Consumer complaint received 2024-03-25 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Money was not available when promised — 
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
On Sunday, XX/XX/XXXX, I added my sister 's name and mobile number to my XXXX profile and initiated an {$870.00} payment to her. She received no notification whatsoever, and I had no idea what the problem might be. Some time later that evening I saw a message from Truist that they had put a " hold '' on the payment, with n explanation, but a note that I could call customer service " XXXX. '' I called on Sunday evening ; in fact, they were " closed. '' On Monday morning, I called again, from the mobile number that is associated with my account, and was told -- after providing as requested my full name, last 4 digits of my SS #, my pin and account numbers, name of the recipient, and the precise amount I'd requested to send -- that the customer service rep could not help me and that I'd have to speak to a XXXXspecific representative. 

After being connected, I provided the XXXXspecific customer service representative all of the information again requested -- my full name, the last 4 digits of my SS #, my bank account number, my pin number, the precise amount of the payment request, and the name of the payment recipient. I then also was asked who the recipient was, and despite feeling that this was an intrusion that could not be confirmed nor add in any way to my account security, I shared that it was my sister. When I was then asked why I was sending my own sister money from an account I had already provided detailed, specific, relevant information to confirm was mine, I XXXX indicated that I saw no reason to provide such private information that had no relation to my account and could not be confirmed in any case, and asked to speak to a supervisor. 

Truist supervisor XXXX XXXX got on the line, and I asked her to explain why there was a hold on my request, and why they could not process my payment request in light of my providing all the requested information that was relevant to my account. She cited financial fraud, and insisted that Trust would not process my XXXX request unless I told them why I was making the payment to my sister, as they " required. '' I stated to XXXX XXXX that I saw no additional value to my own financial security to providing that private information when I'd already provided all the account-specific information requested. I questioned the legality of such a question, given privacy laws, and indicated that in any case I could make up any reason for such a payment, and that my response could not possibly be confirmed as true or false. I again asked why it was " required '' and by whom, and asked that my payment request be processed on the basis of the extensive, account-specific information provided. XXXX responded that " Truist '' required this question, that she would not process my request without a response, and that I could use another payment mechanism. 

I voiced my unhappiness, as someone who had had accounts and mortgages and home equity loans with this bank over more than twenty years. I emphasized that although it would be easy to give her a reason for requesting a payment from my account, with my more than sufficient funds, to my own sister ( who also already has a XXXX account with her bank ), I would instead file a complaint about these practices, and end my relationship with Truist. I expressed my understanding of the need to protect customers from financial fraud, based upon my experience with international challenges as a government official. I repeated my concern that the extensive, relevant, account-specific information I had already provided made perfect sense for that purpose, whereas unverifiable responses to intrusive, privacy-damaging, personal questions about why the payment was needed in no way add to security. 

I could easily have provided any response to the question of why I wanted to make a payment from my confirmed account to the designated recipient, who I had already -- under duress -- identified as my sister. I chose not to do so, because I believe this to be an unwarranted intrusion which adds little or nothing to my financial security nor to reducing financial fraud. If I am right, based upon evidence, I do not believe that such questions should be allowed. If I am wrong, I believe that financial institutions should be required to indicate that asking such intrusive questions has a substantial positive impact in reducing fraud, and to apologize for having to ask, and to indicate how such information will be secured.

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