Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem making or receiving payments
Company: AXOS FINANCIAL, INC.
State: RI

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/year> To Whom It May Concern : I am filing a complaint regarding Axos Bank / UFB Directs failure to properly investigate an error under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ). I disputed two ACH transactions totaling {$17000.00} ( {$15000.00} on XX/XX/year> and {$1800.00} on XX/XX/year> ). I explicitly identified the issue as : Authorized transaction that does not conform to the terms of my authorization. This classification was clearly selected on the banks " Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit '' form and repeatedly explained in my submissions. My claim is not that the transaction was unauthorized, but that it did not conform to the terms of my authorization. This is not a merchant dispute ; it is an error under Regulation E. According to the payment receipt and invoice, the funds were directed to a personal XXXX account ( [ XXXX ] ( XXXX : XXXX ) ), rather than to the authorized business entity ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This reflects that the transaction was processed to a dierent recipient than the one I authorized, and therefore did not conform to the terms of my authorization. Additionally, under the NACHA Operating Rules, an ACH debit must be consistent with the authorization provided by the consumer, including the identity of the receiving party. A transaction that is processed to a dierent recipient than the one authorized does not comply with those requirements. This transaction was also made under materially misleading conditions. Subsequent ocial communications from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX confirmed serious financial irregularities, including misrepresentation of financial condition, undisclosed debt, and ongoing investigation into the conduct of its executive director. Independent reporting and legal filings further corroborate fraudulent conduct. The school has also been unable to confirm the location or availability of prepaid tuition funds. Despite this, the bank repeatedly misclassified my claim and denied it solely on the basis that the transaction was authorized. The bank failed to evaluate whether the transaction conformed to the terms of my authorization, which is a distinct and explicitly identified category under Regulation E and on the banks own ACH dispute form. Additionally : The banks denied the claim without addressing the actual dispute type presented The denial was issued without meaningful investigation and without engaging the substance of my claim The denial occurred approximately 2.75 hours after submission, before I was provided the opportunity to submit supporting documentation or complete any requested materials, indicating that no meaningful investigation could have been conducted The claim was misclassified as cancellation / buyers remorse, which does not reflect the nature of the dispute presented I submitted a comprehensive evidence package, including a formal Notice of Error, transaction documentation, invoice showing recipient discrepancy, and supporting materials None of this documentation was acknowledged or addressed in the banks responses The banks secure messaging system repeatedly failed to accept document uploads, preventing submission of evidence Email channels were not monitored, leaving no functional alternative for submission The bank provided repeated template responses that did not address my arguments or evidence During follow-up communications, a bank representative acknowledged that the dispute may have been mis-categorized but stated that no corrective action could be taken because the claim had already been closed The bank stated that once a dispute is denied, it can not be reopened under any circumstances due to internal policy, which is inconsistent with its obligations under Regulation E The bank stated it has no mechanism to recover funds from the merchant, which is not responsive to a Regulation E error claim and does not address its obligation to investigate The bank has eectively treated this as a merchant dispute solely because the transaction was processed via ACH. This reasoning is incorrect. The issue is not dissatisfaction with a merchant, but that the transaction did not conform to the terms of my authorization, including a mismatch between the authorized entity and the actual payment recipient. Taken together, these facts demonstrate that the bank failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as required under Regulation E and instead relied on misclassification, incomplete review, and internal policy to deny the claim. I am requesting : 1. A proper re-evaluation of this claim as a non-conforming authorization under Regulation E 2. A detailed explanation of the investigation conducted, including what documentation was reviewed and responses to documentation 3. Clarification as to why my selected dispute classification was not evaluated 4. Reimbursement of the full disputed amount ( {$17000.00} ), as the transaction did not conform to the terms of my authorization and was induced through materially misleading and fraudulent conditions Multiple peer financial institutions, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have already reversed substantially similar ACH transactions related to this same set of facts. These institutions reviewed the same underlying evidence and determined that reimbursement was appropriate. I am requesting that Axos Bank / UFB Direct apply a consistent and compliant standard in evaluating this claim. This complaint concerns both the underlying transaction and the banks failure to conduct a reasonable investigation as required under federal law. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation