Bank Of America Debit Card Fraud Investigation Charlotte North Carolina
I'm writing regarding an affidavit that I submitted some months ago about a fraudulent debit that appeared on my checking account.
Sometime in November, I made the huge mistake of ordering a trial sample from Total Cleanse. Please see internet complaints regarding this company. (((Redacted))) If you had truly investigated, you would have seen what a tremendous scam this company is perpetrating.
I gave them my debit card number to cover the cost of mailing of $5.95. That's the only payment that I actually authorized. Then, about a week later they sent me an email saying that they would be sending out another package, unless I contacted them by phone to cancel it. I tried daily for 2 weeks to reach them. Their phones are set up so that you get put on hold and disconnected after 2 minutes. Either that or it's busy. I also tried to email them, but they would not accept emails. In essence, they made it impossible to cancel the order. I gave up and thought that I would just return or not accept the package when it arrived..but I never received anything although they insist that it was left on my doorstep.
After this, they continued to charge my account for various amounts under different names. It seems that B of A is so concerned about fraud when I use my card in another country, but think nothing of allowing this company to have free access to my funds.
I contacted my personal banker several times, and spent literally hours at her desk trying to resolve this issue. In the end, she recommended that I open another account, which I did.
I thought that this would be the end. All the charges had been reversed at this point. I opened the new account in Dec and in Feb received a letter from B of A stating that they had concluded their investigation and that the monies had been permanently credited to my account.
Now, 3 months later, I'm being back charged for the amount of $178.00 and to add insult to injury, B of A is charging me $105 for insufficient fund because I closed my account at their recommendation. I not longer feel that my funds are safe at B of A and will be transitioning everything over to Wells Fargo Bank. I'm in my 60's and have been a good customer for over 30 yrs. I have several business accounts as well as mortgages with your bank. I had my personal banker, Candace Chavez phone the fraud department on my behalf and they were rude and inconsistent with her, first saying one thing and then changing their story and telling her something else.
In this time of economic crisis and turmoil, you'd think that B of A would go out of their way to earn our business.as you always say at the end of your phone call.
My expectation is that you re-open this case and consider reversing these charges. I would like to hear back from a supervisor and in the meantime will also be forwarding this letter to AARP and the newspapers.
Bmillstein Santa Fe, New Mexico
12 Updates & Rebuttals
Karl
Highlands Ranch,Colorado,
U.S.A.
DEEPAK POEM...
#13Consumer Comment
Mon, April 06, 2009
was posted earlier today as an 'Update' to Susan's Ripoff Report which was posted here. I believe her Ripoff Report is currently on 'page 2'. I think it was the 3-17-2009 Report that said this- BANK OF AMERICA WHEN IS........
I put it there with 'HARVARD PROFESSOR POEM', and 'CUOMO POEM', so the '3 Wise Men' can all be together!
Thank you.
More poems to come!
John
Califon,New Jersey,
U.S.A.
It's the op's responsibilty to get the recurring charges stopped.
#13Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The bank is not a mediator. That would take a lawyers. Again, it's not the bank's fault the OP fell for a scam.
Purplenights
Phoenix,Arizona,
U.S.A.
Laurie, are you so heartless that you cannot even sympathize with the OP?
#13Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The OP stated that the approved charge was for the trial ONLY. After calling and calling, and then doing research, finding out this company was a scam, and could not reach the company, the bank continued to allow the company to bill the account even though no producted was wanted, or even delivered. It seems to me that the bank should not allow continued charges after the OP requested that the bank not honor the company's request for funds. But the bank's customer will give the money to the company instead of honoring the OP's directive to cease payment. How is this fair to the OP? And furthermore, why does the bank continually side with the business? What does the bank get out of it? Even if the the charges were legitimate, if the OP asks the bank to stop allowing the payments to that company, what business is it of the banks? The company could always sue the OP if they felt the charges were legitimate and they did not pay. I am allowed to stop payment on a check--any check at all-- so what is the difference? The bank is not liable to the company, the OP is. I understand this compalint completely, and it is a valid complaint. It is a shame that the banks are more interested in helping perpetuate scams than protecting the victims of them. And you, my dear, are very cold and heartless. Try looking at it from the OP's point of view instead of your narrow-minded frame of reference.
Purplenights
Phoenix,Arizona,
U.S.A.
Laurie, are you so heartless that you cannot even sympathize with the OP?
#13Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The OP stated that the approved charge was for the trial ONLY. After calling and calling, and then doing research, finding out this company was a scam, and could not reach the company, the bank continued to allow the company to bill the account even though no producted was wanted, or even delivered. It seems to me that the bank should not allow continued charges after the OP requested that the bank not honor the company's request for funds. But the bank's customer will give the money to the company instead of honoring the OP's directive to cease payment. How is this fair to the OP? And furthermore, why does the bank continually side with the business? What does the bank get out of it? Even if the the charges were legitimate, if the OP asks the bank to stop allowing the payments to that company, what business is it of the banks? The company could always sue the OP if they felt the charges were legitimate and they did not pay. I am allowed to stop payment on a check--any check at all-- so what is the difference? The bank is not liable to the company, the OP is. I understand this compalint completely, and it is a valid complaint. It is a shame that the banks are more interested in helping perpetuate scams than protecting the victims of them. And you, my dear, are very cold and heartless. Try looking at it from the OP's point of view instead of your narrow-minded frame of reference.
