laws of the land to reprocess an ACH debit up to XXXX times at their own discretion. This is " the part '' that never ceases to amaze me with would-be intelligent people and viable companies - since when did " discretion '' not include ethics and common sense. If the consumer ( ME ) has informed you immediately of a problem, why would anyone or any company of sound mind keep reprocessing the payment. It appears, be legal premise, that intent is established, and the motive is evidenced thereby as well - to retaliate by inflicting harm to the consumer. It would make more sense to immediately initiate the " fail safe '' to protect all parties, allow the consumer to reprocess the payment when all is clear ( and of course in a reasonable time frame ), and monitor the account for reconciliation. But I reckon that 'd be too much like ethical. And I learned a long time ago in XXXX that ethics is NOT central to the body of law, and corporate bigwigs love to use legal loopholes as scapegoats for any responsibility for their role in the " snafu. '' I 've made XXXX large payments of {$200.00}, {$450.00}, {$450.00}, and successfully so in less than a 60 days. Ultimately, Discover closed my account due to unsatisfactory payment history.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation