Stop montly withdrawal from my bank acc
Complaint
Mohammed Saad
Country: United States
I have received a monthly charge on my Bank of America account for $40 dated Feb09. I did receive a phone call claimed to be from Bank of America some time ago to try a certain insurance for a trial period. to be followed by more details.Nothing was received until I got a charge of $40 off my acc. I wrote to B of A who did not seem to know who the "merchant" was. I want to CANCELL this montly charge effective immediatly and the $40 charged to my acc reversed.
Thanks
Mohammed
Thanks
Mohammed
Comments
Although the consumer became suspicious at that request and hung up, the telemarketer would have no legitimate reason to ask for a birthdate "to mail information". The only reason to ask for it to allegedly "mail information" would be to deceptively obtain the birthdate for use as "authorization" for starting fraudulent charges.
If GMAC is requiring birthdate for authorization, instead of phone recording, then asking for birthdate when the consumer has not already agreed to try the insurance product is an indication of attempted telemarketing fraud.
Using birthdate instead of phone recording does not stop fraud. It just requires different deception.
Call center in the Philippines.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-847-368-7297
"don - 28 Apr 2008
They called me and said that I was getting free insurance because of our loan with City Mortgage. He Started asking personal information. I Asked him where he was at and he said their company is based in Columbus,OH. Then I asked no, where are YOU at, and he said the Philippines. Needless to say I told him I wasn't interested and hung up.
Caller ID: Intersection In
Caller Type: Telemarketer
..."
Deceptively twisted.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-847-368-7297
"oncernedPerson - 6 May 2008
This is the second such call, the first time I informed the caller to NEVER call me again (2 months ago?). But these folks (whom I believe to be criminals) naturally broke the law and tried again.
My wife received the same bogus call an hour ago from this number. A man with a heavy Indian accent claimed:
-- That we were valued customers of Citi Mortgage, we were signed up for a promotional insurance program.
-- That we had two months to opt out, and that he was transferring my wife to an insurance agent for "more information" (no doubt to steal information).
-- The phone number he gave for us to call to "cancel" the already applied insurance plan was: 1-800-251-2617. Google reveals this to be a number associated with scams: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/259/RipOff0259829.htm
-- He claimed his name was Irwin BueNaoBra (his spelling of last name
-- He claimed his employee # was 6348014
..."
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-847-368-7297
"Kimi - 9 May 2008
Got a call in the late PM from (847) 386-7297. Very young Asian female asked for me and told me she was from my mortgage company and had a special deal for me and wanted my birth date. I laughed and said nice try that personal info is never given out to a caller. She became angry and I told her never to call my house again and hung up on her.
Caller ID: (847) 368-7297
Caller: UNKNOWN CALLER
"
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-847-368-7297
"Cindy - 9 May 2008
This people continue to call AM and PM. Sometimes twice a day. When I tell them we are on the 'do not call' they claim they are exempt because they got our name from CITI Bank."
Basically the old "shopping spree/gift certificate" scam billed through mortgage statements.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-847-368-7297/2
"LH - 20 Aug 2008
Answered the phone for 1-847-368-7297 and attempting to confirm that I was with citimortgage so they could send me $500 gift certificate for groceries."
Same.
"jb - 26 Aug 2008
Stated that since I was a Citimortgage customer, I could get thousands in discounts on many home Items and get 500 dollars worth of coupons for stuff I used every day just for signing up. Told them I was not interested and to remove me from their list. Caller had heavy foreign accent.
Caller ID: Intersection, IN
Caller Type: Telemarketer
"
http://www.nacha.org/achnetwork/ach_quality/wellsfargo_db.doc
"Wells Fargo
Waging War on ACH Fraud
Executive Summary
In the summer of 2002, NACHA contacted Wells Fargo as an RDFI for help in identifying Originators of TEL entries with an excessive number of returns relating to unauthorized transactions. The problem of unauthorized TEL entries posed serious risk management issues for NACHA, financial institutions, and consumers and threatened the integrity of the ACH Network, as well as the existence of the TEL application itself.
...
Unauthorized TEL Entries Increase
Following a successful pilot program, the TEL electronic check application was implemented in September 2001 to allow Single Entry ACH debits to be authorized by the consumer orally via the telephone.
During the pilot, the overall return rate for unauthorized TEL transactions was approximately 0.18%, which is consistent with unauthorized rates for other ACH debit applications. However, after the new rule became effective, the return rate for unauthorized TEL transactions increased dramatically, as did the return rate for NSF TEL transactions.
A high rate of unauthorized TEL transactions could be indicative of Originators perpetrating fraud. In addition, a significant portion of NSF returns may also be linked to fraudulent activity. Accountholders are charged a fee when an ACH debit is returned due to non-sufficient or uncollected funds in the account, even though the entry itself may not appear on the consumer’s statement. When these fees appeared on customers’ statements, they called their bank to inquire why they were being charged a fee. Subsequent investigations often determine that debits returned for NSF reasons are actually unauthorized.
Financial institutions and their customers were experiencing unauthorized TEL activity. Financial institutions faced both customer service and revenue issues. Consumers contacted the customer service center and these entries could have affected bank/customer relationships. Financial institutions waived fees even though they spent time on return work, resulting in lost revenue. Customers were at risk of having their accounts depleted or overdrawn, which threatened their ability to pay bills and, in some cases, damaged their credit. One customer who was starting a new business actually lost the business due to unauthorized TEL activity posting to her accounts.
The NACHA Operating Rules require Originators to obtain a specific oral authorization from the consumer for each TEL entry to the consumer’s account. We have found that a typical scam involves telemarketers who tape record consumer authorizations and sell the recordings to other companies who use them as authorization for additional, unauthorized debits to the consumers accounts.
...
When we identify specific Originators with unauthorized TEL transaction levels as high as 20%, we suspect that a much higher percentage of their total transactions are potentially fraudulent. Knowing that unauthorized entries may overdraw accounts, we cross-reference unauthorized transaction Originators with NSF transaction Originators.
...
The Battle Outcome
From first to second quarter 2002, the unauthorized return rate for TEL transactions doubled from 0.49% to 1.00% - ten times the unauthorized return rate for PPD and other consumer ACH debit transactions. In third quarter, unauthorized returns jumped again to 1.34% of total TEL transactions. NSF return rates followed a similar pattern climbing from 6.15% in first quarter to 8.08% in second quarter to 9.10% in third quarter 2002. With the assistance of Wells Fargo’s reporting, NACHA was able to initiate direct contact with alleged abusers and the upward trend of unauthorized TEL entries began to decline.
From third to fourth quarter 2002, unauthorized TEL returns fell from 1.34% to .55%, a 59% reduction made even more significant by the fact that TEL transactions increased 20% in the same period. NSF returns fell from 9.10% in third quarter to 5.69% in fourth quarter – a 37% drop.
..."
Note that "... the settlement requires reforms of Trilegiant's and Chase's business practices. Future solicitations sent by Trilegiant, or any other company that solicits Chase customers in a similar manner, must clearly disclose all terms of any "free trial," including when and how the customer will be billed for any membership, and how to cancel a membership. Additionally, the settlement forbids Chase and Trilegiant from engaging in any deceptive conduct in the marketing of membership programs. ..."
http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1396&year=2006&month=12
"News Release
December 11, 2006
For Immediate Release
Contact: (916) 324-5500
Attorney General Lockyer Announces $14.5 Million, Multi-State Settlement with Chase Bank and Trilegiant to Resolve Allegations of Deceptive Practices Related to Membership Plans
(SAN DIEGO) - Attorney General Bill Lockyer today announced a $14.5 million, 16-state settlement with Chase Bank and Trilegiant Corp. that will resolve allegations the companies unlawfully deceived consumers into paying for membership programs that purportedly provided discounts on car and home repair, shopping, and other goods and services.
"Many victims of this deceptive scheme were vulnerable senior citizens and consumers who read and speak limited English," said Lockyer. "This settlement will make them whole, as well as all other customers the defendants unlawfully misled. Equally important, the settlement imposes business reforms to prevent future abuses and protect consumers."
The settlement requires Trilegiant to pay a combined $8.325 million in restitution to consumers in California and the other 15 states. Eligible consumers will include those who either already have complained to Trilegiant or their Attorney General, or who complain in writing within the next nine months. Californians comprise roughly 30 percent of the customers charged for memberships in the states which settled with Trilegiant and Chase.
Trilegiant and Chase also will pay $6.175 million to the settling states to cover civil penalties and recoupment of costs and fees. Trilegiant will pay $572,539 to California, including about $229,000 in civil penalties, and Chase will pay California $350,000, including $175,000 in civil penalties.
In California, the settlement resolves a lawsuit Lockyer filed in July 2005 in San Diego County Superior Court. Lockyer filed the settlement in the same court. The lawsuit alleged Chase and Trilegiant solicited consumers with offers of "free" trials in membership programs, without adequately informing consumers they would be charged automatically if they did not affirmatively cancel within a specified period of time.
The solicitations often included a check for a small amount of money, between $2 and $10, which consumers often thought were rebates or rewards. However, by cashing the check, consumers purportedly agreed to pay for the membership program after the trial offer ended, according to the complaint. The solicitations often were included in consumers' mortgage or credit card statements, the complaint alleged, or on the letterhead of companies from which consumers already had purchased products. This tactic prevented consumers from realizing the solicitations were in fact sent by Trilegiant.
If consumers did not affirmatively cancel within the required time, Trilegiant automatically billed the membership fees to consumers' credit card or loan statement on either a monthly or yearly basis, according to the complaint. Trilegiant then charged consumers repeatedly until they cancelled their membership. Many consumers belatedly discovered they unwittingly had purchased memberships in several different clubs, the complaint alleged.
The membership programs include: AutoVantage, AutoVantage Gold, Buyers Advantage, CompleteHome Service, Just for Me, Pet Privileges, Shoppers Advantage and Travelers Advantage.
Regarding Chase's role in the alleged unlawful business practices, Chase and Trilegiant entered agreements under which Trilegiant gained access to Chase's customers for the purpose of marketing the membership programs. In soliciting Chase customers, Trilegiant used Chase's name, and Chase reviewed and approved marketing materials used by Trilegiant, according to Lockyer's complaint.
To protect consumers from unlawful deception in the future, the settlement requires reforms of Trilegiant's and Chase's business practices. Future solicitations sent by Trilegiant, or any other company that solicits Chase customers in a similar manner, must clearly disclose all terms of any "free trial," including when and how the customer will be billed for any membership, and how to cancel a membership. Additionally, the settlement forbids Chase and Trilegiant from engaging in any deceptive conduct in the marketing of membership programs. The prohibited practices include identifying the solicitation as a "reward" or "rebate" offer, or telling consumers that any check or other premium offered as part of a solicitation is anything other than a benefit or incentive for the purchase of a membership.
Consumers who signed up for membership in a Trilegiant club through any bank or other company they did business with, and who were first charged membership fees on or after July 1, 2001, are eligible to receive restitution. Additionally, Trilegiant is required to send renewal notices to consumers who have active memberships advising them that they have purchased the membership and how to cancel the membership if they wish. If there are not enough funds to make full restitution to all consumers who complain, then those consumers who complain over the next ninth months will get a pro rata share. All consumers who already have complained will receive full restitution.
In addition to Lockyer, the Attorneys General of the following states joined the settlement: Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio (Trilegiant only), Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont and Washington. Louisiana today was expected to announce a separate settlement only with Trilegiant.
Consumers who are trying to find out if they unknowingly paid for a membership program should carefully examine their credit card or mortgage statements. They can also contract Trilegiant electronically at www.trilegiant.com or by mail at Trilegiant Corporation, 100 Connecticut Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06850, ATTN: K. Buonagurato. They also should monitor their mail for any notices from Trilegiant. Written complaints requesting restitution for unauthorized charges can be submitted to the Public Inquiry Unit of the Attorney General's Office at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 or by e-mail at http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=CL .
.."
Still at it, same M.O.
5 complaints in first 5 months of 2009:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/452/RipOff0452226.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/449/RipOff0449481.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/421/RipOff0421894.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/418/RipOff0418083.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/412/RipOff0412597.htm
10 complaints in last 6 months of 2008:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/402/RipOff0402814.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/402/RipOff0402370.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/399/RipOff0399398.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/378/RipOff0378817.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/376/RipOff0376840.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/369/RipOff0369399.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/361/RipOff0361861.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/361/RipOff0361125.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/354/RipOff0354457.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/350/RipOff0350810.htm
2 complaints in 2 months of 2007:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/268/RipOff0268706.htm
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/259/RipOff0259829.htm
http://credit-protection-plus.pbworks.com/
Indications are that telemarketers have access to BofA customer account information, and can set up charges without any customer-supplied information. Various tactics to avoid cancellation, including that BofA avoids taking a dispute, sending the customer to the outside telemarketing call center, which either can't be reached, or tries to evade consumer's cancellation request. Common BofA factor points to BofA selling customer account information.
Example complaint of evading cancellation:
"I called on December 26 and was told that even asking for additional information counts as enrolling. I called BS on it, but they said they'd cancel my account, investigate, and mail me the result of the investigation within 2 weeks. I waited, finally called back on Jan 13 and spoke to a supervisor. She said they mailed something 12/30 with an access code to listen to a recording of me enrolling by phone. I never got this, and she confirmed my address and re-sent it but said she herself hadn't heard it, can't provide me this code, and that they have an analyst in Omaha who "makes sure these mistakes never happen."
I know I said no, and at worst I might have agreed to be sent additional information just to get the guy off the phone, but until I hear exactly what I said I really don't have a leg to argue on. If I did accept additional information, knowing that apparently there's some clause in the paperwork saying it counts as enrollment, I'm just going to have to make the "but you can't prove I ever received any paperwork" argument. I'll let you know how it works.
Addendum: February 12, 2009. After countless phone calls, my tally stands at this: they've "mailed" me "proof" that I signed up on the phone 3 times now. I've received none. I've had at least 3 managers promise to call me back. None have. I've spoken to about 20 reps and 6 managers now, and the story went from "anything you say counts as enrolling" to "they'd only enroll you if you explicitly asked to sign up." The second-to-last manager I talked to verified my number before not calling back, only she had a completely wrong phone number for me. The last manager I talked to, when I asked her how long this dance of "we just mailed you proof today" and "i never received the proof" would continue, told me that I should just write the Disputes Department..."
OCC complaints to http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/ appear to be the most effective , often producing either partial or in a few cases full refuhd offers from BofA. Some OCC complaints still reported to only result in 2 to 3 months refunds of unauthorized charges.
OCC should be aware of the pattern of repeated fraudulent charge complaints.
"...I GOT ALL MY MONEY BACK! Update from member Denise Hughes
I am updating this and hoping this helps somebody else receive all their credit protection plus money back. Just to recap, I had incrued over $800 in 8 months from Bank of America adding this to my credit card without my permission. I called several times and the most I was offered was a two month courtesy refund. I knew I said I didnt want this when I called about a routine credit card matter in mid 2008 so I was not going to give up that easily.
I wrote to the attorney general, all my local tv stations(consumer segments), and any other consumer watchdog group I could find from googling. I also wrote the bank itself. This has been playing out for about 3-4 weeks now. Last night I got a voicemail from the corporate office of BOA saying she understood my matter had been resolved and wanted to know if I wanted to give any other feedback.
...
I never thought I would receive the entire amount back because through all my research online, most people who complained said they only received the token two months back and just one that I could find got half back. Since the Bank of America official specifically mentioned my letter to the Treasury, I assume that was the clincher. Anyway, here is the link
http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/
..."
Report that product is sold through:
State Side Processing
1941 South 42nd Street 385
Omaha, NE 68105
Additional report of a connection to Omaha:
Disputes Department
PO Box 34888
Omaha, NE 68134
Tactics match other reports of telemarketing fraud using deceptively recorded phone "authorizations".
http://credit-protection-plus.pbworks.com/
"...
Confession of a telemarketer
I worked as a telemarketer who is working on behalf of BoA in selling their Credit Protection Plus. Im telling my story because I feel guilty in being a part of the bank's accomplish in scamming its credit card holders. Everyday we're calling thousands even millions of members to scam to the protection we're offering. Even our superiors and managers know that we're fooling good people.We were actually trained by our superiors to let do these things:
>mislead our customers that the program is free, there is no charge ever
>easy to cancel anytime with full refund (in reality:hard to contact the toll free#)
>no risk & no cost program
>convince the card members that sending them the info will not charge them (truth is once they say yes to the enrollment question,they'll be CHARGED upront)
>for our senior members who can hardly hear and understand,they are the favorites because we can enroll them easily by telling them it's a gift from BoA
>for language barrier customers (can't speak english well), they are also the favorites...they will always say YES...
Our strategy is like this, during our product presentation,before the recording part of the conversation, we will all say the beauty of the program, no charge/free,that they can activate their benefits easily,to the extent that we're saying lies to the clients just to make sales because we were pressured by our superiors.now,during the taped recorded part of the conversation,specially on the reading of the disclosure,which almost all members don't that whar we're alreading to them id the terms and conditons of their purchase,what we do is we really read the info very fast so that they won't understand what we're saying..what to them is only some review of their benefits..eventually they'll easily say YES to the enrollment and billing question.
..."
Report that unauthorized "accidental death" insurance did not pay off after an accidental death.
"LD- (01/22/09) I learned my father was being charged for this bogus program for over 2 years while reviewing his finances after passing away in a tragic accident. I found it hard to believe that he agreed to this program since he never believed in any of the optional features marketed to card holders, especially this high cost scam. Nonetheless, I contacted the service to process his claim. It's been a year now, and they've lost his death certificate and other required information which i find disturbing. More shocking was their decision to deny the claim on the basis of the loss not being covered in the Addendum to the business card agreement, despite medical records indicating the cause of death as an accident. I've requested copies of both the addendum AND proof of my father's enrollment aggreement, and to date I haven't received anything, nor can i find this information online. And to make matters worse, they've continued charging the account (business credit card account) despite numerous cancellation requests. There are no words for the added stress AND difficulties this fraudulent organization has caused our family in mourning. I look to work with other victims on establishing a lawsuit against them. "
Various reports of consumer losses ranging from hundreds to over a thousand dollars, often in less than a year of unauthorized charges.
Report that BofA treats disputes of these charges different than other merchant charge disputes.
"...I told the rep that I wanted to see my signature that I authorized these transactions and that I never agreed to this. Again, she said they would send a letter in about two weeks. I also called the BOA disputes center and told them there were fraudulent charges on my card. When she realized it was Credit Protection, she said that all she could do is file the same thing as the rep from credit protection. ..."
"...We didn't think much of the card until we decided to pay the entire balance off this month (August of 2008). When I logged on to view the statement, there was the credit protection plus charge. What's this? Turns out that my wife called exactly 1 year ago to dispute a late fee. At that time, they enrolled us and my wife swears she was never even asked about it. All she was doing was disputing a late fee. Turns out we were charged for 12 MONTHS of this crap we never signed up for. When we disputed it they claimed it was our fault for not checking our statement. WHAT? We never authorized it in the first place and therefore never knew about it. BofA sent us to Fae Dixon at Credit Protection Plus. She's the manager there. She tried the same crap about not picking it off the statement sooner and we shot back that it was a fraudulent charge to begin with and never authorized. We threatened legal action. She immediately backed down and "as a service to our valued customers" offered to refund the ENTIRE years worth of charges plus finance charges. ..."
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/30/bank-of-america-enro.html
Note that BofA employees are aware that their 3rd party marketers are setting up unauthorized charges.
"#40 posted by libelle , June 30, 2008 6:03 PM
BofA sucks.
My wife got a call (from BofA) that there was fraudulent use of her credit card, and had to go through a big exercise to get it resolved.
I had a BofA credit card, on a totally separate and unrelated account that I had taken straight from the envelope, activated, and put in a safety deposit box for emergency use only. Two days after my wife's call, I got the same thing.
They tried to say it was online fraud. I pointed out that the card was a virgin. Then they conceded it may have been compromised via a "trusted 3rd party." What they never admitted is that the problem was *internal*.
We hates them, we does. "
"#52 posted by Anonymous , October 22, 2008 5:12 PM
This happened to me also. I opened a new checking account in June 2008 with Bank of America. The customer service rep at the bank offered me a "you get points" Visa at the same time. I accepted. She offered the Credit Protection Plus. I clearly and repeatedly declined.
Later I received a letter congratulating me on enrolling in the protection plan. I called the bank and told them that I had not enrolled and did not wish to enroll. They apologized.
I received more letters encouraging me to enroll (which indicated that I was *not* enrolled). I shredded them.
Today (October 2008) I looked at my latest statement and saw a charge for $8.98 for Credit Protection Plus. I called the number and was told that this was my fee for the program I enrolled in.
????
I explained that I had not enrolled and did not wish to enroll. She agreed to un-enroll me and refund the fee. We shall see!..."
Similar report of Chase slamming.
"#2 posted by Anonymous , June 30, 2008 10:50 AM
I recently got my daughter a credit card for a Chase Visa account. On Saturday, she received an envelope congratulating her on purchasing a credit protection plan. Evidently when she activated her card, they signed her up for this. She told me that she declined buying the plan but somehow she got enrolled anyway. I imagine they did one of those sneaky things where they said you don't have to pay now and you can review the information once it arrives, either tricking her into agreeing to the program without her full consent or signing her up anyway. I like the card because of its reward points, but I am really angry that they would take advantage of a card holder like that. So be careful with Chase."
Similar report of Citibank slamming.
"#17 posted by rightbug , June 30, 2008 12:06 PM
Always watch your statements closely, regardless of who the card is through. I had a card with Citibank that I'd been running a zero balance on and one day a charge for close to $800 showed up without my authorization. I immediately called their fraud hotline and they said "We'll transfer you right away" and then transfered me internally to the people who had slammed me! It was some health plan that was, like this credit protection, a nebulous service that would never be of any value. They said it was a renewal of a service I had previously enrolled in which was patently false. Then they argued with me for 45 minutes, trying to sell me the service they had just slammed me for. I had to threaten to report them to the attorney general before they agreed to reverse the charges. When my next statement came in, they had only credited a portion of what they had charged me and they had assessed a late fee. I called the fraud hotline again, refused to be transfered and threaten to report them to various regulatory agencies if all charges and late fees were not immediately reversed."
CONFESSIONS OF A TELEMARKETER
by BRANDON R. SCHRAND
We now have BofA combined with 3 separate insurance companies or plans, all associated with complaints of unauthorized charges, and all involving alleged but suspect recordings of authorizations by phone.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/457/RipOff0457156.htm
"...
When I originally complained to BOFA about this on April 1, 2009, its customer service rep could not tell me the name of the company, because she claimed she did not have access to that information. I have since learned this company's identify, American International Underwriters (AIU), a subsidiary of AIG, based in Chicago.
..."
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/434/RipOff0434633.htm
Global Contact Services
http://www.gcsagents.com/
800-931-6317
866-315-7101
866-484-8278
Confirmation that they are calling BofA customers, including a complaint of unauthorized charges. Use the name Bank of America Insurance Services.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-800-931-6317/2
"...
MsCheryl - 13 Sep 2008
Called and asked for "Shirley" - not my name, close but no banana. If it's BofA and their insurance, man they just got a cussin' from the husband for taking money out they had no right to - $19.99 for the past 3 months. Cant explain how they got the acct # or the permission. If they want some more of Big John, call again. I think I'll call then back right now. LATER: I called the number back: recording said "Leave your number if you want to be removed from the call list." So I did.
Caller ID: 800-931-6317
Caller: BANK OF AMERICA
Caller Type: Telemarketer
..."
Second number. Complaint of unauthorized charges, usual fraud pattern: consumer only agreed to receive information, no information received, charges started.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-866-315-7101/4
"...
Megan Mills - 15 Nov 2008
Well I am a customer of Bank of America. What ever you do, don't agree to look at information at all, JUST HANG UP!!! Here is my story.I had only a certain amount of money left in my account after my husband was paid. I knew the bills I had paid and gas along with groceries I picked up. Well today my husband woke me before he left for work, upset because we were in the negative. I told him that can't be right. Come to find out my account was indeed charged $35.90. Which to begin with I only had $17.78, after they took my money without my permission, they left me in the negative of $18.12. I called BOA to tell them I don't remember spending this because I have never even heard of the place. I even asked the woman on the phone for the name of the place. She couldn't tell me. All she could do was give me a number to call. 1-866-237-8236. My sister helped me a little, I would have never thought to google the number. I honestly thought someone stole my account information and use it to buy them something under my name. Which in a sense they did steal my money. I never under any circumstances gave permission to take or order what ever this product is. I remember receiving the phone call a few months back and agreeing ONLY to look at the information. On top of that I never even got the information package. This still has yet to be resolved. I did call the number. They were closed, only open M-F. So I even tried to call back BOA, of coarse they are now closed. They closed at 5pm EST. First thing tomorrow morning I will be calling again. And again until I have been heard. I want to know why I was lied to by someone I was trusting in. I want to know how they could just let them go into my bank account without contacting me first. I want to know why the woman representing BOA could not tell me who this number really belonged to. I feel violated beyond belief. We switched to BOA thinking it was more reliable and safer to use. I am really second guessing myself.My husband is still at work and has no idea yet, that we have been robbed by the bank we bank with and trust.
Caller ID: 866-315-7101
Caller: INSURANCE SERVICE CENTER /AKA BOA
..."
Above report listed this number: 866-237-8236
"Credit Protection" service, customer DECLINED, telemarketer said he would send information and sign up customer ANYWAY.
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-866-237-8236
"...
I too was ripped off by BOA. I was contacted via telephone by someone from Bank of America who verified my account by giving me my account information including my credit card account number, balance and last payment, so I assumed they were legit. They offered a credit protection service, even thought I declined they told me that they were going to send it to me anyway. They told me that they would send me an informational packet and if I didn't call them back at the BOA phone number they would begin charging my account in 30 days. After two weeks of nothing from BOA, I contacted them and told them that someone from BOA had contacted me with only information that BOA agents should know and they informed me that I would not be charged for any credit protection services from them. Two weeks later my account was charged for $35.90 for IP INS PYMT 866-237-8236US. I immediately called BOA formally disputed the charges over the phone and in writing and promptly cancelled my credit card account with BOA; I went on to say that the charges are fraudulent and I was not going to pay them. They launched an investigation and determined that the charges were legitimate, I wonder why? If BOA had security problem, do you think they are willing to admit it, I seriously doubt it.
Well, today we received a letter from another Credit Card company explaining that we had too many accounts that were delinquent. We only have one, the fraudulent charges from Bank of America and because of these fraudulent charges they were going to cancel our account with them.
..."
Third number: 866-484-8278
https://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-866-484-8278
"...Jodar - 22 Sep 2007
I got several calls, several days in a row and let the answer machine handle it. They never left a message. I finally picked up and it was Bank of America Credit Card trying to sell me disabilty insurance. I declined, the woman was polite, and we said goodbye. . . .BUT they are still calling me ! ! ! ! again every day, almost hourly.
...
Caller ID: TOLL FREE
Caller: Bank of America
..."
Note how Providian employees were directed to handle consumers who disputed balance transfers made on terms higher than their misrepresentations.
"Employees were instructed to contradict customers who questioned why they weren't told of the balance transfer requirement, a tactic that had the effect of confusing or intimidating customers."
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2000-49.txt
"NR 2000-49
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Robert M. Garsson (202) 874-5770
Date: June 28, 2000
Providian to Cease Unfair Practices, Pay Consumers Minimum of $300 Million
Under Settlement with OCC and San Francisco District Attorney
WASHINGTON -- The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has entered
into a settlement with Providian National Bank that directs the bank to
cease a number of unfair and deceptive practices and to pay at least $300
million to consumers harmed by those practices. At the same time, the San
Francisco District Attorney entered into a similar agreement with
Providian's parent, Providian Financial Corp.
In reaching the settlement, which culminates year-long investigations by
the two agencies, the OCC concluded that the bank engaged in a pattern of
misconduct in which it misled and deceived consumers in order to increase
profits. The OCC believes hundreds of thousands of consumers were harmed
by Providian's activities, and that the bank profited as a result.
When a bank engages in unfair or deceptive marketing practices, it damages
its most precious asset -- the trust and confidence of its customers, said
Comptroller of the Currency John D. Hawke, Jr. That relationship of trust
and confidence is central to the bank's safe and sound operation. We will
not tolerate abuses that breach that trust through unfair and deceptive
practices.
Mr. Hawke said the settlement reached with Providian balances the
interests of consumers with important regulatory goals.
This settlement provides for restitution for customers of Providian
nationwide who were harmed by the bank's practices, he said. It also
ensures that, going forward, Providian will conduct its business in a way
that both respects the interests of its customers and protects the safety
and soundness of the bank.
...
They have recognized there was a major problem and they have agreed to
take appropriate steps to correct their practices and to pay restitution
to those customers we believe they misled, she said.
The bank's conduct involved unfair and deceptive practices in violation of
the Federal Trade Commission Act, and was unsafe and unsound within the
meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. In addition, the bank’s
conduct violated the California Business and Professions Code and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.
In entering into the consent order, the bank did not admit or deny
wrongdoing. However, the settlement addresses a number of practices that
the OCC and the San Francisco District Attorney found objectionable.
The OCC believes the bank failed to adequately disclose to consumers the
significant limitations in a credit protection program it marketed.
Consumers who purchased the product were told they would not have to make
card payments for up to 18 months in the event of involuntary
unemployment, hospitalization, accident, sickness or disability.
Moreover, interest would not accrue, late fees would not be charged and
the account would not be reported to credit bureaus.
However, the OCC believes the bank failed to adequately disclose that
benefits would be limited to the number of months in which the consumers
had paid credit protection fees, rather than the advertised 18 months, and
that benefits for involuntary unemployment could not be used until three
months of fees had been paid. In addition, the OCC believes the bank did
not adequately disclose that it could deny benefits if the credit card was
not current or if it was over the limit, and that unemployment benefits
would not be available if the customer's job was part-time, even if that
was his or her only source of income.
Providian could also deny benefits if the customer made more than the
minimum payment on any other credit account or if the customer used
another institution's credit card or accessed credit from any other
lender.
...
Under Providian's Real Check program, the bank promised a check for $100
or $200 to individuals who transferred credit card balances to the bank.
In one promotion, the bank represented: We want to give you $200! Why?
It's simple...We want your business now.
However, the OCC believes Providian failed to disclose that customers
would be required to transfer specific balances -- $10,000 in one
promotion -- to receive the $200. Employees were instructed to contradict
customers who questioned why they weren't told of the balance transfer
requirement, a tactic that had the effect of confusing or intimidating
customers.
Under the consent order, Providian must pay out at least $300 million to
its customers. However, that amount is the minimum required under the
settlement. If the required restitution calculated under the methodology
mandated in the settlement exceeds $300 million, the bank will be required
to pay the additional amount.
The settlement requires Providian to change its policies and its
telemarketing scripts to ensure that all fees, charges and product
limitations are fully and accurately disclosed to consumers before the
purchase of any product. Providian must refrain from making any
misleading or deceptive representations to consumers and consumers must be
given the right to cancel purchases up to 30 days after the first bill.
..."
http://www.classcounsel.com/publications/developments.html
http://www.classcounsel.com/settlements/providian.html
http://www.classcounsel.com/resume.html
"...
In Re: Providian Credit Card Cases
A national class action brought on behalf of Providian credit card customers who were improperly charged late fees, higher interest rates on balance transfers, and fees for add-on products, including Credit Protection, PricePro, Drive Pro, HealthPro, and credit line increases. In one of the largest consumer settlements in history, the court approved a settlement for $105 million, which will cover restitution to Providian customers, "in-kind" payments to customers, and the costs and expenses of the litigation.
..."
http://www.classcounsel.com/news/bankamerica.html
"...
Bank of America
Under Federal law, a consumer who has a problem with the quality of goods or services purchased with a credit card, and has tried in good faith to correct the problem with the merchant, may withhold payment for the amount of the transaction until the dispute is settled. There are two limitations to this right: (1) the value of the goods or services must exceed $50, and (2) the transaction must have occurred in the consumers home state or within 100 miles of the consumer's residence if the transaction occurred out of state. Bank of America's cardholder agreements give consumers the same rights. Because withholding payment in this situation is permissible, a credit card company cannot report the withheld amount as delinquent to credit reporting agencies.
Plaintiff alleged that he was charged by Bank of America for services he did not receive. Plaintiff tried to resolve the problem with merchant and brought it to Bank of America's attention. Plaintiff withheld payment on the disputed amount as he is permitted to do. Notwithstanding the exercise of his rights under Federal law and the terms of his credit card agreement, Bank of America reported Plaintiff's account as delinquent to the credit reporting agencies.
..."
Note how deceptive language is used to twist consumer responses into "authorizations".
Also note the example given of fabricating a recorded phone "authorization" for telemarketing insurance to a credit card company customer, when the customer hung up before giving his authorization, by calling another person to read a script of the "customer's authorization" in response to the script of the offer terms.
This type of deceptive telemarketing, including fabricating phone recordings, has been around for years.