Purplenights
Phoenix,Arizona,
U.S.A.
Laurie, are you so heartless that you cannot even sympathize with the OP?
#13Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The OP stated that the approved charge was for the trial ONLY. After calling and calling, and then doing research, finding out this company was a scam, and could not reach the company, the bank continued to allow the company to bill the account even though no producted was wanted, or even delivered. It seems to me that the bank should not allow continued charges after the OP requested that the bank not honor the company's request for funds. But the bank's customer will give the money to the company instead of honoring the OP's directive to cease payment. How is this fair to the OP? And furthermore, why does the bank continually side with the business? What does the bank get out of it? Even if the the charges were legitimate, if the OP asks the bank to stop allowing the payments to that company, what business is it of the banks? The company could always sue the OP if they felt the charges were legitimate and they did not pay. I am allowed to stop payment on a check--any check at all-- so what is the difference? The bank is not liable to the company, the OP is. I understand this compalint completely, and it is a valid complaint. It is a shame that the banks are more interested in helping perpetuate scams than protecting the victims of them. And you, my dear, are very cold and heartless. Try looking at it from the OP's point of view instead of your narrow-minded frame of reference.
Purplenights
Phoenix,Arizona,
U.S.A.
Laurie, are you so heartless that you cannot even sympathize with the OP?
#13Consumer Comment
Sat, April 04, 2009
The OP stated that the approved charge was for the trial ONLY. After calling and calling, and then doing research, finding out this company was a scam, and could not reach the company, the bank continued to allow the company to bill the account even though no producted was wanted, or even delivered. It seems to me that the bank should not allow continued charges after the OP requested that the bank not honor the company's request for funds. But the bank's customer will give the money to the company instead of honoring the OP's directive to cease payment. How is this fair to the OP? And furthermore, why does the bank continually side with the business? What does the bank get out of it? Even if the the charges were legitimate, if the OP asks the bank to stop allowing the payments to that company, what business is it of the banks? The company could always sue the OP if they felt the charges were legitimate and they did not pay. I am allowed to stop payment on a check--any check at all-- so what is the difference? The bank is not liable to the company, the OP is. I understand this compalint completely, and it is a valid complaint. It is a shame that the banks are more interested in helping perpetuate scams than protecting the victims of them. And you, my dear, are very cold and heartless. Try looking at it from the OP's point of view instead of your narrow-minded frame of reference.
Karl
Highlands Ranch,Colorado,
U.S.A.
SLUDGE POEM...
#13Consumer Comment
Fri, April 03, 2009
was the first poem that got it all going!
You can 'Google' this- SLUDGE POEM, and read it. It was posted on 8-23-2007 about Toyota's CEO. Exactly two weeks later, on 9-6-2007, Toyota's CEO QUIT his position after 37 years of employment with Toyota Corporation.
The former CEO's name is Jim Press. You can 'Google' this- JIM PRESS, and go to the Bloomberg.com site and read about his resignation with Toyota on 9-6-2007, if you'd like.
Now I'm certain that a poem didn't cause him to quit his CEO position with Toyota. I'd be crazy to think that, right? We all know that poems can't cause a person to quit, correct? Maybe the poem, along with the song that was composed about him on 9-3-2007 both played a part in his resignation, huh?
You can 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT TOYOTA CHRISTMAS SONG #2, and sing the song that was written about Jim Press, and posted just 3 days BEFORE he quit his position as CEO with Toyota. That song was posted on 9-3-2007. That's three days before he quit!
It's also the same day that the 'Update' to Betty's Ripoff Report was posted about the 'Collapse of the U.S. economy', which came true, huh?
You can 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT GM CREDIT CARD SERVICES, and read Betty's Ripoff Report, and the '1st Upadte' to her Report where it says the U.S. economy & the stock market would COLLAPSE. That was on 9-3-2007, wasn't it?
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
P.S. I should write a 'DEEPAK POEM', since Deepak's book enabled me to do the things I can do, huh?
Coming soon- DEEPAK POEM
In order to prepare for 'DEEPAK POEM', it would be best to read his book entitled- 'The Spontaneous Fulfillment of Desire- Harnessing the Infinite Power of Coincidence'.
If you're not a 'book person', simply read 'page 118' of that book. Then read pages 289 - 293. That'll give you the message!!!!
I'm Karl, and I approve this Update!
Laurie
Haslet,Texas,
U.S.A.
FAILURE TO READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
#13Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
YES YOU DID AUTHORIZE THEM TO SEND ADDITIONAL PRODUCT!
it was in the terms and conditions that you CHOSE not to read.
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THE SAME COMPLAINT
THEY DID NOT RIP YOU OFF - You agreed to the membership program when you ordered the trial supply. ITS NOT THEIR FAULT YOU DID NOT READ THE INFO PROVIDED.
As for the BoA issue - if they charged you an overdraft fee on a CLOSED Account, YES they are at fault.
FILE COMPLAINTS WITH THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION.
John
Califon,New Jersey,
U.S.A.
I don't get it
#13Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
How is it the bank's fault you got scammed?
John
Califon,New Jersey,
U.S.A.
I don't get it
#13Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
How is it the bank's fault you got scammed?
John
Califon,New Jersey,
U.S.A.
I don't get it
#13Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
How is it the bank's fault you got scammed?
John
Califon,New Jersey,
U.S.A.
I don't get it
#13Consumer Comment
Wed, April 01, 2009
How is it the bank's fault you got scammed?