I maintain a small balance checking account/debit card at the Bank of Missouri in Branson (BofM. I have never written a check on the account, but a few times each month I do use the debit card for local purchases. Normally about once a month I open the BofM App on my phone and deposit a check on another account into the BofM account. It has worked fine for a few years.
About 10 days ago, the BofM debit card was rejected at McDonalds. When I checked the BofM App, I discovered that the <$1 balance had resulted from as many as fifty posted debits during the prior week each for $4. The post detail indicated that all debits were pursuant to "pre-authorization by the business "Square", a Company with a SanFrancisco number and address. The number which I tried was telephony answered and ultimately advised that it was only accessible by internet invitation to existing Square customers. The BofM customer service representative explained that Square was a company that processed debit payments via an attachment to smart phones and that BofM had no way of knowing the name of the utilizing Square customer.
I filled out a dispute report on 10/23, the day following my discovery. On 10/31, I received a call from a BofM representative who advised that she was investigating the dispute. She asked that I provide information about other bank account that I owned, and repetively asked if any of such accounts were linked to my BofM account. I answered definitively no. When I inquired as to when the dispute would be resolved, Karen, the representative said "as soon as they had all of the facts".
I told Karen that the bank should stipulate a time limit on such resolutions, in that it could well be that the BofM customer's situation might be endangering. In today's culture, "we are working on it" is not very helpful. A date specific is much better. Surprisingly and perhaps revealing when I pressed this issue, Karen said that the disputed funds had been credited to my account on 10/30, with the stipulation that when, as, and if warranted, the amount would again be debited. My quick takeaway is that BofM should not honor derivitive payments without end user information, but what do I know.
What I do know is that Karen should have related the, already effected, temporary resolution up front, and managed the communication more as a neighbor and less as a FBI wannabe.
All things considered....the BofM response was responsible and appropriate...... the customer service.....it needs some work.