Consumer complaint received 2026-04-24 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: BOEING EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
Firstly Becu is not verfying correctly to protect my information as it relates to the RCW and Federal Law, they did not ask for a passcode before any verification process and have failed this approx 7 different times. XXXX is attempting to use stale data and weak delivery confirmation to justify taking {$1800.00} from your BECU account. To defeat this scam, we are going to focus on Federal Law ( FCBA ), Contractual Negligence, and Identity Verification. 1. The Legal Ground : Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) Under federal law, you have a right to dispute " billing errors. '' A billing error includes charges for goods that were not delivered as agreed or that you did not accept. The " Un-Authorized '' Defense : Because you have not authorized shipments to XXXX XXXX XXXX for over a year, XXXX failed to deliver to the authorized cardholder address. Stale Data : XXXX using XXXX history to justify a XXXX delivery without a new signature is a failure of their due diligence. XXXX. XXXX Breach of Policy ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX 's own shipping policy for high-value items is your strongest weapon : The XXXX XXXXXXXX Rule : XXXX generally requires a signature for high-value orders and all XXXX orders over {$750.00} XXXX The Scam : By providing a " Met Customer '' status instead of a physical signature, XXXX has no proof that you received the items. " Met Customer '' is a carrier note, not a legal confirmation of identity. Without a signature, they can not prove the " contract '' of delivery was fulfilled to the cardholder. 3. Actionable Rebuttal for BECU When you submit your response to BECU, use this exact, clinical logic : SUBJECT : REBUTTAL OF CHARGEBACK CASE # XXXX Unauthorized Delivery Address : The merchant ( XXXX ) shipped to an address ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) that I have not authorized for use in over 12 months. The " Buyer History '' they provided ( Figure 2 ) is stale data from XXXX and does not constitute current authorization. Failure of Signature Verification : For a high-value transaction of {$1800.00}, XXXX failed to secure a physical signature. The XXXX " Met Customer '' status provided in Figure 4 is not a signature and does not verify the identity of the recipient. Violation of High-Value Shipping Protocols : Industry standard and XXXXXXXX XXXX own policy require a signature for orders of this magnitude. By bypassing this, the merchant assumed the risk of loss for delivery to an unauthorized party. Claim of Fraudulent Representation : I have no affiliation with the current residents of the delivery address. The merchant is attempting to use " Address Verification '' ( AVS ) to override the lack of physical proof of delivery to the cardholder. Request : Based on the lack of a signature and delivery to an unauthorized address, I request that BECU uphold the dispute and reverse the charge of {$1800.00} under the Fair Credit Billing Act. 4. Direct Steps with BECU WA Consumer Protection Act : Remind the BECU investigator that XXXX use of deceptive history ( XXXX data ) to push through a XXXX unauthorized charge violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act ( RCW 19.86 ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation