Wachovia Bank, Atlanta CHARGING MULTIPLE OVERDRAFT CHARGES WHEN THERE SHOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN ONE CHARGE. THIS HAS BEEN DONE TO ME BEFORE AND I AM TIRED OF BEING RIPPED OFF. WACHOVIA NATIONAL BANK OF GEORGIA. CHARGED ME SEVERAL OVERDRAFT FEES WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONE. THEY PUT THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE ORDER THEY WANT SO THEY CAN STICK IT TO YOU. THEY HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE BUT NEVER AGAIN. Internet

To begin with, you're wasting your time moving your money from this bank or any other for that matter.  This practice you object to is one you agreed to and is part of the current account agreement you have with this bank.  I invite you to look at your next bank on ROR; you'll find they all practice the same way as this one.  They all resort and they all post debits before credits.

Your problem isn't the bank.  Your problem is your use of a debit card.  When you use a debit card, and don't keep a register, you are inviting a cascade of overdrafts to hit you.  If you don't change your banking habits, then this issue will follow you to the next bank - and the one after that when you keep overdrafting and you don't figure out...it's you that has the problem.

There is a lesson here and it isn't with the bank.  If you want to know who is at fault and who can fix this - find a mirror.  There you will find the person who can correct this issue now.

To begin with, you're wasting your time moving your money from this bank or any other for that matter.  This practice you object to is one you agreed to and is part of the current account agreement you have with this bank.  I invite you to look at your next bank on ROR; you'll find they all practice the same way as this one.  They all resort and they all post debits before credits.

Your problem isn't the bank.  Your problem is your use of a debit card.  When you use a debit card, and don't keep a register, you are inviting a cascade of overdrafts to hit you.  If you don't change your banking habits, then this issue will follow you to the next bank - and the one after that when you keep overdrafting and you don't figure out...it's you that has the problem.

There is a lesson here and it isn't with the bank.  If you want to know who is at fault and who can fix this - find a mirror.  There you will find the person who can correct this issue now.

Or perhaps..you can find another financial institution (such as a credit union) or another bank that does not practice this re-sequencing. But beware..some banks that did not do it..have recently started. You see the banks took in over 38 billion dollars in these fees in 2009..and if you were a bank..would you not want your cut?..unless you really cared about your customers? It will always come down to greed in the end these days it seems.

So correct..you must be extra careful not to overdraft..and if you do overdraft by your own fault...you really can not blame anyone else.

Now..with that said, I do believe the bank shares some blame..and I do not believe the problem is the debit card in itself..nor how the customer uses it...anymore then it is the way the bank has set us up..and I will briefly explain.

You see, when you opened your account (I know this because I was with Wachovia for YEARS, recently left they suck), you were enrolled in a service the bank deceptivly calls "overdraft protection". The bank either did not ask if you want this "service" or did not explain how it really works. It really "protects" nothing but the bank..and they took over 38 billion dollars in these fees in 2009 alone.

This type of overdraft protection works in tandom with several tactics that not only make it easy to overdraft..but in a sense encourage it. Things like holds and authorizations, and delaying and manipulating and otherwise altering the times transactions will  be processed..can really blind side you in the event of an overdraft..and hit you with a lot more fees then expected.

When you mix this type of overdraft protection with resequencing..this is where the additional fees come in on top of any legitimate overdraft fees..and it hurts. Many banks do this..true.

so since those who are low income..and keep a very low balance..there is a greater chance of an overdraft occuring..and it causing far more hardship then to someone who is financially well off.

I would highly reccomend you go to your bank..or any bank you are with that has this type of overdraft protection..and tell them you opt out of this service..and want it in writing. This way if something you are aware OR unaware of as caused you to have less funds then you knew about..the transaction at point of sale..or an ATM will be declined..hence keeping your money safe..the bank will not fee you into oblivion..and just like the good old days you get to keep your own money..make sense?

There are some of us trying to change some laws and bank policies to better protect the consumer..all reasonable, and it would drastically cut down on the number of reports regarding the banks here..so you may be getting a letter soon.

Best of luck and please be more careful with your account, the banks have made enough already..

I hear ya!  They tried to get me three times with those NSF fees since I opened my account.  I've told them time and time again DO NOT authorize charges if there is no money in the account because most likely, it wll be a mistake.

The last time was when I was on a birthday cruise for my mom.  We stayed at a hotel for one night then we boarded the ship the next day.  On the 4th day of the cruise, my debit card gets DECLINED on the ship!  How embarrassing! 

I call the bank and they said the account is -$250!  That's when I found out the hotel charged me an extra $250 night by mistake.  I say why in the world are you authorizing charges if there's no money in the account?  "Its a courtesy the bank extends to our customers."  No, its a courtesy to the bank to charge all these fees.

They offered to refund half and I said HECKS NO.  You had no business authorizing those charges if there was no money in the account. And since the hotel refunded the money, they deleted all the charges.  I would change banks but I think they're all dirty, rotten scoundrels.

Sheri, you're blaming the bank for what was the hotel's fault in charging you the additional amount to your debit card.  How can you blame the bank for something that isn't their fault.  And then you had overdraft protection and then blame the bank for your embarassment?  You had more protection than most people have on their debit card; the bank did right by you - and you blame them.  Personally, I would never put a debit card on a hotel guarantee for the exact reason you specified; I've seen numerous complaints about people doing this, and the hotel screws this up the same way every time.

Ronny, Sheri's complaint is the exact reason why nothing will change no matter what legislation or what changes banks institute.  Sheri has the exact protection you want for everyone, yet she now complains it embarassed her when the card was declined!  And the declining was not the bank's fault, but the hotel she contracted with for her mom's birthday!  The bank did exactly what she wanted and we still have an ROR on a bank for this sort of thing.

When I tell people about the fact that this is an educational issue, not a bank issue, the post Sheri left is exactly what I'm talking about!!!!

I have heard of people "reading between the lines..but why not read the actual lines?

Do you recall the first line when Sheri states...and I quote... "I've told them time and time again DO NOT authorize charges if there is no money in the account because most likely, it wll be a mistake."

This happened to me once after I told them to opt me out of overdraft protection when a car rental place overcharged without my consent or knowledge...

I explained to the bank before that I don't care if I am embarrassed..I need to eat, and NEED to know my account is TRULY protected from mistakes and fraud. So I did the smartest thing and had the bank manager put it in writing..because I would NEVER settle for "half" of MY money back...not this guy. I was born at night..but not last night.

Now correct..it is the hotels fault..for causing THE overdraft. And the hotel should be dealt with as well. It's still not the customers fault and has noting to do with a register or your ignorant "education" remarks..she was victim in more ways then one in this case..and she can read my previous responses here and all over ROR if she still does not get it..but I think she does. No one wants to be embarrassed..but if given the choice (opt out vs. OD protection ) of potential embarrassment..or eminent financial loss..which do you think MOST people would choose?


"Ronny, Sheri's complaint is the exact reason why nothing will change no matter what legislation or what changes banks institute.  Sheri has the exact protection you want for everyone, yet she now complains it embarassed her when the card was declined!  And the declining was not the bank's fault, but the hotel she contracted with for her mom's birthday!  The bank did exactly what she wanted and we still have an ROR on a bank for this sort of thing."

Look..Sheri's remark about the embarrassment is mostly likely knee jerk because she is angry about the fees..but I can not speak for her. But I can speak for those who want legislation change to better protect us, since I am one of those. I don't think the bank is going to use the defense "the reason we do all this is to protect the customer from embarrassment"  or do you actually think that would fly if they did? Of course if the banks ever offer a service of "embarrassment protection"..once again as long as the customer understand the potential consequences..and are given a choice to opt out..I would have no problem with it at all.

I know you LOVE it when a reply can be dissected..and you cleverly focus on a single aspect that is a contradiction..but none of that changes a SINGLE thing as far as the bank using unethical tactics..and it does not do a thing to prevent future occurrences..or do a thing to help the customer who was ripped off..be it the bank, the hotel, or a combination...I trust she would be okay with the embarrassment if the bank gave her all her money back and charged the hotel a fee.

"When I tell people about the fact that this is an educational issue, not a bank issue, the post Sheri left is exactly what I'm talking about!!!!"

What education does she need? You already gave her the answer, Don't use a debit card for a hotel..which was the SOLE cause of the issue..what more does she need to learn..she is totally aware of how the bank works which is why she asked them "time and time again" to not cover transactions if there are no funds because it will be from a mistake"  Not clear enough?

Upon reviewing Sheri's reply..there is actually not enough information to determine if the "embarrassment" would have been avoided had the bank adhered to her request to decline transactions if the funds are not there..and I am surprised you missed it too.

For the sake of discussion..I will make an assumption. That the $250 that the Hotel overcharged her...was certainly more then was in her account..right" Safe to assume that. But what if she had 200 dollars in the account (that is an assumption..we do not know how much she had) if the bank respected her request to decline the transaction...that $200 should have still been there. But the bank as a "courtesy" decided against Sheri's request..and  covered it regardless..and charge her a fee for the service she did not want to begin with, and charged any additional fees that may  result from the single illegitimate overdraft. In a perfect world, but reasonable..the bank should have contacted her before considering to cover the overdraft..because how does the bank know it's not fraud or error?...considering has well she told the bank it would be if she does not have enough funds to cover a transaction.

Now..IF this was the case...and her register was accurate..she would have had the $200 in her account..and could have avoided the "embarrassment" on the cruise ship..and any fees..and had the opportunity to dispute the bogus charge from the hotel.

So in reality..there is a possible scenario where the embarrassment was a RESULT of the so called overdraft protection..and no amount of "education" was required to be given to Sheri...but perhaps if the bank had some education in ethics..and education on how to protect their customers money..the whole situation could have been avoided.

Any of this seem unreasonable?

Simply go into your bank NOW & tell them you want your debit card to be "turned-off" so it CAN'T make a purchase or a withdrawal when the money ISN'T IN THE ACCOUNT!

No, Jim I don't blame the hotel.  It didn't allow charges to my account when there was no money in it; THE BANK DID!  If there's no money in the account, why did the bank authorize charges?  TO RACK UP NSF FEES and this is what I have a problem with. 

If I had known from the very first transaction that my account was depleted, I probably could have gotten it taken care of the same day.  But no; they let FIVE MORE TRANSACTIONS go through before they cut me off. And I don't need overdraft protection because I know what my balance is and I NEVER go over it.  

And THEN they tried to refund me only half of the NSF fees but they knew they were wrong as two left feet and refunded me ALL the fees.

The cruise, plane tix, and the hotel were paid in advance because I saved up for it and I allotted $500 for spending money for me and my mom.  I don't use credit cards anymore; I paid cash for everything.  I use my debit card frequently to pay hotel rooms in advance and this is the first time this happened to me. 

So no, I'm not pissed at the hotel.  I'm pissed at the bank for authorizing charges to an account with a $0 balance.

Thanks for trying to explain to Jim how I feel about this situation.  And why am I so bad for being embarrassed?  Sorry, but he wasn't there when I was ahead of a long line waiting to get Sex on the Beach (the drink, not the act - lol) for me and my mom, only to have my card ran through 3 times and still declined. 

I mean, how am I going to be on a cruise ship and can't afford two $12 drinks?  It was not fun for me or my mom and its the bank's fault.

For Jim: Actually Wachovia posts the credits then the debits for that business day. A problem a lot of people have is they believe their direct deposit scheduled for the 3rd should cover the transactions posting for the 2nd.

For Ronny: Actually Sheri's comments are very good. This was a situation that was the fault o the hotel an once the hotel refunded the charge they should nat have taken, Wachovia refunded all fees caused by that transaction.

 

For Sheri: A question for you. You stated that you told the bank several times not to approve the card if the money was not available. And yet you got embarassed and quite upset when that exact thing happened. I understand that the decline was caused by the additional charge frm the hotel but still. We do what you say you've requested and you're upset by it. By the way, if you want to opt out of the overdraft coverage, please call our customer service line at 800-922-4684 and ask the Phone Banker to place that code on your account. Shouldn't be a problem. And I apologize that previous requests haven't been completed.

 

No Wachovia employee, you're wrong.  They DID authorize charges after the account hit zero.  Yes, I would have been embarrassed either way but I was more upset when Wachovia authorizing charges after there was no money in the account.  When I got back home and looked at my account, there are 5 transactions allowed after the account hit zero.  The account hit zero on Wednesday and my card was declined in a Friday. 

The hotel bill didn't make the account go into the red, my subsequent charges did.  Also, I called the hotel and let them have it.  They refunded my money but since I called after business hours Friday night, they couldn't actually put the money back until that following Monday.   Had Wachoiva declined the transaction the first time the account hit zero on Wednesday, I could have gotten it straightened out so I could have money for the rest of my trip. But no; five more transactions went through with no money in the account. 

Now, how do you explain that?

I'm not upset that the card was declined, per se.  My problem is that charges were authorized AFTER the account hit zero which was exactly what I told the bank not to do and THIS is why I posted here.

And I shouldn't have to call any number to "opt out" when they had my account up on their screen and they heard it three times out of my own mouth not to charge transactions on a $0 balance account.

When you checked ino the hotel, they did an authorization. Basically asking can we charge $250 to this account. Since you had an available balance to cover the transaction we aproved the authorization. When you hecked out the hotel processes the charge. Should have been asking for one $250 transactin but apparently asking for two charges. Hotels do not create a hold such as purchasing groceries does. Once the authorization has been approved, we hav to pay the payment request n matter what that does to your account balance. So this mistake was completely onthe hotel And as per your earlier post once they had refunded the transaction we refunded l fees charged. So if you're going to be mad at anyone it should be the hotel that made the mistake.

But again if you truly want to opt out and only have your card approved up to the available balance in your account, please call the customer service line. But if you do you will probably have more incidences where you try to purchase something and the card gets declined. Not to bad if you're buying groceries, you can not make the purchase and leave the store. But if you've eaten supper at a restaurant, you'll have to have another method of paying.

The hotel room was all paid for before we checked in.  They did put a $300 hold on my card for incidentals, which was fine.  The hold was taken off when we checked out of the hotel around 2:30p and I didn't see a $300 charge on my account when I got home.  It was $250 from the hotel. 

The hotel's excuse was that a maid said there was luggage in our room at 4p, which was impossible because we had to be on the cruise ship by 4p.  Perhaps someone else checked into that same room shortly after we checked out; I don't know.  So, the hotel charged another night ($250) because they thought we were still in the room.  This is what the hotel told me and it had nothing to do with the $300 hold.  

Yes, I was mad at the hotel but again, I was more pissed when I found out that Wachovia charged transactions to my account when there was no money to cover the transactions. I don't know how much clearer I can be.  On hindsight, I suppose I should be grateful that the decline happened on the ship and not while we were having lunch and drinks in Nassau. But had the card been declined when the account first hit zero that Wednesday, I wouldn't have been inconvenienced by having no money that weekend and there would've been no reason for me to post here.

But if you do you will probably have more incidences where you try to purchase something and the card gets declined.

No, I won't. I never worry about being declined because I never swipe more than what's in my account.  I have not purposefully overdrawn my Wachovia account in the 8 years I've had it.  If I don't enough money to cover a purchase, I don't swipe.  Its as simple as that.

