Consumer complaint received 2016-04-21 00:00:00
Product: Bank account or service — Checking account
Issue: Deposits and withdrawals — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I issued a check to an air conditioning repair company for a job they did fixing an electrical circuit that shorted. The vendor then cashed the check which was fine, they then destroyed the check. However, somehow the check was found having been destroyed by being torn into shreds, it was then taped together and a new payee was rewritten on the top of the check over the vendors name and redeposited. The same exact check was thus deposited other than the obvious sign that its payee had been changed, the same check number, date, account number and routing number were used. It was apparent that electronic check deposit must of been used to cash the check both times since neither time the bank required it to be kept. I contacted the bank regarding the fraud and they stated since it was over 60 days that they were no longer liable and that I was, however, I read in the commercial code that the bank cited that the bank must first utilize reasonable care which it did not since it was a check that was obviously a fraud and was deposited twice, any individual could deposit a check multiple times and receive payment each time. Also according to consumer regulartions I read the following ; Unauthorized EFTs Not Involving an Access Device : Comment XXXX it clearly states that had they been notified within the 60 day period and been able to delay payment they would have I then notified the bank regarding this and that they must investigate it but they would not, they simply put me on hold for a long time transferred me around and then said someone would call me back and I never received any additional notice. 
I then read that the CFPB helps to enforce the rules and regulations devised to maintain the order of business so I hope that something can be done to ensure that the bank maintain its requirement to do a reasonable job to prevent fraud and that they must investigate and unless it could 've been prevented had they been notified within 60 days they are still liable and must reimburse my cost of this check. I have cited the section below ; The consumer liability rules are slightly different when an unauthorized EFT does not involve an access device. Most important, the XXXX tiers of liability do not apply ; that is, the institution may not hold a consumer liable for any portion of any unauthorized EFT not involving an access device that occurred on or before the 60th calendar day after the institution 's transmittal of the periodic statement showing the first unauthorized EFT.XXXX Instead, an institution may only hold the consumer liable for an unauthorized EFT not involving an access device if the transfer occurred more than 60 calendar days after transmittal of a periodic statement showing the first unauthorized EFT out of the consumer 's account and before the consumer gives notice to the financial institution, provided the institution establishes that the unauthorized EFT would not have occurred had the consumer notified the institution within the 60-day period.

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 monetary relief