Consumer complaint received 2026-06-08 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: FB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
On XXXX XXXX XXXX, my XXXX debit card was used to pay a {$170.00} charge at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Tennessee. The hotel processed a refund of {$170.00} back to the same card on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX confirmed by the hotel 's folio and by the XXXX merchant transaction record ( both already provided to the bank ). The refund never appeared in my account. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I called the bank by phone to notify it of this disputed transaction. My authorized representative also called the bank the same day, separately, on my behalf. The representatives on both calls handled by two different bank reps on the same day advised us NOT to file a formal dispute, stating that doing so would " make it take longer '' or " elongate the refund. '' This consistent advice, delivered to two separate callers by two different representatives on the same day, steered me away from formally invoking my Regulation E rights at the moment notice was actually given. The fact that the same advice was given by separate representatives on the same day suggests this was not an isolated rep error but a practice or scripted response. Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ), oral notice of a Reg E error triggers the bank 's investigation obligation. The bank may require written follow-up only if it informs the consumer of that requirement at the time of the oral notice which is the opposite of what the bank 's representatives did on XX/XX/XXXX. The 10-business-day window from the XX/XX/XXXX oral notice has now elapsed, and the bank has issued no provisional credit. The bank has subsequently stated, in email correspondence, that the dispute could take " 60120 days '' because the bank was " waiting on the merchant to respond. '' This response conflates two separate processes : the XXXX chargeback / back-end merchant settlement process ( which can run 60120 days ) and the consumer 's rights under Regulation E ( which require the bank to either complete its investigation within 10 business days or provisionally credit the disputed amount under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ). The 60120 day chargeback timeline is not a permissible basis to withhold provisional credit on the front end. The documentation already provided to the bank shows that the merchant issued the refund on XX/XX/XXXX, with an authorization number, token, and invoice number. The dispute is not about whether the merchant will refund the merchant has refunded. The question is where that refund went between the merchant 's processor and my account, which is precisely the type of error Regulation E provisional credit is designed to address during investigation. I am filing this complaint regarding three concerns : 1. The bank 's discouragement of a formal dispute filing on XX/XX/XXXX advice given consistently to two separate callers on the same day by different representatives. This pattern steered me away from exercising my Regulation E rights and may constitute a deceptive practice under UDAAP. I am specifically requesting that the Bureau ask the bank whether the " don't file/ it will take longer '' advice was a scripted, trained, or otherwise institutional response, as the consistency of the advice across two different reps on the same day suggests it was not an individual error. 2. The bank 's conflation of merchant chargeback timelines with Regulation E provisional credit obligations, which is being used as a stated reason to withhold provisional credit my account is entitled to under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ). 3. The bank 's failure to follow Regulation E error-resolution procedures, including the failure to disclose my right to a formal dispute at the time of the XX/XX/XXXX oral notice. Relief requested : ( a ) immediate provisional credit of {$170.00} to my account pending completion of the investigation, as required by 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ; ( b ) a written explanation of the bank 's Regulation E procedures and whether the XX/XX/XXXX " don't file '' advice reflects scripted or trained representative responses ; and ( c ) any further corrective action the Bureau deems appropriate. Documents available and previously provided to the bank : the hotel folio dated XX/XX/XXXX ; the XXXX XXXX Transaction Manager record confirming the XX/XX/XXXX refund authorization ; email correspondence with the bank 's representative.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation