Consumer complaint received 2025-10-28 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
UNAUTHORIZED ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS - EFTA VIOLATION On XX/XX/year>, my SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union debit card was stolen and used for {$2700.00} in unauthorized transactions at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  merchants ( {$680.00} at XXXX and {$2000.00} at XXXX ). I reported the fraud to SchoolsFirst THE SAME DAY ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and filed a police report with XXXX Police Department on XX/XX/year> ( Case # XXXX ). 

Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693g ( a ), my maximum liability is {$50.00} because I reported unauthorized transactions within 2 business days of discovery. The statute states consumer liability " shall be limited to... the lesser of {$50.00} '' - this is mandatory language. 

On XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXchoolsFirst DENIED my fraud claim and is attempting to hold me fully liable for {$2700.00}, exceeding the federal statutory cap by {$2600.00}.

FEDERAL LAW VIOLATIONS : IMPROPER LIABILITY ASSESSMENT ( 15 U.S.C. 1693g ) SchoolsFirst is holding me liable for {$2700.00} despite same-day reporting. Under EFTA Section 1693g ( a ), consumer liability is capped at {$50.00} when reporting occurs within XXXX business days. I reported XX/XX/XXXX, the same day I discovered the fraud. 

DENIAL BASED ON PROHIBITED FACTORS ( Regulation XXXX XXXX Comment XXXX ( b ) XXXX ) On XX/XX/year>, SchoolsFirst stated my claim was " denied because the PIN was not written down on the card. '' Their XX/XX/XXXX letters state " card used with PIN after/no error '' and " reasonable doubt and no invalid pin errors. '' Regulation E Section 1005.6 Comment 6 ( b ) -2 EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS this : " Consumer behavior that may constitute negligence under state law, such as writing the PIN on a debit card ... does not affect the consumer 's liability for unauthorized transfers under Regulation E. '' If WRITING the PIN can not increase liability, then NOT WRITING it can not either. PIN security practices are legally irrelevant. The {$2000.00} Staples transaction ( 75 % of fraud ) did NOT use a PIN, making this reasoning factually wrong for most charges.

FAILURE TO ISSUE PROVISIONAL CREDIT ( Regulation E 1005.11 ( c ) ) My account was open less than 30 days. Regulation E Section 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) requires provisional credit within 20 business days for new accounts. XX/XX/XXXX was day XXXX. SchoolsFirst denied credit entirely, stating " for both transactions, the provisional credit will be denied '' and will " withdraw {$680.00} from your share account on XX/XX/year>. '' INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( Regulation XXXX XXXX ) On XX/XX/year>, I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX and confirmed XXXX footage exists showing the person who made the {$2000.00} purchase, requiring law enforcement request. On XX/XX/year>, I notified SchoolsFirst in writing this footage was available and would be deleted after 6 weeks ( approximately XX/XX/year> ). 

THE SAME DAY - XX/XX/XXXX- I physically visited XXXX police departments ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) spending 5 hours and driving XXXX miles coordinating multi-jurisdictional evidence collection. Despite 22 days ' notice, SchoolsFirst denied my claim XXXX XXXX without obtaining this definitive video evidence or facilitating its collection. 

PREMATURE DENIAL SchoolsFirst denied my claim 7-9 days after my XX/XX/XXXX notification, with XXXX days still remaining before the XX/XX/XXXX evidence deletion deadline. They never followed up on my three-agency coordination efforts, never contacted any of the police departments I visited, and denied while evidence was actively being pursued through proper law enforcement channels. 

DETAILED TIMELINE : XX/XX/year> : Debit card lost/stolen at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX Realized card missing when arrived home evening. 

XX/XX/year> : Discovered unauthorized transactions ( different city from card loss location ). Transaction XXXX : {$680.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX ( chip + PIN ). Transaction XXXX : {$2000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX chip only, NO PIN ). REPORTED TO XXXX SAME DAY. XXXX representative later confirmed I " reported within XXXX hours. '' XX/XX/year> : Filed police report XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX day after discovering fraud. 

XX/XX/year> : Contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX proactively, confirmed XXXX footage exists showing fraudster, documented XXXX retention. 

XX/XX/year> : CRITICAL DATE - Sent email to SchoolsFirst asserting EFTA rights, citing 15 U.S.C. 1693g ( a ), notifying them XXXX XXXX would be deleted approximately XX/XX/XXXX. SAME DAY - visited XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( afternoon/evening ) - XXXX hours total, XXXX miles - coordinating inter-agency evidence collection. Encountered significant bureaucratic obstacles requiring multi-week coordination. 

XX/XX/year> : XXXX front-line representative verbally denied claim citing " PIN reuse, '' " failure to block card, '' and " multiple mistakes. '' Representative confirmed I " reported within XXXX hours. '' SAME EVENING - immediately contacted XXXX XXXX and corrected date error in police report ( originally stated card stolen XX/XX/XXXX ; corrected to XX/XX/XXXX ), demonstrating proactive honesty within XXXX hours. 

XX/XX/year> : Received corrected police report and emailed to SchoolsFirst BEFORE manager decision, demonstrating good faith. 

XX/XX/year> : SchoolsFirst representative XXXX confirmed DENIAL after manager review, stating " The claim is being denied because the PIN was not written down on the card '' and " For both transactions, the provisional credit will be denied. '' XX/XX/year> : After SchoolsFirst 's denial and with only 7 days remaining before XX/XX/XXXX XXXX deletion, contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX detective to expedite courtesy report to XXXX XXXX XXXX. Detective agreed to mail directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO XXXX : Police Report ( XXXX XXXX Case # XXXX, filed XX/XX/XXXX, corrected XX/XX/XXXX ), Geographic Evidence ( card lost XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX cities ), XX/XX/XXXX Email asserting EFTA rights and notifying XXXX availability XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Email with corrected police report, Timeline documenting same-day reporting, XX/XX/XXXX three-agency coordination ( XXXX hours, XXXX miles, XXXX jurisdictions ). 

WHY DENIAL VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW : Regulation XXXX Section XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) states consumer liability " is determined solely by the consumer 's promptness in reporting. '' The word " SOLELY '' means ONLY reporting timing matters. XXXX can not use PIN security ( prohibited by XXXX XXXX Comment XXXX ( b ) XXXX ), card blocking ( not required by XXXX ), date corrections made in good faith ( within XXXX business days either way ), or chip processing ( doesn't override consumer protections ). 

My liability is based SOLELY on when I reported : XX/XX/XXXX ( same day ) = {$50.00} maximum liability. 

XXXX 's premature denial while I was actively obtaining evidence through proper law enforcement channels - evidence XXXX acknowledged was relevant - demonstrates their investigation was designed to reach predetermined outcome ( denial ) regardless of consumer effort, available evidence, or reasonable investigation requirements under Regulation XXXX. 

No fraud victim committing " friendly fraud '' would spend XXXX hours visiting XXXX police departments in different cities XXXX XXXX XXXX miles coordinating jurisdictional evidence requests, proactively notify bank about video evidence, or continue pursuing evidence after claim denial. 

REQUESTED RELIEF : SchoolsFirst immediately credit {$2600.00} ( total fraud {$2700.00} minus {$50.00} statutory cap ) Cancel scheduled XX/XX/year> withdrawal of {$680.00} Confirm in writing my liability is {$50.00} per 15 U.S.C. 1693g ( a ) Provide investigation documents required by Regulation E Section 1005.11 ( d ) CFPB investigate SchoolsFirst 's EFTA violations and fraud denial practices SchoolsFirst is violating explicit federal law by exceeding the {$50.00} cap, using prohibited factors ( PIN negligence ), failing to issue required provisional credit, conducting inadequate investigation despite documented evidence, premature denial while evidence actively being pursued, and shifting burden of proof. I reported same day, filed police report within XXXX hours, corrected error within XXXX hours, coordinated with XXXX police departments, and provided overwhelming evidence. Federal law caps my liability at {$50.00}.

Company public response: Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation