#1 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Nancy - Steilacoom (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, June 27, 2008
POSTED: Friday, June 27, 2008
No one seems to want to accept even part of the responsibility for anything that happens to them. You can not file a class action law suit because theya re not doing anything illeagle. YOu need to have a talk with your sister and your wife about keeping a proper checkbook register and not run amouck with thier debit cards. IF they did that, then the NSF charges would not happen.
#2 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Steve - Bradenton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, June 27, 2008
POSTED: Friday, June 27, 2008
This is my favorite! The old classic first response "lets file a class action".
A perfect demonstration of pure ignorance here.
Do you have any idea what a class action lawsuit against a bank would cost?
Do you realize that these fees are UP FRONT costs that no attorney in his/her right mind would ever take on "contingency"?
Do you realize that in a class action, the lawyers make almost all of the money?
[You might get like $3 each].
Now, here is the REALITY of it.
1. If the bank actually "stole" your money or did something "illegal", just file the applicable criminal charges on them.
2. Most of the overdraft fee / NSF fee related posts here on Rip Off Report are posted by those that are too stupid and/or lazy to keep an accurate checkbook register. That is a fact.
3. The fact that your sister is a single mother, etc. is totally irrelevent. What bearing does that have on anything?
4. The fact is, your sister did not read and understand the funds availability policy and/or floated transactions against anticipated funds. This is usually the biggie.
No rip off here.
Learn how to properly maintain a checkbook register!
#3 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 28, 2008
POSTED: Saturday, June 28, 2008
mean there's 225 people that don't know how to properly keep a check register. And if you take that figure of 225 accounts versus the number of accounts that are held at US Bank, you would see that this is not the far reaching conspiracy that you say is happening. The best way to help your sister is to have her take a math class and learn to subtract all transactions from her register. If a transaction would take that balance into the negative, don't do the transaction and then no fees accessed. It's not that hard and the majority of account holders are able to do this every month.
#4 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, March 04, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, March 04, 2009
I really love all the obvious U.S. Bank employees that post comments on here trying to defend their fraudulent activities. If your service is poor, change it; don't just try to trick people into thinking it's not. Oh, and making fun of the complaint writer's grammar is very mature.
#5 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edgeman - Chico (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, March 04, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, March 04, 2009
I believe that there are a couple...Sam and someone else who has a username I can't remember. They always mark themselves as employees and they haven't posted in this thread. So I ask... who works at US Bank and has participated in this thread?
#6 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: I Am The Law - Cincinnati (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, March 05, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, March 05, 2009
- I'm sorry these "overdraughts" happened. Perhaps you could've used that money to buy a spelling and grammar checker for your PC.
- The old "class action" and "evil corporation" comments; the last bastion of people with such delicate mentalities that they can't admit that they've made their own banking mistakes.
- USB is far from being in financial trouble; wishful thinking. And before you say it, I'm not an employee of USB, but I can still think you're being overdramatic.
#7 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Ken - Randolph (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, March 05, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, March 05, 2009
Since I am in New England (and US Bank isn't) is it equally obvious that I am NOT an employee. That being said, the above comments are spot on. It is impossible to overdraw your account, unless you do it intentionally, if you manage your account correctly.
As was pointed out, if you see 225 complaints, that means there are 225,000 who aren't complaining. (I take liberty with the numbers)
Banks are a for-profit business. By law, they have to disclose at account opening when they are going to charge you, and how much. If you know that an activity is going to cause problems, and you do it anyway (like trying to keep track of your balance by looking online), then you really don't have a legitimate beef when they hit you with the fees that they told you they would.
#8 Employee
AUTHOR: Rob With Usb - Beaverton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, March 05, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, March 05, 2009
Everything is in order, your wife most likely overdrew the account and it escalated, consider some form of Overdraft protection. Compared to the amount of Deposit Accounts we have (17 Million) 225 reports is a relatively small amount.
The stock market as a whole is at its lowest point in years, I don't see how our stock price is vindictive of a problem, if you will compare us to other peer banks were all doing about the same in terms of the ups and downs. Our bank is still profitable and has one of the highest stability ratings in the United States, US Bancorp failing is exceedingly unlikely.
(In fact were about to pay back the TARP funds we have received)
FYI: I am Employee of US Bank.
#9 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, April 24, 2009
POSTED: Friday, April 24, 2009
If you are an employee then you are far too biased to be taken seriously and your comments have to be dismissed outright. That goes for ex-employees as well.
#10 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: John - Califon (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, April 24, 2009
POSTED: Friday, April 24, 2009
First, you cry that anyone that actually knows how to bank and doesn't overdraft their account must somehow be an employee of a bank - and as Edgeman so correctly pointed out - must be on this site to teach people how 'NOT' to give their employers money. The most retarded reasoning in the world.
Now, an actual employee posts and you don't like that and accuse them of being 'biased' yet you somehow aren't because you can't maintain a check register and insist it must be the banks fault?
The fact still remains that no bank can make anyone overdraft. It is mathematically impossible and that decision to do it rest solely on the account holder.
Your leader fraudward is wrong time and time again. Even he can not prove it can be done without coming up with some fantasy that never makes any sense and when he gets called on it he start crying in a different direction.
The only person who had any reason to legitimately gripe was the possible person who MAY have been shorted the $80 that the account holder assume was some sort of mystery gift and spent.
But, it is not known if there was anyone else affected by that transaction.
#11 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, April 29, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, April 29, 2009
“You need to decide what side of the fence you want to cry on.”
Since when I have I been on your side of the fence?
“First, you cry that anyone that actually knows how to bank and doesn't overdraft their account must somehow be an employee of a bank - and as Edgeman so correctly pointed out - must be on this site to teach people how 'NOT' to give their employers money.”
Actually, I was referring to “Rob with USB” who flat out states he's an employee. If you would have read my post carefully you would have realized this.
“Now, an actual employee posts and you don't like that and accuse them of being 'biased' yet you somehow aren't because you can't maintain a check register and insist it must be the banks fault?”
If you don't think someone who works for the bank is biased then you are living in a reality that's far different than the rest of us. My statements are very objective as I don't work for anything resembling a bank, I only base my comments on my own experiences. That doesn't make me biased at all. No one said I can't maintain a check register. In fact, I do keep a very good check register. My complaint is with this bank's total lack of ethics in the case where an overdraft is unavoidable (like an emergency comes up). If this has never happened to you, congratulations. That's another thing; if you US Bank apologists have never overdrafted, as you say, how could you possibly know how they behave if you ever do? The answer, of course, is you couldn't.
#12 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jim - Anaheim (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, April 29, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, April 29, 2009
You think the big bad bank is out to rob the poor powerless people. Here's a real clue here. The poor powerless people should also have the word "stupid" placed in front of them. Anyone who loses 75% of their paycheck to a bank for overdraft charges is a fool who can't keep track of their own finances. The big bad bank can't do a damn thing to anyone unless the fool allows it through overdrafts. If you did something similar and you're looking for fault - don't look at the bank to determine fault. Look for a mirror instead. There you will find the culprit.
The truth is that the bank did nothing to earn the money - only the account holder did. You may not like what the bank did, but that doesn't make the bank the bad person (or entity) in this. We all make choices and the OP made his or her choice. If you want to know who plays the role of the bad party in this, look for the account holder who carelessly gave away all his money to a bank when all of it was avoidable. That's the bad person in this.
There is nothing here you can say that would compel anyone to believe the bank was the bad party here. The reason you can't is because the bank isn't at fault here. I speak not as an employee of the bank, nor an ex-employee of this or any bank. The policies are pretty simple and straight forward - if you can't manage those accounts - maybe some people shouldn't have accounts. The OP certainly shouldn't have debit cards - that's for certain.
#13 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Stacey - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, April 29, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, April 29, 2009
If you do not receive a paper statement every month then I suggest you do so - also ask for copies of checks and deposits in every statement - On the back of that statement there is a debit and credit ledger - use it
Stop relying on atm, phone and on line balances
Keep a check register and make a point of deducting every debit card transaction used or every check written against the deposits made
Stop blaming the bank for your mistakes
#14 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 01, 2009
POSTED: Friday, May 01, 2009
My original point was not that the bank was at fault here (at least on this thread), but that "Rob with USB" can't be taken seriously because he's a US Bank employee and is biased. I don't think that statement is too far out there. I've also never denied that keeping track of your finances and not spending money you don't have is a way to avoid overdrafts. My complaints are with the behavior of the bank if there is ever a situation where overdraft is unavoidable. Do you people just pick and choose what you read? By the way, calling people "stupid" when they make mistakes is very mature. Do I seem "stupid" to you also? I can guarantee you that I'm not but I've still witnessed the unethical practices first hand. Stupidity has little to do with it, at least most of the time. The people on here that claim to have never overdrafted have no say either way because they don't have any experience with how the bank takes advantage of the customer if they are every in an overdraft situation.
#15 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Kevin - Dayton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 01, 2009
POSTED: Friday, May 01, 2009
I am in Ohio and many are looking to sue this bank I do look for a class action probably before this year is over. When it happens I will jump aboard. You have to watch your account like a hawk I been doing this for months.
I kept every single copy of how they took money out trying to be sneaky about it. Like holding your check and causing you to over draft on purpose.
I got it on paper in black and white it shows a direct deposit cleared a paycheck. Well then it shows how they held my check made things bounce than charged over draft fees then cleared everything.
This month I set them up and copied everything before the final statement knowing the final statement would not reflect what actually went on with the account all month.
If you bank with them you know just what I am talking about!
Being military we can't just defult on our bills so it's not like me and other just let our accounts sit in the nagative it does not work that way.
But this bank will screw you no doubt about it the last time I went after a bank I got paid back.
That bank didn't get away with it and neither will US Bank. They think they can just steal from people and get by with it. Will hate to yank their chain that doesn't fly with most of us!
#16 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jim - Anaheim (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 01, 2009
POSTED: Friday, May 01, 2009
Kevin, a lawsuit is a waste of time and will not result in anything for several years if at all. The latest lawsuits resulted in people getting the equivalnt of 2 NSF fees paid back in the form of a settlement. The bank lost nothing because this whole deal falls under their E&O insurance policy - which means they pay the deductible and the insurance pays millions. The winners are the lawyers because they cash in and the bank because they'll simply recover the deductible through other means.
The losers are the insurance company who has to pay out on the claim, and the class - who will pay far more in fees than they will ever collect back from the settlement process. In the end, the bank didn't steal anything - your sister simply mismanaged her money and according to the agreement signed with the bank, she simply allowed the bank to take money that used to belong to her but wasn't any longer. No bank can take any money from anyone unless people allow it.
#17 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: John - Surprise (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 01, 2009
POSTED: Friday, May 01, 2009
I'm not a customer of US Bank, but I can certainly tell you that banks can and will "manipulate" data, as Kevin just indicated… if I had a dime for every time one of my deposits mysteriously vanished from my bank's records, and then re-appeared a few days later, I'd be quite wealthy.
However, aside from keeping a complete and fully verified checkbook register, there is a very simple way to avoid a crisis like this: not only should you check your account balance online at least once per day, but also save the webpage displayed in a folder on a flash drive (preferably with some form of encryption, as you obviously don't want just anyone to see this information). Just select the “HTML only” option in the save window, and use the current date as the file name: and you have an instant daily statement you can print out as evidence should you encounter any problems!
This practice has already proved its worth to me, and on more than one occasion. For instance, my bank once took it upon themselves to drop a $20 deposit check off the books, causing a small negative balance, and immediately slapped on a $60 overdraft fee… only they had to remove it the next day when I brought my printouts in! ;)
#18 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Stacey - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 01, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, May 02, 2009
No one "stole" your money - You did this to yourself
Learn to keep a check register - When you get your statement in the mail turn it over - there is a ledger for debits and credits - learn how to use it
If you do not get a paper statement - start getting one
ATMs and on line statements are not accurate -
Learn to take care of your finances and stop blaming the bank
I am soooo glad I still bank in West Texas
#19 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Robert - Buffalo (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, May 03, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, May 03, 2009
The reality is that using an account register and reconciling that register with a monthly account statement from the bank will prevent any account holder from causing any NSF/OD fees.
The majority (if not all) of the reports I've read about NSF/OD fees have common behaviors of the account holders:
using atm cards for everyday purchases.
using more than ONE card attached to the account (husband and wife)
using atm cards for online purchases.
using atm cards for 'auto-bill pay' (autodebits)
relying upon telephone or online account balances to determine what money is available for that shopping trip to Walmart.
*NOT using an account register.
*not reconciling an account register with the scheduled monthly account statement generated by the bank.
Ways to avoid these NSF/OD fees:
1. Use an account register and reconcile the account register with a monthly written statement generated by the bank. If the bank is not mailing statements, contact customer service to have monthly statements MAILED to you.
1a. Be aware of ATM fees, such as the 'non-bank ATM fee' that most banks charge when you use an ATM that is not owned by your bank to make a withdrawal and post that fee in your account register immediately.
1b. Also be aware of any monthly 'account service fee' charged by your bank and post that to your register on the appropriate date.
2. Do NOT GIVE bank account information (or ATM card info) to any merchant, service provider, utility, online service to pay for services and goods. Use a REAL credit card for this purpose (either secured cc or unsecured cc.) Do not setup any automatic deposit to an account that is attached to said cc-NO auto payments to CC company-mail a check each month. If the entity demanding payment makes a mistake, you're gonna have a host of problems and risk OD/NSF fees.
3. Do NOT use an ATM card for everyday expenses-USE CASH. Establish a monthly budget and withdrawal a weekly 'allowance' for every day expenses such as 'milk and bread' from the corner store, Burger King, etc. This will reduce the amount of transactions on the bank account which in turn makes RECONCILING the account and detecting ERRORS easier to accomplish. Again, if the entity demanding payment makes a mistake, you're gonna risk NSF/OD fees.
4. Do not shop with the ATM card-use a real credit card. A real credit card offers protections that you don't have with an ATM card. If the merchant/service makes a mistake, you can dispute it with the CC company WITHOUT getting any OD/NSF. Not true if you use an ATM card-if the merchant makes a mistake, your money is gone until you can convince your bank to give it back, as well as OD/NSF fees.
5. ONLY ONE ATM CARD to one account. Do NOT have 2 or more atm cards for one bank account. Having 'his and hers' ATM cards attached to the same account is the same as in the old days when some folks would have 2 checkbooks for writing checks. It was an invitation to disaster then, and it is today.
6. Verify that deposits to the account have actually cleared. Deposits can take anywhere between 1 and 5 BUSINESS days to clear depending on the type and/or source of the deposit.
Follow ALL of these suggestions and you will NEVER pay an OD/NSF fee again unless it is a LEGITIMATE bank error, and then the bank will gladly and quickly rectify the situation and credit any fees generated as well as contact payees and cover any fees the payees assess to you.
This is a tried and true method to avoid these fees. It works EVERY TIME it's tried.
#20 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Thesadreality - Seattle (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 15, 2009
POSTED: Friday, May 15, 2009
Apparently there is a class action suit filed by an Oregon Law firm against US Bank for overdraft scam and fraudulent multiple overdraft fees. The contact # of the law firm representing the plaintiff is (((Redacted))). I called them and I was told in order to build a strong case they need more complaints from victimized consumers. The attorney is 'Chimicles & Tikellis' but I also found there are 2 more law firms involved that help in the case. Anyone is encouraged to contact the lawyers and claim losses as a result of US Banks dishonest practices. Good luck
CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.
#21 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Robert - Buffalo (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, May 16, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, May 16, 2009
Please post the docket/case number and the FULL CORRECT NAME of the court inwhich this alleged class action suit is filed.
I have a PACER account and I'd like to review the filing.
#22 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: I Am The Law - Cincinnati (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, May 20, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, May 20, 2009
I read the class action lawsuit info against USB in Oregon.
All I have to say is, you can't please everyone.
Let's work through a few "what if" scenarios since this whole ordeal is concerning order of transactions.
Scenario #1: If the bank could process transactions literally in order of receipt.
Rebuttal: Like this is even possible, first off. A good chunk of the debits received by your bank are still done by hand. A person is physically working those slips of paper, basically. That being said, debits literally can not be processed to the absolute second.
Even if it that was possible, how would you feel if a debit posted to your account at exactly 9 AM causing your balance to go negative and then you make a cash deposit (no hold on cash) at 9:05 AM? Oops. Congrats on getting an unnecessary fee there. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until the business day closed out and then process all of the transactions so that credits would be considered before the debits? I can't see why any rational person would want transcations posted literally the second the bank gets them.
Scenario #2: The bank arranging transactions into the following order: credits, large debits to small debits.
Rebuttal: I've commented on this SEVERAL times before, but I guess people don't get it. From a customer standpoint, if my account was short money, I'd want any credits posting first and then large debits considered next since they are typically more important. I think we can at least agree on that. In other words, I'd rather have my $800 mortgage check considered over a small $20 check I wrote to the guy who mows our lawn. Now, I will agree, since people have many more small debits than large ones post to their account, this does cause more fees than if small debits were considered before large ones. But still, would I rather have my house foreclosed on or have the lawn guy unpaid?
You can't have your cake and eat it, too, people. With the order USB currently uses (credit first, then large debits to small ones), people whine about how it "maxmizes fees". If the bank considered small debits before large ones, they'd whine that USB would turn their large rent, mortgage, and loan payment checks away if there isn't enough money in the account. In other words: no matter which order USB uses, there's always going to be people out there complaining about it.
BOTTOM LINE: This is all moot if you don't spend what you don't have available.
#23 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 22, 2009
POSTED: Friday, May 22, 2009
>> Scenario #1: If the bank could process transactions literally in order of receipt.
>> Rebuttal: Like this is even possible, first off.
Uh, how were transactions posted long ago, before Largest-First posting order was contrived by the banks in recent years? Uh, I believe things were posted in order of occurrence. Check #101 was posted before Check #102, and so forth. So if it was done before, how could it be impossible today?
>> Scenario #2: The bank arranging transactions into the following order: credits, large debits to small debits.
>> Rebuttal: ...I'd want any credits posting first and then large debits considered next since they are typically more important.......
>> I'd rather have my $800 mortgage check considered over a small $20 check I wrote to the guy who mows our lawn....
Banks are returning fewer and fewer items these days. Instead banks are opting more and more to pay everything and allow the account to overdraft. Consider all the complaints from customers who are ALLOWED to keep swiping their card at the point of sale, or the ATM, even AFTER the Available Balance has gone past $0. So if both the mortgage check and the lawn check are both paid and NEITHER of them returned, what differences does it make to the bank whether the larger item posts first?
Except for subtle little fact increased fees made double, or triple worse, once you throw in the very CLEVER, yet sneaky and predatory Unavailable Funds Fee, which is the primary ripoff here.
#24 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: I Am The Law - Cincinnati (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Edward recently sent in a rebuttal to my last post. Here's a rebuttal to that rebuttal.
I was working through some mock scenarios to illustrate the fact that no matter how a bank processes deductions, someone's always going to complain about it.
My first scenario was:
Scenario #1: If the bank could process transactions literally in order of receipt.
My rebuttal: Like this is even possible, first off. A good chunk of the debits received by your bank are still done by hand. A person is physically working those slips of paper, basically. That being said, debits literally can not be processed to the absolute second.
Even if it that was possible, how would you feel if a debit posted to your account at exactly 9 AM causing your balance to go negative and then you make a cash deposit (no hold on cash) at 9:05 AM? Oops. Congrats on getting an unnecessary fee there. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until the business day closed out and then process all of the transactions so that credits would be considered before the debits? I can't see why any rational person would want transcations posted literally the second the bank gets them.
Edward said: Uh, how were transactions posted long ago, before Largest-First posting order was contrived by the banks in recent years? Uh, I believe things were posted in order of occurrence. Check #101 was posted before Check #102, and so forth. So if it was done before, how could it be impossible today?
My rebuttal to Edward: So you think banks should post checks in numerical order? HA! Seriously? So, you expect your bank to wait days, weeks, months, or possibly even years for check number 101 to show up even when they have check 102 already in hand? Seriously, Edward? Do you really think that? I hope you realize that banks are presented with a combonation of electronic and manual requests for payment. Obviously, electronic ones are faster than ones processed by people. Thus, debits CAN NOT be processed in order of receipt. Again, don't let your account go negative and it's not even an issue.
My second scenario was:
Scenario #2: The bank arranging transactions into the following order: credits, large debits to small debits.
My rebuttal: I've commented on this SEVERAL times before, but I guess people don't get it. From a customer standpoint, if my account was short money, I'd want any credits posting first and then large debits considered next since they are typically more important. I think we can at least agree on that. In other words, I'd rather have my $800 mortgage check considered over a small $20 check I wrote to the guy who mows our lawn. Now, I will agree, since people have many more small debits than large ones post to their account, this does cause more fees than if small debits were considered before large ones. But still, would I rather have my house foreclosed on or have the lawn guy unpaid?
Edward's rebuttal: Banks are returning fewer and fewer items these days. Instead banks are opting more and more to pay everything and allow the account to overdraft.
My rebuttal to Edward: Edward, what you're failing to realize here is that whether the transaction is honored or turned away, you're still going to get some sort of fee. If you're account is presented with a debit that will overdraw it, it's either an overdraft fee if they honor it or a non-sufficient funds fee if they don't honor it. Make no mistake, if that debit will overdraw your account by a very large amount, they will not risk paying it. (They most likely won't get reimbursed, in other words.)
Edward, please, make friends with a bank teller or something. I can't believe someone nowadays would have thoughts like this about their bank.
#25 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
I really tried hard to keep my previous post short and sweet, thinking you were smart enough to read between the lines. You know, with you being The Law, and all.
Remember, we're discussing posting order. The only issue and discussion regarding posting order is related to items all PRESENTED on the same day. In what order are these items POSTED on the SAME DAY? I thought this was inherently understood, but alas, I'll go into more detail.
In the old days, before Largest-First posting order was CONTRIVED, all items that were presented for payment on the SAME DAY were posted in their order of occurrence, by section of transaction types. Deposits and Credits were posted first. Next would be all debit cards. Next would be all ATMs. Next would be all written checks. Next would be all ACH items. Section by section of transaction types.
Within each SECTION, the items were POSTED in order of occurrence. Within the debit card section, the purchase made at 10:00am Tuesday, posted before the purchase made at 12:00pm Tuesday, if they were both presented on the SAME DAY. The Tuesday debit card purchases posted before the Wednesday debit card purchases, if they were presented on the SAME DAY. Check 101 was posted before check 102, if both checks were presented on the SAME DAY.
Here's a tip. Go back 10 or 15 years and review those old bank statements from your bank, and then you'll get it. If it was done back then, how can it be impossible today? No charge for this tutoring and enlightening session.
#26 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: I Am The Law - Cincinnati (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, May 27, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Edward, overdraft fees occur when an account holder closes out a business day with a negative balance.
That being said, posting order is irrelevant if your account never goes negative during that business day.
Since there are tons of nimrods out there that don't pocess the basic math skills to keep a positive balance, a posting order was invented so larger (and typically more important) debits are considered first. The type of debit (ATM, debit, paper check, whatever) is irrelevant. Grouping them together by type does nothing but make your statement hard to read. Besides, I've seen people buy cars on debit cards and write personal checks for a pack of gum. Again, don't let the account go negative and the posting order doesn't effect you at all.
Credits first, large debits down to small debits. Easy to read, easy to remember.
#27 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, May 27, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, May 27, 2009
10 to 15 years ago, when you viewed your account online, and looked at the posting order of the previous night, your online account view would have looked something like this:
Date....Item.....Amount....Balance
5-27....OD Fee....$ 35....($ 60)
5-27....OD Fee....$ 35....($ 25)
5-27....Chk 104...$.30.....$ 10
5-27....Chk 102...$ 50.....$ 40
5-27....Chk 101...$ 20.....$ 90
5-27....ATM........$ 30.....$110
5-27....ATM........$ 10.....$140
5-27....Target.....$ 50.....$150 (card swiped on 5/26)
5-27....Best Buy..$200....$200 (card swiped on 5/25)
5-27....Walmart...$100....$400 (card swiped on 5/24)
5-27....Deposit....$300....$500
5-27....Deposit....$300....$200
5-26....Walmart...$ 50....($100)
5-26....Walgreen.$ 50.....($ 50)
The GROUPING of transactions has nothing to do with how they're printed on the monthly paper statement. The key is how the bank POSTS transactions during it's nightly processing and how the online view would show this posting order and the running balance. And to answer your earlier point, notice how check 103 is missing. That's because it hasn't been presented yet. Still the other checks are posted in numerical order.
If you are one of those individuals who claim they're on top of their bank account at all times, then chances are you should have noticed this pattern with banks and their posting order in the past when you viewed online banking. Then you would know what customers mean when they say GO BACK to posting in order of occurrence.
Basically they're saying go back to the way they used to post transactions since the beginning of time, BEFORE they concocted the new Largest-First posting order 10 years ago.
#28 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: John - Califon (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 28, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, May 28, 2009
you won't have a problem. Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge that and try to educate those that overdraft?
There are millions that don't overdraft every day.
No one cares about your fantasy scenarios.
#29 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: I Am The Law - Cincinnati (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 28, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, May 28, 2009
Well Edward,
I don't know what bank you were with 15 years ago, but my bank at the time processed things the same way USB does today. Did you ever consider the fact that since banks get a combonation of manual and electronic work nowadays, it's impossible to process in order? Hmmm?
Why is this even an argument? Keep a sufficient balance and order of transactions is irrelevant. You lost, Edward, move on.
#30 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, May 28, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, May 28, 2009
First, VERY QUICKLY to John of Califon, New Jersey. ROR Report # 431963. Nuff said.
To the person who is The Law. You are correct in one respect. I should have clarified earlier the posting behavior I referenced may not have been used in that EXACT sequence by transaction types at all banks. To answer your question, the bank I used years ago was Bank of America. Any long time BofA customer will confirm the sample ledger I just showed is exactly the order that BofA used during it's nightly processing until about 10 years ago. This is identical to the nightly posting process I've seen and experienced with all of the banks I've used. So when you said 'Grouping debits by type is not a good idea', then that's a critique of how BofA and a lot of banks did it for YEARS.
Regarding the consideration of the combinations of manual and electronic work, these same transaction types existed 10 years ago, yet many of these banks were able to do it then. The PRIMARY reason or ONLY reason they ever changed was to protect large payments, like mortgages. They didn't change because it was impossible to do. If you and the banks say they post the way they do now to protect large, important items, then you can't at the same time use the argument that it's impossible for them to post differently. They're making a CHOICE to post the way they do, not because they can't post any other way.
The reason this is even an argument? Keep a sufficient balance and the posting order is irrelevant. Yes that's true. But by the same token, if the bank is going to pay BOTH checks for the mortgage and the lawn guy, then what difference does it make whether the mortgage check is paid first? FEES, plain and simple. That's the reason for the argument. That's the reason for the complaint.
That's the reason it's a ripoff.
#31 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: John - Califon (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 29, 2009
POSTED: Friday, May 29, 2009
Where is the advice on how NOT to overdraft that many others are giving?
As always, you haven't said anything of fact.
You still can not prove how a bank can make you overdraft.The only example posted so far wasn't even from a potential person who it could have been done to if there was an account number mix up.
Millions do NOT overdraft every day.
#32 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 29, 2009
POSTED: Friday, May 29, 2009
“Did you ever consider the fact that since banks get a combonation of manual and electronic work nowadays, it's impossible to process in order? Hmmm?”
Actually, that's not true because I've been with several banks (including the one I'm with now) that processes transactions in the order they're made. Explain that to me if it's impossible.
“Why is this even an argument? Keep a sufficient balance and order of transactions is irrelevant. You lost, Edward, move on.”
Why do you keep saying that? How is this competition?
“As always, you haven't said anything of fact.”
Everything he said was a true statement.
“You still can not prove how a bank can make you overdraft.”
That wasn't claimed.
#33 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 29, 2009
POSTED: Friday, May 29, 2009
I don't even come close to having the intellect to respond to your very MATURE comeback displayed in the TITLE of your last rebuttal.
You sure told me!
:)
#34 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edgeman - Chico (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 29, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, May 30, 2009
Chris, which bank are you using now that processes transactions in the order that they come in? I am certain that many people who have problems with the largest-to-smallest procedure would love to know.
#35 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
For some reason, this site won't let me post the name. It's a credit union in St. Louis. I also belonged to a bank in Michigan that also ordered transactions in the order they were made.
#36 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edgeman - Chico (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
You were able to post the name of the Credit Union in another thread and I sent an email to the reps at that institution.
#37 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, June 18, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Honestly, you are going to those lengths to try and discredit me? I guess this is the "kick" you were talking about.
#38 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edgeman - Chico (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, June 18, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Where do you get that I was trying to discredit you? It's not as if I posted our exchange.
#39 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 20, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, June 20, 2009
Edgeman,
Could it be that you didn't post the details of the exchange because by chance you found out that Chris was correct?
I am certain that many people who have problems with false and misleading information from frauds would love to know.
#40 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edgeman - Chico (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 20, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, June 20, 2009
Edward wrote: "Edgeman,
Could it be that you didn't post the details of the exchange because by chance you found out that Chris was correct?
I am certain that many people who have problems with false and misleading information from frauds would love to know."
Response: No, my intention was not to discredit anyone. You may have seen a couple of examples in other threads where I have recommended alternative products to people who are unable or unwilling to manage their checking accounts such as Electric Orange or prepaid credit cards.
As I'm sure that you are aware, many people would benefit greatly from opening a checking account with an institution that could actually process transactions in the order that they were authorized. This could mean the difference between one overdraft fee and six, seven or more fees.
With this in mind, I asked the credit union a few questions and in the end I didn't feel that this was a product that would be of much use to many people that have trouble managing their finances. After that I simply dropped the matter until Chris brought it up again and even then I didn't dwell it. Did you think that I had some kind of malicious intent in asking the credit union some questions? Let me ask you a question, if I were truly trying to discredit him and hit a dead end in the process, why would I have mentioned contacting them? Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep silent about it?
As for the fraud bit, are you directing that at me? If so, I'm a bit surprised at you since I wasn't aware of any animosity between us. For the record, I have no ill will against you, Chris, PurpleKnights or any of the others who oppose the methods that banks use to process transactions (though I think that it would be fun if FajitaGirl would post on some bank threads). I think you'll find that we actually agree that it is outrageous to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars in fees to banks. My approach is to not give the banks any reason to not charge an overdraft fee.
#41 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 20, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, June 20, 2009
There's no animosity on my end either. It's just that I seem to detect a pattern of subtle sarcasm in some of your questions or comments on numerous threads.
For example, on many threads where the OP has complained and threatened to start a class action lawsuit, you have responded to several of them encouraging them to do just and that and then you go on to request they come back and update the thread with the docket number. Now, unless you're a potential benefactor yourself, why would you be so concerned about the docket number, unless you're simply making a point that most of these 'lawsuit' threats are nothing more than hot air.
In another thread a poster made a comment about taking their story to news organizations and also making a YouTube video. Once again you encouraged them. Then much later, you posted again, asking for an update on how the YouTube video was coming along. Once again, seems sarcastic because why would it be so important or critical?
And finally your comment in this thread where you seemed to ask Chris for details about the institution that didn't post in largest first posting order, because it seemed like you sarcastically knew he either couldn't or wouldn't do so.
Just the patterns I've noticed, but I digress. Never mind me. You and Chris can resume. And for the record, my 'fraud' comment was sarcastically directed at Chris. But I think it's obvious I don't consider him a fraud. I was just giving you a sample of the kinds of comments that I thought I was picking up from you.
#42 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Rob - Elsmere (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 20, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, June 21, 2009
Edgeman isn't very clever, he's just an ass. His whole purpose on ripoff report is to prove the consumer wrong. But yet, in reality, he is a consumer himself. Maybe not of US Bank, but other corporations. I have a hard time believing, in all of his life experiences, that he hasn't felt wronged in a situation with another company.
He needs to quit telling people that they were wrong for feeling wronged by a company, especially a financial institution.
#43 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edgeman - Chico (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 21, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, June 21, 2009
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize if I misread your intent.
And for what it's worth, you're right. There are moments when my sarcastic side gets the better of me. It's a flaw that I'm working on.
The people who write about class action lawsuits rarely follow through on their statements. There are a few who file a suit but most don't. The subtle point that gets lost in the sarcasm is why wait for someone else to start a class action lawsuit? If someone was wronged, then why not start the suit themselves? In my opinion, merely writing that one is willing to join a class action lawsuit doesn't mean much.
Once in a while we get the people who say that they will start such a suit and in that case, the docket numbers would be very useful. I think that both sides of the discussion would be very interested in the outcome.
As for Gwen. She was angered by a certain Wachovia employee who posted under the username "D". She posted in Report # 431963 that she was going to take action and even went so far as to promise that the media would jump on this story and that she would make a YouTube appeal to identify "D" within a week as well as provide a link to the video. I believe that she referred to this as her personal request and had an expectation that "D" would be fired.
My response was obviously sarcastic but it was a call to "put her money where her mouth was", so to speak. Why promise that the media would jump on this and why say that she would post a YouTube appeal if she had no intention of following through on this?
I won't deny the sarcasm but the cases that you mention are also a consistent attempt to determine who will do what they say they are going to do.
#44 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, June 25, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, June 25, 2009
"Where do you get that I was trying to discredit you? It's not as if I posted our exchange."
Because you actually took the time to email that particular institution to verify what I was saying was true. Why? Either you have WAY too much time on your hands or you have some vendetta against someone you have never met. Which is it?
#45 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, June 25, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, June 25, 2009
I think Edward's point is that many people get angry about how they get treated by this bank and jump to conclusions such as they are going to start a class action lawsuit. This is clearly a waste of time in 90% of cases. However, it's not fair to mock them. They are simply venting their outrage, and in many cases, rightly so. It may not warrant a lawsuit as many times it's legal, but a lot of times, it's not ethical. The bottom line is that people can preach about "keeping a check register" and "don't spend money you don't have" all day, but that advice doesn't help in certain cases. You may not have been in a situation where you had to overdraft and you are lucky for that, but some of us have, and the bank takes that ball and runs with it to the end zone. What they're doing is legal (I think, I'm not a lawyer), but it hurts people that are clearly already in trouble. It's not ethical to take advantage of someone who is already struggling financially.
#46 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edgeman - Chico (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, June 25, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, June 25, 2009
When I asked you for the name of your bank, I also stated why I was asking you. From my post on May 29th:
"Chris, which bank are you using now that processes transactions in the order that they come in? I am certain that many people who have problems with the largest-to-smallest procedure would love to know."
I have posted about alternative products from time to time when I felt that the circumstances were appropriate. I think that you'll agree that people who have trouble managing their finances would benefit greatly from a financial institution that processes debits in the order that they are made. You'll note that I dropped the matter, I did nothing to try and discredit you.
You're right - I've never "had" to overdraft my account though I did accidentally overdraft twice by mistake. Looking at the FDIC's study, it appears that the majority of people who hold checking accounts haven't had to overdraft either. If somebody chooses to overdraft and the bank acts in accordance with the terms that the customer agreed to in a legally binding document, what are we supposed to do? Even if the customer doesn't have a credit card to use, US Bank offers advances at a rate of $2 for every $20 borrowed, to be repaid when the customer's next direct deposit comes in.
Now you might point out that some people don't qualify for credit cards and they don't get direct deposit. Any reason why they can't go to a payday loan place? Sure, the fee will be hefty but it will still be much smaller than a string of overdraft fees.
So what if a customer has to spend money right now, has no hope of deferring the bill, doesn't have a credit card, no friends or family to borrow money from, can't get an advance from the bank, can't get a payday loan, can't pawn something, can't sell something on Craigslist, hold a yard sale and has absolutely no savings? In that case, a checking account probably isn't the best product for a person in those financial straits.
And if somebody wants to start a lawsuit, let them start one. I personally don't see any benefit from posting about a potential lawsuit on the internet with no intention of following up on it. Perhaps it's one of those tactics to make somebody "feel better" but in reality it doesn't really solve anything.
#47 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, June 26, 2009
POSTED: Friday, June 26, 2009
“I have posted about alternative products from time to time when I felt that the circumstances were appropriate. I think that you'll agree that people who have trouble managing their finances would benefit greatly from a financial institution that processes debits in the order that they are made. You'll note that I dropped the matter, I did nothing to try and discredit you.”
Ok, I apologize, I jumped the gun on that one, but why do banks not process transactions in the order they occur if it's possible? What's the purpose of processing them from largest to smallest if they don't have to? I know “I am the law” claims that they do so because “a mortgage payment is more important than a check you wrote to your grandson”, but that example doesn't fly because every transaction goes through, regardless of what order it's in. The ONLY purpose of processing transactions in that order is to maximize fees.
“You're right - I've never 'had' to overdraft my account though I did accidentally overdraft twice by mistake. Looking at the FDIC's study, it appears that the majority of people who hold checking accounts haven't had to overdraft either. If somebody chooses to overdraft and the bank acts in accordance with the terms that the customer agreed to in a legally binding document, what are we supposed to do? Even if the customer doesn't have a credit card to use, US Bank offers advances at a rate of $2 for every $20 borrowed, to be repaid when the customer's next direct deposit comes in.”
The problem is, the bank doesn't disclose in their terms and conditions how they behave when a customer overdrafts, only what the charges are, so how is a person supposed to know when they sign up?
“Now you might point out that some people don't qualify for credit cards and they don't get direct deposit. Any reason why they can't go to a payday loan place? Sure, the fee will be hefty but it will still be much smaller than a string of overdraft fees.”
Not really. I personally have never gotten a payday loan but I know people that have. The interest is through the roof and about as much of a rip off as the bank's overdraft fees.
“So what if a customer has to spend money right now, has no hope of deferring the bill, doesn't have a credit card, no friends or family to borrow money from, can't get an advance from the bank, can't get a payday loan, can't pawn something, can't sell something on Craigslist, hold a yard sale and has absolutely no savings? In that case, a checking account probably isn't the best product for a person in those financial straits.”
So you're saying they shouldn't have a bank account? That isn't exactly possible in today's society.
“And if somebody wants to start a lawsuit, let them start one. I personally don't see any benefit from posting about a potential lawsuit on the internet with no intention of following up on it. Perhaps it's one of those tactics to make somebody 'feel better' but in reality it doesn't really solve anything.”
There have been plenty of lawsuits against this bank, all of which have been settled. Why? Because it's easier to pay off the customer(s) than it is to have FTC shut them down.
#48 Employee
AUTHOR: Rob With Usb - Beaverton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, June 28, 2009
POSTED: Monday, June 29, 2009
(This is specifically to Chris)
"Ok, I apologize, I jumped the gun on that one, but why do banks not process transactions in the order they occur if it's possible? What's the purpose of processing them from largest to smallest if they don't have to? I know “I am the law" claims that they do so because “a mortgage payment is more important than a check you wrote to your grandson", but that example doesn't fly because every transaction goes through, regardless of what order it's in. The ONLY purpose of processing transactions in that order is to maximize fees."
With the way our system processes (which is a very old system mind you) it does process in oldest to smallest, if it processed in a different order like it used it to it would bounce larger payments which did upset some customers because they still ended up getting returned items fees and such. If we processed smallest to largest and all items were paid you are correct it would be the same amount negative, but the kicker is that largest transactions (like Car payments, mortgages, etc) tend to be done as ACH or checks and our system would bounce those items once you surpass your OBP/shadow line amount but if it is done Largest to smallest the large item overdrawing the account just a few bucks won't surpass the OBP Line and will be paid and so will most of the smaller debits (smaller debits tend to be done on cards now and we do not "bounce" check card items, ever.) which does cause more fees but also the larger item got paid.
US Banks Current Method.
Act Bal- $500
OBP Line - $500
Total- $1000
Check Clears for $850 leaving $100 in OBP Credit
Check Clears for $150 leaving $0 in OBP Credit.
Check Card Purchase for $20 Clears. System attempted to reject item but failed to because it was a check card purchase.
Check Card Purchase for $5 Clears. System attempted to reject item but failed to because it was a check card purchase.
Check Card Purchase for $1 Clears. System attempted to reject item but failed to because it was a check card purchase.
Account Balance-521
Overdraft fees- $95
Total Negative balance is $616.
No fees charged by merchants for returned items.
-----
Smallest to Largest (Same items).
Act Bal- $500
OBP Line - $500
Total- $1000
Check Card Purchase clears for $1 leaving $499.
Check Card Purchase clears for $5 leaving $496
Check Card Purchase clears for $20 leaving $476
Check Clears for $150.00 leaving $326.00
Check is Returned for 850.00 leaving 326.00 because the OBP line was not able to support the item.
Account balance- 326.00
Returned item fee- 19.00
Total Balance is- $307.00
Merchant Charged fees depending on state laws may vary, as will consecuences for large check not being paid. Also the large check has not been paid and depending on what that is there may be more problems if you are unable to come up with the funds for the item.
"The problem is, the bank doesn't disclose in their terms and conditions how they behave when a customer overdrafts, only what the charges are, so how is a person supposed to know when they sign up?"
I'm not sure I understand fully what you mean by "behavior" could you please clairfiy this for me, maybe I can help.
"There have been plenty of lawsuits against this bank, all of which have been settled. Why? Because it's easier to pay off the customer(s) than it is to have FTC shut them down."
Most lawsuits tend to just get settled because it is cheaper the whole drawn out process, and the fact of the mater overdraft fees are no real reason to shutdown a whole bank more or less we would mots likely be forced to change how fees are charged if it really became a "problem".
#49 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: USBank-SUCKS! - Denver (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, June 29, 2009
POSTED: Monday, June 29, 2009
I can't believe what I'm reading from some of you. Jim and some of you others. What slimeballs you are. I read things like, "people are ignorant; people are stupid. . ."
To whoever is reading this, this is the mentality of US Bank. This is what every customer is up against when dealing with those rapists. There are lots of better banks, and people out there. I'd sooner vomit than deal with anyone from US Bank.
What goes around, comes around. You bottom feeders will get what you deserve. I wish we can flush all of you down the toliet like we do with all other human waste.
#50 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Andromeda - Near Roswell (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 30, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, June 30, 2009
why everyone is bouncing checks while using US Bank!
"With the way our system processes (which is a very old system mind you) it does process in OLDEST TO SMALLEST,"
It has nothing to do with transaction amount.
#51 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Flynrider - Phoeix (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 30, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Most responders were kind enough to point out to you that your current method of accounting was going to land you in trouble at any bank. I know you hate US Bank, but that's really not the point. The point is that overdrafts are easily avoidable and that banks can't take your money unless you let them. Ranting and wailing feels good, but it does nothing to address the basic problem.
#52 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edgeman - Chico (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, July 01, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Chris wrote: "Ok, I apologize, I jumped the gun on that one, but why do banks not process transactions in the order they occur if it's possible? What's the purpose of processing them from largest to smallest if they don't have to? I know “I am the law" claims that they do so because “a mortgage payment is more important than a check you wrote to your grandson", but that example doesn't fly because every transaction goes through, regardless of what order it's in. The ONLY purpose of processing transactions in that order is to maximize fees."
Response: I don't deny that processing from highest to lowest amount works in the bank's favor. It clearly does. When merchants submit charges, it goes from their bank to the ACH to your bank. Your bank receives them in batches and they may receive two or three batches per day. The bank may well receive a transaction that you made on Saturday a day or two before they receive the transaction that you authorized on Friday. They have to process it in some order and many, if not most simply go from highest to lowest. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. As long as the account holder doesn't overdraft their account, then the really doesn't matter. It's only a problem if the customer overdrafts their account and that's why I suggest not giving any bank the opportunity to charge overdraft fees.
Chris wrote: "The problem is, the bank doesn't disclose in their terms and conditions how they behave when a customer overdrafts, only what the charges are, so how is a person supposed to know when they sign up?"
Response: Do pages five, nine and ten of the account agreement not disclose how the bank may behave when a customer overdrafts?
Chris wrote: "Not really. I personally have never gotten a payday loan but I know people that have. The interest is through the roof and about as much of a rip off as the bank's overdraft fees."
Response: Oh, sure. The interest rates are extremely high but if a customer in your example needs money right away and has no credit cards, savings, friends or family to borrow from and can't get money anywhere else, what is cheaper in the long run - a $60 payment on a $200 loan or a string of overdraft fees that could equal hundreds of dollars?
Chris wrote: "So you're saying they shouldn't have a bank account? That isn't exactly possible in today's society."
Response: It's up to them if they should open a checking account or not. A person with low income can manage their finances and not be charged overdraft fees. However, if someone has no other financial assets and is unable or unwilling to manage their account, then a checking account probably isn't the best way to go. And it is possible in today's society for people to go without checking accounts. Many people do and use prepaid credit cards which offer direct deposits, bill pay, etc.
Chris wrote: "There have been plenty of lawsuits against this bank, all of which have been settled. Why? Because it's easier to pay off the customer(s) than it is to have FTC shut them down."
Response: And you managed to completely sidestep my point. I wrote that I see no benefit in someone claiming that they will sue the bank while they have no intention of following up on that. I assume that it just makes them feel better for the moment.
Your point doesn't make sense. Let's say that some government agency wanted to shut down US Bank and had a solid case for doing so. A settled lawsuit wouldn't prevent the government from shutting the bank down. To be honest, it's a little more complicated than walking into a bank and shutting it down, but the government wouldn't need lawsuits from citizens in order to be able to take action.
And I honestly hope that you don't truly believe the government has our best interests at heart.
#53 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Stile - Phoenix (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, July 01, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, July 01, 2009
"Ok, I apologize, I jumped the gun on that one, but why do banks not process transactions in the order they occur if it's possible? What's the purpose of processing them from largest to smallest if they don't have to? I know “I am the law" claims that they do so because “a mortgage payment is more important than a check you wrote to your grandson", but that example doesn't fly because every transaction goes through, regardless of what order it's in. The ONLY purpose of processing transactions in that order is to maximize fees."
There's a flaw in your reasoning here and that is the premise that every transaction will go through regardless of order. In fact, the bank is only obligated to pay pre-authorized items. Only PIN and PINless point of sale transactions are considered to be pre-authorized (that is to say that a merchant obtains an authorization code prior to attempting to collect the funds from the bank). Checks and ACH items are not pre-authorized and so the bank is permitted to reject these items if they overdraw the account.
Since more important transactions tend to be larger dollar amounts and tend to be done by check or ACH (mortgage or rent, car payments, utility bills, etc) then processing these items last could be very detrimental to the customer because they could be rejected if they overdraw the account significantly. The consequence of a mortgage or rent payment being rejected could be far worse than having to pay an overdraft fee (or even several overdraft fees) because of some small-dollar items purchased with your checkcard.
The poster-child example for unfair overdraft fees is having to pay $37 for a cup of coffee because it overdrew your account. Consider the outrage if mortgage checks started bouncing but $2 coffee purchases cleared without any trouble.
#54 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Chris - Chesterfield (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, July 02, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, July 02, 2009
” I don't deny that processing from highest to lowest amount works in the bank's favor. It clearly does. When merchants submit charges, it goes from their bank to the ACH to your bank. Your bank receives them in batches and they may receive two or three batches per day. The bank may well receive a transaction that you made on Saturday a day or two before they receive the transaction that you authorized on Friday. They have to process it in some order and many, if not most simply go from highest to lowest. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. As long as the account holder doesn't overdraft their account, then the really doesn't matter. It's only a problem if the customer overdrafts their account and that's why I suggest not giving any bank the opportunity to charge overdraft fees.”
You are missing my point. If it's possible to process the transactions in the order they are made, why not do so? The only point of not doing so is to benefit the bank, plain and simple. That was my point. Your advice of “not giving the bank the opportunity to charge an overdraft fee” is irrelevant. The bank takes advantage of the customer when they overdraft. This is wrong. It's not illegal, but wrong. I have some equally patently obvious advice for you. Don't put the barrel of a gun to your temple and pull the trigger if you want to live.
“Do pages five, nine and ten of the account agreement not disclose how the bank may behave when a customer overdrafts?”
I don't recall reading in the terms and conditions that the bank credits back days worth of debits in the event of a large overdraft, allowing it to debit them back and charge hundreds of dollars in fees. I guess I missed that part.
“Your point doesn't make sense. Let's say that some government agency wanted to shut down US Bank and had a solid case for doing so. A settled lawsuit wouldn't prevent the government from shutting the bank down. To be honest, it's a little more complicated than walking into a bank and shutting it down, but the government wouldn't need lawsuits from citizens in order to be able to take action.”
True, but if a lawsuit never actually happens, the FTC may not even be aware of any fraud. They have plenty of work to do and in many cases aren't exactly great at their job (I mean, it's the government for Pete's sake; I should know, I work for a government agency). Things like that can easily be overlooked if the government doesn't see actual lawsuits being filed.
“And I honestly hope that you don't truly believe the government has our best interests at heart.”
Of course they don't, and that just reiterates my point. They don't care enough to do anything about it most cases. US Bank is a huge, powerful corporation. It would take quite of bit of money and effort to go after them and I don't think it's worth it to the government.
#55 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: I Am The Law - Cincinnati (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, July 02, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, July 02, 2009
Oh yeah, I love it when people get overdraft fees and then complain about it. I mean, it really makes my day. I love it when negligent people get what's coming to them. In a way, it's too bad, because they could've used that money to buy a spelling and grammar checker for their computer. Giggety.
#56 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Luqicharmz - Elliston (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, July 28, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, July 28, 2009
I'm not a bank employee, but I have had my bank account for 10 years without overdraft fees. Here are a few instances of how overdrafts occur and how to prevent them.
1. Fuel Purchases paid at the pump only have a $1 hold until the transaction posts to your account which is usually several days later. If you rely on online banking or calling to check your balance, you may overdraft when the true amount of the purchase posts.
2. Holds or pending transactions are not always shown right away and in some cases, the hold expires before the transaction posts. For instance, I purchased a speaker set for my husband. The pending transaction was on my account immediately. However, the hold expired and showed the funds as available before it posted the following day. Had I relied on this false balance, I could have overdrafted my account.
3. When making purchases, especially online or over the phone, the transaction is not charged until your order ships. I made several online purchases during this past holiday season, and one item was backordered. I was not charged until the item shipped two weeks later. Luckily, I had already subtracted this total from my check register.
This is how I manage my account:
1. Use a check register. I may seem like a hassle at first, but it is the only accurate way to track your balance. When you don't have time to write down your purchase right away, put the receipt in your check register so that it doesn't get lost or forgotten.
2. I use online banking and check it daily for any surprises and to make sure everthing is in order. Then I check-off transactions in my check register as they post.
3. Quick balance. I don't sit down with my statement and balance my checkbook. Since I check-off transaction when they post, I usually balance every other week by putting the banks available balance in my calculator and subtracting the transactions that haven't posted (or been checked off my list) and as long as the end result matches my check register balance, then I know I haven't made any mathmatical errors in my register.
I hope this helps anyone that's having problems with overdrafts. It has worked for me for the last 10 years. If you have any questions or don't understand how your bank handles transactions, pick up a copy of your depositor's agreement. I read mine, and it really helps to understand how your account works.
#57 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: I Am The Law - Cincinnati (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, July 29, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, July 29, 2009
People, please, enough with the conspiracy theories.
If you are so convinced that USB has people on staff that manipulate the bank's records and computer systems designed to force you to overdraft, then by all means, be a whistleblower. Start a class action lawsuit. You could get rich like that. Until then, take responsibility for your own screw-ups.
I've been at USB for bordering on a decade and haven't paid them a single penny in fees. Why? It's because I write down every single debit to my account. Every stinkin' time I go into the bank, some greasy, drugged up crack head who's too spaced out to read the terms and conditions booklet is in there complaining about getting an overdraft fee.
That's exactly the class of people that overdraft their accounts: trash.
Why file a report here? Ripoff Report is a permanent record! Other complaint sites copy our content then remove reports for money.
