Consumer complaint received 2026-01-21 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I reported Fraud to Navy Federal on XX/XX/XXXX. Note that the EFTA its Regulation E requires financial institutions ( FIs ) to conduct a reasonable investigation, give provisional credit, and resolve disputes within timelines, with courts like the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reinforcing that even factual investigation mistakes can be covered by the bona fide error defense, but the core duty to investigate remains. Cases like the Florida federal court ruling in XX/XX/XXXX show that claims of failing to investigate or conduct a good-faith inquiry can survive motions to dismiss, highlighting that XXXX  can't just deny claims without due diligence. 

I will illustrate 100 % proof Navy Federal conducted NO investigation as required by law : On XX/XX/XXXX, despite the statistical impossibility of a real human making FOUR withdrawals on the same day for the exact amount ( which occurred and are some of the charges in question ), Navy Federal refused to provide the legally required provisional credit ( message attached ) because withdrawals reflect a real pattern of spending. Navy Federal 's first response is in direct contrast to the report submitted containing statistically impossible charges. This is one layer of proof no investigation was done. Also, the legal precedent provided illustrates that an investigation needs to be thorough. By deductive reasoning, we can see no thorough investigation was done and there are serious questions if the stated investigation was done at ALL because the data is in 100 % complete contrast to the justification. I appealed this decision through their online process on XX/XX/XXXX. In feat of stupidity and dishonesty I have not seen in my lifetime, Navy Federal responds within 24 hours with a NEW reason : A THOROUGH investigation has been done. This was a clear attempt to provide some random excuse for denial before their 10 day window to provide a provisional credit expired. Furthermore, it is impossible to do a thorough investigation of the magnitude required under the provided legal precedent in that amount of time. To be clear, Navy Federal first announced a reason disproved by the provided data proving they didn't even read it. They THEN provided a reason that by definition and timing proves itself untrue. To support my claim, I have attached police reports to my local XXXX Florida Police Department, The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the FTC for identity theft at or about the same time the fraud submitted occurred. 

MOST AGGREGIOUS, I SUBMITTED A SECOND APPEAL WITH COPIES OF POLICE REPORTS SHOWING IDENTITY THEFT AT AROUND THE TIME OF THESE CHARGES AND NAVY FEDERAL NOW IGNORES ME. 

I demand an investigation of Navy Federal and in particular, the specific individual who is lying in violation of the EFTA regulation E. 

You are required to do so and provide me with evidence that you conducted an investigation. I also demand as is allowed under Florida law the names of those involved in my case as I am filing a police report and then a civil suit against the dishonest people involved in my case.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief