Consumer complaint received 2026-05-15 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem making or receiving payments
Company: IDAHO CENTRAL CREDIT UNION
State: ID

Complaint narrative:
Formal Complaint Against Idaho Central Credit Union ( XXXX ) Wrongful Charge-Back / Regulation CC Violation / Inadequate Records Response To Whom It May Concern : XXXX ( the 'Company ' ) respectfully submits this formal complaint against Idaho Central Credit Union XXXX XXXX XXXX ) for violations of Federal Reserve Regulation CC , the Check 21 Act, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act arising from the wrongful charge-back of a finally paid business deposit, misrepresentation of applicable law by XXXX staff, and failure to provide adequate documentation upon request. I. Summary of Complaint On XX/XX/year>, the Company deposited a {$3000.00} check at XXXX 's XXXX, Idaho branch. XXXX 's own deposit receipt confirmed same-day funds availability. Final payment occurred under UCC 4-215 on XX/XX/year> when the midnight deadline passed without the item being returned. All Regulation CC return deadlines expired between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>. On XX/XX/year> eight banking days after deposit and seven banking days after final payment XXXX charged back the Company 's account based on a stop payment order that was legally ineffective as a matter of law. When the Company called XXXX to dispute the charge-back, a frontline representative named XXXX incorrectly stated that 'the bank had 6 months to do a stop payment, ' misapplying UCC 4-403 instead of the correct standards under UCC 4-215 and Regulation CC 229.30. Supervisor XXXX XXXX was unable to explain Regulation CC 's return deadlines after consulting back office staff for over an hour, changed her explanation of the timing multiple times, and deflected the Company to a third-party institution with which the Company has no membership relationship. XXXX provided only a XXXX and XXXX check image initially front only, requiring a second request for the back and failed to provide any transaction processing details despite explicit request. The back of the check shows one endorsement stamp directly obscuring another, which the XXXX and XXXX format makes impossible to analyze. This may constitute a violation of the Check 21 Act image quality standards and Regulation CC 229.35 endorsement legibility requirements. II. Specific Violations Regulation CC 229.30 XXXX accepted a return item more than seven banking days after deposit, well outside the 2-day local and 4-day non-local expeditious return standards. Regulation CC 229.13 ( g ) XXXX failed to provide written hold notice or provisional credit disclosure when making funds immediately available on XX/XX/year>. Regulation CC XXXX XXXX provided a XXXX and white image in which XXXX endorsement stamp directly obscures another, potentially violating endorsement legibility requirements. Check XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to provide a XXXX image of adequate quality upon the XXXX 's specific request, preventing analysis of endorsement stamps critical to establishing the transaction timeline. Electronic Fund Transfer Act To the extent any portion of this transaction was processed electronically, XXXX 's failure to investigate and resolve the XXXX 's dispute XXXX constitute a violation of applicable error resolution requirements. III. Harm Suffered As a direct result of XXXX 's wrongful charge-back, the Company has been deprived of {$3000.00} in business funds that were legally and irrevocably its own. The Company is currently unable to satisfy outstanding business obligations that would otherwise be met from these funds. Should any late fees, penalties, service interruptions, damage to business credit, or harm to vendor relationships result, all such additional damages are expressly reserved.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation