Report: #249644

Complaint Review: First Convenience Bank - Killeen Texas

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Tennessee Colony Texas
  • First Convenience Bank PO Box 937 Killeen, Texas U.S.A.
  • Phone: 800-903-7490
  • Web:
  • Category: Banks

First Convenience Bank - Division Of 1st National Bank 63 Yr Old Grandmother Victimized By Room-mate(s) And First Convenience ripoff Killeen Texas

*Author of original report: May 30th Update

*Author of original report: May 22, 2007 Update

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
When my mother opened her account with First Convenience she received their "Gold Key" debit card. Around Jan 2006 she obtained their "MasterCard" debit card, and reported her "Gold Key" card lost around the same time. The Friendswood, TX branch told her not to worry about the loss because the "Gold Key" card would automatically de-activate when she actived her "MasterCard" debit card. She asked if she could get another debit card, but was told "one account holder = one card only."

Over the past year and a half my mother has struggled to understand her constant over-drafts and make sense of the numerous different charges / fees being withdrawn from her account. She tried several times to talk to a customer service rep but never fully understood what was going on with her account.

On April 29, 2007 my mother was hospitalized due to a mild stoke.

On May 4th we realized someone had withdrawn money from her account after she had been admitted to the hospital. So I started investigating. After extensive phone calls we were informed there was a "debit card" active on her account as well as her "MasterCard" debit card. We assumed the card in question was her "Lost Gold Key Card", and immediately requested that be canceled.

On May 5, 2007 we filed an "Unauthorized Debit Activity" (UDA) with a Houston branch, and were told it would take 7 - 10 business day for the investigation.

On May 15, 2007 my mother phoned customer service to check the status of the UDA and was told they had no record of her claim. So she called the mananger who had initially took the report. The manager in turn faxed a copy to the main office in Killeen.

May 18th again she called to check the status of the UDA. She was told that the report had been received on the 16th, and the money should be deposited in her account that night.

May 21st no money so yet another call was made. (*Note: This time I have her on 3 way so I can be a party to this conversation) After several transfers, and extensive hold times, a man came on the line and questioned my mother as to where her card (the one reported lost) was kept and how anyone else would know her pin number. After he asks all his questions he says he'll talk to his supervisor(s) and call us back. (I leave my number because by now I've been added to the account & I'm going to deal with this situation).

About an hour later the man calls back to inform me the debit card in question is ANOTHER debit card not the original "Gold Key Card" she reported lost but a 3rd card(you know the one she requested in Jan 2006 but was told she couldn't have). I immediately inform this man that I had just talked to the Office of the Comptroller of Currency and they had stated "it's the responsibility of the bank to prove my mother had knowledge of these transaction and they had to provide copies of all evidence"; therefore, I want copies of their evidence. He paused and responded "I'll have to get with my supervisor(s)".

During this conversation he said they would be using May 16th as the official date of the investigation for the 60 day time frame as allocated by the FCBA & EFTA and not May 5th the original date the claim was filed. (so that's 10 days less of their liability range & less money my mother has a chance to recoup) The conversation ended without any resolution and left me feeling that they are going to do everything possible to get out of repaying her one penny.

Summary: From Jan 2006 - May 2007 First Convenience had issued a 3rd debit card on this account; although they claim only one card per account is allowed. Several calls during this time frame to ascertain unknown charges / fees yet none of the customer service reps mention &/or acknowlege the fact there were two active debits cards on this account. Original UDA was lost = 10 day loss of financial liability.

As of May 21st using the documenation obtained we have estimated total damages from the unauthorized charges to be well over $4,000 not including ATM charges on that card & NSF charges incurred because of the illegal transactions.

* If you have charges that say MasterCard and others say ATM it IS NOT because you used an "ATM" it's a completely different debit card... you know the one they said you couldn't get.

Final Blow: The suspected theives are my mother's room-mate(s) with whom she is still residing. We can not complete her move to AZ in two weeks (as planned 3 months ago) due to the financial situation she is stuck in if they do not reimburse her any of the money that has been stolen.

Any "helpful" information would be appreciated!

Tennessee Colony, Texas

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/22/2007 03:18 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/first-convenience-bank/killeen-texas-76540/first-convenience-bank-division-of-1st-national-bank-63-yr-old-grandmother-victimized-by-249644. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals


#2 Author of original report

May 30th Update

AUTHOR: Debra - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Finally spoke to Mr Davis today, after 2 unsuccessful attempts on the 29th. He stated they would be denying my mother's claim because 1) she admitted to allowing her room-mate(s) to make purchases for her using her first card and 2) she had filled out an application for an additional ATM card.

* Ok, she did allow them to use her original card, but the card in question would have had a different number on it & pin, and she's never even seen this specific card. How can she be held responsible if the application was processed after it was confiscated, and she was verbally denied another card?

On the fax I received documenting their reasons for denying her claim they listed this "Regulation E" law. Guess I'm going to have to do more research and find out what this law states.

Guess no matter how "unfair" something is the corporation(s) have their "loop-holes" to cover themselves.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Author of original report

May 22, 2007 Update

AUTHOR: Debra - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, May 22, 2007
I phoned the same man from the day prior to ask some more questions, and to attempt to ascertain an estimated time frame as to when this issue would be resolved.

During this conversation he again acknowledged the card in question was a 3rd card issued on the account in Jan 2006, and they had requested a copy of the application. I informed him my mother had requested another card around that time frame, and even filled out an application at the Friendswood branch. However, the teller (who was in training at the time) was interrupted by the manager and instructed on the "one account - one card" thing. My mother left the completed application with the branch employee(s) to dispose of, and departed without receiving any additonal cards.

I questioned whether the card & pin number would have been mailed, therefore, could have been intercepted. He stated she would have received it at the branch location. She did not!

Next I informed him how after his call yesterday telling me of this "alleged" 3rd card I had phoned the customer service line (2x) and spoke to two different reps who made the same "1/1" comments. As well as went into my local branch and received the same information from two tellers. I asked him directly if the "1/1" statements were "policy". This man who works in the investigations department (and should know this) openly said, "I do not know if it is policy, but if that's what you were told then that's what we'll go with". "That's what we'll go with"? What does this mean to us?

The final question I put to him was, "If the 1/1 thing is policy then why was the application processed in the first place?" The response I received was expected, but still shocked me. I heard silence, then he said, "I'm not going to answer that because we are still looking into it. We are going to wait until we receive the application." Hello / anyone listening here? I had just told him my mother filled out an application, but had been told she could not have a 2nd active card. I'm dumbfounded!

The conversation ended with him saying they should receive the application by Friday, May 25th. So now we're left to wait and see what their next move will be.

*NOTE: I am not completely stupid when it comes to matters dealing with large corporations... therefore, each conversation with this man, as well as the customer service reps have been recorded, as well as every name, date, & time documented. It is my understanding from what I have read that under TX laws I have every right to record any conversation(s) I am a party to. This phone recorder is worth the $100 I spent! Now I know why most stores in the Palestine, TX area have signs posted stating "We do not accept First Convenience checks".

Again, any "helpful" information would be greatly appreciated!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now