Browse Categories
- Airlines
- Appliances, Equipment, Tools
- Arts, Crafts
- Books
- Building, Construction
- Business, Finances
- Cars, Motorcycles, Boats, Vehicles
- Clothing, Shoes, Apparel
- Computers, Software
- Consumer Electronics
- Delivery, Moving Services, Storage
- Education
- Entertainment
- Food
- Furniture
- Gambling Games
- Games, Gaming Consoles
- Government, Police
- Health, Beauty
- Home, Garden
- Hotels
- Internet Services
- Jewelry, Watches
- Job, Career
- Kids, Baby
- Law, Civil Rights
- Magazines, Newspapers
- Nature, Environment
- News, Media
- Online Scams
- Online Shopping
- Other
- Pets, Animals
- Products, Services
- Public Transportation, Taxi
- Real Estate
- Restaurants, Bars
- Scam Contests
- Society, Culture
- Sports, Recreation
- Stores, Shopping
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Travel, Vacations
- TV, Music, Video
- Unauthorized Charges
- Unsolicited Phone Calls
- Wedding Services
Cingular - unauthorized withdrawal of $ 3000 from checking account - never had account with Cingular
Posted on Sunday, July 14th, 2002 at 12:00am CDT by 896a58aa
Company: Cingular - unauthorized withdrawal of $ 3000 from checking account - never had account with Cingular
Category: Other
Complaints.com received the following consumer message on July 12, 2002:
From:
RE: Cingular - unauthorized withdrawal of $ 3000 from checking account - never had account with Cingular
My husband & I never owned a cell phone. Cingular withdrew $3000 from our checking account using our debit card number. When we disputed it, Cingular refused to give information to the president of our credit union.
After 27 phone calls (total of 7.5 hrs talking and on hold) by myself, Cingular finally agreed to put the funds back into our checking account.
Now the local police are attempting to get the information from Cingular to file charges (this is a felony). Cingular is dragging its feet; the police are now saying they might drop it because Cingular has more money & more powerful means to back their claim.
Their claim: they protect the identity of their customers. Can you believe they would rather protect the identity of a fraudulent customer than assist in prosecuting him/her?????
0 Comments
Post a Comment