Haverty Furniture Co

First Bank & Trust, Brookings, SD ('the Bank') is in receipt of your letter dated June 22, 2015, regarding a complaint made by *** ***In summary,
*** is requesting a review of, and potential credit to, his card account regarding a recently filed disputeThe Bank understands that on June 1, 2015, an initial dispute was filed regarding several unauthorized transactions on ***'s card account, and an investigation was openedThe Bank also recognizes that the investigation was completed on June 11, 2015, and *** was notified that the charges were deemed valid*** reopened his dispute on June 15, 2015, and after additional investigation, the charges in question were deemed invalid on Jun 17, ***'s account was credited $on June, 17, 2015, and his card account is openThe Bank considers ***'s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience he may have experiencedIf you have any further questions, please contact me

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because it fails to address my situationIt's as if the bank is living in nevernever land! Once again, like a broken record, I will repeat my concernsThey are:When the bank switched from MasterCard to Visa it failed to state in its new Customer Agreement that interbank transfers would no longer be availableThis constitutes a decline in service without notificationWhen I went to Citibank to transfer $from my mango visa to my Citi account the transaction was denied. When I called mango Customer Service about this matter, I was a) repeatedly put on hold for minb) told interbank transfers would be available starting Sept 1, but when I tried on Sept the transaction was declinedc) told by Customer Service to withdraw my $at ATMs or with Cashback from merchants (with all their limits and fees : ) ) c) told mango has no supervisors with whom to speak and that a member of The Team would get back to me, but either no one did or they told me the same as C S d) told, when I consequently closed my account--this being the only way to obtain my funds of several thousand dollars--that I would receive a check in 4-weeksWhat is this, pony express?!e) told, when I asked them to return my direct deposit paycheck because it was too late for my employer to stop it, "It's a simple matter, Miss Donna, you ask your employer to stop the check." #%^*+!#!
Regards,
*** ***

Dear Ms. [redacted]: First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD ('the Bank'}, is in receipt of your correspondence dated February 23, 2016, in regards to a complaint made by [redacted]. In summary, Mr. [redacted] is requesting clarification on his card status of his Mango account. Although Mr. [redacted]'s...

complaint is regarding his Mango account, we have regarded the complaint as one against the Bank given that Mango is the marketer and service provider of the account, not the issuer. On April 23, 2015, Mr. [redacted] requested to close his Mango Prepaid MasterCard account issued by the Bank. There has been no activity on his account since that time. As of September 1, 2015, the ownership of the Mango program transitioned from the Bank to Praxell. Card accounts are now issued by Sunrise Banks, NA. Mr. [redacted] may direct questions regarding the status of any active accounts to Mango Prepaid Visa Support at 1-855-687-2036. The Bank considers Mr. [redacted]'s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience he may have experienced. If you have any further questions, please contact me.

December 15, 2015 [redacted], Dispute Resolution Specialist Revdex.com 1005 La Posada Drive Austin, TX 78752 Re: Case #[redacted]: Dear Ms. [redacted]: First Bank & Trust of Brookings, 5D ('the Bank'), is in receipt of your correspondence dated December 11, 2015, in regards to a complaint...

made by [redacted]. In summary, Mr. [redacted] is requesting clarification on his account status. Mr. [redacted] was notified via e-mail that his Mango card would no longer be issued by the Bank and was given the option to have his account closed or to continue his Mango relationship by activating a new card issued by [redacted] N.A. A copy of that e-mail is enclosed for your review. Mr. [redacted] closed his account with the Bank on August 27, 2015, and he opened his new account with [redacted] N.A., that same day. The Bank understands the transactions in question were conducted through to Mr. [redacted]' Mango account with [redacted] N.A. For further information, please contact [redacted] Customer Service at [redacted], as they work directly with the issuing bank of Mr. [redacted]' account. The Bank considers Mr. [redacted]' complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience he may have experienced. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, [redacted]

Dear Ms. [redacted]: First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD ('the Bank'}, is in receipt of your correspondence dated November 12, 2015, in regards to a complaint made by Usa [redacted]. In summary, Ms. [redacted] is requesting clarification on her closing balance reimbursement status to her Mango account....

Although Ms. [redacted]'s complaint is regarding her Mango account, we have regarded the complaint as one against the Bank given that Mango is the marketer and service provider of the account, not the issuer. On September 17, 2015, Ms. [redacted]'s account was closed due to fraudulent transactions, and she was advised that her closing balance would be mailed to her via check between October 14, 2015, and October 23, 2015. The Bank understands Ms. [redacted] was sent a check totaling $359.00 on November 10, 2015. A copy of the check is enclosed for your review. Ms. [redacted] should receive her check within 5 business days of the mail date. Additionally, a copy of the e-mail notification Ms. [redacted] received regarding the discontinuance of the program and a copy of her most recent account history are enclosed for your review. Questions regarding the status of the balance refund check may be directed to Mango at 1-877-896-2646. The Bank considers Mr. [redacted]'s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any Inconvenience she may have experienced. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, [redacted]

Dear [redacted],
sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.3pt;">First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD, (the 'Bank') is in receipt of your letter dated December 15, 2014, regarding a complaint made by [redacted]. In summary, the customer is requesting clarification regarding a subscription fee associated with their Mango Prepaid MasterCard account. On December 4, 2012, the customer enrolled in a Mango Prepaid MasterCard account. At that time, the monthly subscription fee was assessed on a 30 day cycle and waived if the customer loaded $500.00 in the prior 30 day cycle, excluding card-to-card transfers. On May 19, 2014, all Mango customers were provided a letter regarding changes made to the Cardholder Agreement, set to take effect on June 15, 2014. This Change in Terms letter, along with the revised Cardholder Agreement, were sent to the customer's account address, [redacted]. A copy of the Change in Terms letter and the current Cardholder Agreement have been included with this letter. As referenced in the Change in Terms letter and in the current Cardholder Agreement, the monthly subscription fee is now $3.00, charged on a 30 day cycle and will no longer be waived with a $500.00 load in the prior 30 day cycle. It is the Bank's understanding that the customer has been refunded the $3.00 monthly subscription fee assessed for September. The Bank considers this customer's complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience experienced. If you have any further questions, please contact me.

First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD ('the Bank'), is in receipt of your correspondence dated September 8, 2015, in regards to a complaint made by [redacted]. In summary, Ms. [redacted] is requesting a closing payment for her account balance and a refund of any fees that may be assessed for...

account closure. Ms. [redacted] was notified that her Mango card would no longer be issued by the Bank, and she was given the option to continue her Mango relationship by activating a new card issued by Sunrise Banks, N.A. The Bank was informed that Ms. [redacted] activated her new Mango card on August 24, 2015. The Bank understands that the funds in question have been posted to Ms. [redacted]'s Mango account with Sunrise Banks, N.A., in the amount of $2917.82 as of September 1, 2015. The Mango card issued by the Bank did not have an account closing fee associated with it. If there are further questions on the details of this situation, please contact Praxell Customer Service at [redacted], as they work directly with the issuing bank of Ms. [redacted]'s account. The Bank considers Ms. [redacted]'s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience she may have experienced.

As of August 1, 2016, Rev Worldwide, Inc. is no longer the owner/processor for the [redacted] Prepaid Card program. Please direct your complaint to Praxell and/or Sunrise Banks, N.A. Kind regards,[redacted]Rev Worldwide

Dear Ms. [redacted]:First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD ('the Bank'), is in receipt of your correspondence dated July 28, 2015, in regards to a complaint made by [redacted]. In summary, Mr. [redacted] is requesting that the merchant charges he has disputed on his Mango account be refunded in...

full.The Bank understands Mango conducted a full investigation into each of the charges Mr. [redacted] disputed. In summary, due to the account usage pattern displayed by Mr. [redacted] throughout the timeframe of the investigation, the Bank concurs with Mango's conclusion to decline refunds of the disputed charges. A clear, repetitive cycle was demonstrated in which the account was loaded, then the account history was accessed multiple times online by Mr. [redacted], then the transactions began occurring until the balance became low. At that time, the cycle would repeat, and the account never went into a non-sufficient funds status. Full investigation notes from Mango are enclosed for your review.
Although the card is closed, Mango is allowing the account to receive any merchant credits of these transactions, which have been agreed upon between Mr. [redacted] and the merchant. Once all merchant credits have been received, Mango will issue a check to Mr. [redacted] for the total. The Bank encourages Mr. [redacted] to work directly with Mango to obtain a delivery status of the check.
The Bank considers Mr. [redacted]'s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience he may have experienced.If you have any further questions, please contact me. Summary:
New Mango account holder [redacted] disputed 24 card not present transactions totaling $3,086.41 USD as unauthorized. All of the disputed transaction were purchased with the cardholder's Virtual Card ending in [redacted]. On the Mango Dispute Resolution Form, the cardholder states he did not authorize and had no knowledge of the disputed charges.
Investigation:
The account was created May 28, 2015. When reviewing the weblogs for the cardholder's online account, cardholder established a history of using IP address [redacted] with an online username [redacted] on the same date the account was created. On this same day, the cardholder called Mango Customer Service in order to gain early access to the Virtual Card. Shortly after this request, the cardholder successfully verified his identity by correctly answering Out of Wallet questions. After a few more hours, the cardholder called Mango Customer Service to request additional information on how to load the account. The weblogs indicate the cardholder checked his online account at least 6 times using the same IP address and username. This series of events establishes the cardholder using the IP address [redacted] and username [redacted], and the cardholder's intent to manually load the account.
On the following day, May 29,2015, the account received two micro ach loads, and a Western Union load of $720.00 USD. Within several hours, the Virtual Card ending in 6489 was used for the initial purchase on the account. This transaction was later disputed as unauthorized by the cardholder. Shortly after the charge, the online account was accessed several times by the cardholder using the same IP address and username as the day before. This indicates the cardholder became aware of the activity after the initial purchase against the account.
On May 30,2015, three more transactions were made that were later disputed as unauthorized.. After the first two transactions on that day, the cardholder again accessed the online account using the same IP Address and username. Shortly after that log in, the third transaction of the day took place. A few hours later, the online account was once again accessed with the same information.
Early on May 31, 2015, the fifth disputed transaction was charged against the account, followed by access to the online account. Later that day, the sixth disputed transaction was charged against the account. At this point, the charges against the account totaled roughly $690.00 USD, while the initial load to the account was just over $720.00 USD. This leaves an estimated account balance of $30.00 USD. No additional transactions were attempted until the account was loaded at about 6PM. The account was loaded with an additional $200.00 USD via Western Union, indicating that the individual conducting the disputed transaction has a clear understanding of the account balance. At around 7PM, the online account was accessed and two additional transactions were placed within 30 minutes of login, further supporting the notion that the disputed transactions were conducted by an individual with full access to the account.
As the disputed transactions continue, a clear pattern developed: The account is loaded, the online account is periodically accessed, transactions occur until the account requires additional funds to make more purchases, and then the cycle begins again.
In addition to the cycle mentioned above, the investigation revealed a few additional details. Since the first transaction was declared unauthorized, the virtual card could have only been compromised during the account load process. Upon further review, Western Union only requires the PAN number to be provided for a load to be performed. In order to make a purchase. Online purchases would require the CVV and expiration date to be included along with the PAN number.
Secondly, the account did not experience any Non Sufficient Funds declines during the roughly 30 days of disputed transactions. During this timeframe, the account was periodically loaded 7 times via Western Union. When the account balance dropped too low to continue with additional purchases, the account was always sufficiently loaded.
Finally, the weblogs recording the online account access indicate the account was accessed anywhere from 5 to 15 times per day during the period of disputed transactions. The vast majority of the access came specifically from IP address [redacted]. When this IP Address was traced, the orgin was in [redacted], [redacted]. This matches the cardholder's city of residence on file.
Conclusion:
With the evidence provided above, we find that the cardholder contributed to or caused the losses from unauthorized transactions as a result of their actions. The weblogs indicate continuous monitoring of the account by the cardholder combined with the multiple account loads indicate cardholder participation and consent in the disputed transactions. This dispute is declined in full.The cardholder is eligible to receive the remaining balance on the account via check. The cardholder must verify their current address before the check can be issued.

