Consumer complaint received 2019-08-06 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I am XXXX. My sole income is SSDI once a month from the SSA. This is supposed to be protected by the bank since, not even a lawsuit can get this money. But Huntington has now allowed 3 different unscrupulous companies that I do NOT have a contract with, to go into my checking account and STEAL my SSA money. 

Dispute XXXX Merchant : Interconnect - 3 transactions which were disputed with Huntington Bank. 

ALL of my income comes from Social Security XXXX. My income is from the Social Security Administration. Huntington Bank has now illegally allowed three different merchants go in and steal this money without good cause. 

To Reiterate : My only income is Social Security XXXX Your Responsibilities : Huntington Bank, all banks, are tasked with protecting this income from the Federal Government to the XXXX Recipient. 
Huntington Bank has failed in this task now 3 times, allowing 3 different companies, none of whom I had a contract with, to go into my bank account and steal my Social Security XXXX unearned income with no good reason whatsoever. In fact, in another case, you allowed an insurance co. to go in and steal almost {$900.00}, the contract they presented and the debit card are not even in my name. That's right. I have to spend hours on that next because of Huntington Bank 's lack of professionalism and not doing their job, which is to protect my money. 

Huntington Bank has allowed 3 merchants with NO CONTRACT to steal my SSDI. 

This is a fact. I have called many times on the phone. Your employees, as ( Un ) educated as they are have no idea what I'm talking about. But the SSA, CFPB, XXXX, and FTC do know what I'm talking about. 

My only income is SSDI. You have allowed unscrupulous companies with NO contract with me to steal that money. Money from the SSA. 

This Dispute : XXXX Weekend before XX/XX/XXXX I saw a " Pending '' with debit for {$11.00} for Internet services by XXXX. These services never worked because the Modem sent to me never worked. I requested from that company to not charge me again, I requested this several times, but you could never get ahold of anyone ( see attached break down all of the times I contacted them ). 
Huntington by phone advised me to cancel my debit card, took 40 minutes of interviewing me about these charges, also on XX/XX/XXXX for {$120.00} and XX/XX/XXXX for {$11.00}. 
I disputed all 3 charges, I was VERY detailed. 
This was Dispute XXXX Your worker somehow entered this as only the XX/XX/XXXX charge, card cancelled, charge not able to go thru. 
Huntington marked entire thing as Resolved. It wasn't, I had to call back, and start the Dispute all over again. In fact, I had to call back and deal with your employees no less than THREE more times. A total of FOUR different people to do what should have been a simple dispute. 

Huntington inexplicably sided with the Merchant. 
The modem I purchased never worked, they sent broken equipment. Yet the bank still sided with them. Outrageous.

You stole my SSA money and gave it to Interconnect for a modem that did not work.

The nonsense that Huntington clearly never even looked at as " evidence '' is described below. Huntington immediately mistakenly sided with the merchant.

The merchant who supplied a broken modem to your customer. 

It stated " Customer was outside the return timeframe ''. 
No, I attempted to contact XXXX over 50 times by phone and email. See attached. Using different phone numbers. The " contract '' states they must approve a return, they avoided me for TWO MONTHS, and refused all contact. Impossible for me to meet their 10-day return window. 
I have proof of this. I have other witnesses who called on my behalf. They would not deal with me. 

When my Dispute came thru and they saw it on XX/XX/XXXX, the contact at XXXX finally responded. Again, this was after 2 months of trying to contact this company. Other employees who answered the phone said they were not authorized to do returns, I had to speak to Support. They also advised the man at ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX WAS actually in the office, he just was apparently ignoring all contact with me. 
Forcing me over the 10-day return window.

Interconnect employee also told Huntington " did not return hotspot as stated ''.

But one of many things this bank didn't research was their own contract : " In the event that the Customer wishes to return the Equipment for a refund, the Customer must request the return for refund from the Reseller within 10 business days of receiving the Equipment. Reseller must approve the case before any further action is taken. 
Except how is a request made when XXXX is not available by phone or email for 2 entire months? That is not possible. They ran down the clock. 
XXXX XXXX came up with blatant lies for modem speeds of " Up to XXXX Mbps '', except nowhere are the speeds ZERO as in the hotspot does not work. 
We even dealt with XXXX to fix it, they could not get it working. 

So Huntington gave XXXX back the money for a modem and 2 months of internet that never actually worked based on lies and No contract. 

Bonus : Huntington illegally allowed this merchant to just go into my account and steal SSA money. Money that is supposed to be protected by my bank.

The Hotspot Modem does not and never did work.

Here is what Huntington should have done : MasterCard Reason Code XXXX Customer Claim : Defective/Not as Described Chargeback can include damaged or defective merchandise The merchant was contacted by the cardholder but refused to correct merchandise defects or issue a credit. If the cardholder is unable to contact the merchant, the consumers attempts and the merchants failure to respond must be included in a chargeback filing documentation. 

Except my money was given back to the scammers, leaving me with a burden in my finances because SSDI is my ONLY income. And Huntington should have protected that, and you didn't.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation