- Report: #996613
Complaint Review: Comerica Bank - Detroit Michigan
Reported By:
The Wizard -
Bronx, New York, United States of America
Submitted:
Updated:
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Comerica Bank
Corporate Quality Process Dept.-MC3232, PO 75000 Detroit, 48276 Michigan, United States of America
Phone:
3132223434
Web:
www.comerica.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Comerica Bank Direct Express Cardholder Services Incredibly they gave away my life's savings($14,995.13) to a debit card theif Detroit, Michigan
Report Attachments
I have a large problem with a large bank (Direct Express Cardholder Services a division of Comerica Bank). They have given away my life's savings to a debit/credit card thief without any questions asked.
Because of their conduct they've forced me to live from hand to mouth, day to day. Incredibly they violated their cardholder agreement on at least three provisions. To get your feet wet I'm inserting text from my attempted CFPB response email:
I've been referred to your agency for resolution of a banking dispute. I have a copy of the referral letter from the NYS Office of the Attorney General. This dispute has been ongoing since August/2011 with no reasonable resolution in site. Enclosed is a letter to Direct Express dated 12/6/2012 along with other supporting documents. My claim to the CFPB was incomplete because of a computer malfunction. My response to Comerica's Ms. Schmidt is as follows: I beg to differ with Ms. Schmidt but there seems to be some confusion as to what the conflicting info might be, I have formally asked many times to present this so called conflict, but no response was given. I have an idea as to what this conflict might be and I will explain in the final paragraph. But this seems to be a case of a banking institution violating their cardholder agreement and then trying to cover up. Direct Express has ignored their agreement at least three times involving three different provisions.
* Sec B, provision V, item 3: ''lf we notice transactions that are unusual or suspicious, we may place a temporary freeze on your card while we attempt to contact you". Sixty-eight ATM withdrawals that were way out of my pattern are just about as suspicious as it gets.
* Sec B, provision VlII item 1: Tell us at once if you believe your card or pin has been lost or stolen...lf you tell us within two business days you can lose no more than $50.00...'' The first unauthorized transaction was on 8/5/11 @9:20PM, I noticed the card missing early on 8/07/2011 and called their Customer Service at approximately 9:00 AM on 8/7/2011 to report the card lost or stolen and to issue a replacement. I would like to know why the CSR didnt alert me to recent suspicious transactions on a lost or stolen card. That's the first thing common sense would call to do as the provisions states.
Sec B. provision XlII, item 1: ''We may temporarily suspend or permanently terminate your use of the card, including electronic access to your card account immediately if...we believe that there has been or may be unauthorized use of your funds, card, or PIN...''
You mean to tell me that in spite of the incorrect pin attempts initially made by the thief @ 9:20 PM, 9:22 PM, and 9:28 PM on 8/5/11, they still did not believe an unauthorized attempt was being made. Well Direct Express should have believed, I don't understand what more it would have taken. According to the above points, Direct Express had the opportunity to stop this guy in his tracks, but they chose not to. They could have limited the damage to zero dollars if they would have followed their own agreement and the provisions contained within.
Extenuating Circumstances: As with everything in life there are always extenuating circumstances that CFPB and Ms. Schmidt (a VP who works for Comerica) may not be aware of, they are as follows:
* My living arrangements at the time involved a shared room; I had no idea that the fellow who slept in the next bed over was a debit card thief that had plotted this out patiently.
* At the time of the theft(s) I was gravely ill, bed ridden, and nearly blind. I will provide original hospital reports along with corrections to the said reports. Official second opinions could be obtained if necessary. Acute pancreatitis, Acidosis, Flu (which in fact turned out to be a silent heart attack), and a complete loss of my short term memory was diagnosed.
* Was not aware that the second card was missing until I was returned from the hospital. As a matter of fact I did not remember ordering a second card at all. These memory issues play a large part of why it took until 10/24/2011 to file a dispute with the bank. I couldn't file a dispute if I had no working memory of the circumstances surrounding this dispute. I had to reconstruct July and August of 2011 from tough questions asked repeatedly to everyone in residence at the time, because my memory was nothing more than a blank "screen".
I will now address what I think the bank's so called conflict is: On 10/24/2011, I filed the disputes with the bank's level two dispute representative. She stated to me that the 142 unauthorized transactions were made with two cards not one, I was surprised and confused, but initially denied ordering the second card. But of course I would have done that, I had no short term memory left to reference anything with. The suspicious manner in which the CSR stated two cards had been used, made me suspect the thief had somehow ordered and activated the second card. I was just as surprised at this development as she was.
