Bank of America Exorbitant amount of overdraft fees Somerville, New Jersey

& got rid of their Bank of America Credit Cards, then Bank of America would only make a profit if all of their former & current employees died, right?

they would be known as Countrywide/Lehman/BBT.  They would still make billions.  Nothing would change.  Hey, they may even buy Toyota (or vice-versa).  What will you do then?

To Sue, the problem isn't the bank - but you did identify the problem quite clearly and that is the debit card.  Fees cascade into a nightmare when you use a debit card only because people use a debit card instead of cash or a credit card.  Whether you think the resorting issue is a scam or not - it's an issue you're going to face at every bank out there - despite what some others might say, every bank is moving toward resort transactions.  It is possible to fight back with knowledge of the process and making certain not to overdraft and not to use a debit card unless it's at an ATM.

Normally I say there is a lesson here - but you got it!!  Change banks if you wish; in my eyes they're all the same.  Just remember the debit card lesson; stick to checks and cash.  If you do - and you overdraft - the result will be minimal.

Best of luck to you!!

..exactly what you mean by "mistake"..but if any manipulation was done by the bank in order to give you more fees then the legitimate overdrafts..I can tell you what probably happened and why.

You have overdraft protection...and the bank is re-sequencing transactions which had the fees at the time of transaction..to also be considered overdrafts and hence be charged fees.

Now correct..your register is easy to understand..why?..because unless you physically alter it..every transaction you wrote down is in a sequence..and in an order of TIME in which the transactions took place.

What the bank does with "holds" and "delays" and "manipulations" is effectively altering time. And it seems that they can legally get away with this has I read a few complaints a day very similar..and who knows how many that do not report here.

One of the ways the bank alters time is by processing transactions of the day from highest first..to lowest. The bank claims this is some kind of "courtesy" since they "assume" large payments are more important..such as a mortgage or car payment. But this is horse pucky because it does not matter if the payment is actually "large"..they re-sequence the transaction highest to lowest regardless. And overdraft protection would cover a small transaction that went over by $50.00 for example..or a $1000 dollar transaction that went over by $50.00  see how this works for them?

The problem with overdraft protection is that instead of like the old days when if there is not enough funds the transaction is simply declined...it is in their best interest to cover it..then by the re-sequencing sham...can add all those additional fees..that actually had the fund available at the time of transaction..but by the banks altering the times of transactions...caused the avalanche of fees instead of the one or two in your case that in good faith you would have paid the fees for since you admit you made a mistake and caused the overdraft.

Many banks do this so make sure to read the terms and fees carefully before you switch..consider a credit union...and if you use overdraft protection..make sure it is a type that is linked to another account to cover it..otherwise this will happen again be it a mistake or whatever. Unless some laws are changed.we will read report after report about this every day. Also ask if you can opt out of overdraft protection all together if it is not linked to another account..since the only thing it protects..is the banks money. It is a false sense of security and will end up costing you hundreds of dollars for a coffee and gas and lunch.

American PEOPLE had to come to their rescue in the form of a $700 BILLION 'TARP' to save what was left of them in order to stave-off a WORLDWIDE DEPRESSION!

To all you Idiots who bounce checks:

You should  not write checks if you dont understand how this  works.

Just because you wrote a check on Sept 10,2009, and you wrote another check on Sept 11, 2009, doesnt necessarly mean that the check you wrote on the 10th will cash  before the the one on the 11th. 

The vendor you wrote the check to on the 10th, may hold on to the check for several days before depositing it to their bank, so you are at the mercy of your vendor, not the bank.

When Bank Of America receives a batch of checks there may be checks in that list you wrote 2 months ago.   BOA does resequence the checks in amount order, irregardless of the date you wrote the check.  

The person in question who admits he wrote 2 bad checks may have had the money in his account when he "Wrote" the earlier checks, but he sure as heck didnt have the money in his account when the vendor presented them.

The best way to avoid costly charges in the future is to STOP MAKING MISTAKES ON YOUR BANK ACCOUNT

 

be FIRED, & some of them should be put on TRIAL for CRIMES AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, & crimes against PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD, wouldn't you NOW agree?

Just thought I'd bump this one. No other comment..can't really top it.

I may not agree with all of the "googles" and I am far from a 9/11 conspiracy believer..but most of the info is factual..many need a wake up call and fast.

I am the original poster and this is in response to IAMGOOD regarding his comment:

IamGood

We are currently in a bind because of the overdraft fee’s that we have been charged by Bank of America. I have spoken with them and got no where; of course it’s all our fault right? Well here’s where they are WRONG. Here’s part of our ledger, exactly as it appears online. You can clearly see there were FUNDS AVAILABLE as money is removed from our account. Here’s the ledger…

09/11/2009 QT 441 09/11 #000960132 PURCHASE QT 441 TEMPE AZ   -8.51 656.61 09/11/2009 KEEP THE CHANGE TRANSFER  FOR 09/11/09                   -1.58 655.03 09/14/2009 OVERDRAFT PROTECTION                                              6.40 661.43 09/14/2009 BKOFAMERICA ATM 09/13                                           -200.00 461.43 09/14/2009 CHECKCARD 0911 KIWANIS PARK RECREATIO                  -149.00 312.43 09/14/2009 FRYS FOOD & DR 09/12 PURCHASE FRYS                        -85.78 226.65 09/14/2009 Rent-A-Center 09/12                                                   -69.22 157.43 09/14/2009 ALBERTSONS 09/11  PURCHASE ALBERTSONS                    -61.91 95.52 09/14/2009 CHECKCARD 0911 BOOKMANS                                        -34.58 60.94 09/14/2009 CHECKCARD 0911  TOM'S BBQ                                       -22.70 38.24  09/14/2009 TARGET  09/12                                                          -11.17 27.07 09/14/2009 BIG LOTS  09/11                                                        -10.53 16.54 09/14/2009 CHECKCARD 0911 DAIRY QUEEN                                     -8.29 8.25 09/14/2009 KEEP THE CHANGE TRANSFER CANCELED                           0.00 8.25 09/14/2009 Overdraft Protection Transfer Fee                                  -10.00 -1.75 09/15/2009 OVERDRAFT ITEM FEE FOR ACTIVITY OF 09-14                -35.00 -36.75 09/15/2009 OVERDRAFT ITEM FEE FOR ACTIVITY OF 09-14                -35.00 -71.75 09/15/2009 OVERDRAFT ITEM FEE FOR ACTIVITY OF 09-14                -35.00 -106.75 09/15/2009 OVERDRAFT ITEM FEE FOR ACTIVITY OF 09-14                -35.00 -141.75 09/15/2009 OVERDRAFT ITEM FEE FOR ACTIVITY OF 09-14                -35.00 -176.75 09/15/2009 OVERDRAFT ITEM FEE FOR ACTIVITY OF 09-14                -35.00 -211.75 09/15/2009 OVERDRAFT ITEM FEE FOR ACTIVITY OF 09-14               -35.00 -246.75 09/15/2009 OVERDRAFT ITEM FEE FOR ACTIVITY OF 09-14               -35.00 -281.75

So all of those fees show they were charged due to activity on 09/14/09 but as you can clearly see, the funds WERE AVAILABLE! That is until the “overdraft protection transfer fee” of $10 and THEN we went in to the negative. You can very clearly see 8 $35 fee’s here, all of which the bank claimed covered the PAID items which were paid when there was MONEY IN OUR ACCOUNT. Somebody please explain how this worked.

When we were with Arizona Federal Credit Union, anything in “pending” be it credit or debit transactions, was SUBTRACTED and not included in your available balance; it was essentially “removed” as if it was already taken out. This makes more sense because, as in our case, I had no idea my partner put $30 on the credit side of the debit card.

Anyway, look at the ledger and see if you can explain why we are paying 8 $35 OD fee’s to the tune of $240!

The answer is simple! Bank of America is in DEEP, DEEP, financial trouble and they don't want the public, & their shareholders to know about it because it would create a MASSIVE SELL-OFF of their stock & trigger massive sell-offs of other bank stocks, in my opinion. These publicly held banks banks need to generate PROFITS any way that they can, & charging FEES for 'OVERDRAFTS' is a quick way for these banks to make those much needed profits to stave-off a collapse due to all the TOXIC ASSETS they have on their books, in my opinion.

you did overdraft Misty.  The problem lies in the fact that you're using the online balance to tell you what's in your account.  It isn't your account balance; it's your available balance.  On 09/14/09 you still had pending transactions that brought your available balance below zero.  Your transactions prove however that it is possible to overdraft your account while your account balance remains positive.  That happens for only one reason - the use of your debit card.

If you kept a written register with the available balance in it (that would be the correct balance in the account, not what you see onlne) then you may not have this situation in front of you like you do.

In order to avoid this problem in the future, you should limit your debit card usage to withdrawing funds from the ATM.  In addition, keep a written register and only use the online system to record any electronic transactions.  If you do this, you should be able to avoid overdrafting your account.

Changing banks will not help you - because all banks transact business this way.

My fingers are getting sore from typing out exactly what happened to you and why. Many will blame you for trusting your online statement..because in their eyes...somehow you should have known you can not trust the bank..and since the bank is apparently untrustworthy...because you didn't know this...it must be ALL your fault..right? The bank did nothing misleading or deceptive..nothing.

Read through a bunch of other reports..and you will understand EXACTLY how that bank ripped you off..which was by "altering" time itself. Yes..by them altering time..they were able to charge you as many fees as possible..regardless of the funds being available or not..due to a single overdraft..caused by ANY reason.

Now some may say it is also your fault because the bank may have in their agreement you signed that they can do this (although I can not find it in any of my current banks literiture)..but regardless...I guess that makes it okay??? Overdraft protection you say? Did it protect you from anything? Or contribute to hurting you? Interesting question..aye?

Go to the search in the top right of this page and type in some banks and read the other reports..you won't have any trouble finding any..there are thousands here..and more coming every day, by the hour it seems...type in Bank of America and Wachovia for starters.

Sorry about what happened to you..I hope it didn't cause too much hardship on you or your family.

"" Overdraft protection you say? Did it protect you from anything? Or contribute to hurting you? Interesting question..aye? ""

Please Heed this Post:  It will save you hundred;s if not thousands of dollars of overdraft fees in the future.

Rule 1:  Never, Never write a check, or use your debit card if your check register shows you dont have the money to cover it.  This is true even if you have a direct deposit being made that day, or you made a deposit in person at the bank before 2 pm.   This is because deposits, and withdrawls are done in batch at midnight each night, and withdrawls are ALWAYS done first.  FLOATING A CHECK IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE.

Rule 2:  Never assume that because you wrote a check on the 11th of the Month,  and you wrote a check on the 18th of the month, that the check on the 18th of the month will process after the check on the 11th has been cashed, even if they come in on the same day.  This is because the Vendor you wrote the check to on the 11th, may have held that check for some days before presenting it to the bank.  Just because the bank resorts the checks in order of amount SHOULD NOT MATTER.  If you followed Rule 1.  The bank is under no LEGAL OBLIGATION to sort the checks on the day they come in by the date written.

The moral of the story is to keep a check register, and before you decide to withdrawl money from your account either using a debit card, or writing a check.   There may have been some vendors that did not cash their checks for 2-3 weeks, and if you go by what the bank says your balance is, then you could overdraw because the balance on line doesnt reflect these late posting checks.

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, a lot of us have made mistakes but didn't blame the bank for our mistake.

Second of all, there is no second of all, it's secondly.  Checks, debits, doesn't matter, the point is YOU made the mistake and are having a hard time taking your medicine.

Debit Card transactions are never returned, and if you were to think long and hard, you would realize how illogical that even sounds. Once a card swipe is approved at a Merchant, those funds are guaranteed and will always be paid by the bank, no matter what. No risk of a second fee from the merchant. No risk for fraud or going to jail. All of that is outright false, and just one of the numerous lies the banks would have the customer to believe.

The end result, the customer wasn't protected from anything. There was no decrease in the quantity or amount of fees. The only difference, all of the fees went to the bank, instead of some being shared by the merchant. The Bandits of America are not fond of sharing their stolen loot.

You stated...

"If the bank returned all those transactions (like they used to with checks) then you would owe the bank a fee for each bounced transaction. In addition to the bank's fee the merchant would now charge you a fee for a bounced transaction. So instead of 1 35$ fee, it would now be 2 35$ fees per transaction."

The bank would have not had to return "each" transaction. If the check deposit did not clear...that means the funds were unavailable. So if the customer was unaware and tried to use the debit card..if NOT for the overdraft protection...the debit card would have been declined at a point of sale..or at an ATM. The poster claims to only have 2 legitimate overdrafts...so now whether or not those transactions would have been declined..she was willing to except responsibility for the error/oversight..and pay the 35 fee for each as per her agreement with the bank as she understood it.

"Additionally, if the transactions were bounced, you could go to jail for fraud. So yes, the overdraft protection DOES protect you."

Ashley...when was the last time ANYONE ever went to jail because they accidentally bounced a check..and was willing to make good? There was no "intent" here to commit any fraud..it would be tossed out of any courtroom before it reached the Judges bench..why would the bank or check recipient waste time pressing charges for an error that the customer is making good on?? And why would the court even hear this case? That is a weak defense Ashley..with all due respect.

As many of us are discovering..most types of overdraft "protection" that comes with the account..and that may be considered mandatory...actually cause way more harm to the customer and really don't protect anything but the banks interests.

Perhaps if the banks stopped using terms such as "available"..and "protection" when it is not actually the whole truth..we could put a little less blame on the banks.

...it is not 1978 anymore. The way transactions are conducted..and the speed at which they are conducted (regardless of how and why the banks delay processing and transactions..or deposits..and "speed up" or otherwise alter times of withdrawals and purchases)..well the transactions are sent to the bank at almost the speed of light. If a customer were to attempt to "float" a check these days...unless it is in the mail..or the recipient has not deposited it or processed it..the bank knows about it instantly. And could easily confirm and authorize it at equal the speed with the bank the check is from.

Now for the dinosaurs that actually still use checks...if they bounce a check..they are charged a fee for it..overdraft protection or not. That is reasonable. And that is how it was done for years and years and years. No one has stated or implied they should get off scot free for bouncing a check..whether from error or intent..this is just about basic fairness and the punishment fitting the "crime".

Now if the customer did have overdraft protection..which most do because either the bank does not let them opt out..or does not let them know they can, or they don't fully understand the consequences...what is it really protecting if not only do they charge a fee for the bounced check,,but the result as well can be many fees for transactions that did have the funds...or it causes excessive fees such as what happened to the poster from not realizing the check did not clear in a reasonable amount of time and continued using the card?

Do you think if most of the people who report here regarding overdrafts and excessive fees..were TRULY aware of how it works..and that this type of OD "protection" really does more harm then good in most cases..and in their cases..that opting out..or the opportunity to opt out would have been more fair? Is this not reasonable? Many seem to think it is not..and that the bank bears no blame whatsoever. Some of us see it differently...or see it exactly for what it is...a ripoff.

While I can not speak for Ashley, please look again at what she wrote.

If the bank returned all those transactions (like they used to with checks) then you would owe the bank a fee for each bounced transaction.

Notice the first word IF.  It does not say they do return them.  In fact you are correct Edward that by regulations they can not do that.  But she gave that as a comparison to checks where they can return them, and imagine if they did where you can run into additional legal issues.  So Edward have you ever had any representative at a bank that says they will return an Authorized Debit Transaction when you made the following statement?

All of that is outright false, and just one of the numerous lies the banks would have the customer to believe.

Ronnie, while the chances of going to jail for having a single check returned is about zero.   I hope that you are saying that there are never going to be any legal consequences, because that is a very dangerous statement to make.  Just about every major city has a Bad Check Restitution program though the District Attorneys office.  A while ago I knew someone who wrote ONE bad check to a store.  She ignored the letters from the store and was too embarrassed at that point to ask for money.  The store turned her check over to the Orange County DA.  The next thing that happened was she got a letter that basically said pay up or you could end up in jail.  She ended up having to pay the face value of the check, a fine(I believe they called it an administrative fee), and had to attend a 6 Hour Check Writers education course.  I don't know if she was officially placed on probation.  As they basically said that because it was her "first offense" that they are giving her the chance to make good on the check.  By inference she got the impression that if it happens again she would be prosecuted and serve jail time.

Perhaps there should be some laws made to require a "Debit Card education course" for people who overdraft their accounts, or perhaps even before they open their account.  After all we have Drivers Education for new drivers. 

Robert, when you quoted me in your post, you took it out of context. When I stated that what Ashley was saying was outright lies often used by the banks as well, I was referring to how they try to convince the customer that the bank is doing them a favor.

As Ashley said, if transactions are returned, the customer is hit with a fee twice for each transaction. A fee from the bank and then a second fee from the merchant. Two bounced transactions results in four fees, three bounced transactions results in six fees, etc...The bank is supposedly helping out the customer. If they pay those two transactions, then the customer is only hit with two fees instead of four. If they pay those three transactions, the customer is only hit with three fees instead of six.

But here's the very clever and tricky illusion the bank is using. Because of the new predatory policies, (1) Re-Sequencing and (2) Unavailable Funds Fees, the customer still ends up with the same amount of fees anyway. Because of Re-Sequencing transactions or charging fees for pending transactions, the customer still ends up with four fees for two transactions or six fees for three transactions.

There's no reduction or difference in the number of fees. It's still the same amount of fees regardless. The only difference is, those four fees or six fees all go to the bank, instead two fees to the bank and two to the merchant, or three fees to the bank and three to the merchant. Robert, that's the outright lie I was referring to.

Hey Inspector Tobyhanna!

In reponse to your post which follows:

Inspector
Tobyhanna
USA

Hey Sue!
First of all, a lot of us have made mistakes but didn't blame the bank for our mistake.

Second of all, there is no second of all, it's secondly.  Checks, debits, doesn't matter, the point is YOU made the mistake and are having a hard time taking your medicine.______________

OK, I guess you are not reading very carefully or maybe not understanding what I wrote.  In both of my posts I have clearly stated at least 5 times that "I" MADE AN ERROR.  No, I am not blaming the bank for my error in any way.  My point, which you seemed to have missed, is being charged for TWELVE $35 fees.  I should have been charged only 2 fees for 2 overdrafts.  Let the punishment fit the crime.

That rebuttal was addressed to the person who called me an idiot.

And while "second of all" is wordy and unnecessary, it is not incorrect.  The best choice would really be "second,"  not "secondly."

Sue, keeping an inaccurate register has the same price assigned to it as not keeping one at all.  It may be a good idea to occasionally reconcile your register during the month instead of just when you get your statement, especially if you use a debit card quite a bit, as you do with the 10 overdrafts attributed to the use of your debit card.  The more transactions incurred through your checking account, the greater the chance for error somewhere along the line.  You might have caught your error if you had done this; I understand this is hindsight and it's always 20-20.  But as a 3rd person looking from the outside in, it seems a logical thing to do.

Being notified by mail would have been way too late for you to do anything - even an e-mail notification would have been too late.

This is not a problem that will go away simply by switching banks.  I would encourage you to look on this website for any large bank out there.  You'll find the same types of reports as yours written about every bank and the overdrafts.  Switching banks is up to you; that's your choice.  Please do not expect this problem to disappear simply due to the fact you went away from this bank and went to another.  Based on the polcies out there - all banks are the same when it comes to checking accounts.  I don't want you walking into the next bank with some level of relief and relaxation.  Don't do it.

I learned that Goldman Sachs was President Obama's #1 campaign contributor in that video. I also learned that Goldman Sachs was one of the Investment Banks that was exposed in the '60 Minutes' segment, which can be 'Googled', entitled- DID SPECULATION FUEL OIL PRICE SWINGS, that named some Investment Banks, like Goldman Sachs, for allegedly 'speculating', or better put- manipulating the price of oil last year, which caused gasoline prices to spike to over $4 a gallon in the USA, remember?

Sue wrote:

"My point, which you seemed to have missed, is being charged for TWELVE $35 fees.  I should have been charged only 2 fees for 2 overdrafts.  Let the punishment fit the crime."

There is no reason to assume that you should have been charged "only" two fees. From BofA's account agreement:

     "We may determine in our discretion the order of processing and posting deposits, fees, charges, checks, debits and other items o your account. We may credit, accept, pay, certify or return deposits, fees, charges, checks, debits and other items and other items arriving to your account on the same day in any order at our option. We may give preference to any fees, charges, checks, debits or other items payable to us. We may change our processing and posting orders at any time without notice to you.

     We may establish categories for fees, charges, checks, debits, and other items and designate a posting priority for each category. A category may include more than one type of item. For example, we may treat ATM withdrawals and loan payments as one category and checks as another category and then process ATM withdrawals and loan payments before checks. Within each category, we may process and post items in any order we choose. We may use the same or different orders for different categories. We may change categories and order within categories at any time without notice.

     When you do not have enough available funds in your account to cover all of the items presented that day, some posting orders may result in more insufficient funds items and more fees than other orders. We may choose our processing and psoting orders regardless of whether additional fees may result. If you want to avoid fees for insufficient funds and the possibility of returned items, you should ensure that your account contains sufficient funds for all of your transactions".

     "We do not process transactions in the order in which they occured".

AND:

     "In most states we process and post items within each category from highest to lowest dollar amount. If you do not have enough available funds to cover all of your transactions on any given day, the high-to-low posting order may result in more insufficient funds items and more fees than may have resulted if we had used another posting order."

When you give the bank authorization to process in any order they wish and they inform you that it will probably be from highest to lowest, then you must know that you'll be charged an overdraft fee for each pending transaction if you go over your available balance.

'THE TALMUD AND THE GHETTOES', correct? Even people in China can 'Bing'- DR MANDELSTAMM OF KIEFF, and a site with Chinese language now appears, doesn't it?

You were defending some of Ashley's statements that I believe do not apply..especially when referring to the way checks worked 30 years ago..it does not apply in this circumstance so it is not a good defense.."If's" bear no relevance.

As far as check bouncing...if the customer as OD protection..they may be charged an OD fee. If the customer does not have OD protection..they may be charged an NSF fee..but either way it is getting a fee right? (from the bank and probably the merchant if applicable)...And checks do bounce sometimes..right? And have since the beginning of banking..right? No news there.

The point I believe myself and Edward keep trying to make..and may be falling on deaf ears..it that IF a bounced check is covered by the bank with their so called overdraft protection service..the customer most likely will receive an OD and/or NSF fee from the bank...understandable and reasonable..as well as possibly many more additional fees due to a DIRECT result of the re-sequencing, holding, delays, manipulations etc that many banks are practicing these days..as is being exposed. This can, will and has been costing the customers hundreds and hundreds of dollars in ADDITIONAL fees..that otherwise may not or WOULD not have occurred if the customer was opted out of the forced overdraft protection scheme. And this can and does happen with an accurate register..and without..either way..this is the result. Could keeping an accurate register have prevented this from happening in some cases? Perhaps. But would not that..in addition to not having the forced OD protection, many or all of the ADDITIONAL fees would have not occured in the first place..as well..perhaps the original transaction that brought all this on, may have been delined in the first place..perhaps causing embarassment..but in actuality TRUELY protected this customer finances? I can't see it any other way...you can continue to try to convince us..but it may be futile unless some revelation is communicated that we can grasp. Not "if's" and "or's"..but explain how in the above example the OD protection provided actual realistic usable reasonable protection from anything..and don't bother using the "go to jail" hogwash as that won't ever be the case in the above situation as described..it is not in the equation.

Now it is comparing apples to army boots to imply someone can go to jail for accidently bouncing a check and making good for it with haste..the someone who is bouncing checks and won't make good..or communicate with the bank and/or merchant..that is criminal...simply bouncing a check and making good is par for the course..and assigned a NSF fee. So in my respnse to her statement..I never implied..or meant to imply it is legal to bounce checks..I was just stating simple basic fact..no one has ever or will ever go to jail for accidently bouncing a check..and making good...making good and paying the fee seems to settle the matter in all cases..am I wrong?

"Perhaps there should be some laws made to require a "Debit Card education course" for people who overdraft their accounts, or perhaps even before they open their account.  After all we have Drivers Education for new drivers."

Here we go again with this belittling presumptuous statement implying everyone and anyone who overdrafts must be uneducated and financially inept moron. And some of these posters have mentioned they have been banking with the same bank for 20-30 years..and have never had this happen..new driver?,,,you think? Do you think the customer changed the way they banked and managed their finances "changed" in suddenly after 20-30 years?? Or maybe something else changed?? Remotely possible?

Regardless, I can concede there are many people that live beyond their means..and do not fully understand how the banks operate..so perhaps a course would not be a bad thing...but...I also feel it would not be a bad thing if the bankers and bank employees and bank executives took a few courses on ethics..perhaps the courts will throw that into a settlement or judgment one day..wouldn't that be grand?

Robert...I refer back to this statement of yours...

"Perhaps there should be some laws made to require a "Debit Card education course" for people who overdraft their accounts, or perhaps even before they open their account.  After all we have Drivers Education for new drivers."

Let's take this a step further. Now the statement implies that not only are people who have overdrafted financially inept and "uneducated" in debit card usage..but may even be criminal..since if there needs to be a "law" to require this course..a law must have been violated...make sense?

So..how would this fly? A compromise if you will. You and a handful of other bank defenders on this site feel the customer is fully responsible for everything that has happened to them...Myself, Edward some others and the thousands of bank customers that have reported here (and many many more who have not) feel the bank bears all in some cases..and in many cases shares responsibility for what happened. True?

Now if there is not yet a law that states overdrafting is illegal..lets for the sake of this discussion assume it is illegal..or a law is passed making it illegal and part of the penalty is attending this course.

Now since the people who incurred all the additional excessive fees feel the bank holds some or all blame..and the bank and bank defenders feel the customer holds all blame..why not nip it in the bud and prevent all of this nonsense, very very simply...

The bank is required to teach this course to ALL customers before they can open an account..and any time there is a change in terms or policy..the bank is required BY LAW, to call all the customers in for a "course" to explain how the policy change can effect them..exactly what the policy changes are..and the reason and intent of these changes. And the bank MUST by LAW...make sure each customer understands how the policies work, and any financial consequences that can result from the policies of the bank..before they can put said policies into effect on the customer..

Now..if something like this were to happen (I believe it may be called disclosure), then if anyone overdrafts..they can never again blame the bank..and are legally banned from submitting a ripoff report if it is due to anything that was explained to them in the course.

Now I know this would work for many people, since many have trusted their banks and may not have read or understood everything in the terms booklet, or received any addendums..but it is just about as likely to happen..as what you suggested..so I wouldn't count on either happening in any other location but fantasy land.

'The News Hour with Jim Lehrer'. It seems as though Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, & Wells Fargo will make it possible for their customers to "turn-off" the ability for their DEBIT CARDS to make purchases & withdrawals when the money isn't really in their account, correct?

I am responding to your rebuttial.

Debit transactions, and checks are the same thing.  They both remove money from your account.  The resequencing of these transactions from the highest amount to lowest amount should not have mattered IF YOU HAD THE MONEY IN YOUR ACCOUNT TO BEGIN WITH. 

At your own admission, you did not have the funds in your account, but you felt you should have been charged only 70.00, because of resequencing.

The bank can resequence the transactions in any order they want to on the day they are presented to the bank.   If you had checked your register before you made the 2 atm transactions, and the funds were available, then the bank resequencing your debits, and checks from highest to lowest would not have made any difference at all.

If you withdrawl funds from your account, and dont have the money to cover those withdrawls, you will be charged. 

No one is holding your mistakes against you, I just expect you to pay for them.

Plus remember, you were the original poster, complaining about Bank Of America.

Perhaps Bank Of America should be posting about you.  You are the real ripoff artist here. 

 

 

 

 

 

I will agree...debit transactions and checks are technically the same thing....but there are differences.

When a debit card is swiped..the transaction goes to the bank instantly. Same if a check is processed through a reader..as is done where I work. The difference is..you don't mail a debit card to pay a bill, and if you deposit a check in the bank..it will take additional time to clear depending on time of day..if the check was put in an ATM or handed to a teller..where the check is from and type (overseas, paycheck, personal check from the bank, a different bank of origin or the same bank)..well I don't need to explain all the obvious..or do I?

You stated...

"At your own admission, you did not have the funds in your account, but you felt you should have been charged only 70.00, because of resequencing."

Correct..the bank CAN re-sequence the transactions any way they see fit..for now..and correct..it would not cause any harm if an overdraft or bounced check was never to occur. But this is real life..not fantasy land. Overdrafts occur..for too many reasons to list here..and some are the customers fault..and some are not. Now if an overdraft is to occur..the bank must be okay with it..right? They gave us (sometimes forced on us depending on the bank) this wonderful courtesy service they term "overdraft protection" But I always wondered..if an overdraft is allowed to occur..and the transaction was not declined when funds were unavailable..what did it protect? It certainly didn't protect the consumer from overdrafting as implied..or we wouldn't be here now debating this junk.

So how was this customer a "ripoff artist" as you say at the end of your rebuttal? The only mistake I can see is the customer was duped by trusting the bank and no overdraft was actually "protected" from occurring. Then she admits to an error causing 2 overdrafts and is willing to pay the fees..I don't see how the poster is criminal here.

But it is quite apparent to me the bank did everything in its power to insure this customer in the event of an overdraft..was going to pay far more fees then the legitimate overdraft caused...by forcing overdraft protection..and manipulating transaction. This will not go on forever..trust me..the true ripoff artists are being exposed. The handful of bank defenders that come here with no true purpose other then to kick people when they are down..will be proven wrong.

Re your latest post:

Debit transactions, and checks are the same thing.  They both remove money from your account.  The resequencing of these transactions from the highest amount to lowest amount should not have mattered IF YOU HAD THE MONEY IN YOUR ACCOUNT TO BEGIN WITH. 

At your own admission, you did not have the funds in your account, but you felt you should have been charged only 70.00, because of resequencing.

The bank can resequence the transactions in any order they want to on the day they are presented to the bank.   If you had checked your register before you made the 2 atm transactions, and the funds were available, then the bank resequencing your debits, and checks from highest to lowest would not have made any difference at all.If you withdrawl funds from your account, and dont have the money to cover those withdrawls, you will be charged. 

No one is holding your mistakes against you, I just expect you to pay for them.Plus remember, you were the original poster, complaining about Bank Of America.Perhaps Bank Of America should be posting about you.  You are the real ripoff artist here. 

KARL POSTED THIS TO ME:

Karl
highlands ranch
U.S.A.

Sue C, Simply 'Google' this- CUSTOMERS FACE CHANGES TO OVERDRAFT FEES JIM LEHRER, and watch that segment which aired last night on....
'The News Hour with Jim Lehrer'. It seems as though Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, & Wells Fargo will make it possible for their customers to "turn-off" the ability for their DEBIT CARDS to make purchases & withdrawals when the money isn't really in their account, correct?

Just think, people can now go into their bank and basically tell the bank NOT to "TRICK" them out of their hard-earned money anymore, right?
*SPREAD THIS ALL OVER THE WEB at sites like- 'TWITTER' & 'FACEBOOK'.

I checked this out, its true, overdraft protection can be turned off.  You can read the whole transcript via this link:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec09/fees_09-23.html

But here is part of it, read it, and then tell me how any of you can defend the bank in this practice:

JEFFREY BROWN: So in a sense, the debit card is functioning a bit more like a credit card, if you can go past zero, I mean?

RON LIEBER: It does, in fact, function more like a credit card, because the bank, after all, is extending credit. You know, the bank won't cover your overdraft in every circumstance, but it will do it a lot, and it will do it until you go way far below zero, at which point, you know, different banks will cut you off at different moments. So they are, in fact, extending you credit.

The problem is that this service isn't covered by the various laws that govern credit cards and extension of credit generally, because if it was, you would need to know what interest rate you were being charged. And the problem there is that, if you're paying a $35 overdraft fee because you've gone, you know, $10 below zero, and you're only there for a day or two, say, if they had to tell you what that interest rate was the equivalent to, it might be in the 1,000s of percent, at which point you might not want that service anymore.

I will be turning OFF the overdraft protection for sure.  Thanks again, Karl.

Since ronny keeps asking what it protects against....

 

"

Overdraft protection is a financial service offered by banking institutions primarily in the United States. Overdraft or courtesy pay program protection pays items presented to a customer's account when sufficient funds are not present to cover the amount of the withdrawal. Overdraft protection can cover ATM withdrawals, purchases made with a debit card, electronic transfers, and checks. In the case of non-preauthorized items such as checks, or ACH withdrawals, overdraft protection allows for these items to be paid as opposed to being returned unpaid, or bouncing. However, ATM withdrawals and purchases made with a debit or check card are considered preauthorized and must be paid by the bank when presented, even if this causes an overdraft.

 

"

Ashley..you were kind enough to post this....

"Overdraft protection is a financial service offered by banking institutions primarily in the United States. Overdraft or courtesy pay program protection pays items presented to a customer's account when sufficient funds are not present to cover the amount of the withdrawal. Overdraft protection can cover ATM withdrawals, purchases made with a debit card, electronic transfers, and checks. In the case of non-preauthorized items such as checks, or ACH withdrawals, overdraft protection allows for these items to be paid as opposed to being returned unpaid, or bouncing. However, ATM withdrawals and purchases made with a debit or check card are considered preauthorized and must be paid by the bank when presented, even if this causes an overdraft."

The statement I highlighted will save me a lot of typing in the future..as I have had to consistently defend the fact that an overdraft is NOT unauthorized ..or theft..or a crime..or stealing from the bank..it is a SERVICE and a policy..and that statement spells it out clear as DAY..the bank not only allows overdrafting..not only encourages overdrafting..but as stated..they consider it PRE AUTHORIZED.

I am glad some of the banks have decided to be more fair and allow opt out. I also hope they make sure when signing new customers up..that they take a little time to explain that they have the opportunity to opt out, and that the customer understands the possible consequences if they do not decline this "service"..or "courtesy" as many like to call it..has that would be very fair.

"" The statement I highlighted will save me a lot of typing in the future..as I have had to consistently defend the fact that an overdraft is NOT unauthorized ..or theft..or a crime..or stealing from the bank..it is a SERVICE and a policy..and that statement spells it out clear as DAY..the bank not only allows overdrafting..not only encourages overdrafting..but as stated..they consider it PRE AUTHORIZED. ""

Karl, the biggest contributor to Obama's campaign wasn't Goldman Sachs. It was the University of California. And since the contributions come from people who work in the company and their families, and not the company coffers, I'm not sure how this is relevant. Why don't you stop with these ridiculous posts?

All I want to say is: Karl, it is not irregardless, as there is no such word.

 

It is funny when someone calls another an idiot and is one.

 

 

I SIMPLY STATED THAT- Michael Moore said that Goldman Sachs was Obama's #1 campaign contributor, correct?

I SIMPLY STATED THAT- Michael Moore said that Goldman Sachs was Obama's #1 campaign contributor, correct?

I noticed with the last bank I was at...once I opted out of OD protection (I was fortunate this bank allowed it), that transactions show up much faster on my statement..and if the balance is low and i go to swipe it at the pump..it won't let the transaction complete and tells me to "go inside". Now THAT is protection.

As well...lets say i do use it at a restaurant...and the waitress decides to add an extra zero to the tip..or the bar attempts to put a $50.00 authorization hold on the card (which BTW actually happened to me once)..well if the funds are not available..they bring me back the card declined and i can use another form of payment.

Now lets say as another hypothetical...the bar puts a $50.00 authorization hold on my debit card...and does not tell me..because most place won't tell you. Now if that $50.00 did not OD my account...the card will still work..but now I am unaware the 50 is there on hold. So of course the register does not know about the $50.00..right? I go about using my card and eventually I can overdraft...because ,the register does not know about the 50 dollar hold..that may be on there for several days.

Now..if I had OD protection in this case...the bank would keep allowing transactions to process..even after the account is depleted with no way of me knowing. Since I opted out of OD protection...the card will be declined at ANY POS or ATM..hence saving me a potential small fortune in OD fees. Of course if someone falls victim to this unaware and has the OD protection..once they realize what happened they are going to go to the bank or call them to explain...right?

You tell me Ashley...what is the bank going to do for their customer in this case?

Now I am not a Democrat, and I did not vote for Obama (I went with Ron Paul)...but I must say I am impressed that ANY of our elected officials are FINALLY starting to do what they promised..and that is to help protect the voters (aka the"people") from big corporations having too much power and control..and actually watching out for the "little guy". I mean not only have the Democrats been promising this forever (even in the days of Clinton when they had the control they do know)..but even many Republicans have promised this..and let us down.

Here is a copy of what Obama and some Democrats say about this...

Monday, September 21, 2009

Banks continue to gouge its depositors

Well, I bank with Bank of America. I have had
issues with this bank for not posting checks in a timely basis, which
ended up in huge bank fees. I was able to get everything reversed and
from that incident, I watch everything like a hawk with this bank.

But,
Bank of America is not the only one who gouges its customers, most of
these banks do. This brings me to why the American Public is very angry
at bailing these banks out and definitely do not want ANY MORE TAX
PAYERS DOLLARS going to the banking industry, period. This industry
tied with Wall Street is the reason the housing market is HOSED.

So, like a cheap suit, when you need money you try to get it the best way you can, even if it means abusing your depositors.

A
backlash is brewing on Capitol Hill against banks that charge large
fees for overdrafts without asking or telling customers, the latest
sign that the financial crisis is shifting the balance of power from
banks toward borrowers.

Banks struggling to survive have become increasingly reliant on the fees, which could total $38.5 billion this year.

But
congressional Democrats, who pushed through new restrictions on credit
cards this spring, now are promising a crackdown on overdraft fees,
using words like "criminal" and "rip-off" to describe the practice of
letting people overspend and then charging them fees without warning.
Most overdrafts are now incurred on debit card transactions.

Over 3.7 MILLION have done so, right?

Sue,

Let me first tell you who I am.  I work with a Dallas based bank which is not Bank of America.  I am very unbiased in what I say because there are things I agree with in regards to bank policies but there are also things I agree with from a consumer advocate point of view.  One thing I can honestly say is that for the majority customers that utilize the overdraft service provided by banks are those who have poor credit and are not able to get loans.  Now there are a handful of customers who do not mind paying the $35 per item if it means getting their electricity paid or their rent paid.  I look as this service as basically an extremely high interest rate loan.  Now here is the kicker this is one of the services I wish would be ammended some how.  Banks make a killing off of this service, but it can be detrimental for small income families.  Yes it can be turned off, but it has always been that way.  Customers have always had the right to not allow things to pay in their OD, but most consumers were not aware of this. 

Also what Karl wants you to believe is that every financial institution is out to get you.  He wants you to study the writings of Michael Moore and other Harvard professors.  Most all professors are extremely one sided when it comes to political issues and we all know that Michael Moore is very extremist in his views.  The problem is that America needs the financial system to survive and currently with the economy down banks are relying on fee income to survive.  The best advice i can give you is to form a close relationship to a smaller bank.  The employee to customer ratio is very good for people who need help understanding bank policies and procedures.  They can give you more time to explain issues and not always have to bend over to corporate demands. 

I wish you the best and hopefully your banking experiences will improve.  Good luck to you!

Sue:

You still dont get it.   I dont think you ever will. 

By the way, I am better than you, and far more superior to you.  I HAVE NEVER BOUNCED A CHECK, AND I HAVE HAD A CHECKING ACCOUNTING SINCE I WAS 18.  I AM NOW OVER 50.

PAY FOR YOUR MISTAKES, AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE.

 

You stated...

according to a report earlier this year on the 'McGlaughlin Group', the- quote: "total taxpayer outlay from March 2008 to March 2009 was $5.32 TRILLION".

SUE:

You are beginning to BORE THE $$$$$ out of me.

Checks and Debit and Credit Card transactions are not processed by BOA in the order that you wrote them,or made the transaction, but when the vendor PRESENTS them to the bank.

If your grocery store, or your landlord, or your department store decides to hold on to a check for 2 weeks, that is up to them.  You should still have the money in your account.

If you have a bunch of checks that hit your bank at the same time, it seems that you would have BOA sort the transactions by the date you wrote them, this would favor your case, but too bad soo sad that BOA sorts them by amount.  This will increase their fee collections, and decrease your bank balance.

You can stop them from doing this, by not bouncing any checks.

by the way, this web site is basically a crock, it serves no useful purpose except allow people like you who F Up, and find a way to blame someone else.

I love this website because It lets me know how STUPID AND PETTY some people have become, and I realize that they have only themselves to blame for their issues.

If that's the case, then WHY is IamGood continuing to post here? And if this web site is basically a "crock", then the PREDICTION about, quote: "The Collapse of the U.S. economy", which was made back on 9/3/2007 at this web site shouldn't be read by anyone in the world, right? No one should ever 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT GM CREDIT CARD SERVICES, and go to Betty's Rip Off Report about her interest rate going from 10.99% to 32.44%, & then read the '1st Update' to her Rip Off Report that states this-

generate as much money as possible in order to avert another 'MELTDOWN', in my opinion. These banks still have all those 'TOXIC ASSETS' on their books, and FORECLOSURES are still taking place at alarming rates in the USA. These banks invested heavily in mortgages, & many of those mortgages have become TOXIC.

Karl:

You really should go back on your meds, Remember you did not get kidnapped by aliens, and pixies did not leave you under a cabbage patch

Why are people protecting these scum businesses.   They are helping bank of scum,   & other bad businesses,   victimize other people.   I hope they feel pretty good about themselves.

Attacking posters like how stacy,  laurie & all the other assholes.   On this site who help businesses victimize more & more people.

CAME TRUE?

Karl:

All you ever do is quote google, tell people to google this, and google that.

Cant you ever get your research material from any where but google?  You cannot believe anything you read on the internet. 

Go home and sound proof your room so that the slient running helicopters hovering outside your home cannot read your thoughts.

Again I say go back on your meds.  Also it is very funny that you refered to yourself in the 3rd person with your last post, saying did  you Read "Karl's" post.That weirds me out. 

I use google too, but I dont worship it like  you do!!!

Lets suppose for a moment that all the banks went under, all the credit card companies folded, and all the  credit unions went bankrupt.

All businesses would fold,  because there would be no one to lend money and allow these business to grow.  The businesses would be required to lay people off, unemployment would be at 40 -50%.

You say that would never happen.   It did in the 1930's.  Unemployment was at 50%, banks all over the country were going under, and the Fed decided to let nature take it's course. 

 

 

 

 

on the web. 

You can now opt out of overdraft protection easily, by a phone call to Bank of America.  This means that if you use your debit card and there is insufficient funds for the transaction, you will be DENIED authorization.  Therefore, NO FEES!

Also, effective September 27th, Bank of America is limiting overdraft fees to no more than 4 per day.

They offer many optional email alerts regarding available balance info, but you have to go into your account online and set it up.

They still will reorder your transactions from highest to lowest.

Hope this helps someone avoid being charged, for those of you who are human and make a mistake once in awhile.  :)

 

Avoiding overdraft fees is as simple as keeping track of your available balance and outstanding checks and spending within those limts.  Not rocket science, people. Generally if you incur an od fee(s) due to an oversight, your bank will refund most of the fees as a courtesy. If fees are caused by an unauthorized or incorrect charge, the bank will refund all of those fees as well. But if you are constanly paying od or nsf fees, that means you are likely mismanaging your money and might be better served to avoid banks altogether.

college education? I went to the WELLS FARGO page yesterday to see if Jim updated his Ripoff Report regarding this issue, but it seems as though he has to hire a lawyer to get his $100,000 CD. Is that something that you'd consider "simple"?

'Update' posted on September 4th 2009. Here's part of that 'Update'- quote: "So, in other words if the bank failed I would collect from FDIC, but, if the bank simply says we don't have record and they don't want to pay, it's up to me to hire a LAWYER to get my own money." Jim Waldorf, 9-4-2009.

Copied from recent news reports...

Last week, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo said they would no longer automatically enroll customers for overdraft protection.

Here is a breakdown of the proposed changes:

• Bank of America will eliminate fees for customers if overdrafts are less than $10 within one day. BOA will also collect no more than four items of overdraft per day (previously it was 10 items per day).
• J.P. Morgan will stop charging fees for customers if overdrafts are less than $5 in one day.
• Wells Fargo & Co. plans to stop charging fees if overdrafts are less than $5 a day and also plan to collect fees on no more than four items per day.

Regions Bank on Thursday became the latest bank to ease its overdraft fees and policies, as federal scrutiny intensifies over the programs.

However, the Alabama-based company said it will continue automatically enrolling customers for overdraft protection — the key practice that has come under fire in recent months.

Committee Chairman, Barney Frank (D., Mass), and Senate Banking Committee Chairman, Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), are both planning to push legislation to change bank overdraft policies, such as requiring banks to request permission before enrolling customers in overdraft programs. The Federal Reserve is also considering strong restrictions on overdraft fees - this could be finalized by the end of the year.

Effective during the first quarter of 2010, U.S. Bank will:

• Eliminate overdraft fees when a customer’s account is overdrawn by less than $10, regardless of the number of overdraft transactions that may have occurred.
• Limit the number of overdraft fees to no more than three per day.
• Offer “opt out” ability to customers who prefer that the bank decline or return any transaction on their account, whenever possible, when they are presented against insufficient funds.
• Continue to offer free mobile, email and Internet banking alerts to customers so that they can become more aware of their available balance and manage their spending accordingly.
• Provide new customers the ability to “opt in” to overdraft privileges with U.S. Bank. This choice allows customers to define how they prefer transactions to be handled by the bank when there are insufficient funds in their account.
• Establish an annual cap on the amount of overdraft fees that can be assessed on any single account at the bank.

So..the ball is rolling. And I hope we don't have to save the banks asses anymore with our tax dollars. If those deadbeat bank executives don't pay theirs bills..they should be put in jail.