FIFTH THIRD BANK re-sequencing electronic debits Augusta, Georgia

To unknown...

"Banks
has been putting the largerst items first and has been doing it for at
least 15 years or so now., People are acting like this is something
new..Have you been reading your statemenst?..What I can't understand is
that most people never ever read their statments and act like
overdrafts are something that banks

just thought of in the past year.."

Not all banks or credit unions did this. But regardless the reason many people are surprised is because of several reasons. Number one..it really doesn't matter UNTIL an overdraft occurs..takes no Einstein to figure that out..however the horrible recession we are in (have you noticed?) is causing people to overdraft who never did before..and then they discover that IT DOES matter that their bank resequenced transactions..since so many additional fees were charged.

As well..the policy of re-sequencing and courtesy overdraft protection are policies designed to protect check users...but has many find out..it does nothing but financial harm to those who use debit cards in lieu of cash for many small purchases..and once the customer realized how these policies caused so many additional fees..it is too late..the bank got their money. Now correct customers need to be very careful to always have enough funds..but IF NOT for mandatory courtesy overdraft protection COMBINED with the completely unnecessary re-sequencing of transaction..perhaps only one fee would be charged instead of the avalanche.

Now I agree the banks are not mind readers..but it appears by the FACT that most are changing policies ..that they can predict something coming in the future..otherwise why would they change policies that have given the banks almost 40 BILLION dollars in fees this year alone? Think about it. Do you really think the policies are being changed just to appease irresponsible customers?

Update to those that dont understand Debit Sequencing

Debit Sequencing is when the bank holds your timed debits for days after the transaction purposely, and then posts them in the order they want, instead of the timed order of the debit received.

Then you (dumb,poor person) mistakenly overdrafts your account, by just a few cents, (maybe a gasoline debit, that you might of forgotten about) and the bank instead of charging for the one overdraft, charges the overdraft fee first and then posts the debits it was holding in the order they want, and receives numerous overdraft fees, instead of just the one overdraft fee.

Yes, some of us , don't keep the extra balance in our accounts, to offset any debits we may have forgotten about, (because we are poor) and we go by the banks posted balance, (because we are dumb), and overdraft our accounts, maybe by as little as a few dollars or cents.

Originally the money for the debits was in the account, but of course after the numerous overdrafts fees, the money was not in the account.

This is legalized stealing in my book, no matter how you slice it.

I am a fast learner tho, now I do not use my debit card, and I write one check for cash to withdraw most of my money and leave them the few dollars and cents. That way I know what my true balance is, and I bury the rest of my money in a tin can in my back back yard, and draw a treasure map to the location.

For many of us poor people a bank account is needed to receive our social security checks, but you are right, the answer is to pay cash at all times. It was my fault, for over-drafting my account and giving them the opportunity.

My account was not on overdraft protection and if I did not have the funds to cover a debit the debit should have been declined, or I should have been charged the one overdraft fee, not numerous overdrafts.

Of course most of us poor people can not afford to hire a good attorney,however I believe in the near future there maybe be some class actions filed.
There still are a few good guy attorneys out there that will fight for the little guy.

A timed electronic debit should not be held for the banks benefit, it should be processed in the timed order recieved.

Just because a person has limited funds does not mean they are stupid.
Stealing is stealing, whether its the little guy or the big guy,
the only difference is that the little guy goes to jail.

.
 

You just finding this out?

Banks has been putting the largerst items first and has been doing it for at least 15 years or so now., People are acting like this is something new..Have you been reading your statemenst?..What I can't understand is that most people never ever read their statments and act like overdrafts are something that banks just thought of in the past year..

I agree with everyone else here that if you had enough money in your account, it does not matter which debit came first or last..You would of still had the money in there to cover everything.. I believe the only people who understands banking on this web site is either people with brains or bank employees..Everyone here who writes to complain conplains about the same thing..Overdrafts..Plain and simple..Keep money in your account at all times and write down what is coming out, and if more than one person is using the account, talk with each other about what is transpiring.. Never ever use a debit card, pay cash. Never put money into a ATM.. Never ever rely on auto banking such as using the website or the ATM to run you account on unless you can do it about 50 times a day , everyday.. Banks are not mind readers. YOU ARE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACCOUNT , NOT THE BANK. If you cannot take care of your account, then don't open one up.. 

 

Re-sequencing Transactions

By all means listen to Marcia.  She's right when she says, ''But the bottom line is that if you have enough money in the bank to cover your withdrawals it shouldn't matter''. Because if you have enough money to cover everything, that means everything will get paid and nothing will get returned. That's why the order doesn't matter.

Here's the hidden secret. Using that logic, this means the same is true with any and all Overdraft Protection programs. Because the end result is everything will get paid and nothing will get returned. Let me paraphrase Marcia: ''The bottom line is that [if the bank is going to pay everything anyway and not return anything, the order] shouldn't matter''.

The order matters because of the number of fees incurred.

advice

"Fifth Third Bank will re-sequence your debits from highest to lowest instead of posting the debits in the order of which they were actually received in order to put its customers into a negative balance and artificially increase the number of overdrafts it charges its customers"

Not exactly. Yes, they resequence. It sucks, but it's true and perfectly legal. So does every other bank I know of. But the bottom line is that if you have enough money in the bank to cover your withdrawals it shouldn't matter. The bank doesn't put you in an overdraft - YOU DO. There's nothing artificial about it. You have to pay attention to when deposits clear and become available, and not depend on online or ATM balances. Keep a register - it's the only way to be sure.

You're going to be given all kinds of good advice from Robert (probably) and comisseration from Ronny G (probably). Listen to Robert. He makes alot of sense.

Correction...

"Fifth Third Bank will re-sequence your debits from highest to lowest instead of posting the debits
in the order of which they were actually received in order to put its
customers into a negative balance and artificially increase the number
of overdrafts it charges its customers"

I know it was implied that I won't make any "sense" with my advice..but in all fairness...the way you have the above stated in incomplete. The tactic of re-sequencing is not in itself going to put your account into a negative balance.

The tactic of re-sequencing is used to "more quickly" place the account into the negative in the event of an overdraft....and then fees will be applied to transactions that did have the funds available at the time of the transaction.

Now granted we can as customers take every available defense to prevent an overdraft from  occurring in the first place..however it does not in my opinion give the bank the right to use any manipulations to charges ADDITIONAL fees. I think the amount they charge per legitimate overdraft is enough..and if it is not...then we will all see soon enough what they try to pull next to make up for it.

Since I was mentioned by name..I might as well chime in...

Fifth Third Bank will re-sequence your debits from highest to lowest instead of posting the debits
in the order of which they were actually received in order to put its
customers into a negative balance and artificially increase the number
of overdrafts it charges its customers"

Yes..exactly. No need for myself or Robert or anyone to give any additional advice. You seem aware of the tactic..so be extra careful.

Now what is NOT true..is that every bank re-sequenced transactions. WAMU never did..until Chase took over. But guess what? Sometime in the first quarter of next year..Chase will no longer re-sequence any transactions. Kind of makes you wonder why they would change this policy if it "didn't matter".

Now this change does not mean customers do not have personal responsibility to keep track of their account. I would never advocate irresponsibility. But as well..I can not advocate a policy of a bank that is completely unnecessary for any function other then to cause fees to be charged to transactions that had the funds available at the time. That is wrong no matter how you slice it.

As far as it being "perfectly" legal...many of us feel it simply has not yet been proven to be illegal. We shall see..I have a strong feeling there are a lot of surprises in store for of us in the not too distant future.

No, Edward...the order does NOT matter...

...if you have enough money to cover the transactions BEFORE you initiate them. Of course, that type of information tends to be concealed in CHECK REGISTERS.

Lesson learned for the OP: Keep an accurate CHECK REGISTER, and your overdrafting days will dissipate.

Here endeth the lesson...