In summation, the files attached to this letter are basically the same hospital records and police reports that I've sent Direct Express back in Nov/2011. I've done every reasonable thing to convince the bank that they allowed this to happen, I didn't. So I will be a gentleman about this and give it another shot at a reasonable settlement. But know this, I don't intend to settle for the funds that they so freely gave away, that time has come and gone.
Because of their conduct they've forced me to live from hand to mouth, day to day. Incredibly they violated their cardholder agreement on at least three provisions. To get your feet wet I'm inserting text from my attempted CFPB response email:
I've been referred to your agency for resolution of a banking dispute. I have a copy of the referral letter from the NYS Office of the Attorney General. This dispute has been ongoing since August/2011 with no reasonable resolution in site. Enclosed is a letter to Direct Express dated 12/6/2012 along with other supporting documents. My claim to the CFPB was incomplete because of a computer malfunction. My response to Comerica's Ms. Schmidt is as follows: I beg to differ with Ms. Schmidt but there seems to be some confusion as to what the conflicting info might be, I have formally asked many times to present this so called conflict, but no response was given. I have an idea as to what this conflict might be and I will explain in the final paragraph. But this seems to be a case of a banking institution violating their cardholder agreement and then trying to cover up. Direct Express has ignored their agreement at least three times involving three different provisions.
* Sec B, provision V, item 3: ''lf we notice transactions that are unusual or suspicious, we may place a temporary freeze on your card while we attempt to contact you". Sixty-eight ATM withdrawals that were way out of my pattern are just about as suspicious as it gets.
* Sec B, provision VlII item 1: Tell us at once if you believe your card or pin has been lost or stolen...lf you tell us within two business days you can lose no more than $50.00...'' The first unauthorized transaction was on 8/5/11 @9:20PM, I noticed the card missing early on 8/07/2011 and called their Customer Service at approximately 9:00 AM on 8/7/2011 to report the card lost or stolen and to issue a replacement. I would like to know why the CSR didnt alert me to recent suspicious transactions on a lost or stolen card. That's the first thing common sense would call to do as the provisions states.
Sec B. provision XlII, item 1: ''We may temporarily suspend or permanently terminate your use of the card, including electronic access to your card account immediately if...we believe that there has been or may be unauthorized use of your funds, card, or PIN...''
You mean to tell me that in spite of the incorrect pin attempts initially made by the thief @ 9:20 PM, 9:22 PM, and 9:28 PM on 8/5/11, they still did not believe an unauthorized attempt was being made. Well Direct Express should have believed, I don't understand what more it would have taken. According to the above points, Direct Express had the opportunity to stop this guy in his tracks, but they chose not to. They could have limited the damage to zero dollars if they would have followed their own agreement and the provisions contained within.
Extenuating Circumstances: As with everything in life there are always extenuating circumstances that CFPB and Ms. Schmidt (a VP who works for Comerica) may not be aware of, they are as follows:
* My living arrangements at the time involved a shared room; I had no idea that the fellow who slept in the next bed over was a debit card thief that had plotted this out patiently.
* At the time of the theft(s) I was gravely ill, bed ridden, and nearly blind. I will provide original hospital reports along with corrections to the said reports. Official second opinions could be obtained if necessary. Acute pancreatitis, Acidosis, Flu (which in fact turned out to be a silent heart attack), and a complete loss of my short term memory was diagnosed.
* Was not aware that the second card was missing until I was returned from the hospital. As a matter of fact I did not remember ordering a second card at all. These memory issues play a large part of why it took until 10/24/2011 to file a dispute with the bank. I couldn't file a dispute if I had no working memory of the circumstances surrounding this dispute. I had to reconstruct July and August of 2011 from tough questions asked repeatedly to everyone in residence at the time, because my memory was nothing more than a blank "screen".
I will now address what I think the bank's so called conflict is: On 10/24/2011, I filed the disputes with the bank's level two dispute representative. She stated to me that the 142 unauthorized transactions were made with two cards not one, I was surprised and confused, but initially denied ordering the second card. But of course I would have done that, I had no short term memory left to reference anything with. The suspicious manner in which the CSR stated two cards had been used, made me suspect the thief had somehow ordered and activated the second card. I was just as surprised at this development as she was.
In summation, the files attached to this letter are basically the same hospital records and police reports that I've sent Direct Express back in Nov/2011. I've done every reasonable thing to convince the bank that they allowed this to happen, I didn't. So I will be a gentleman about this and give it another shot at a reasonable settlement. But know this, I don't intend to settle for the funds that they so freely gave away, that time has come and gone.
Report Attachments
