Consumer complaint received 2026-03-09 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: WY

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Procedural deficiencies, unsupported conclusions, and omissions in Wells Fargos Final Determination letter dated XX/XX/year>. Wells Fargos XX/XX/year>XXXX Final Determination letter contains multiple procedural errors, unsupported assertions, and omissions that prevent me from understanding the basis of the denial. The letter does not meet regulatory standards for accuracy, completeness, or transparency. 1. The letter fails to address the ATM deposit entirely The ATM deposit was the central issue in my complaint. This Final Determination letter does not mention the ATM deposit at all. A determination that omits the primary disputed transaction is procedurally defective and prevents me from understanding the basis of the denial. 2. Unsupported claim that I authorized the withdrawals The letter states : It has been determined that you or someone with your permission authorized the withdrawals. No evidence is described or provided to support this conclusion. No teller notes, authentication logs, ATM records, or surveillance footage were included. The letter simply repeats the denial without demonstrating that an investigation occurred. 3. The letter contradicts itself regarding the fraud scheme The letter states : It has been determined that you were a victim of a fraud scheme, yet simultaneously claims I authorized the withdrawals. These two statements can not both be true. The letter does not reconcile this contradiction. 4. The letter references a XX/XX/year>XXXX letter but does not provide it The letter claims : A letter was mailed on XX/XX/year>XXXX advising action needed This letter was not included, and no explanation is provided for why it was omitted. A determination can not rely on documents the consumer has not received. 5. No documentation was provided despite referencing an investigation The letter claims : We have completed our research but provides no evidence, no documentation, and no explanation of what was reviewed. A determination that references an investigation but provides no supporting documentation is procedurally insufficient. 6. The letter closes the case despite unresolved issues The letter states : Please consider this claim closed. This is inappropriate because : the ATM deposit was not addressed no evidence was provided no teller notes were provided no authentication logs were provided no explanation was given for the contradictory statements Closing the case without addressing the core issue is a procedural failure. 7. The letter improperly shifts responsibility to law enforcement The letter instructs me to continue to work with law enforcement, but Wells Fargo has not confirmed whether it responded to the detectives search warrant or provided the required ATM records. The bank can not shift responsibility while withholding information. Requested Resolution : 1. A corrected Final Determination that addresses the ATM deposit, provides the evidence referenced in the letter, and explains the contradictory statements. 2. Confirmation of whether the detectives search warrant was received and processed. 3. A full review by a department other than XXXX due to procedural errors in this determination.

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