Netspend - Blatant Violation of The 1987 Expedited Funds Availability Act

214 of 849 Netspend reviews

Update added by user Apr 15, 2016

We finally got a phone call from Representative VITTORIA (sp?) who released the funds after verification.

Original review posted by user Apr 14, 2016

On April 7th, 2016, I, Sara Torres, attempted to open an account with a 3rd Party Financial Institution with an opening account balance from a Cash Advance off the Netspend Card I received from my IRS Federal Income Tax Refund.The amount I tried to deposit was $1,006 and 0 cents.

This attempted Cash Advance OFF the Netspend card TO the UFCU Account occurred on April 7th, 2016, at approximately 2:49pm Central Standard Time. The Account was unable to be opened at that time via the internet venue, and subsequently the 3rd Party Financial Institution (who was not at fault here) returned the Funds BACK to Netspend (AKA "The Bancorp Bank"). I later went in to the UFCU main location in person to confirm this process had been completed and finished opening our account with UFCU with a Cash deposit and no further problems. AGAIN: UFCU CONFIRMED THAT ON APRIL 7TH THE FUNDS HAD BEEN RETURNED BACK TO NETSPEND.

Subsequently I continued checking my balance multiple times daily. On April 13th, 2016, at approximately 4:27pm Central Standard Time, I contacted Netspend via the Phone Number 1-866-387-7363. A Netspend Representative with extremely broken and nearly unintelligible English who identified herself as "Ann" and informed us (after requesting it) that her Netspend Employee Number was 466404, answered the Phone for us. I informed Ann of our situation and how for the past week we had been waiting for the above mentioned transaction to be removed from Pending Status, and that it shows on their Internet Account Page for me as "UNIVERSITY FEDERAL CRE AUSTIN US".

After several lengthy holds, Ann told me that there was "nothing she could do..." I informed her that this was ILLEGAL under Federal Law (Pursuant to Regulation CC (Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks), the 1987 Expedited Funds Availability Act (see Consumer Affairs Letter CA 11-7 on Funds Availability and Payment of Interest)); and that if she persisted we would not hesitate to call the FBI and report this. After further lengthy, futile, and broken dialogue, I insisted to speak to Ann's supervisor. We were then transferred to a man, and we immediately asked for his name & employee number, and he immediately put us on hold without a word or a response. The hold was brief, and the man came back on identifying himself as "Nico" with employee ID No.

786746. Nico asked, "what can I help you with"? And I responded by asking him if his predecessor had informed him from anything already, (twice), to which he declined to respond. So I repeated our entire circumstances to him.

He also tried telling me that there was, "nothing he could do", DESPITE FEDERAL LAW. I informed him of this violation, and he continued to give me various legally invalid excuses as to why he "could not help us". I informed him of his error, that he was required to help us, and that we would be reporting this to the FBI as soon as he hung up on us. At this point "Nico" stated that he would try to remove the Pending Status right now and asked to put us on hold again.

I said "sure". "Nico" came back from another hold stating that he was unable to release the Pending Status and that there was nothing he could do, and again offered excuses that are not viable under the Law. He than told us to have a nice day, BUT HE DID NOT HANG UP. NEITHER DID WE.

There was a long pause of perhaps a minute or so before "Nico" started speaking again, trying to tell us to hang up. I stated that I would NOT be the one to hang up, as that would give them the excuse to say that we hung up on them. He IMMEDIATELY responded to that with, "I'm going to see if I can get a supervisor for you", and put us on hold. We subsequently waited on hold FOR OVER TWO HOURS WITH NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER, before we were finally hung up on, and I called the FBI Field Office closest to us in San Antonio Texas BEFORE WE WERE HUNG UP ON using a separate phone, while continuing to wait on hold with Nestpend.

I informed the FBI of the situation, and asked them whether it would be recommended to bring this to the FTC's attention first, and the FBI stated "yes". We then called the FTC and filed a complaint. It is now approximately 9:07pm Central Standard Time on April 13th, 2016 as I make this Statement and we have as of yet to hear anything whatsoever from Netspend, via Phone, Email, or Account Data. We are convinced from what we have seen personally as well as from reports from thousands of others that this form of behavior is being perpetrated on behalf of Netspend knowingly to garner additional funds from their customers by constantly attempting to force their customers to comply with further and further loopholes which are not required by law, betting that many Customers will eventually conceded due to time factors and / or exhaustion.

We are a large family well below the poverty line and we cannot afford to lose money.

We have no transportation, no health care, and do without many of the modern conveniences that many folks with funds take for granted.This behavior is despicable to say the least, and in our understanding of the Laws mentioned above (and others), blatantly illegal.

This review is a subjective opinion of a user.
Report Comment Private message author

More Review Details

Customer service
Diversity of Products or Services

Reason of review:
Preferred solution:
Deliver product or service ordered
Monetary loss:
Product or service
Banking Scam
Review category
review #829457

Author wants to be contacted by the company. Learn more

Had an experience with Netspend? Submit review ›
Helpful? 0 Yes 0 0 No 0
Had the same issue 0 Yes 0
214 of 849 Netspend reviews

Apr 22, 2016 #1148645

I am having similar problems with this so called company. I hope you get this message and email me at I would like to start some type of lawsuit and believe that if many of us start to work together we could possibly stop this. I am 42 years old, I have never sued any person nor company and this is the first time my desire to so is so unexplainable.

1 0 Reply

Apr 22, 2016 #1148267

Reg CC doesn't govern prepaid cards, only "transaction accounts." Reg E covers electronic transfers.

0 1 Reply

Apr 24, 2016 #1149217

This WAS an Electronics Transfer, make sure you get your facts straight and READ.

0 0 Reply
Great comment! Would you like to convert it into review?

You will be able to edit the text before publishing.

You May Also Like

× You are about to contact

Review submitted through "Contact Us" will not get published on the site or forwarded to Netspend. However, many companies do monitor reviews on our site.

You were reading a complaint about Netspend.
Filing a new complaint about