Checking or savings account -- Managing an account -- Complaint #5080402

Complaint Overview

Complaint ID: 5080402

Company: Boeing Employees' Credit Union

Product: Checking or savings account

Sub-Product: Checking account

Issue: Managing an account

Sub-Issue: Problem using a debit or ATM card

State: Wisconsin

ZIP Code: 548XX

Date Received: 2022-01-06T12:00:00-05:00

Date Sent to Company: 2022-01-06T12:00:00-05:00

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

Submitted Via: Web

Consumer Narrative

I have been misled by BECU on numerous occasions regarding a charge dispute for authorized purchase of a motorhome ( defective/ not as advertised ). BECU claimed a thorough review of my case had been conducted when they closed my charge dispute. I confronted BECU after I determined BECU had not reviewed all of the evidence submitted for the charge dispute, and my case was subsequently escalated. The effect of escalation is delay or refusal of communication by manager of card services ( only person at BECU who is allowed to discuss my case with me ). When I first contacted BECU a few days after the purchase was made, recall I was told by the representative I could not dispute a charge for a purchase that I had authorized. Attempted to make repairs to motorhome to address performance issues, leaks, etc. Vehicle broke down for three weeks in XX/XX/XXXX, motivating me to contact BECU for second time on XX/XX/XXXX and opened charge dispute. Indicated that I had not yet contacted the merchant. Told by the representative that I would be contacted by XXXX within 10 days for substantiating evidence, and XXXX would require me to attempt resolution with the merchant. On XX/XX/XXXX I called BECU to update my address, and asked the rep for an update on my charge dispute. She told me it may take more than 10 days to hear back on the dispute due to an increase in fraud due to the pandemic. I contacted the merchant on XX/XX/XXXX. Contacted BECU once again on XX/XX/XXXX to request update on charge dispute, and told by representative it had been closed on XX/XX/XXXX. I asked why I had not been told the dispute was closed when I had called BECU on XX/XX/XXXX. She told me I would need to talk to a supervisor. After waiting on hold twice for nearly an hour, I became frustrated and hung up. I filed a complaint with XXXX due to my frustration of feeling I was being lied to by BECU reps, asking if it was legal for financial institutions to lie to customers. XXXX closed my complaint on the basis that it was outside their purview. After XXXX closed my complaint, I decided to contact BECU regarding the charge dispute and submit my evidence. I submitted the bulk of my evidence on XX/XX/XXXX, including links to relevant video evidence ( private, links only shared with BECU, no views ). BECU closed my dispute again on XX/XX/XXXX. I received an email explanation from a rep in BECU card services on XX/XX/XXXX asserting a thorough review of my case had been conducted, and indicating that I would need to ( 1 ) attempt to negotiate a resolution with the merchant/ seller ( 2 ) return merchandise to the merchant/seller or arrange for reasonable accommodations for merchant/seller to pick up merchandise. On XX/XX/XXXX I sent an email reply to the email from BECU card services from the previous day, asking how a thorough review of my case had been conducted when the video links supplied had no views and therefore could not have been considered. On XX/XX/XXXX I received an email reply from the manager of card services at BECU, XXXX, who neglected to answer my question from the previous day about how a thorough review of my case had been conducted without considering all of the evidence I had submitted. XXXX only reiterated the requirements specified in the XX/XX/XXXX email from the BECU card services rep, indicating that I would need to negotiate with the merchant/seller, and return the merchandise or arrange for reasonable accommodations for the merchandise to be picked up by the merchant/ seller. I had expressed to BECU I did not know with whom I should be negotiating ( merchant or seller? ). I emailed XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. I called BECU card services on XX/XX/XXXX, and was told by the BECU rep that she could not discuss the charge dispute with me because it had been escalated. I sent a third email to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX requesting she reply by XXXX XXXX that evening or grant an extension on the deadline for submission of documentation, due to refusal of communication by BECU subsequent to escalation of my case. I asked XXXX in all three of these emails ( a total of four times ) how a thorough review of my case had been conducted when BECU neglected to consider the video interviews with the merchant/ seller. However, XXXX has never answered this question. XXXX responds in the evening of XX/XX/XXXX, reiterating that I must ( 1 ) negotiate with the merchant/ seller and ( 2 ) return the merchandise or arrange for reasonable accommodations for merchant/ seller to pick up the merchandise. She tells me to stop emailing until I have the required documentation. Reps of BECU continue to assert they are following rules and regulations, but at some point, it occurred to me that BECU had lied to me on numerous occasions and I should be taking anything I was being told by their representatives with a grain of salt. Due to this cultivation of mistrust, I decided to better acquaint myself with the rules and regulations which BECU purported to be following. Following this research, I learned the merchant was admitting to what constitutes credit card laundering, and that XXXX and federal banking regulations did not permit such illegal activity. I learned that customers of XXXX ( e.g. BECU ) were not to directly or indirectly engage in or facilitate any action that is illegal according to the XXXX Rules publication, as part of their agreement with XXXX. XXXX stated that XXXX defined fraud only as unauthorized use of a cardholders card, and there was no other option to file a charge dispute even though the merchant admits to engaging in illegal activity ( credit card laundering ). I determined the XXXX Chargeback Guide publication did not use the terms seller or reasonable accommodations ( for merchant/seller to pick up merchandise ). On XX/XX/XXXX I sent an email to the merchant informing him the motorhome was available for pickup and he should contact me for details and to discuss a timeline for the pickup. I have not yet received a response to this email from the merchant. After sending this email to the merchant, I forwarded to BECU the email chain with the merchant from XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX demonstrating that I had attempted to negotiate with the merchant and offered to return the motorhome. I explained in my email to BECU that reasonable accommodation and seller were not included in XXXX publications, that merchant was clearly the responsible party for the transaction and based on circumstances ( credit card laundering/ refusal to accept return of defective merchandise ) it was reasonable for him to pick up the motorhome from its current location. On XX/XX/XXXX I received an email from a BECU card services rep ( XXXX out of the office for the holiday ) stating that my charge dispute had been sent to the merchants bank. I replied asking for the timeframe for the merchant response. While waiting for a reply from BECU to this question, I checked the chargeback guide which states the merchant has 45 days from the chargeback settlement date to respond to the charge dispute. I contacted BECU to ask why no chargeback settlement had been applied to my checking account, and was told by a card services rep it is because the dispute has already been previously closed by BECU. I contacted XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. She informed me that I had not received a provisional credit to my account because no error had occurred. She also stated the reason my case had been escalated is due to the complexity and dollar amount involved. I asked her to tell me on what date my case was escalated, and for the document BECU is referencing when indicating that I do not qualify for a provisional credit, when the XXXX Chargeback Guide indicates that I should have received a such a credit. I received a reply to this email on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX, which stated BECU is adhering to requirements, the merchants bank has until XX/XX/XXXX to respond to the chargeback request, and BECU has no additional information to provide in my case. I replied to this email, reiterating that I needed to know on what date my case was escalated, and that I needed the reference document which justifies why BECU has not issued a provisional credit to my account. XXXX and other representatives of BECU have been intentionally dishonest, gaslit me and shunted reasonable communication to protect their dishonesty, and have treated me unfairly by claiming they have been following rules and regulations when they are not. The net effect of this habitual misconduct by employees of BECU is abuseBECU is abusing the power imbalance and I am obliged to continue working with the bank which processed this payment no matter how badly I am being treated. I can not understand why XXXX is working harder for the benefit of the merchant who has broken numerous laws as opposed to ensuring a proper and fair dispute process which is truly in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. It is as though XXXX or BECU and the merchant are somehow connected and the inappropriate response to my claim dispute is a favor to the merchant.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer

This analysis is AI-generated based on publicly available CFPB complaint data. It does not constitute financial or legal advice.

Related Pages

• Boeing Employees' Credit Union Company Profile
• Checking or savings account Complaints
• Managing an account Complaints
• Wisconsin Complaints
• Company Rankings
• Company Directory
• Search Complaints