Consumer complaint received 2023-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, the account owner, shared with her daughter, that she ended up writing a " double check '' to the mortgage company in XX/XX/XXXX because her first check had never been received by them and that she was not sure " what happened to her original check '' because she mailed it directly from the XXXX, GA Post Office. her daughter immediately set up an appointment for her mother and herself to meet with Well Fargo in person the next day at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, GA During this meeting, the account owner added her daughter as a joint owner to the account. 

After explaining the situation, the female WF rep reviewed the account, and provided a copy of the " missing/lost '' Check # XXXX ... which proved to be a whitewashed check made payable to XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$1100.00}. The Original check was made payable to XXXX XXXX  in the amount of {$500.00} representing a recurring monthly mortgage payment of the same amount. If Wells Fargo invested in and used Software Algorithm programs used to monitor this type of irregularity in a customer 's account ( especially a senior client ) they would have noted that was NOT NORMAL activity and should have flagged it and not processed it. Other institutions use this software and are capable of identifying this type of activity before it negatively impacts a client -- especially a senior client. 
Again, the original check was made payable to XXXX XXXX  in the amount of {$500.00} -- well above the typical amounts of check written on this account. 

The rep told us that this should have been reported withing 30 days and a claim was opened -- which was denied. because of the " 30 day factor ''. The primary account owner then met with XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX at the XXXX XXXX branch in XXXX XXXX, GA and asked for a re-review of this decision -- which was again denied on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  and again on XX/XX/XXXX. 

During the Summer we were dealing with health issues and multiple deaths in our family. On XX/XX/XXXX, we again appealed for a re-review of this case via a phone conversation with XXXX XXXX of Customer Advocacy. This activity was reported to Wells Fargo as soon as account owner shared the information with her daughter. Again, Seniors are often slow about identifying this type of activity and then are often embarrassed to ask for assistance in rectifying as they are afraid that their independence to handle their own financial affairs may be questioned. 

It is absurd that Well Fargo is refusing to refund the money to account owner 's account because of a " 30 day factor '' not being met especially since 1 ) They acknowledged that this is indeed fraudulent activity 2 ) They have insurance to cover this type of activity -- this {$1100.00} amount is miniscule in comparison to their insurance coverage 3 ) They are not actively using algorithmic software to monitor for these type of account irregularities and 4 ) They are not exercising a spirit of being customer focused and protecting the interests of their XXXX clients who are often vulnerable to fraudulent activity. 

We are respectfully requesting that the {$1100.00} be refunded to account owner 's account immediately. She is a XXXX  client living on a fixed income and is currently in need of making substantial repairs at her current home in preparation for selling it and moving to another housing option.

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