Leominster Credit Union

A [redacted] cash was handed to a bank rep. for a CD account and she return with $1100 less. The bank is refusing to investigate and refund the money.On Saturday Aug.3, 2013 around 10am my mother ([redacted]) and I ( [redacted] )went to the LCU on [redacted] in [redacted] MA to open a CD account (account # XXXXXX) with [redacted] cash. While waiting in the office, [redacted] took the money (2 envelopes with $5000 each) to make the deposit. She returned later to tell us the money is $1100 less and that she counted the money with her manager. We disagreed with her because we came to the branch straight from home and counted the money before with left the house. We decided to take money from the saving account to make up for the difference ($1100) and go back home to check if we had left anything behind. We didn't find the money at home and I returned around noon to inform the Rep. but the bank was closed. I went back to the branch Monday morning (Aug 5, 2013) to speak with the manager but she wasn't there. I left my phone number and requested a phone call from the manager [redacted] I found out that Monday that the area to the right office we were waiting at is the copy area and that Saturday I noticed that [redacted] went to that section when she left the office. Around 1:30pm that Monday, I received a call from [redacted] and she was giving me conflicting stories as to who counted the money and how many times the counted the money. On the phone she stated that she counted the money 3x with her supervisor so I asked to speak with the manager. When [redacted] came on the phone she was very rude and said that I am accusing her assistant manager of stealing therefore she is not going to argue with me over the phone--I wasn't arguing with her. On Tuesday August 6, 2013 we went to the [redacted] branch to submit a statement and also talk to a different manager. The bank is yet to refund the money and asking us to provide proof of where we got the money.Desired SettlementWe are requeting that the bank refund the $1100 that went missing after the bank rep. took the money and left her office.Business Response Please accept this letter as Leominster Credit Union's (LCU) response in the matter of [redacted], forwarded from your office on August 13, 2013. In her dispute Ms. [redacted] fails to mention the efforts undertaken by Leominster Credit Union in attempts to resolve the situation she was responsible for creating. Further, there are several inaccuracies in the statement provided by Ms. [redacted].Below is a chronology of the events that comprise this transaction.On Saturday, August 3, 2013, at approximately 10:00am, [redacted] and her daughter [redacted] visited LCU's branch located at [redacted] MA. Ms. [redacted] requested to open a certificate of deposit (CD) account for $15,000.00, having her daughter [redacted] listed as a beneficiary.[redacted], the [redacted], serviced [redacted] and [redacted]'s request. It was explained to [redacted] by [redacted] that they brought $10,000.00 in cash and $5,000.00 would be withdrawn from [redacted]'s individual savings account. The withdrawal slip for $5,000.00 from the savings account was signed by [redacted]. [redacted] opened the CD account and filled out the CD deposit slip. When it came time to process the opening transaction at the teller line, [redacted] handed [redacted] two envelopes which contained the cash. [redacted] took the envelopes, the withdrawal slip and certificate of deposit ticket to the teller line to process the transaction. The transaction was handled by the [redacted], [redacted]. [redacted] handed [redacted] all the contents she had, explained the two transactions that should be processed and then left the teller line to make copies of [redacted]' ID's she needed to for the account opening. According to security camera footage, [redacted] had no envelopes or cash in her hands at the time when she left the teller line after giving instructions to [redacted]. While [redacted] was counting cash, she discovered that two envelopes only contained $8,900.00, not the alleged $10,000.00, which [redacted] and [redacted] claimed they brought. During the time of processing this transaction and throughout the entire shift [redacted] was never alone at the teller line, having another teller working next to her at the line. [redacted] counted the money twice and then informed [redacted] that the amount of cash is $1,100.00 less then indicated on the ticket. [redacted] double counted the cash twice in [redacted]'s presence and confirmed that there was a difference of $1,100.00. Video surveillance footage confirms that the envelopes were in camera view at all times.[redacted] brought the envelopes back into her office and told [redacted] and [redacted] that there was a shortage of $1,100.00 in cash. Both, [redacted] and [redacted] did not express any disagreement or did not seem alarmed that there was a difference. They did not bother to re-count the cash nor request to count the envelopes together. They said something to each other in a different language and agreed to change the withdrawal amount from the savings account to make up for the difference. The amount on the withdrawal ticket was increased from $5,000 to $6,100.00. [redacted] initialed the ticket next to the changed amount.[redacted] went back to [redacted]'s teller window with the slip and the cash and [redacted] processed the transaction. [redacted] gave [redacted] the transaction receipt and both, [redacted] and [redacted], left the branch without questioning the difference or requesting to speak to anyone else.On Monday morning, August 5, 2013 [redacted] and [redacted] came to the [redacted] Branch again. They were waited on by [redacted], the [redacted]. During their meeting with [redacted], they described the account opening transaction that occurred on Saturday morning, August 5, 2013 and stated that they were checking at home if the missing amount of $1,100.00 was left there, however it "wasn't there". They wanted to speak to the manager, who was not available at the time, so they left a phone number for a manager to call. [redacted] came to work after [redacted] and [redacted] left the branch and before a manager had a chance to call Ms. [redacted], [redacted] contacted her to follow up on their visit. During their phone conversation, [redacted] restated all details of transaction in question and also stated that cash in both envelopes was double verified several times by her and the [redacted], when the shortage was discovered. She also stated that all tellers and the branch vault were balanced on that day. The branch manager,[redacted], came to the phone to confirm [redacted]'s statement; however [redacted], who spoke on behalf of her mother, refused to accept [redacted]'s and [redacted]'s explanations. Around 4:00pm on that day, [redacted] contacted [redacted] Retail Sales, to discuss the issue with the [redacted]'s. [redacted] advised [redacted] to obtain written statements from [redacted] and [redacted] and to pull copies of transaction slips. [redacted] stated that the next morning on Wednesday, she would notify the security department to review the security camera footage to verify all details of the transaction processed on Saturday, August 3, 2013 for [redacted].On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 [redacted] and [redacted] went to another branch located at [redacted] in Worcester with the intention of speaking to a different manager. The branch manager, [redacted] was advised by [redacted] to obtain a written statement from [redacted] and [redacted], and to forward it to the security department. [redacted] further instructed [redacted] to let the [redacted] know that we are in process of reviewing their case and will contact them as soon as our research was completed. [redacted] informed [redacted] and [redacted] of the above and forwarded their statement to the security department. On that day the security department pulled the security camera footage and conducted research of the transaction in question. In the late afternoon on Tuesday, August 6, 2013, they informed [redacted] about the outcome of their investigation. A full and thorough review of the transaction and video surveillance showed that the transaction and employees involved were under camera coverage at all times. [redacted] called [redacted] to discuss this matter. She left a message for [redacted], as she was not able to reach her on that day.On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 [redacted] left a message for [redacted], asking to call her cell phone to further discuss the issue. [redacted] contacted [redacted] immediately and confirmed that our security department reviewed the camera footage for their transaction that took place in the [redacted] branch on Saturday, August 3, 2013 around 10:00am when the money in two envelopes appeared to be off $1,100.00. [redacted] stated that according to the camera footage, the cash in both envelopes was double counted by [redacted], the [redacted] and[redacted], [redacted]. The [redacted]'s and [redacted]'s hands never left the counter or the money while they were counting the cash. The cash was in viewable site the entire time that it was being handled. Through our security camera footage we were able to view every angle and detail of their transaction, including [redacted]'s and [redacted]'s participation in it. [redacted] wanted to verify the statement by reviewing the camera footage herself, which [redacted] stated we can provide, including the copies of transaction slips, but with her mother's [redacted] presence. [redacted] is the account holder, [redacted] is a beneficiary. [redacted] also stated that the appointment would take place in our Head Quarters in Leominster and will be presented by our security department manager. [redacted] needed to confirm the time and date of the appointment with her mother and promised to contact [redacted] next day.On Thursday, August 8, 2013 [redacted] contacted Ms. [redacted] and scheduled an appointment to review the camera footage on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 10:00am.In order to accommodate Ms. [redacted] we made a decision to set the meeting at more convenient location at the [redacted] branch in Worcester. On Monday morning, August 12, 2013, [redacted], the [redacted] contacted [redacted] and [redacted] to let them know about the change of location for their meeting on Tuesday, August 13th. [redacted] called Ms. [redacted] on 8/12/2013 at 1:58 pm left the following message verbatim:"Hi [redacted], This is [redacted]. I got your voicemail. I had left a message for [redacted] actually that my Mom has an appointment so we can't make it and I was trying to get hold of you earlier after I got your message but it wasn't going through for some reason. So we can't make it tomorrow cuz my Mom has an appointment. So I guess we'll get in touch later. All right, thank you very much. My number again if you need to get in touch is XXX-XXX-XXXX. Thank you very much."It was the last time we heard from [redacted] and [redacted].In summary, LCU thoroughly investigated this transaction and made every attempt to provide the resolution and accomodate Ms. [redacted]'s request to review the camera footage. The [redacted]'s cancelled the scheduled appointment. We are confident that the camera footage clearly shows that the money envelopes were not tampered with as the money and the envelopes were in view at all tiems. We will reach out to the [redacted] to share this documentation. Final Business Response We have continually attempted to contact [redacted] to try to resolve her concerns. We ask the Bureau to assist us in obtaining a response. We disagree with [redacted]'s reply and [redacted] does not have ownership rights on the account in question, she is just the beneficiary. Therefore resolution must take place with [redacted]. Our evidence clearly supports no wrong doing on behalf of Leominster Credit Union. On September 3rd from [redacted] sent the following electronic communication to [redacted], I just tried to call [redacted] from by office. I left a message on [redacted] cell phone and explained that I was trying to get in touch with her to view the security tapes with her and her Mom again since she couldn make it the last time. I also stated that we would do it in Worcester to make it more accommodating for them. I asked her to call me back to set up a time. [redacted] was present when I called. If we do not hear back from her by tomorrow, [redacted] and I will try again. This time we will use a phone in the Contact Center so that our call will be recorded. [redacted] spoke with [redacted] regarding this and [redacted] said we could call from there. On September 4th [redacted] sent the following update: Update: On September 4th at 4:16pm I placed a second phone call for [redacted] as a follow-up to [redacted] message she left on September 3rd. My attempt to reach Ms. [redacted] was unsuccessful; however I left her a message. The phone call has been placed out of the Contact Center station and has been recorded for tracking purposes.September 19th, 5:50pm called [redacted] in response to her voice mail received today (first time we heard from her) in the morning. She was at work, so I spoke with her husband. He stated that she has a day off tomorrow, so I am planning to call her around 12:00pm, right after the Branch Managers meeting. ([redacted] I called twice today at 12:15pm and 3:PM. I spoke with [redacted] husband [redacted] first time, as [redacted] was sleeping. Since September all calls made to the [redacted]'s have been recorded.Leominster Credit Union would welcome the opportunity to share all evidence collected with Ms. [redacted] and to come to an amicable resolution. Ms. [redacted]'s relationship and our reputation in the community are very important to us. Final Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)We disagree with LCU statement because LUC has not done anything to resolve the issue or shared any evidence with us. On Friday, September 27, 2013, we returned a missed call to LCU. We have made appointment to view the tape(s) on Thursday October 3,2013 at 9:00am.The have agreed to have a Massachusetts police officer present at a witness instead of a security office from their office.