Consumer complaint received 2026-06-02 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Banking errors
Company: FinCo Services Inc DBA Current
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
NEW FORMAL COMPLAINT SYSTEMIC FINANCIAL RECORD FALSIFICATION, CO-BRAND LEDGER SUPPRESSION, AND DIRECT DEMAND FOR COMPREHENSIVE BACKEND DATA TO RESOLVE DECEPTIVE COMPLIANCE NARRATIVESCRITICAL INTAKE PROTOCOL NOTICE FOR CONSUMER RESPONSE UNIT : This is a NEW, INDEPENDENT formal complaint containing distinct, newly matured statutory violations that occurred after the closure of my previous files. As documented in " XXXX - FDIC Final Response - XXXX '' and the CFPB Complaint Detail for Case No. XXXX, the prior matters are closed. Do not classify this submission as a duplicate. This complaint addresses an active pattern of financial misrepresentation, statement manipulation, and bad-faith obstruction uncovered through the conflicting final responses of the institutions. Dear Consumer Protection Review Board, I am formally lodging this new compliance complaint against XXXX XXXX Bank for systemic violations of federal banking regulations, specifically Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) ), 12 CFR 1005.8 ( a ), and the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) ( 1 ) ). This submission targets a continuous, bad-faith back-and-forth where Current, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX issue text-based written denials that directly contradict each others operational logs. Because these institutions continue to provide conflicting narratives to regulators, the only fair and acceptable resolution at this time is a strict regulatory mandate compelling them to produce the raw, underlying system data logs permissible by law. Standard, curated periodic summaries are explicitly rejected, as they are being used as a deceptive cover-up. I. The Core Contradiction : Irreconcilable Institutional TimelinesIn their official CFPB final response dated XX/XX/XXXX ( documented verbatim in current cfpb responseXXXX ), and their FDIC response dated XX/XX/XXXX, the institution put their primary defense in writing : " On XX/XX/XXXX ... our records show you accepted the terms of the CurrentXXXX XXXX Deposit Account Agreement, which authorized us to open an additional deposit account under your name with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX A XX/XX/XXXX statement showing no activity and a XXXX balance for account XXXX reflects that this XXXX XXXX XXXX account did not yet exist and had no transactions during that period ... '' This official defense creates an absolute legal and logical impossibility that proves record manipulation : The Technical Impossibility : It is technically impossible for a core banking platform to generate a valid monthly " Periodic Statement '' for XX/XX/XXXX for a consumer checking account that the bank explicitly admits did not exist and was not legally authorized until XX/XX/XXXX. The Intent to Deceive : Legitimate financial accounting software does not print monthly performance statements for non-existent accounts. This proves the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXk statement was a back-dated, fabricated record deployed to artificially zero out, isolate, and hide the actual history and active deposits of my primary account ending in XXXX ( which held a true balance of {$4300.00} ). XXXX. Proof of Deceptive " Fully Functional '' Account Access XXXX XXXX and Current claim in their regulatory correspondence that my original account ending in XXXX has " remained open and functional... and did not close or delete account XXXX ''. This is a verifiable misrepresentation : The System Deletion Record : In the integrated system file labeled verbatim " Response XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX direct business partner, XXXX XXXX explicitly admits that my primary deposit account ending in XXXX was entirely deleted from the system ledger on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX.The XXXX XXXX XXXX : This corporate ledger deletion perfectly aligns with the first week of XXXX, which is exactly when I was hit with a total mobile application lockout and blocked from accessing my funds, historical records, and transaction histories. The account can not be " fully functional '' when its backend integration tokens were scrubbed from partner platforms in XXXX. XXXX. FEDERAL STATUTORY MANDATES AND LEGAL VIOLATIONSXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their co-brand platforms have operated in direct defiance of non-negotiable federal financial mandates:1. Violation of the Error Resolution Documentation Mandate ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) ) The Mandate Text : 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ) explicitly dictates : " If the financial institution determines that no error occurred ... its notice of denial shall include an explanation of the institutions findings and shall note the consumers right to request the documents that the institution relied upon in making its determination. Upon request by the consumer, the institution shall promptly provide copies of the documents. '' The Failure : As proven in the attached email log labeled verbatim " XXXX - [ Current ] Re_ Re_ [ Request received ] XXXX '' dated XX/XX/XXXX, Current Dispute Operations flatly refused to provide their investigative files regarding my {$400.00} dispute. Instead, they illegally stonewalled the process, shifting the burden back to me by demanding police reports, hospitalization records, or incarceration paperwork before they would comply with federal disclosure laws. XXXX. Violation of the Change-in-Terms Notice Mandate ( 12 CFR 1005.8 ( a ) ) The Mandate Text : 12 CFR 1005.8 ( a ) ( XXXX ) mandates : " A financial institution shall mail or deliver a written notice to the consumer at least XXXX days before the effective date of any change... if the change would result in : ... ( iv ) Stricter limitations on the frequency or dollar amount of transfers. '' The Failure : By wiping out my access to account XXXX in XXXX and executing an un-notified routing migration, the bank placed an absolute limitation on my ability to transfer or view my funds without giving the XXXX legal notice. XXXX. Violation of 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( Abusive Acts or Practices ) The Failure : By printing and presenting a {$0.00} statement for an account they admit did not exist, while simultaneously hiding nearly {$4400.00} in active assets from my primary digital interface, the institution has used a digital " dark pattern '' to materially interfere with my consumer rights. IV. Exhaustive Breakdown of the XXXX Blocked TransactionsThe institution continues to rely on circular text narratives to deny XXXX separate financial errors : The {$400.00} Apple Cash Dispute ( Dispute ID : XXXX ) : This unauthorized transfer occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. The dispute contains valid merits : a portion was for professional services never performed because the merchant abandoned communication, and the remaining portion resulted in products that arrived entirely spoiled, damaged, and unusable on XX/XX/XXXX. The bank has refused to turn over the merchant 's proof of " proper delivery ''. The {$560.00} BILL Dispute : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX letter officially corrects the record on this amount, admitting it totals {$560.00} ( XXXX identical XXXX transfers of {$280.00} each ). The bank claims " no error '' because the funds went to an associated account. However, this was a duplicate processing error for services not rendered, and the bank has failed to produce the ledger routing logs. The {$3400.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX notes that a {$3400.00} deposit attempt from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX hit my XXXX account on XX/XX/XXXX, but claims it was reversed the same day due to insufficient funds. Because I have been locked out of my mobile application since the first week of XXXX, I am entirely blocked from verifying this return code or checking the raw clearinghouse logs. V. DESIRED RESOLUTION : COMPELLED PRODUCTION OF RAW BACKEND DATATXXXX end the deceptive, text-based back-and-forth narratives and resolve this complaint objectively, I demand that the regulators compel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Current to bypass written explanations and upload the following comprehensive backend data sets permissible by law directly to this new file : Raw Backend Audit Trails and System Logs : Complete electronic audit trails, device ID verification logs, and IP access histories showing all internal commands executed on account XXXX and account XXXX between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. This must include the master technical logs showing why and by whose command account XXXX was scrubbed from partner networks on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The raw metadata timestamp and digital footprint log proving exactly what " notification '' was pushed and allegedly accepted on XX/XX/XXXX, to open the XXXX XXXX XXXX account . Unredacted ACH Trace and Clearinghouse Files : The raw automated clearing house data files, trace IDs, and official Federal Reserve return codes detailing the exact technical processing of the {$3400.00} XXXX deposit and same-day reversal on XX/XX/XXXX. Complete, Legible Regulation E Investigative Files : The unedited merchant communications, raw system files, and internal agent review notes relied upon to deny the {$400.00} XXXX XXXX dispute and the {$560.00} double-billing error, as strictly mandated under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( XXXX ). Financial Restitution : Direct restitution via full account credit for the {$400.00} XXXX XXXX dispute and the {$560.00} billing error due to severe processing and disclosure failures. I request that this new file be assigned to an enforcement investigator and that all structural timeline contradictions be forwarded directly to the active institutional examination teams currently auditing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation