US Bancorp - US Bank Holding of Deposits, Overdraft, Customer Abuse Minneapolis Minnesota Nationwide

If you're short money in your account, the order things post doesn't matter. Short is short. To my knowledge all banks post credits first, then largest to smallest debits. Typically large debits are more important, so they are correct in what they said to you. If my account was short, I'd rather have my $900 mortgage check be paid over the $10 check I wrote to my local grocery store.

Youd rather have your mortgage payment go through first is just the kid of crap they have been spoon feeding to people for years. Your either a bank employee or just don't know any better.

My bank routinely holds debits until they can see that it will cause an overdraft. I paid a student loan payment, the bank didnt post the debit for 15 days, same day they posted my mortgage payment also held in limbo, same day I made a deposit from my paycheck for 1400$ od which they made a debit of $1300 to my account "until the funds clear"

No i dont keep track thats what the bank is for.

If you think for one minute that the bank isnt set up to ROB you your are sadly mistaken.

If you actually think that you are special enough that someone is actually getting paid to sit around and just watch your account to see if you go negative, you need some serious psychiatric help.

It is not hard at all for a computer to determine that you wrote checks and debits when you did not have enough money in the account. YOU keeping an accurate register would have avoided it.

'No i dont keep track thats what the bank is for.'

Either you are purposefully being snarky or you are the biggest IDIOT ever to walk the Earth...

The bank is there to safeguard your money, little Mattie, not be your own personal accountant. YOU are responsible for keeping track of YOUR finances...PERIOD

No rip-off here...just another in the endless line of irresponsible morons who cannot grasp the concept of using a check register and actually monitoring their own finances.

Banks can not hold checks to wait to see when your balance is too low to cash the check. This is beyond illegal. I realize I won't be able to convince you of that, but your balance should be high enough until the check clears anyway. Fifteen days for a check to clear doesn't sound unusual to me, especially considering the time the check spent in the mail. I mailed off a check to the Clerk of Courts to pay a speeding ticket once and it took over 45 days to clear. Bottom line: you should maintain a sufficient balance.

Again with the posting order argument? How many times is some chronically overdrafting slipshod going to start this debate? Let's just clear this up right now.

I think we can all agree that large debits are typically more important. (rent, mortgages, loan payments, tax payments, etc. etc.) Can we not go Christian Bale psycho when I say that? Ok, then. Imagine your account is at, oh, let's say $600.00. The following checks present themselves to your account in one day. $800 mortgage payment, $300 power bill, $200 water bill, $150 car loan payment, $50 check to a grocery store, $35 to a gas station, $25 to the newspaper guy, $10 to school charity, $5 to Little Timmy for his birthday. Obviously more debits than money.

Situation 1: Small debits to large debits.
$600-$5=$595
$595-$10=$585
$585-$25= $560
$560-$35= $525
$525-$50=$475
$475-$150=$325
$325-$200=$125
$125-$300= -$175
-$175-$800= -$625

End result: Timmy's happy, the school charity is $10 closer to financing a cure for juvenile diabetes, you keep your newspaper subscription and the gas in your car, you can continue to shop at Wal-Mart, no one repo's your car, and you have clean water to drink. The downside, however, is that US Bank might turn away the check you wrote to the power company. $175 isn't a lot of money, so they might cover it. Still, you're getting some sort of bank fee; either an overdraft or a returned check charge. Note that if it's a check the bank returns, the power company might impose their own fee. I'm pretty sure that they'd turn away the $800 check since that would really put you in the hole. Same situation, US Bank will give you a fee, obviously, and since they'll probably return the check, your mortgage company will most likely impose one too. Then there's the whole situation where that effects your credit or your status as a homeowner. (i.e. eviction) So, you have no home, no electricity, and a possibility of four fees. (Two from the bank, one from the power company, and one from the mortgage company.)

Situation 2: Large debits to small debits.
Ok, now, let's do the opposite situation. Let's put the balance at $600 again. The following checks present themselves to your account in one day. $700 Condo mortgage, $150 H.O.A fees (condo fees: water, trash, maintenance), $100 grocery store check, $75 check to the vet, $50 to the gas station, $25 check to church, $15 to the newspaper guy, $10 parking fees, $5 to Little Timmy for his birthday again.

$600-$700=-$100
-$100-$150= -$250
-$250-$75=-$325
-$325-$50=-$375
-$375-$25=-$400
-$400-$15=-$415
-$415-$10=-$425
-$425-$5=-$430

End result: Ok, the bank is probably going to cover my mortgage since that just puts me $100 in the hole. They'll probably cover the HOA fees as well. Once we get to the $75 check, they'll probably start turning things away. So, I have to suck up to the vet, get a new gas station, ask the Lord to forgive me for writing him a bad check, give up my newspaper and my parking spot, and watch Timmy cry. On top of that, eight possible bank fees (maybe some from the parties' whose checks didn't clear). Ouch. But, I have a roof over my head, water to drink, and my HOA fees are up to date.

So in situation two, yes, of course there were more fees, but my life wasn't as screwed up at the end. Again, I'd rather have a place to live than a subscription to "The Wall Street Journal". Having debits arranged from large to small obviously makes more sense now, doesn't it? I'm still not going to subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the bank situates debits like this to maximize fees. Why? Simple. Because, by nature, people's accounts have many more small debits than large ones, so you're going to get fees by default anyway if your account is short. A one dollar debit can cause an overdraft just as easily as a one thousand dollar debit can.

So, in closing, I think we're missing the point in this back and forth argument: your account shouldn't be negative to begin with.You, the customer, are responsible for the balance, not the bank. You can check your balance online, over the phone, at an ATM, get their e-mail or text alerts, or talk to someone at a branch if you need to know what your balance is. That's six different ways, people, five of which are 24 hours a day so don't give me that "I can't check my balance" line. Tell your fiction to Reader's Digest.You signed a legal document when you opened up the account stating that you understand and agree to all terms of the account. Now, whether you actually read that document or not is a different story, but the bottom line is you legally said "OK" to their fee schedule when you signed your name on the dotted line. Whining about it on the internet does nothing but make you look like a tool.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. There is no hidden agenda at your bank. It only seems that way because you obviously don't know how to balance your account or you think you're special by spending money you don't have. I've been at my bank for bordering on a decade and I haven't paid one dime to them except for the one time when I ordered blank checks. Come to think of it, I could've purchased them from an outside vendor, so I didn't even have to do that. I would imagine if the bank is really geared to screw over customers, they're not doing a good job at it since I've never paid any fees. My advice: If you hate the bank that much, don't use their services.

"If you actually think that you are special enough that someone is actually getting paid to sit around and just watch your account to see if you go negative, you need some serious psychiatric help."

There doesn't need to be someone that's paid to sit around and watch accounts, a computer program does that. I've known fellow programmers that have worked on bank software and they were instructed to write it in such a way as to maximize the chances of the account going negative.

'There doesn't need to be someone that's paid to sit around and watch accounts, a computer program does that.'

Thus, the ONLY way a computer can do it is if it ACTUALLY happens caused by the account holder.
This is what makes your argument even more lame.
A computer is indiscriminate while a live person could potentially do this if they had some kind of bizarre grudge against someone which is the only reasonable explanation for a person actually wanting to do it if they could.

Are you going to try and say that a computer now can 'not like' somebody or can somehow see into the future and make them overdraft like this report alludes to? There is one person, and one person only that knows how much they spent and where and that's the account holder. That is an undeniable fact. That is the only person that can make or prevent an overdraft.

'I've known fellow programmers that have worked on bank software and they were instructed to write it in such a way as to maximize the chances of the account going negative.'

>> Which will happen when the account holder intentionally takes it negative. Only the account holder can actually 'maximize going negative'. No one can make anyone overdraft. Keep trying to spin it all you want, millions do not overdraft every day.

“Thus, the ONLY way a computer
can do it is if it ACTUALLY happens caused by the account holder.”

I understand that. I never said the computer can “make” you go in the negative. It's what happens once the customer makes a mistake that I have a problem with.

"A computer is indiscriminate while a live person could potentially do this if they had some kind of bizarre grudge against someone which is the only reasonable explanation for a person actually wanting to do it if they could."

No one said anything about discriminating against anyone. What are you even talking about? This bank is equally discriminatory to everyone.

"Which will happen when the account holder intentionally takes it negative. Only the account holder can actually 'maximize going negative'. No one can make anyone overdraft. Keep trying to spin it all you want, millions do not overdraft every day."

I didn't say anything about the bank "making" anyone overdraft. It's what happens when someone does unfortunately overdraft that I have the problem with. The charges are put through in such a way as to maximize the milking of fees from the customer. That to me is unethical. Millions don't overdraft every day? Do you have statistical proof of this?

I wanted to know why my deposits are being held up so long and causing my bills to bounce and then my deposits clear and they charge me over draft fees. Wierd how they will hold everything up so they can charge over draft fees.
The way everything is set up all deposits are supposed to clear in my account before anything is withdrawn.
You can't get anywhere with customer service with this bank you will talk to different people. Nobody seems to be able to help solve your problem or answer your questions.

I am keeping everything all bank records on how they screwed me so bad every single month. But I will no longer be banking with this bank they are to big of a risk!

It's been a while since this event, and after reading all of your comments, it seems that some of what I said was unclear or you misunderstood it. I never believed that they were monitoring my account, and I don't see how you got that. I was also very angry when I initially wrote this, but I can assure you there was no mismanagement on my end. I have been perfectly fine with my current bank, and there is no doubt that US Bank is, or was poisonous.

"I also failed to mention all of the events, the first of which involved them cashing a post-dated rent check, which triggered this entire event. And I didn't emphasis that they continued to charge me 'late fees' and 'overdraft fees' even after they admitted to making a mistake and were processing the return, failing to include the fees that they kept tacking on, essentially making the return pointless. I believe it took them 3-4 days to refund the 3-4 days of overdraft fees. "

Banks do not look at every check presented.  They are most certainly not required to reject post-dated checks.  Your problem is with your landlord.  No, I don't work for US Bank.  I am in the banking industry however.  Every bank is the same.

"I was a valued customer for 2 years. I reported them to the BBB, and they refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, and outright lied saying that I had a history of overdrafts, when I had NEVER overdrafted."

Yeah, right. Obviously you do have a history of overdrafts. Banks don't just put fees on someone's account for no reason. They wouldn't have any customers at all if they did. Remember: Banks don't overdraft accounts. Customers do. It's all your fault.

Assuming the person above is a troll because I can refute every argument that's been put against me so far, and his jumping to conclusions only shows that he is probably a Troll on the payroll of US Bank.

and scroll through all the pictures, correct?

You think the bank is doing something wrong, Windigo? In your last post you just admitted to writing checks THAT YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY TO COVER! Classic overdrafter behavior. Writing post dated checks is a crime, yet you point your finger at the bank for trying to pull something??!?!? YOU are the criminal!

Saying "overdrafter fail" about this situation would be a titanic understandment.

umm--you kind of scrwed yourself in an earlier rubuttal--you say there is many methods of checking your account including online and by phone and atm---umm--online banking is inaccurate---you make examples but only to support your theory--you also say if you have a sufficient amount of money you will never be overdrafted-this is true!!---but there is a catch----for me--i didn't have much money left over at the end of the week--i would use my debit to spend 3 here 5 there exc exc--not going below the balance i had in MY register--cause i used my atm i always had items pending and things never showed online--if you have items pending by using your debit card for small purchases-especially multiple purchases in a day--YOUR #'s will NEVER match those online!!!!!!---to me--the bank always seemed to HOLD my deposits --some cases they did hold my debits until the time was right--for me---i would have 5 left in my account by the end of the week----nothing pending(for example)--here we go

1st-$5 balance

2nd-  -3$ for gatorade-debit purchase--balnce now=$2

3rd-got paid  $350-balnce should now be $352

4th--look online and see 350$ posted--balnce 352$

5th-spend 5 here-4 there--balnce 343$

6th-spend 6 here and 9 there--balnce 328$

7th-look online and find my balnce to be 208$--what the fuck????

when i looked on the 7th--it turns out my deposit was on hold--even though it showed ONLINE that the deposit posted--so i spent with this info--i though the deposit was posted the next day so spent--in actuality it was not and this put me in overdraft---so let me ask--does this example sound like i overdrafted to you??--it sounds like they played with my transactions and dates to MAKE overdraft--the information you see online changes from one day to the next--i now do not do anything for many days and online actually now matches with my numbers(nothing ever pending all the time)-with this--i now spend less and now always have sufficient amounts left over---but with this in mind--is this what we all have to do---spend less than we have in order to not get overdraft so we may have a cushion??---with this--we wonder why the economy is not doing good--people will spend less(this is the way to counter overdrfat)--in the end--when people spend less it brings the economy down--if they spend less the chance of overdraft decreases--if overdrfat descreases bankers bonuses will not be as high(until they figure out another way to rob us)--so in the end--the bankers are only screwing themselves and everyone else with these practices of holding debits and deposits as they see fit in order to again--MAKE OVERDRAFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice typing, Bill. How long have you been in America? I've seen chimps operate a computer keyboard with more profeciency than that. That last rant goes way beyond typos. In the future, I'd recommend that you call an infant into the room before you submit your responses so they can proofread them for you.

As for the little amount that someone could actually understand from your dribble, I gather that the bank processed a non-cash deposit for you and you try to spend it right away without waiting 24 stinkin' business hours for it to clear. Spend, spend, spend, right? Trying to stimulate the economy by yourself or what? Well, you helped a little bit by letting the bank take that money from you. Non-cash deposits do not clear immediately. I don't know how they do it in your country, but here in America, it doesn't work that way. Try reading the pamphlet you get when you started the account. It's in plain black and white. You can at least read English, right?

Bill,

You're persistent, I'll have to give you that. But I don't think I "scrwed" myself in my last response. You are partially correct in your reference to online and ATM balances. Yes, they can be off if something is going to hit your account that the bank can't have any forsight on. (Outstanding paper checks, auto-drafts, a transaction for different amount than was authorized on your debit card [like the $1 gas holds], etc. etc.) You won't get an argument from me there. But to say that the balances are "inaccurate" is going too far. You're implying that USB is intentionally tampering with the balances people get just so they'll end up with overdrafts. Well, if you think that a bank would commit gross fraud every single day to thousands of people and not end up getting caught, that's your silly hangup. 

Bill, for the millionth time, banks typically hold non-cash deposits for at least one business day. They're required by law to tell you how long their hold times are. (Remember that terms and agreement document you signed? Probably not. I'm guessing that you never even read it.) Base your spending off of the available balance, not the account balance. (Hence, the word "available".) Also remember to factor in any transactions like the ones I was talking about in the first paragraph. Get overdraft protection (a reserve line, backup savings account, a USB credit card, etc. etc.) And finally, keep your own ledger. The bank gives these to customers free of charge. Assuming you keep that accurate, you can look forward to a future where the only disappointments you'll have will be with your spelling and grammar.    

I guess I need to get my eyes checked to. I just reread your comment and you said that post-dated checks are illegal... and... your wrong.. so your still retarded.

I guess I need to get my eyes checked to. I just reread your comment and you said that post-dated checks are illegal... and... your wrong.. so your still retarded.

Wendy-go,

In response to your last post, at no time did I ever say that writing a postdated check was illegal. I said that writing a check you don't have money to cover is illegal. Pay attention, witless.

and...

I love how you try to insult my intelligence, but you can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're". (or "to" and "too", for that matter) Here's what you wrote in your last post....

"I guess I need to get my eyes checked to. I just reread your comment and you said that post-dated checks are illegal... and... your wrong.. so your still retarded."

I think what you meant to say was,

" I guess I need to get my eyes checked too. I just reread your comment and you said that writing postdated checks is illegal. You're wrong and you're still retarded."

If you're going to take me on Wendy-go, at least arm yourself appropriately. You're making this too easy for me.

Very quickly to Windigo, keep in mind your report lay dormant for a year, then you yourself revived it with an update. But at any rate, I believe you can turn off the email notifications but I could be wrong.  

But more importantly on to I am the law, leader of the Kangaroo Court.  I can't believe it but you and I finally agree on something.  This is indeed too easy as I quote from Post #16 on this report back on May 28th:

"Writing post dated checks is a crime,..."

And now your current quote from Post # 23 on June 3rd:

"at no time did I ever say that writing a postdated check was illegal"

Huh? What? But I guess we shouldn't be surprised, because stuff like this is just business as usual in Kangaroo Courts.

To Edward, leader of the Koala court..

Well, Ed, you busted me. Let me correct that statement. You pointed out that I left some words of a comment in post #16.

I meant to say "writing postdated checks you don't have the money to cover is illegal." Notice I did say that correctly earlier in the post.

Feel better?

The fact that my fingers were quicker than my brain that day doesn't change the fact that writing checks like that, even to someone you know, is illegal. Granted, it's hard to prove and track, but still, you're breaking the law. So, if you think you can "beat the system", go right ahead and try. I'm assuming you'll file another bogus ROR when you get socked with a ton of overdraft fees.

Why did you call the bank "impotent"? LOL! Don't you mean "incompetent"?

No. I meant impotent.

Of course they're going to hold a paycheck. Typical clearing time is one business day unless you get to the bank past the cut-off point. It's always been that way.

A few weeks ago, I received a change in account terms notice from USB in the mail. It said that "in response to new governmental policies" (or something like that), USB was now imposing a base $10 fee on OD protection reserve lines (ON TOP of any interest accrued) if it activates due to your account going negative. Until now, if I would've used that reserve line, it would have only cost me the principal and interest; just like a small loan. Now, I'll be subject to a fee as well. I actually allowed my account to go about $42 negative to see if I personally would be subject to this new policy. Well, it looks like I am. There it was on my online statement; I had to pay back the $42, a few cents in interest, and got hit with the new $10 fee.

In other words, since our socialist, chain smoking president has taken it upon himself to coddle the stupid, overdrafting populace of America, the banks are now trying to recoup those lost funds in other ways. So, in this case, imposing a fee on a product that formerly didn't have one.

You "I Am The Law" fans will remember a few months back that I warned everyone that if the banks couldn't charge overdraft fees as they have in the past, that they'd soon somehow pass the liability onto good customers. Well people, I wish I was wrong, but unfortunately, I wasn't. So, get ready for higher interest rates on credit cards, less than favorable loans and mortgages, and lower payouts on CD's, investment portfolios, and savings accounts.

Thanks, overdrafting scum of America. I appreciate the fact that everyone else has to pay for your screw ups.

A few weeks ago, I received a change in account terms notice from USB in the mail. It said that "in response to new governmental policies" (or something like that), USB was now imposing a base $10 fee on OD protection reserve lines

"Or something like that"...this change in account terms I thought was from your "beloved" US bank...are you saying here in public you are not sure why the terms were changed from your own bank?????

In other words, since our socialist, chain smoking president has taken it upon himself to coddle the stupid, overdrafting populace of America, the banks are now trying to recoup those lost funds in other ways. So, in this case, imposing a fee on a product that formerly didn't have one.

What fees or product are you talking about? did the bank suddenly "impose" something on you that you can not afford?

 

You "I Am The Law" fans will remember a few months back that I warned everyone that if the banks couldn't charge overdraft fees as they have in the past, that they'd soon somehow pass the liability onto good customers. Well people, I wish I was wrong, but unfortunately, I wasn't. So, get ready for higher interest rates on credit cards, less than favorable loans and mortgages, and lower payouts on CD's, investment portfolios, and savings accounts.

 

I do not exactly see a line of "fans" anywhere supporting you here..but perhaps you wish to discuss this? I do not recall anyone ever stating that the banks would not resort to any other "ethical" means of earning a profit if the ripping off of a percentage of other customers resulted in them being BUSTED and having to take responsibility. I really do not understand what you are saying here...if I can understand it correctly..it seems you are angry with those who have been RIPPED OFF by the banks tactics since it may have resulted in the banks actually having to not give YOU any free services?

I am sorry if you feel your feeling of "entitlement" has suffered in any way..perhaps you ought to get in line for slavery reparations or something to that effect?

 

Ronny, you have issues.

What I was saying is that since banks aren't allowed charging overdraft fees as they have in the past, USB (and other banks as well) are finding creative ways to maintain their income by passing that burden onto good customers. I said it would happen, and it did.

In your last ROR (which took up more room than your mom in a Ford Fiesta), you asked, "it seems you are angry with those who have been RIPPED OFF by the banks tactics since it may have resulted in the banks actually having to not give YOU any free services? "

Let me answer that question in two parts.

1. Banks don't rip off people with overdraft fees. Negligent idiots rip themselves off with overdraft fees.

2. Let me tell you what I am upset about. After President Socialist got elected, he FORCED banks to take bailout money, whether that bank needed those funds or not. (Fact: USB did not need bailout money.)  Now "indebted" to the government, banks are now being subjected to totalitarian rule by Washington. Obviously, bank reform is a result of that. So now that banks' income has been cut, they react by doing things like creating new fees and/or charging for previously free services. (and all the of other things I mentioned before.)

Let's use another example. I'm assuming that you have a car and car insurance. How do you, as a customer of whatever insurance agency, feel when reckless idiots cause accidents causing EVERYONE'S premiums to go up? Kind of ticks you off doesn't it? Well, the logic is exactly the same here. When a business starts losing money because of outside forces, EVERYONE pays the price. I shouldn't pay one penny to the bank because of SOMEONE ELSE'S stupidity.

 

is a song that's only available at this website!

*Just type in 502469 and it appears as 'Consumer Comment #63' at Ripoff Report #502469.

Thank You! 

Overdrafters seem to take great pleasure in starting class action lawsuits against banks for fees THAT THEY AGREED TO. So, in retaliation for that, I think I'm going to start my own class action lawsuit against overdrafters.

What is the basis of this lawsuit? Easy. Because banks are constantly being subjected to frivolous lawsuits from overdrafters for fees they brought on themselves, the banks have lost some amount of profit. That being said, the bank is going to pass that loss onto the good customers somehow. This is most likely going to be in the form of less favorable conditions on loans and mortgages, higher interest rates on credit cards and other lines of credit, lower payouts on CD's, investments, and savings account, and fees imposed on previously free products. So, I'm sure it won't be horribly difficult for me to prove that overdrafters have financially impacted good customers, including myself.

Come on, good bank customers, let's line up to sue these losers back to the Stone Age! Granted, they probably don't have alot since they can't even maintain a bank balance, but let's go for it anyway and put some morons back in their place!