Consumer complaint received 2019-03-14 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This is in response to Wells Fargos letter that was sent to my lawyer dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Denial Letter ). I strongly disagree Wells Fargos assessment regarding the issues I experienced when I attempted to withdraw {$25000.00} from the available funds in my bank account on XX/XX/XXXX. In response to my issues, Wells Fargo used the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR ) section 229.13 as the basis of their denial concerning my situation. This section of the CFR regarding the delays that may apply to  deposited checks reads as follows : In some cases, we will not make all of the funds that you deposit by check available to you on the first business day after the day of your deposit. Depending on the type of check that you deposit, funds may not be available until the fifth business day after the day of your deposit. The first {$100.00} of your deposits, however, may be available on the first business day. 
If we are not going to make all of the funds from your deposit available on the first business day, we will notify you at the time you make your deposit. We will also tell you when the funds will be available. If your deposit is not made directly to one of our  employees, or if we decide to take this action after you have left the premises, we will mail you the notice by the day after we receive your deposit. 
If you will need the funds from a deposit right away, you should ask us when the funds will be available. 
In addition, funds you deposit by check may be delayed for a longer period under the following circumstances : We believe a check you deposit will not be paid. 
You deposit checks totaling more than {$5000.00} on any one day. 
You redeposit a check that has been returned unpaid. 
You have overdrawn your account repeatedly in the last six months. 
There is an emergency, such as failure of computer or communications equipment. 
We will notify you if we delay your ability to withdraw funds for any of these reasons, and we will tell you when the funds will be available. They will generally be available no later than the ( number ) business day after the day of your deposit. 
The usage of this statue does not apply regarding my issue for two reasons. The first reason is that the cashiers check deposited into my account was never put on hold, or delayed by the bank for any reason. Also, there was never a notification prior to the funds becoming available that there was a hold, nor was there a time frame given regarding the time limit of the hold because there wasnt one. On XX/XX/XXXX, I made contact with Wells Fargo twice ( once in person at my home branch and once by phone when I contacted customer service ) concerning this matter and each time I specifically asked if a hold was placed on the cashiers check that had been deposited into my account on that day. I was told in both cases that no holds had been applied to the cashiers check and that my funds would be available the next business day after XXXX. And the funds were in applied to my account and were available for my use the next day. 


The second reason that Section 229.13 doesnt apply is because Section 229.10 ( c ) ( v ) of the CFR clearly states that cashiers checks have next-day availability because cashiers checks are issued by a bank, authorized by an officer of the bank and guaranteed by the bank that wrote the cashiers check. Also, Section 3-104 ( f ) of the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) states that a cashiers check is payable on demand meaning that cashiers checks allow the payee to demand and receive the total amount of the money listed on the check. Wells Fargos positon on this matter contradicts not only the laws and policies concerning this issue, but how the course of events happened concerning this issue as well. Section 229.13 of the CFR is based on checks other than cashiers checks as well as funds that have not yet been applied to a customers account and not the funds that have already been applied to a customers available balance, which per Wells Fargos own customer information booklet, an available balance is the amount of money a customers are able to withdrawal. In the Wells Fargo handbook given to new customers titled Consumer Account Fee and Information Schedule : What you need to know about your account ( Effective XX/XX/XXXX ) it states Your accounts available balance is our most current record of the amount of money available for your use of withdrawal. Despite this fact, Wells Fargo denied me access to the funds that were available in my account on XX/XX/XXXX. The fact is there was never a hold or a delay of any kind placed on the cashiers check deposited into my account and there was never a notification given that a hold or delay had been placed on the cashiers check and unless there was an issue of fraud, no holds should be placed on cashiers checks at all. 

In paragraph three of Wells Fargos Denial Letter it states that there was a concern that the funds deposited in Georgia were no good. When was this assumed and by whom? This assumption after the fact contradicts both the CFR and the UCC which explains the laws that govern depository institutions. As a depository institution Wells Fargo had already processed, cleared and credited the funds in question to my account, thus making those funds available to me. Furthermore, cashiers checks are backed by the bank that issued the check, so if Wells Fargo believed that the funds deposited in Georgia were no good, then why didnt anyone at Wells Fargo contact the issuing bank and stop the funds from becoming available? Wells Fargos position is simply wrong because their own customer service representatives had already confirmed that there were no holds on the cashiers check that was deposited into my account because they had no reason or right to hold or delay the funds. Also, on XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo stamped CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF WITHIN NAMED PAYEE LACK OF ENDORSEMENT GUARANTEED WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, which means that Wells Fargo understood that the funds were from another depository institution and were indeed good and that is why Wells Fargo credited my account and made the funds available to me next business day. The only person who seemed to have a concern with this transaction was Mrs. XXXX ( teller manager at Wells Fargo ) who denied me access to my funds by stating that the funds in my available balance had not been verified, not that the funds had a hold for any particular reason, but simply that my funds had not been verified. Also, she, nor any Well Fargo employee notified me of any delay or my inability to withdraw funds for any of the reasons listed in the CFR if it had applied, but it did not. Mrs. XXXX actions contradicted the laws that governs our banking system and several of the Wells Fargo employees who apologized to me for her error. To further illustrate Wells Fargos contradictions, the next business day after Mrs. XXXX denied me access to my available funds the manager from the Wells Fargo XXXX branch contacted me and apologized for the error Mrs. XXXX had made. I was also contacted by her regional manager who reiterated this apology and informed me that Mrs. XXXX would be given more training because of this incident. Eventually, I spoke with Mrs. XXXX branch manager, her regional manager and a Wells Fargo regional president who all apologized for her error. 

Continued in paragraph three in the Wells Fargo Denial Letter,  Wells Fargo claims that the company disagrees that conflicting explanations were given regarding the denial of my funds. What Wells Fargo failed to acknowledge that the Executive Offices, which initially dealt with my complaints, concluded that the issue regarding Mrs. XXXX denying me my funds was merely a misunderstanding with no explanation of what the misunderstanding was. When I asked what the misunderstanding was, I was told I dont know what that is, by an Executive Offices representative. At the XXXX XXXX branch, the teller manager and the assistant manager concluded that the funds had not been verified despite the fact that the bank had already verified the funds and applied them to my account. The manager at the XXXX branch initial told me that the funds were good, but after contacting the XXXX XXXX branch suddenly suggested possible fraud, yet did not contact the bank that issued the cashiers check. Finally, at the XXXX branch, a banker also initially confirmed that the funds where good, but after going to the back to check something, later came back and stated that the logo of the bank that issued the cashiers check was unfamiliar ( not fraudulent, merely unfamiliar ) and that she couldnt allow me to purchase a cashiers check. There are no consistent explanations, however there are four different explanations and Wells Fargo is attempting to spin multiple stories into one narrative. What is so troublesome about this specific issue is that the manager of Wells Fargos XXXX branch and a representative at the XXXX branch both initially told me that my funds were indeed available. It wasnt until my home branch ( XXXX XXXX ) was  contacted that withdrawing the funds became an issue, despite what each customer service representative confirmed and what my available balance reflected. These are not consistent responses from Wells Fargo, not to mention the several apologies I was given for Mrs. XXXX error. 

In paragraph four of Wells Fargos XXXX Letter, Wells Fargo suggested that it is hard to understand why I was offended when Mrs. XXXX contacted me when I initially asked for an apology from her. I was extremely offended due to the fact that Mrs. XXXX contacted me on XX/XX/XXXX, two weeks after the initial incident. This was confusing because I informed Wells Fargo that I wanted to know why I was denied access to my funds and that I wanted an apology from Mrs. XXXX for being rude and disrespectful to me. Despite this, I was instructed to go back to with her by a Wells Fargo Manager to purchase a cashiers check. During our second encounter I asked Mrs. XXXX why was I unable to withdraw the funds from my account during our first interaction and she stated I already told you in a very disrespectful manner. She went on to tell me that I was wrong and I just didnt want to accept what she was telling me. Not only was her response rude but it contradicted what her managers had expressed to me that very morning when they acknowledged that she had made and error. After the second encounter with Mrs. XXXX, I was told by her branch manager and her regional manager that she felt uncomfortable apologizing to me and that she stood firm in her position regarding this incident. Mrs. XXXX also lied to me when I asked for information regarding her immediate supervisor outside of her branch on XX/XX/XXXX, by telling me I dont know who that is. Mrs. XXXX acted outside of the law and policy regarding my situation and to make matters worse, Mrs. XXXX became disrespectful to me during our second interaction when I merely asked her why was I denied access to my available funds. After being told by two managers that she felt uncomfortable apologizing to me and then two weeks later Mrs. XXXX suddenly felt compelled to reach out to me, I believe that to be extremely unlikely. So yes, I was personally offended when Mrs. XXXX called me because at that point I had already retained council and did not want an apology from her. Despite acknowledging that Mrs. XXXX was in error and had acted outside of the law and policy, Wells Fargo still directed me to interact with Mrs. XXXX on the morning of XX/XX/XXXX. I was instructed to ask for XXXX ( Mrs. XXXX ) by the manager of Wells Fargos XXXX branch, who apologized for the initial incident on XX/XX/XXXX. He acknowledged that the incident was an error, however he sent me back to the same person who made the initial error and Wells Fargo knew this and yet sent me back to the very person who initiated all of this. With that being said, what was the purpose of Mrs. XXXX contacting me, if she did nothing wrong? Its hard to believe that two weeks after the fact she looked up my personal information ( which she should not have had outside of bank business ) to contact me. For what? To apologize? Again, for what? For denying me access to my funds? By the time Mrs. XXXX decided to call me, or was forced to, I did not want an apology from her and I was offended that she called me at that point. 

In paragraph five of Wells Fargos Denial Letter it states, Finally, we are not aware of any damages Mr. XXXX suffered from the fact that he was not able to purchase the cashiers check on XX/XX/XXXX. It is apparent that Wells Fargo is tone deaf regarding my concerns of XXXX discrimination which was explained by my attorney in my initial letter to Wells Fargo. Aside from several internal issues Wells Fargo has been found guilty of, including creating fraudulent accounts in the names of unsuspecting customers, Well Fargo is no stranger to discriminatory practices. In XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo settled a claim that the bank charged higher fees, rates and improperly placed specific minorities into subprime loans. The settlement provides {$180.00} XXXX in compensation for wholesale borrowers who were steered into subprime mortgages or who paid higher fees and rates than white borrowers because of their race or national origin. Wells Fargo will also provide {$50.00} XXXX in direct down payment assistance to borrowers in communities around the country where the department identified large numbers of discrimination victims and which were hard hit by the housing crisis. ( U.S. Department of Justice, XX/XX/XXXX ).  The fact of the matter is that the cashiers check deposited into my account was not held on XX/XX/XXXX and several Wells Fargo employees not only acknowledged that and apologized for the actions of the Wells Fargo employee who denied me access to my funds, but it was also explained to me that the employee who denied me access to my funds was being sent for more training because of her actions. Mrs. XXXX acted outside of policy and the law to deny me the funds I requested. Due to the inaccurate and contradicting statements made by Wells Fargo concerning this incident, one can reasonably conclude that Mrs. XXXX XXXX   profiled me and made a personal decision to not allow me the right to purchase a cashiers check from inside of the Wells Fargo bank. Also, I visited 2 other Wells Fargo banks that day and both banks informed me that my funds were indeed available until they contacted the branch where Mrs. XXXX work, thus continuing to discriminate against me. The fact that the Executive Offices of Wells Fargo concluded that it was a misunderstanding and several managers and the regional president admitted that Mrs. XXXX was in error and was given more training it is even more hurtful now that Wells Fargos position is attempting to cite Section 229.13 of the CFR to imply that they had a right to deny me the funds in question. Despite understanding that cashiers checks are not subject to be held or delay based on the statute they are using in their defense and despite several managers and the regional president acknowledging the funds were applied to my available balance and that Mrs. XXXX had made an error, Wells Fargo is attempting to minimize my ordeal as if it is only about money. Its not. Aside from being embarrassed, frustrated and angry because of Mrs. XXXX initial denial of my funds, I was then instructed to ask for her, however this time she was rude and disrespectful to me, which proved that she apparently had an issue with me and as a Wells Fargo employee the company as a whole is responsible or her actions. I firmly believe that Mrs. XXXX had an issue with me simply because I am XXXX and she made a conscious decision to deny me my funds based on that fact and Wells Fargo is refusing to address that issue. 

Also in paragraph five of Wells Fargos Denial Letter it states, Indeed, several Bank employees offered to assist Mr. XXXX with his request to purchase a cashiers check Including the manager at the XXXX branch on XX/XX/XXXX, and a customer service representative who offer [ sic ] to assist Mr. XXXX  with [ sic ] order a cashiers check online the morning of XX/XX/XXXX. Mr. XXXX declined those offers. This is actually laughable. Although it is true that the manager at the XXXX branch did offer to allow me to purchase a cashiers check, it was prior to speaking with Wells Fargo employees at the XXXX XXXX branch. After speaking to the XXXX XXXX branch the XXXX branch manager suddenly explained to me that she was unable to allow me to purchase a cashiers check. To suggest that there was an offer that I turned down without telling the entire story is disingenuous. It is also true that there was a suggestion made by a customer service representative to order a cashiers check online on XX/XX/XXXX, ( not XX/XX/XXXX as mentioned in Wells Fargos Denial Letter ),  however that was only suggested as an alternative because I was being denied access to my funds inside of the bank. Again, to suggest that this was something offered without explaining the entire course of events is disingenuous. Also, how is it possible to order a cashiers check inside of the bank, or online for {$25000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, if the bank believed the funds had not been verified or that the funds deposited in Georgia were no good with no time frame of when this verification and concern would be satisfied? This simply does not make any sense. Wells Fargo is attempting to have it both ways by saying they had a right to withhold my funds based on Section 229.13 of the CFR ( which isnt true ), yet at the same time saying that I turned down offers to purchase a cashiers check. How could I purchase a cashiers check if the funds in questions had not been cleared? The idea that Wells Fargo would allow me to purchase a cashiers check while my funds were not verified or no good is beyond ridiculous. 

Based on all of the available evidence, including my account information, phone records and recordings and other documents, it is clear that Wells Fargo is ignoring the facts about my issues in their response. Here are the facts, cashiers checks are guaranteed because the check is purchased from one bank, which guarantees it and like cash you can demand the funds immediately. Furthermore, a check is a draft that is always payable on demand and drawn on a bank ( Revised UCC 3-104 ( f ) ). Wells Fargo accepted the cashiers check that was deposited into my account in Georgia and credited my account, which was confirmed by my available balance on XX/XX/XXXX. No holds, delays or notices of such action was ever presented to me, nor was there ever a time frame given to suggest this. Wells Fargo employees simply denied me access to my available funds and denied me the right to withdraw those available funds from inside of the bank. At this point, what is most upsetting and stressful isnt the initial denial, or the disrespect and rudeness of Mrs. XXXX, however its Wells Fargos minimization  and spin on this situation. Instead of owning the fact that Mrs. XXXX made an error as several managers and a regional president did, Wells Fargo is ignoring documented evidence while providing a false narrative of the course of the events which took place. Wells Fargo is clearly playing fast and loose with the information regarding this incident. I am requesting that Wells Fargo retain all records ( including phone conversations ) regarding this incident which started XX/XX/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