unauthorized charges
Complaint
clara rodriguez
Country: United States
I notice 4 months ago that bank of america was charging me for smart step
insurance. I never authorized such insurance company not Bank of america
I never gave authorization to BOA to give my information. I went to the
bank and they told me that they had no knowledge of what is going on I decided to cancel the account and open a new one. It did not work they keep on fraudelently charging my account. I am very upset I am an elderly
person that does not check the statement all the time. Unfortunately I trusted bank of america. It is so sad that somebody has to go to the point
to change banks. Because the bank you had and trust is stealing your money/.
insurance. I never authorized such insurance company not Bank of america
I never gave authorization to BOA to give my information. I went to the
bank and they told me that they had no knowledge of what is going on I decided to cancel the account and open a new one. It did not work they keep on fraudelently charging my account. I am very upset I am an elderly
person that does not check the statement all the time. Unfortunately I trusted bank of america. It is so sad that somebody has to go to the point
to change banks. Because the bank you had and trust is stealing your money/.
Comments
Chartered then uses that information to attempt to obtain authorization to sign of BofA cutomers for these monthly charges for this alleged "insurance".
Since Chartered has full account information, there is nothing to stop them from setting up automatic monthly charges regardless of whether any customer agrees, or even without any contact at all.
On disputing, Chartered generally claims "you authorized it", or even that they "have a recording of your authorization". Such claims have been made even when no such recording was later produced, or in cases where the consumer was not even reachable (out of the country, never had the phone number) to have "authorized" by phone.
Also note that FTC has placed very specific authorization requirements on telemarketers using "pre-acquired account information" or "free-to-pay conversion" (free-trial negative option marketing), requiring recording of the entire call, and requiring that the agreeing consumer specifically say at least the last 4 digits of the account number.
These rules were put in place back in 2003 due to high levels of similar telemarketing fraud in these circumstances, but there are reports of various telemarketers either evading the requirements, or attempting to bluff disputing consumers presumably when a recording might prove no authorization was made.
There are numerous complaints indicating a pattern of telemarketing fraud associated with this company, with reports of BofA employees covering for them when their customers attempt to dispute unauthorized charges.
BofA has a fiduciary duty to protect its customers from fraud. When you originally notified them, they should have processed the charges as fraudulent and reversed them under FRB Reg. E, which covers EFT and related disputes. They should also have assisted you in closing the account, which apparently they did, but the charges could not have been shifted to your new account without BofA's assistance to update Smart Step's account records. If they had flagged and reversed the charges due to fraud, this would not have happened, but because they are in bed together, splitting their take from your account, BofA is avoiding handling any Smart Step charges as fraud, despite numerous consumer complaints.
Put your dispute to BofA IN WRITING, sent certified return receipt requested, to the dispute address on your statement. Include in it a summary of your first notification to them that the earlier charges were fraudulent, and demand that they reverse all charges due to fraud under FRB Reg. E. Include that your first notice to them was "constructive notice" under FRB Reg. E.
They will probably try to only refund you the last 60 days. Your position is that they were notified earlier, and that the continued fraud is a direct result of their failure to classify and handle the charges as fraud. Include that despite their claim to "not know what this is about", BofA sold your account information, which Smart Step then used to make the fraudulent charges.
You make that claim in your complaint to OCC, at www.occ.gov if BofA does not totally reverse the charges.
Do not mince words. This is not a "misunderstanding", or "billing error". It is fraud, and it continues because of BofA's failure to stop it.
Although it is always a good idea to check your statements, you did that, you caught them, and it still continued. Enough people miss it, or don't know what to do to stop it, and you have a steady income stream.
As for what the "product" is worth, if they could sell it, they wouldn't be cramming it. What's the odds they even have to pay off, when the "insured" never new they were "insured", and had no policy in their records for their survivors to use to file a claim?
Bank of America has been covering up such telemarketing fraud by its "marketing partners" for several years. You probably need to find a new bank.
https://complaintwire.org/Complaint.aspx/9dJQUN6jPwDXWAjL3Y9vzg
https://complaintwire.org/Complaint.aspx/tYc4K1wNsACmMAjLZ-BuTg
BofA was aware of your grandmother's age, and may even have been aware of her condition, or have become aware of her condition as a result of your grandfather's attempt to dispute the unauthorized charges. Regardless of whether they were aware that specific charges were fraudulent at the time they occurred, once they became aware that they may have been fraudulent, based on state law they may have had a duty to report.
As in many cases of affiliate telemarketing, the contract between BofA and Chartered probably provides for BofA refering problems back to Chartered before taking other actions to resolve dispute. This tends to hide levels of telemarketing fraud, as they get handled as "billing errors", rather than "unauthorized charges", skewing the chargeback statistics, and concealing patterns of unauthorized charging from audits.
However, if your state law requires reporting of possible elder financial abuse of which bank employees become aware, their failure to do so may bring them into noncompliance with state law in an area where state law would not be preempted by federal regulation. Contract terms designed to underreport unauthorized charges would be little defense, both legally and morally.
If you need leverage, you might wish to discuss this matter with your local District Attorney.
Opting-out is allowed by GLB, and those privacy notices you receive periodically are to notify you of your right to restrict such sharing.
Go the the www.bankofamerica.com site, and search for "opt out". You will find the on-line form to set your "sharing" preferences. (It doesn't appear to be directly visible from the main BofA page.)