Consumer complaint received 2025-09-22 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
Timeline, Issues, and Immediate Demands Client : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Bank : Citizens Bank , N.A. 
Total Disputed Loss : ~ $ XXXX ( $ XXXX checking + $ XXXX savings ) Channels : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( and related processors, incl. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ) Police Report : XXXX Police XXXX Recent Letters : Citizens denial/closure letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ( multiple claim IDs ) New Merchant Docs in Hand : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Transaction authorization history printouts ( with IPs/timestamps ) printed XXXX A. Chronology ( evidentiary timeline ) XXXX XXXX ( first unauthorized activity ) Series of {$100.00} ACH capture pulls to gambling merchants ( XXXX, etc. ). 

Consumer did not recognize ; amounts were small and interspersed with credits ; pattern not obvious from monthly view. 

XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( loss compounds ) Unauthorized debits continue from both checking and savings via XXXXmerchant rails XXXX 

Total exposure approaches ~ $ XXXX ( consumer ledger ; later reflected in Citizens scattershot letters ). 

XX/XX/XXXX ( first disputes opened ) Consumer opens disputes in Citizens portal ( screenshots show multiple entries on XX/XX/XXXX ). 

Bank mis-records total as ~ {$14000.00} ( portal shows this number ). 

Partial provisional credit of {$9000.00} issued, then ~ {$6000.00} clawed back without merchant Proof of Authorization ( POA ). 

XXXX XXXX ( improper denials ) Citizens issues denials citing pattern of use, XXXX rule, and terms & conditionswithout producing merchant POA or a written explanation identifying documents relied upon. 

Savings-account ACH items not properly opened or tracked in the portal. 

Aug 2025, 2025 ( consumer reopens ; still fragmented ) XXXX new portal disputes opened XX/XX/XXXX for {$2000.00} / {$7000.00} / $ XXXX not the full total. 

XX/XX/XXXX : First wave of denial/closure letters mailed ( no merchant POA enclosed XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( regulatory escalation ) CFPB complaint ( XXXX ) filed ; XXXX contacted. 

XXXX : Citizens Office of the Customer XXXX XXXX XXXX emails : will ask the XXXX for a XXXX review only if consumer sends a dispute letter and a physical police report copy. ( Email admits bank will not refile claims ; warns of duplicates ; invokes XXXX rule broadly. ) XXXX XXXX XXXX ( second wave of denials ) XX/XX/XXXX letters ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ) deny {$2000.00} and {$7000.00} items ; bank relies on generic account history ; valid transactions language. 

XX/XX/XXXX letter ( example image provided ) denies {$8100.00} for XXXX across a large batch of claim IDs ; asserts based upon the enclosed documentation provided by the merchant the transactions are valid. Enclosures are internal processor/ACH logsnot merchant-executed POA. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( new XXXX-party records appear ) Consumer receives XXXX XXXX authorization history printouts ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ; received by consumer XXXX ). 

Show : name/email/phone/address, Financial Institution Authorization ID, IP addresses ( e.g., XXXX ; XXXX ), timestamps, routing XXXX and masked account numbers, and many {$100.00} capture entries. 

No consumer e-signature, wet signature, or voice authorization ; text looks like XXXX standard click-through wording. 

Citizens still denies and closes claims while continuing to withhold full provisional credit. 

Present ( as of today ) Portal shows closed/withdrawn/denied statuses ; no full provisional credit for the total exposure ; no merchant POA produced for XXXX/other channels ; bank continues to rely on internal logs and the XXXX rule. 

B. Why Citizens conduct violates law Regulation E / EFTA ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) Provisional credit : Failure to issue full provisional credit within XXXX business days for timely-reported unauthorized EFTs ; improper clawback without furnishing the evidentiary basis. 

Investigation & explanation : Denials without a written explanation identifying the documents relied upon ; refusal to provide copies of those documents. 

Scope : Handling only XXXX and not XXXX is a partial investigation and noncompliant. 

ACH/NACHA rules For consumer ACH debits, originators/ODFIs must retain written or similarly authenticated authorization. Internal bank/processor logs are not the customers authorization. The banks reliance on its own logs ( or XXXX generic form text without the customers affirmative authentication record ) doesnt satisfy POA. 

Pennsylvania UDAP ( 73 P.S. 201-1 et seq. ) Unfair/deceptive practices : mis-recording claim amounts, fragmenting the claim, withholding POA, using legally irrelevant denial reasons ( pattern, boilerplate XXXX ), and refusing to correct known errors after regulatory notice. 

XXXX rule misapplied XXXX ( b ) limits liability for new unauthorized transactions occurring after XXXX days from delivery of the statement not reported, but it does not excuse the bank from investigating or from restoring amounts timely reported within the covered periods. Here, the bank : Accepted disputes XX/XX/XXXX onward ( timely for many XXXX debits and the trailing XXXX items that remained undiscovered due to offsetting credits ), Issued partial provisional credit, then reversed without POA, Now retro-uses XXXX days globally to shut the filenot permitted. 

XXXX Evidence in hand ( for exhibit tabs ) Citizens denial/closure letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ( claim IDs including XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, the {$8100.00} denial batch, etc. ). 

Portal screenshots ( XX/XX/XXXX open ; XX/XX/XXXX $ XXXX $ XXXX {$6000.00} ; many Claim withdrawn/denied ). 

XXXX authorization histories ( printed XXXX ) with IPs/timestamps/authorization IDs ( no e-sig/voice ). 

Police report XXXX. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) email XX/XX/XXXX demanding dispute letter + physical police report to seek XXXX review. 

Phone logs/recordings ( consumer notes multiple calls ; bank reps acknowledge errors and apologize ). 

XXXX Immediate demands to Citizens ( counsel to send ) Restore full provisional credit of $ XXXX across checking and savings pending a lawful investigation. 

Create new, correct claims for the entire loss, preserving the audit trail of prior errors. 

Produce POA for each transaction within XXXX business days : signed/typed authorization record ; device fingerprint ; IP ; GPS ; login logs ; Trustly merchant references ; ODFI/ACH files ; and complete processor audit trail for every disputed debit ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, MVB, XXXX XXXX, etc XXXX ). 

Written 1005.11 ( d ) explanation identifying the specific documents relied upon for each denial.

Litigation hold on all recordings, emails, claim-system logs, and ACH data.

If Citizens fails : file suit under EFTA/Reg E and PA UDAP , seek actual and statutory damages, fees, and injunctive relief ; pursue expedited discovery and regulatory referrals ( CFPB/OCC/PA AG ).

E. What to tell the lawyer ( quick brief to open the call ) My losses are ~ $ XXXX across checking and savings from XXXX XXXX XXXX. I opened disputes on XX/XX/XXXX. Citizens under-recorded the claim, gave me ~ $ XXXX provisional, clawed back ~ $ XXXX without POA, XXXX denied/closed on reasons like pattern and XXXX rule. 

I have Citizens letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX authorization printouts ( IPs/timestamps ) printed XXXX e-signature or voice authorization. 

Citizens still hasnt produced merchant POA for XXXX. 

I want a preservation letter, provisional credit demand, and subpoenas to XXXX XXXX for POA logs. 

Also need a Reg E-compliant written explanation and the complete documents relied upon.

F. One-page dispute letter to Citizens ( attach with exhibits ) Subject : Formal Dispute ; Demand for Provisional Credit and Merchant POA ( Reg E 1005.11 ) To : Citizens Bank Office of the Customer / Claims Operations Re : Checking & Savings Unauthorized EFTs ( $ XXXX total ) I dispute all unauthorized electronic fund transfers described in the attached timeline and exhibits. Citizens prior denials and clawback were issued without producing merchant proof of authorization ( POA ) and without a Reg E-compliant written explanation identifying the documents relied upon. 

Demand ( XXXX business days ) : Restore full provisional credit of $ XXXX ; Open corrected claims for the full loss ; Produce POA and the documents relied upon for each transaction ( signed/typed authorization ; IP ; device/geo ; login logs ; XXXX/processor files ; ODFI ACH entries ) ; Confirm litigation hold on all recordings, emails, ACH and claim-system logs. 

Failure to comply will result in litigation under EFTA/Reg E and PA UDAP , and further CFPB/OCC/PA AG escalation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief