Consumer complaint received 2026-05-27 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
COMPLAINT REGARDING ONGOING REGULATION XXXX ERROR RESOLUTION VIOLATIONS Prior CFPB Case Reference : XXXX Huntington Case References : XXXX & New Case XXXX I am filing this follow-up complaint to submit a newly issued letter from The Huntington National Bank dated XX/XX/year> ( Case XXXX ). In this letter, the bank explicitly admits to facts that confirm severe, structural violations of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ). Admission of Corrupted Investigation Framework : In the attached letter, XXXX XXXX XXXX admits that the bank successfully received my hand-delivered dispute packet at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year>, and claims it was " included in the evaluation. '' However, the bank 's own historical records prove that on XX/XX/year>, the bank issued a letter demanding that I provide documentation by XX/XX/XXXX or face case closure. On XX/XX/year>, the bank closed the case specifically citing " non-receipt of requested documentation. '' The bank can not simultaneously claim they reviewed my XX/XX/XXXX packet while also maintaining they closed the file for non-receipt of that exact packet. This admission confirms that the bank 's automated back-office completely failed to coordinate with its retail branch, resulting in a premature, illegal cancellation of a Regulation E dispute. Violation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( Notice of Findings ) : If Huntington actually evaluated my documentation on XX/XX/XXXX and chose to deny it on XX/XX/XXXX ( as XXXX now claims ), the bank was legally required under Regulation E to provide a detailed written explanation of its findings and notify me of my right to request the documents used in their investigation. The bank 's XX/XX/XXXX closure notice contained no such findings, stating exclusively that the file was shut due to a lack of paperwork. The bank 's shifting narrative proves its notifications to the consumer were deceptive and non-compliant. Evasion of Statutory Stop-Payment Rights ( 12 CFR 1005.10 ( c ) ) : The bank continues to completely ignore the core legal basis of this dispute. The underlying transactions were recurring, preauthorized merchant pulls. I legally revoked authorization on XX/XX/year>. Under Regulation E, consumers possess an absolute right to stop payment on preauthorized electronic fund transfers. The bank 's internal policy stating it " can not revoke '' debit card preauthorizations is a direct violation of federal law. REQUESTED REMEDIES : I demand that the CFPB i nvestigate Huntingtons systemic failure to synchronize branch documentation with back-office claims processing. I require Huntington to : Re-open and process this dispute under strict Regulation E guidelines. Fully credit my account for the {$510.00} / {$520.00} in unauthorized transfers. Completely reverse the checking account charge-off ( {$470.00} ) and the XXXX XXXX closure/delinquency ( {$67.00} ) caused entirely by the bank 's erroneous reversal of my provisional credits. Issue a formal compliance guarantee that no negative data regarding this systemic failure will be reported to XXXX, XXXX XXXX, or XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation