Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Cashing a check
Company: HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
Huntington National Bank ( Huntington ) has ( 1 ) placed successive holds on a single check deposit in a manner inconsistent with the Expedited Funds Availability Act ( EFAA ), 12 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and its implementing Regulation CC, 12 C.F.R. Part 229 ; and ( 2 ) denied me access to a credit product ( XXXX XXXX ) based on overdraft activity that does not appear in my account transaction history, without providing the itemized basis for that adverse determination upon request. XXXX. Facts XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I deposited a check in the amount of {$5300.00} into my Huntington Perks Checking account ending in XXXX/ nicknamed XXXX. XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent an automated email titled Hold Placed on Deposit stating that the {$5300.00} deposit was not available for immediate withdrawal and that [ a ] hold was placed on the deposit through XX/XX/XXXX. The notice provided no statutory reason for the hold as required under 12 C.F.R. 229.13 ( g ) ( exception hold notice ) or 229.16 ( case-by-case hold notice ). XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a second automated email titled Deposit Hold Released confirming that [ w ] eve released the hold on a check deposit dated XX/XX/XXXX for {$5300.00}. XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a third automated email titled Hold Placed on Deposit stating that the same {$5300.00} deposit was again not available for immediate withdrawal and that [ a ] hold was placed on the deposit through XX/XX/XXXX. Again, no statutory basis was identified. XXXX. As of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX ET, my available balance was {$0.00}. The deposited funds remained inaccessible for approximately six calendar days following the original deposit date. 6. On a separate date, I called Huntington customer service to ( a ) request an explanation for the re-imposition of the hold after its release, and ( b ) request an itemized list of the three overdraft transactions Huntingtons mobile application cites as the basis for my ineligibility for Standby Cash. Huntington has not provided either. 7. Huntingtons Account Eligibility & More screen, last updated XX/XX/XXXX, states I am ineligible for Standby Cash because of 3 overdraft transactions in Huntington Perks CheckingXXXX in the last 96 days. A transaction search within the same Huntington application, filtered for Item Type Overdraft Payment across the date range XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, returns No transactions found for the searched criteria. III. Legal Issues A. Regulation CC Funds Availability and Notice Requirements Under 12 C.F.R. 229.12, local check deposits are generally subject to next-business-day or second-business-day availability for the bulk of the funds. A depositary bank may extend availability under the exception holds enumerated at 12 C.F.R. 229.13 ( large deposits, new accounts, redeposited checks, repeated overdrafts, reasonable cause to doubt collectibility, emergency conditions ). The deposit at issue, {$5300.00}, falls below the {$5500.00} large-deposit threshold under 229.13 ( b ). When a bank invokes an exception hold, 229.13 ( g ) requires a written notice stating ( i ) the customers account number, ( ii ) the date and amount of the deposit, ( iii ) the amount being delayed, ( iv ) the reason the exception was invoked, and ( v ) the day funds will be available. Huntingtons notices identify the account, amount, and release date, but do not state the reason for the hold, in apparent noncompliance with 229.13 ( g ) ( 1 ) ( iv ). More significantly, Regulation CC does not contemplate the re-imposition of a hold on a deposit after the bank has affirmatively released that hold, absent a specific triggering event such as the check being returned unpaid by the paying bank in which case the banks obligations are governed by the returned-check provisions of 229.33 and the customer is owed a notice of nonpayment, not a silent re-hold. Huntington has provided no such notice and the deposit does not appear to have been returned. B. Adverse Action and Disclosure of Basis Huntingtons denial of Standby Cash credit based on a stated count of overdraft transactions that does not match the banks own customer-facing transaction records raises questions under ( i ) the accuracy obligations applicable to consumer credit decisions, and ( ii ) the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 ( d ) and Regulation B, 12 C.F.R. 1002.9, which require creditors to provide a statement of specific reasons for adverse action upon a consumers request. I requested the specific basis ( the three transactions ) and Huntington declined to provide it.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief