Consumer complaint received 2017-11-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Problem with balance transfer
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
Within the last two months I requested that XXXX, XXXX card XXXX, transfer {$15000.00} to my U.S. Bank XXXX card XXXX. That requested transfer was promptly made, and that transfer created a credit balance on my said U.S. Bank card, which credit balance I asked U.S. Bank to refund to me. U.S. Bank promised to promptly refund the credit balance to me by check payable to me. Some two weeks later I receive a letter from U.S. Bank stating, in effect, that it had elected to renege on its promise to refund the credit balance by sending a check to me, but instead had sent that balance to XXXX, from which had come the payment that created the credit balance. Upon receiving that letter I immediately called U.S. Bank to have them reverse its payment to XXXX, and to send the credit balance to me as promised. The U.S. Bank representative told me that the law, specifically the Card Act of 2009, required that the refund be made to XXXX, not to me ; she said that a credit balance refund made by U.S. Bank to me a month or so earlier was a mistake ; she further said there was no one else at U.S. Bank to whom I could speak about the matter. I researched the Card Act and found nothing therein that prohibited the payment to me that I had requested. I complained to CFPB. U.S. Bank, in response to my CFPB complaint, said that it had the option to refund to me or to XXXX, and, apparently to save the expense of making a check, and the cost of a stamp, elected to breach its promise to me, and leave me in financial distress, by electronically refunding to XXXX. U.S. Bank, in its response, acknowledged that the credit balance was owed to me. So we have U.S. Bank fibbing to me about the law requiring it to send the refund to XXXX, breaching its promise that it would send the refund to me, leaving me short some {$15000.00} that I needed to satisfy my obligations to others, causing me to lose the benefit of the transfer from XXXX, and to receive no benefit for the time and expense I incurred to obtain that transfer, all, I take it, to save the expense of a stamp. Your previous case number, regarding this matter, is XXXX, filed on XX/XX/XXXX. What I would request of U.S. Bank is that they now make partial amends by granting to me, against my said U.S. Bank card, or other U.S. Bank cards I hold, the same deal that U.S. Bank caused me to lose with XXXX, i.e., {$15000.00} at zero per cent interest until XX/XX/XXXX, assuming that U.S. Bank is unable to retrieve its payment to XXXX and pay it to me, as it should have done, and as it promised to do, in the first place. Perhaps U.S. Bank was jealous of the deal I was offered by XXXX, and took it upon itself to be a vigilante, and to punish me for trying to get the benefit of a bargain. Or did it do what it did just to save the expense of a stamp? I would at least like it to answer the question just posed. XXXX 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