Capital One Bank Capital One allows you to use your debit card with no available funds, then slaps you with a charge for doing it! Internet

You stated....

"Someone who INTENTIONALLY overdrafts their account is not a victim"

Why not?? If the bank is providing a service..and calling this service "overdraft PROTECTION"  and in writing specifies the fee for this "service"..does it not imply overdrafts are going to occur? Does this make a person who overdrafts a criminal?

Now I agree..if a person intentionally overdrafts their account..they are not a victim of anything..IF they were only charged a fee for that overdraft..but this is often not the case..and the customer does not understand why..and whether you agree to this or not does not matter..as the VICTIM for whatever reason was not aware this happens..and it is not like the bank advertises this is what will happen if they use the "service" for any reason. THEN when they call the bank in tears as to why all the additional fees...the bank at times will not even explain it in a way that tells the whole truth..or the customer simply does not understand as after years and years with the same bank..or a young person with a first time account..had never experienced this. So what does the bank do next?? Tell them it is all their fault and they need to use a register...perhaps some do..and perhaps some have been using one..but regardless the bank did take all those fees..right? You honestly can say in your heart the bank shares no blame at all in these instances? I know I can not from what I can see..and it may take more to decide this then you or I.

"Someone who does not keep a register is not a victim."

Respectfully disagree..I can not agree this is always the case. If the bank is offering a service (well actually FORCING it on us)..and charges a fee for it..and does not explain the consequences until AFTER the damage is done..then they hold some responsibility, and this will be a major focal point in the cases.

As well...to say "a checking account is not a loan source" is questionable. Because if they are covering a check or debit card transaction when funds were not available..I do not know what else to call it..regardless if it is interest..a fee..or a fine..they loaned money to cover a transaction..and many times the customer was not even aware the bank would..once again until it was too late...their fault for not reading or understanding the banks terms? (assuming they didn't impose changes the customer was unaware of)..perhaps...but I don't think this completely gets the bank off the hook..they shared a part in causing the event, and charging for it.

Now if the bank had bounced a check that did not have the funds..or denied a debit card that did not have funds..then the customer is not a victim.. as there was no ripoff or misleading involved.

As far as your example with the carpool lane..I agree..but what if in addition to all the fines and costs associated, the court gave 10 more $350 dollar fines..and when the defendant protests..the judge states "well you shouldn't have drove in the carpool lane..you caused all this". So the analogy can work both ways..remember this is exactly how the (I won't call them victims to appease you) customers feel when this happens to them.

"That statement was made due to all the responses that ARE
directed at me..so in that case..it was about me..as well this entire
issue with what many of us feel the banks are getting away with is
about me..and anyone else who feels the same..

When somebody posts, it's not necessarily an attempt to “wear you down”. For example, in this thread you made assumptions that are not backed up by the available facts. Simply asking you about your assumptions is not an attempt to wear you down.

This isn't about YOU. As stated previously, you're not the first person here with misguided aspirations of a class-action lawsuit and you won't be the last. You're simply the one that is here now. When you're gone, we will respond to the person who takes your place, and so on and so on..."

Well I am still here..and looks like the banks are starting to make some changes..I guess the lawsuits and legislators are taking their toll on the banks..and this is only the beginning.

"And speaking of "crusades"..what exactly is yours? Are you a bank employee or a victim or a lawyer or a moderator?

A bank employee? I have never worked for a bank, have no aspirations to work for one and don't foresee myself ever applying to work for one. Frankly, I doubt that they would hire me even if I wanted to work for one.

A victim? Well, I did receive two overdraft charges when I was nineteen years old. Being young, I couldn't afford to pay out that kind of money on a regular basis and decided not to pay overdraft fees again. That's not to say that I haven't received overdraft fees. During the 2008 Memorial Day weekend, someone used my account information to pay their T-Mobile bill. The bank was quickly able to determine that was fraud and it wasn't too hard to track down the person who did it (they had the account number after all) and the O/D fees were reversed. I was also double charged for a $1,253 transaction but those fees were also reversed.

A lawyer? No, I'm a student working towards an MBA.

A moderator? Yes, but not for this site."

You still didn't answer the prime question..which is "what is your crusade?"  And nice to know the bank reversed your fees when the overdrafts were of no fault of your own. Seems the banks don't do that anymore...they just encourage overdrafting..cover any transactions without any concern for our money..and then pile on fees and leave us holding the bag..and that too will change soon.

It's good that you "decided" not to overdraft anymore..and it seems the banks are finally taking steps to limit their part in the cause of OD and the additional fees brought on by "tactics".

"I don't understand your reasoning for debating and your "futile" rebuttals against me. Or are you just hoping to wear me down and move on to the next? Perhaps you can clarify?

Your world ends with you, Ronny. That means that your perspective can be as open or as narrow-minded as you want it to be. If you cannot understand why I would wish to see people pay fewer overdraft fees to the bank or promote personal responsibility, then you are not open-minded enough and nothing I write will make you understand."

There is enough "pots calling kettles black" here to go around. I never mean to imply my world ends with me..but my motives here are to help..not insult and degrade..but I will fight fire with fire..and I will treat respect with respect.

Now whatever you think the banks are doing to promote personal responsibility I wish you would share..because the current tactics of fee-ing people into the poorhouse has done nothing but make the banks rich. Or wouldn't we be seeing a decline in the reports?

I tell you this..by next year..mark my words..if I am wrong I will come here and apologize and call myself a jackass...but you watch..the reports WILL decline..substantially.

"As long as it is done with integrity and respect and not condescending.

I believe that those questions were posed with integrity and respect and I don't see how they are condescending. Would you like to answer those questions now?"

"I shouldn't need to explain this as you seem to be reasonably
intelligent..but the example was only used to demonstrate my
point...which was that this gives a way to easier comprehend the amount
of money these fees represent...some defenders are making it seem that
hardly anyone overdrafts..so the "few" that do must be all at fault.
The dollar amount taken in clearly shows it had to be a large number of
customers that were paying these fees...unless it was just 38
billionaires each paying a billion dollars each??? Come on now..that
amount of money is staggering..and could have pulled Cali out of the
hole and left a nice surplus.

Of course those fees weren't paid by thirty-eight billionaires but they were paid by a clear minority of checking account users. We are all exposed to the same resequencing and deposit methods. The difference is that some of us choose to manage our finances so that we do not pay overdraft fees and others don't. If the people that are paying overdraft fees want to begin keeping their own money, then perhaps they should try the techniques practiced by those who don't pay the fees?"

We've been through this too many times..anyone interested in the facts and the truth..can read through all the reports and replies. But I will say it doesn't really matter much to the customers who were victims..or simply suffered financial loss due in full or partially to the tactics if the "majority" of other customer did not. If even ONE customer is taken advantage of and overcharged due to deception and manipulation..that is one too many. and the banks must be aware of this as it seems they are choosing a very 'convenient" time to make "voluntary" changes in policy now..wouldn't you agree?

"California's economic problems result from the politicians spending more than they take in while at the same time driving away high income producers. While both situations have roots in irresponsibility, they are not the same. People may not be able to control what their government does but they can choose to control what happens with their checking accounts."

They banks "overdrafted" (overextended).....California "overdrafted"(overextended)..same difference ...different circumstances.

The only difference when discussing a bank customer overdrafting (overextending) is they get charged fees and subject to tactics that maximize fees...the banks and california get bailed out by the people/congress.

"guess it is all
fair...a register surely might have helped the banks not get into the
hole they dug..you think??

Yes, but since when has it been in a politician's best interest not to spend money? This will continue to be the case so long as voters continue to reward failure."

Now on this point we are both on the same page.

"As a response to this..see the above response. However I think it is
apparent I used the word "few" being purely sarcastic in context...you
were able to tell...right?

Sometimes you write lucidly and sometimes you do not. I have no way of knowing what frame of mind you are in when you submit a particular post."

I'll give you a hint..when someone has pissed me off with nonsense..or has used insult instead of logic...I may not seem as lucid in my responses..but my "state of mind" is always the same. I can admit when I am wrong..if proven so..but my state of mind is to help with this issue the best way possible..not by belittling customers that have had financial loss.

"I don't fully understand this statement so I can't rebut it
with integrity..perhaps you can clarify? I think I defended all you
posted about me with honesty and integrity..and I can understand that
on both parts (mine and whomever I am debating with) can be taken out
of context or misinterpreted...but I in no way feel I am "resorting to
logical fallacies" or complaining about anything I am perceiving"..I
think I can state that with confidence unless reasonably convinced
otherwise...which I respectfully don't feel was the result of anything
in this post.

Let me make it simple for you. You make remarks about civility and treating others decently but you do not feel compelled to post under those same constraints. Wasn't it only a day or two that you referred to people who advocate strong financial management as “sheer annoyances”? Not only this, but you exaggerate the positions of those who disagree with you which is a logical fallacy whether you want to admit it or not. You want to have it both ways and that's simply hypocritical."

No...I really only want it one way..which would be civility..but I am not perfect and know this..I know I can be harsh and sarcastic at times...but I see the truth..and that is really what counts. And using the term "sheer annoyances" knowing me was not directed at anyone personally..nor someone who came here to report a rip off..is already upset..and suffered a loss..only to be kicked around by know it alls that really do not understand..or refuse to understand the post..and really don't care about anything but making sure the customer will believe they hold ALL the blame..and the bank is perfect. That is proving as self evident not to be the case as the banks begin one after the other..to change their policies to the fair way we always were asking for..nothing unreasonable at all.