For many people, that would have been the end of things. But Chatfelter stuck to his guns. He once again told the bank he believed he never enrolled in Credit Protection Plus. If he had, he said, let him see the evidence.
In September, the bank sent Chatfelter a letter repeating its earlier assertions. "This is our final correspondence regarding this matter," BofA said.
I think Chatfelter can consider himself lucky to have received anything after allowing the charges to go unnoticed for more than a year and a half, but he does seem within his rights to ask the bank to put up or shut up.
If BofA is confident that its records show Chatfelter signed up for the program, let him see them. Play him the tape where he can be heard agreeing to join Credit Protection Plus. Case closed, right there.
Failure to do so on BofA's part suggests that its records won't stand up to scrutiny, and that alone should vindicate Chatfelter.
BofA's Riess said the bank stopped offering Credit Protection Plus last year "as part of a broader strategy to simplify our business."
I asked why BofA never just put things to rest with Chatfelter by playing him the tape of its sales call.
"We're not going to dwell on past practices," Riess answered. And that's all she'd say on the subject.
If banks want to continue making phone solicitations, the only fair way of doing it is to follow up the sales call with a mailed contract. The customer would have to sign and return the relevant forms before enrollment would be considered complete.
I'm surprised no lawmaker has addressed this. It seems like an easy fix for an all-too-common problem.
Otherwise we'll keep seeing these disputes, and banks will keep insisting that customers should just trust them.
Is there anyone who's comfortable with that arrangement?
David Lazarus' column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5 and followed on Twitter @Davidlaz. Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com.
