Consumer complaint received 2017-12-22 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Closing an account — Fees charged for closing account
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I reported fraud on my account to my then banking institution of Navy Federal Credit Union ( XXXX ). Following the report, On XX/XX/XXXX, I was contacted by XXXX XXXX who identified himself as a fraud investigator with XXXX. I  explained to him the circumstances of the fraud, and he asked that I be completely honest in my accounts surrounding the compromise of my accounts. As he stated I see this type of account fraud and usually the people who commit the fraud are the ones who never get caught. 

I became very candid at this point about my stupidity in believing I was getting approved for a XXXX XXXX  that would be deposited directly into my bank accounts providing I had account with the required bank of XXXX, as this would allow loan funds availability the same day as the deposit. After providing all the necessary information on the fraud, filing a police report, providing the name of the XXXX XXXX Police Detective on the case, and forwarding the sales ad for the quick loan, XXXX XXXX then began to act in a very unprofessional manner. 

After refusing to discuss the fraud on my account, he stalled a cashiers check for my rent payment from cash funds deposited in my account prior to the time the fraud occurred. My rental office called and advise they were unable to collect funds on my XXXX rent money order given to them weeks before the XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, XXXX XXXX took it upon himself to then reverse two XXXX credit card payments that I made from my outside account with XXXX XXXX transferred into XXXX. I am liable for the credit cards but as a means to impair my credit standing, XXXX XXXX attempted to prevent fair access to make payments on those debts which is a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

Additionally, the checking account that XXXX XXXX froze from use because of my account being compromised was allowed to continue drawing an overdraft fee for a direct deposit business line associated with that account. If no direct deposit was made, a fee would be charged. Since the account was not accessible to me until the fraud cases was settled according to XXXX XXXX, I called in to ask XXXX XXXX on two separate  occasions to remove the direct deposit business line since I had no access for my direct deposit to flow into the account. I however was refused by XXXX XXXX per customer service. As a result, the outstanding {$5.00} was used as a reason to charge off the account. 

XXXX XXXX refused to accept a transfer from my outside account to be applied to the {$5.00} overdraft and he refused to remove or change the direct deposit line of service from the account. However, XXXX through XXXX XXXX has allowed the payments from the same outside account to resume for the credit card payments owed to XXXX. 

This investigator has abused his authority with creating impediments for me to settle the final debts that I am liable for with XXXX as a means to cause a negative credit report rating with the Credit Reporting Agencies. If I had not been able to catch the last credit card reversal, as I avidly monitor my credit and payment history, I would be disputing two 30 day late payments on both credit cards at the negligence of XXXX XXXX and seeking penalty per negative occurrence from XXXX as a result of XXXX XXXX violation of the Fair Credit and Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

Going forward, I accept that XXXX has refused to reopen this account until this case is settled, I accept that my account is no longer accessible to me, However the refusal to accept payments on a consistent basis and the refusal to remove a business line that incurred fess on an account that has been in accessible since XX/XX/XXXX and then refuse me access to pay the fee and closed the account as a charge off in retribution of the fraud that occurred on my account by an outside perpetrator is certainly an abuse of power and a violation as explained early. Whether the charge off was {$5.00} or {$5000.00}, it still negatively impacts my standing at a banking institution.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation