Consumer complaint received 2024-06-07 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: FIRST TECHNOLOGY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
I have already had a complaint opened and closed by XXXX ( XXXX ) in which they state a main reason for being held liable is " On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transfer from another account in the amount of {$970.00}, which appears to cover the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX transaction XXXX That transfer reduced your overdraft amount, and allowed the XX/XX/XXXX transaction to be initiated. Both transactions were properly performed by an authorized joint account owner and neither transaction was completed using your debit card or personal information ''. -- - I submitted the transaction list given to me by XXXX directly in my original complaint and on XX/XX/XXXX there is XXXX such record of this " {$970.00} '' transaction. ( See -- Transactions in the amount of XXXX and XXXX -- - neither of which is the total XXXX they refer to. ) They also claim there is XXXX record of me reporting this before the 6 year mark. This is wholly untrue. I was IN PERSON at the XXXX branch in XXXX, MA in XX/XX/XXXX WITH XXXX XXXX. I was told at that time that an investigation was done ( which why would a fraud investigation be conducted if I did not report fraud? ) -- and I was found liable simply because " XXXX XXXX lives in my household ''. -- - If video records are kept long enough, I will assuredly be on camera in XXXX with XXXX XXXX speaking to Staff of the XXXX, MA XXXX branch. 

They also claim : " XXXX also noted several small deposits made to your account. These small deposits are used by financial institutions to ensure that the correct account information was provided, before permitting larger transactions to occur. '' -- - Yes because my account was accessed FRAUDULENTLY. The thief had access to my online account ( which I later found out through a stolen mobile device/DCU App -- and a lack of a secure password on my part which I assume he guessed given he knew me very well ). I am also unsure what these fraudulently initiated trial deposits have to due with the debit card transactions from my mother 's stolen Debit Card? 


And XXXX XXXX was ALSO a victim of fraud ( as well as another member of my household- my younger sister - as a result of this XXXX person in the house XXXX XXXX- the thief- who was convicted of fraud and actually given jail time! ) Which she ALSO reported to XXXX and was found " liable ''. Despite her also having a police report and reporting the fraud. 

Overall XXXX 's " response '' and part of their validation for being liable for fraud is untrue. The only true portion was that it was a joint account with my mother XXXX XXXX. All other information in the response by XXXX is invalid/incorrect -- There WAS contact in XX/XX/XXXX in person at the local XXXX, MA XXXX branch and it was reported as fraud then ( otherwise no investigation would've been conducted/initated ) -- and there is no {$970.00} transaction from my mother 's ( also fraudulently accessed account ) as they claim in the prior complaint. 

I am also submitting evidence on text message history exported from myself to my sister showing fraud also on her XXXX account not long before this as well. Furthering supporting that it was NOT my mother ( XXXX XXXX ) which I also said back in XXXX. 

And resubmitting all documentation of the prior complaint including the transaction list given to me by a manager of the XXXX, MA XXXX branch on XX/XX/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