First Bank & Trust, Brookings, SD ('the Bank') is in receipt of your letter dated June 22, 2015, regarding a complaint made by [redacted]. In summary, **. [redacted] is requesting a review of, and potential credit to, his card account regarding a recently filed dispute. The Bank...

understands that on June 1, 2015, an initial dispute was filed regarding several unauthorized transactions on **. [redacted]'s card account, and an investigation was opened. The Bank also recognizes that the investigation was completed on June 11, 2015, and **. [redacted] was notified that the charges were deemed valid. **. [redacted] reopened his dispute on June 15, 2015, and after additional investigation, the charges in question were deemed invalid on Jun 17, 2015. **. [redacted]'s account was credited $1206.99 on June, 17, 2015, and his card account is open. The Bank considers **. [redacted]'s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience he may have experienced. If you have any further questions, please contact me.

Revdex.com 1005 La Posada Drive Austin, TX 78752 Re: Case #[redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]: First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD ('the Baal, is in receipt of your follow up correspondence dated October 7, 2015, in regards to a complaint made by [redacted]. In summary, Ms. [redacted] is requesting further clarification on certain functions of her new account, including interbank transfers and direct deposit. As previously stated, the Bank was informed that Ms. [redacted] activated her new Visa Mango card on August 24, 2015. The Bank does not have information regarding Ms. [redacted] Visa Mango account, as the card is issued by Sunrise Banks, NA. If there are further questions on the details of this situation, please contact Praxell Customer Service at [redacted], as they work directly with the issuing bank of Ms. [redacted] account. The Bank considers Ms. [redacted] complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience she may have experienced.If you have any further questions, please contact me.  [redacted]General Counsel/Director of Corporate Risk ManagementCc: [redacted]528 W 111 Street, #83New York, NY 10025

Dear Ms. [redacted]:First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD ('the Bank'), is in receipt of your correspondence dated July 28, 2015, in regards to a complaint made by [redacted]. In summary, Mr. [redacted] is requesting that the merchant charges he has disputed on his Mango account be refunded in full.The...

Bank understands Mango conducted a full investigation into each of the charges Mr. [redacted] disputed. In summary, due to the account usage pattern displayed by Mr. [redacted] throughout the timeframe of the investigation, the Bank concurs with Mango's conclusion to decline refunds of the disputed charges. A clear, repetitive cycle was demonstrated in which the account was loaded, then the account history was accessed multiple times online by Mr. [redacted], then the transactions began occurring until the balance became low. At that time, the cycle would repeat, and the account never went into a non-sufficient funds status. Full investigation notes from Mango are enclosed for your review.Although the card is closed, Mango is allowing the account to receive any merchant credits of these transactions, which have been agreed upon between Mr. [redacted] and the merchant. Once all merchant credits have been received, Mango will issue a check to Mr. [redacted] for the total. The Bank encourages Mr. [redacted] to work directly with Mango to obtain a delivery status of the check.The Bank considers Mr. [redacted]'s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience he may have experienced.If you have any further questions, please contact me. Summary:New Mango account holder [redacted] disputed 24 card not present transactions totaling $3,086.41 USD as unauthorized. All of the disputed transaction were purchased with the cardholder's Virtual Card ending in [redacted]. On the Mango Dispute Resolution Form, the cardholder states he did not authorize and had no knowledge of the disputed charges.Investigation:The account was created May 28, 2015. When reviewing the weblogs for the cardholder's online account, cardholder established a history of using IP address [redacted] with an online username [redacted] on the same date the account was created. On this same day, the cardholder called Mango Customer Service in order to gain early access to the Virtual Card. Shortly after this request, the cardholder successfully verified his identity by correctly answering Out of Wallet questions. After a few more hours, the cardholder called Mango Customer Service to request additional information on how to load the account. The weblogs indicate the cardholder checked his online account at least 6 times using the same IP address and username. This series of events establishes the cardholder using the IP address [redacted] and username [redacted], and the cardholder's intent to manually load the account.On the following day, May 29,2015, the account received two micro ach loads, and a Western Union load of $720.00 USD. Within several hours, the Virtual Card ending in 6489 was used for the initial purchase on the account. This transaction was later disputed as unauthorized by the cardholder. Shortly after the charge, the online account was accessed several times by the cardholder using the same IP address and username as the day before. This indicates the cardholder became aware of the activity after the initial purchase against the account.On May 30,2015, three more transactions were made that were later disputed as unauthorized.. After the first two transactions on that day, the cardholder again accessed the online account using the same IP Address and username. Shortly after that log in, the third transaction of the day took place. A few hours later, the online account was once again accessed with the same information.Early on May 31, 2015, the fifth disputed transaction was charged against the account, followed by access to the online account. Later that day, the sixth disputed transaction was charged against the account. At this point, the charges against the account totaled roughly $690.00 USD, while the initial load to the account was just over $720.00 USD. This leaves an estimated account balance of $30.00 USD. No additional transactions were attempted until the account was loaded at about 6PM. The account was loaded with an additional $200.00 USD via Western Union, indicating that the individual conducting the disputed transaction has a clear understanding of the account balance. At around 7PM, the online account was accessed and two additional transactions were placed within 30 minutes of login, further supporting the notion that the disputed transactions were conducted by an individual with full access to the account.As the disputed transactions continue, a clear pattern developed: The account is loaded, the online account is periodically accessed, transactions occur until the account requires additional funds to make more purchases, and then the cycle begins again.In addition to the cycle mentioned above, the investigation revealed a few additional details. Since the first transaction was declared unauthorized, the virtual card could have only been compromised during the account load process. Upon further review, Western Union only requires the PAN number to be provided for a load to be performed. In order to make a purchase. Online purchases would require the CVV and expiration date to be included along with the PAN number.Secondly, the account did not experience any Non Sufficient Funds declines during the roughly 30 days of disputed transactions. During this timeframe, the account was periodically loaded 7 times via Western Union. When the account balance dropped too low to continue with additional purchases, the account was always sufficiently loaded.Finally, the weblogs recording the online account access indicate the account was accessed anywhere from 5 to 15 times per day during the period of disputed transactions. The vast majority of the access came specifically from IP address [redacted]. When this IP Address was traced, the orgin was in [redacted], [redacted]. This matches the cardholder's city of residence on file.Conclusion:With the evidence provided above, we find that the cardholder contributed to or caused the losses from unauthorized transactions as a result of their actions. The weblogs indicate continuous monitoring of the account by the cardholder combined with the multiple account loads indicate cardholder participation and consent in the disputed transactions. This dispute is declined in full.The cardholder is eligible to receive the remaining balance on the account via check. The cardholder must verify their current address before the check can be issued.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]

