Consumer complaint received 2024-05-10 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
WELLS BANK MADE INITIAL ACH PAYMENT TO A CRUISE COMPANY THAT LATER WENT IN TO BANKRUPTCY. -- THE AMOUNT WAS {$17000.00}. 
CONSUMERS HAVE ASKED WELL FOR REVERSAL OF THE ACH PAYMENT BY SIMPLY SAYING " REGULATIONS '' DO NOT PERMIT.. 
CLAIMANTS EARLIER ASKED TRAVEL COMPANY FOR REPAYMENT AND TO REVOKE OUR CRUISE REQUEST BECAUSE THE CRUISE WAS CANCELLED, INITIALLY. THEN THE CRUISE COMPANY ( XXXX ) POSTPONED THE CRUISE TWICE MORE UNTIL XX/XX/XXXX -- IT WENT IN TO B/K, AGAIN CANCELLED ALL CRUISES, AND KEPT ALL CONSUMER FUNDS. 
LATER INVESTIGATION BY B/K TRUSTEE SHOWS THAT XXXX OWNER WAS VOMITING FRAUD BY ACCEPTING CONSUMER FUNDS WITH NO INTENTION OF PROVIDING ANY GOODS OR SERVICES ( CRUISE ). AND COMMITTED FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION TO XXXX SENIOR CITIZENS. 

CONSUMERS THEN SENT WELLS THEIR LETTER ON XX/XX/XXXX, WITH NUMEROUS LETTRS EXPLAING THE FACTS, PROVIDING LEGAL REASONS WHY THE INITIAL ACH CHARGE AND TRANSACTION TO XXXX WAS NOT, IN FACT, AUTHORIZED BY CONSUMERS. CONSUMERS ALSO PROVIDED AFFIDAVITS TO WELLS THAT : 1. CONSUMERS RECEIVED NO BENEFIT FROM THE TRANSACTION, 2. THAT CONSUMERS DID ASK MERCHANT TO REIMBURSE CONSUMERS, 3. THAT CONSUMERS HAVE PROOF OF REVOCATION OF THE ACH PAYMENTS TO MERCHANT, 4. THHAT, IN LAW AND FACT, BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD AND DECEIT BY THE MERCHNAT, CONSUMERS DID LEGALLY NEVER AGREE TO THE TRANSACTION, AND THEIR REVOCATION OF THE ACH TRANSACTION WAS LEGAL AND TRUE. 

CONSUMERS SHOWED WELLS THAT PURSUANT TO BOTH ACH AND NACHA RULES, CONSUMERS DID NOT LEGALLY AUTHORIZE THE DISPUTED TRANSACTION. 

CONSUMERS SHOWED WELLS THAT THE ACH TRANSACTION WAS UNAUTHORIZED BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION AND THAT PURSUANT TO ACH RULES IT WAS AN UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTION. 
ALSO PURSUANT TO ACH RULES, THE " NON RECEIPT " OF ANY GOODS OR SERVICES ( CRUISE ) ALSO AUTHORIZES A REVERSAL OF THE ACH PAYMENT To THE CONSUMER.

CONSUMERS HAVE SENT TO WELLS 5 LETTERS SHOWING IN DETAIL WHY THE ACH PAYMENTS SHOULD BE REVERSED TO 2 SENIOR CITIZENS.

THE ONLY RESPONSE FROM WELLS WAS ( 1 ) LTR DTD XX/XX/XXXX STATING THAT " RULES '' DO NOT ALLOW REVERSE AUTHORIZATION AND THAT OUR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO CONTACT THE MERCHANT. ( 2.. ) A LTR DTD XX/XX/XXXX ATTACHING DOCUMENTS IN THE MANNER OF AFFIDAVITS STATING THAT CONSUMERS DID NOT RECEIVE ANY GOODS OR SERVICES FROM MERCHANT AND CONSUMERS DID, IN FACT, TELL MERCHANT TO REIMBURSE THE ACH PAYMENT. THEN ( 3. ) WELLS LAST LTR WAS ON XX/XX/XXXX STATING THE CASE WAS CLOSED. 

CONSUMERS ALLSO SHOWED WELLS PART OF THE FRAUD BY MERCHANT WAS THAT AS SOON AS A PAYMENTS WAS RECEIVED BY MERCHANT, THAT PAYMENT WAS INTERNALLY CONVERTED TO A POSSIBLE CLAIM ON FURTHER CRUISE AS A CREDIT. BUT, NO LONGER COULD BE RETURNED IN FUNDS. THIS IS A REASON WHY MERCHANT CLAIMS IT COULD NOT RETURN OUR ACH PAYMENT AND WAS PART OF THE OVER ALL FRAUD BY MERCHANT.

CONSUMERS CAN PROVIDE IN DETAIL ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW THIS CASE FOR REVERSAL AND ARE ASKING THE CFPB TO INVESTIGATE WHY WELLS CONTINUES TO TELL THE CONSUMERS, AS 2 SENIOR CITZENS, WHO WERE HURT BY THE LOSS OF THE INITIAL ACH PAYMENTS, WHAT " RULES '' DO NOT ALLLOW THIS ACH REVERSAL. 

THE WELLS CASE # XXXX SIGNED, XXXX XXXX

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