Fifth Third Bank Of South Florida Did not fully investigate unauthorized charges to my account Cape Coral Florida

I'm having trouble understanding why so many apologists appear to take an adversarial approach to problems as they are reported by the consumer. I think I understand why (and it's not flattering for the posters I'm questioning), but I am curious about what it achieves.

I used to work for a company that had computer problems that triggered charges to appear on a credit card statements, twice. We would receive charge-back request from the credit card company - and usually not the customer. We, of course, corrected for the double charge.

If a customer is reporting a problem with someone who has made an unauthorized transaction against the account holder's account, isn't it incumbent on the bank to follow up? The whole point of having a bank account is to keep money safe. If someone is making unauthorized transactions against the account, in question, from what Angel is reporting, no disclosure of information has been issued that would contravene her assertion. Instead, she is reporting that she has encountered a deliberate obstinacy opposing her efforts to resolve the situation in her favor.

Angel did as she was told, by the bank, concerning the disputed charges. The two posts, responding to her, have stopped only at telling her that she was wrong, but did not substantiate these assertions with any factual or verifiable information. Not only that, but they failed to take into account the details of what she divulged in her report, and instead, in the most offensive of the two posts, actually accused her of committing fraud. In short, they're basic conjecture oriented at recrimination.

If either of you actually believe what you're saying, I would ask you, respectfully, to substantiate your claims by posting links to, in addition to copies of policies held by Fifth Third that address the situation that Angel is reporting, directly. Simply stating that she "went about it, incorrectly" or that she is "trying to cover up her intentional malfeasance" is not sufficient to debunk her assertions. Furthermore, I would ask you to explain how she wound up being so misinformed in her communication with the bank's representatives. Normally, it is incumbent to customer service representatives to be knowledgeable about the policies of their institutions in order that the customer, in taking efforts to satisfy their needs, are able to avoid problems such as those that were reported by Angel.

I will tell you, based upon the research I've done, on Fifth Third, their employees have an exceedingly high turn-over and are not trained appropriately for the positions they take on. I invite you to go to deepeddiezilker.blogspot.com and peruse the collection of links I've collected about Fifth Third, including a couple that feature employees reporting the adverse working conditions they have experienced. Regardless of how water-tight the bank's policies might be regarding charge-backs and investigations of unauthorized transactions, I believe there is plenty of room to argue that employees may have been misinformed about the policies as Angel reported were told to her.

OK dude here it goes....disputed charges. You KNOW that you are responsible for those charges so just pay up! The bank did everything they could to validate your claim and guess what...you lost! Lesson learned: DO NOT charge things to your bank account that you cannot pay! That's what you did and you are obviously hiding it so just be a man and take responsibility for your actions!

Too bad so sad? Who told you that? A representative of the bank? I don't think so....that is YOUR perception. Therefore if you perceive that, then something is obviously present in your conscience to cause that belief! PAY UP DUDE! You don't fool me and you obviously do not fool the bank!

The bank merely administers your account and your dispute is really with SMC and your responsibility is to get this refund from SMC, or to have the contract with SMC cancelled and a credit processed to your account. I understand the dispute process did not go in your favor, but that does not mean it was the bank's fault the dispute was not resolved in your favor. The bank did exactly as it should have and what happened in your situation would have happened at any bank.

Clearly, you signed something with SMC and you provided your account number and ABA to them so you did have some type of agreement with them, otherwise SMC could not charge your account. This is very obvious from a financial perspective and I haven't even read the ROR you filed with SMC. I find SMC to be far less reputable than a bank would be in this situation and many complaints for SMC are similar to yours. Best of luck to you, but I would pursue SMC, even if you have to go to small claims for it...