Re: Case #[redacted]: Dear Ms. [redacted]:
letter-spacing: 0.4pt;">First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD ('the Bank'), is in receipt of your correspondence dated August 31, 2015, in regards to a complaint made by [redacted]. In summary, Mr. [redacted] is requesting that a credit be placed on his Mango card or provided to his employer to compensate for a direct deposit not posting to his account. Mr. [redacted] was notified that his Mango card would no longer be issued by the Bank, and he was given the option to continue his Mango relationship by activating a new card issued by Sunrise Banks, N.A. Mr. [redacted] activated his new Mango card on August 11, 2015. The Bank understands that the direct deposit in question has been posted to Mr. [redacted] Mango account with Sunrise Banks, N.A., in the amount of $40. If there are further questions on the details of this situation, please contact Praxell Customer Service at 1-855-687-2036, as they work directly with the issuing bank of Mr. [redacted]' account. The Bank considers Mr. [redacted]'s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience he may have experienced. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, [redacted] General Counsel/Director of Corporate Risk Management Cc: [redacted]
[redacted]

Rev Worldwide, Inc no longer has affiliation with the [redacted] as of August 2015. Please direct your complaint to [redacted] or [redacted]. Regards,Rev WorldwideAccount Management

Dear Customer, After verifying the documents you have provided to verify you account, we have mailed a check containing the remaining funds in your account to the address listed in your account. Check Details:Check#: [redacted]Amount: $2988.50Mail Date: 8/22/2016Address: [redacted]...

[redacted]  [redacted]  Cambridge, MA 02139 We apologize for the inconvenience. Kind regards,Rev Worldwide, Inc.

May 4, 2015 [redacted], Dispute...

Resolution Specialist [redacted]
[redacted] Re: Case [redacted]: Dear [redacted]: First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD ('the Bank'), is in receipt of your e-mail correspondence dated April 28, 2015, in regards to a complaint made by Stanley Wilson. In summary, [redacted] is requesting that a check be mailed to him to refund the balance of his closed Mango account. The Bank understands that [redacted]s account was temporarily restricted after receiving an ACH deposit that required enhanced verification of the account on June, 17, 2013. A message was sent to the e-mail address on file that same day notifying [redacted] of the restriction and instructions for removing it. Between June 9, 2013, and July 7, 2013, Mango corresponded with [redacted] regarding the necessary documentation to verify his identity. [redacted] was unable to provide appropriate copies of his valid driver's license and a recent utility bill at that time. [redacted] had not been in contact with Mango since July 7, 2013, until recently on March 30, 2015. In that timeframe, Mango closed his account due to the block being in place for more than 90 days. [redacted] was advised again at that time that a valid driver's license and utility bill must be provided in order to have eligibility for a refund. [redacted]'s identity is unable to be validated with the documents that have been provided. Due to the account closure and the timeframe involved, [redacted] will need to contact the originator of the ACH transaction to correspond with Mango directly to arrange for any possible funds reversal. The ACH originator may contact Mango at 1-877 896-2646. The Bank considers [redacted]'s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience he may have experienced. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, [redacted] General Counsel/Director of Corporate Risk Management Cc: [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]

As of August 1, 2016, Rev Worldwide, Inc. is no longer the owner/processor for the [redacted] Prepaid Card program. Please direct your complaint to Praxell and/or Sunrise Banks, N.A.
 
Kind regards,
[redacted]Rev Worldwide

November 3, 2014
 
[redacted]
Revdex.com
[redacted]
 
Re: Case # [redacted]
 
/>
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
 
First Bank & Trust of Brookings, SD (‘the Bank’), is in receipt of your letter dated October
21, 2014, regarding a complaint made by [redacted].  In summary, Mr. [redacted] is questioning the
availability of a credit in his account and is requesting access to the funds.
 
A deposit was made to Mr. [redacted]’s account on October 7, 2014, however, the item deposited was
not in Mr. [redacted]’s name.  As a result,a block was placed on his account.  On October 15, 2014, Mr. [redacted]
was presented identity verification questions in order to remove the account block and was unable to provide the correct
responses.  It is the Bank’s understanding that Mango Customer Service has informed Mr. [redacted] on several
occasions of the blocks, the verification documentation required to have the blocks removed, and an e-mail address and a
fax number where the documentation may be sent.  No requested documentation has been received to date.
In order to remove the block from his account, Mr. [redacted] must provide a copy of a state issued ID or driver’s license and
a utility bill for himself and for the individual named on the received deposit item. The Bank understands Mango Customer Service has
instructed Mr. [redacted] to send the required documentation to [redacted] or fax them to [redacted]. 
The Bank considers Mr. [redacted]’s complaint resolved and offers our most sincere apologies for any inconvenience he may have experienced.
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
 
Sincerely,
[redacted]
 
Cc:  [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because it fails to address my concerns: 1) reduction in services without notification, I. e., bank-to-bank transfers, 2) lack of access to my funds (since Aug 26), 3) inept customer service--not 24/7 (frequent 10 min waits on hold until I hung up or disconnects), silly advice ("withdraw your $2900. balance from ATMs or get 'cash back' from merchants"), no email communication, no supervisors/managers available, broken promises that "a member of 'The Team' would get back" to me. When I closed my account on Sept 7, concluding that that was the only way to access my funds, I was told I would receive a check for the balance "in 4 to 6 wks." What?! We live in the 21st century, not the 19th of Wells Fargo stagecoach. Additionally, on Sept 14, I called mango/sunrise to tell them to return to sender my paycheck that would be direct deposited on the 17th because it was too late to stop it. CS said, "It's a simple matter, Miss [redacted], simply tell your employer to stop the check." I had just finished telling him my employer told me it was too late to stop it. Then he told me someone from The Team would get back to me. No one did. Most likely because they didn't want to give me the bad news that mango/sunrise is incapable of returning a check. Now there is even more money in my account to which I have NO access.Since the savings portion of my account yields 6% interest, I expect to receive 6% interest on the total of my funds until I deposit the check that may someday arrive.
Regards,
[redacted]