This is the reason why I do not want charges authorized when the account hits zero because I will know there's been a mistake when my card is declined.  I can take care of it quickly the day the overdraft happens instead of raking up NSF fees over the next couple of days. Then I won't be upset at the bank and my anger would be directed squarely at the merchant who created the overdraft.

Wachovia cut off my card twice before because someone had broken into my account.  Thankfully, I was just trying to get lunch at work that day and the other time, I was trying to pay a bill by telephone using my card.  I called the bank and I was not upset when they told me what happened.  In fact, I was grateful they cut the card off and I thanked them for that.  But if they can cut off the card for that, they should do the same when the account hits zero.

But I will call the number you posted and ask for the opt out.  Too bad the rep I was speaking with the first time it happened didn't know anything about this number.  Or perhaps the bank didn't want the rep to tell people about it, hoping it would rack up more NSF fees. 

Dirty rotten scoundrels (and I mean Wachovia, not you personally or any other bank employee :) ).

Join a good local credit union and you will be a lot happier!

Yes Sheri, I get it. I understand your situation. However I'm apparently not explaining it well enough. When you make the reservation with the hotel, the hotel will do an authorization to see if they can charge the amount to your card. This was the $300 that appeared against your account for 1 day. However the hotel doesn't request the payment until after you've checked out. This is because the final bill may be more or less than the authorization. If you checked out early, didn't use the spa, etc the final charge maybe less than the authorization. If you stayed longer, used the honor bar, bought a pay per view, had room service the final charge maybe for more than the authorization.

But once the authorization has been approved, the bank has to pay the money when the hotel requests it. If you have $500 in your account when the authorization is made but only $1 when the payment request comes in, the hotel will still get their money even if it puts your account into the negative. It's not a matter of approving transactions at that point, it's a matter of having to pay for a transaction that has already been approved. If you go to the grocery store and make a purchse but the merchant doesn't request payment for 3 business days, the hold will expire. But wheneverthe store requests their payment we have to send it t them no matter the balance of your account. This is way it's important to review your account to catch double charges as soon as possible. But this situation is completely the fault of the hotel. They're the ones who said you owed the extra money. Wachovia didn't just decide to send them an extra amount. I hope this helps explain why this happened.

When you make the reservation with the hotel, the hotel will do an authorization to see if they can charge the amount to your card. This was the $300 that appeared against your account for 1 day. However the hotel doesn't request the payment until after you've checked out. This is because the final bill may be more or less than the authorization. If you checked out early, didn't use the spa, etc the final charge maybe less than the authorization. If you stayed longer, used the honor bar, bought a pay per view, had room service the final charge maybe for more than the authorization.

I don't see how this has anything to do with my situation because, again, the hotel room was paid for and debited from my account using my debit card at least a month earlier. The hotel room was paid for when we checked in.  The hotel charged me the $250/night because they thought we were still in the room at 4p.  The hotel said this is the only reason why the hotel charged me.

If you have $500 in your account when the authorization is made but only $1 when the payment request comes in, the hotel will still get their money even if it puts your account into the negative. It's not a matter of approving transactions at that point, it's a matter of having to pay for a transaction that has already been approved. If you go to the grocery store and make a purchse but the merchant doesn't request payment for 3 business days, the hold will expire. But wheneverthe store requests their payment we have to send it t them no matter the balance of your account.

I understand this but this isn't the case here.

This is way it's important to review your account to catch double charges as soon as possible.

I probably COULD have caught this earlier if the card was declined when the account hit zero on Wednesday and not two days later on Friday. 

But this situation is completely the fault of the hotel. They're the ones who said you owed the extra money. Wachovia didn't just decide to send them an extra amount. I hope this helps explain why this happened.

You're still not getting it. 

We checked out of the hotel on Sunday night and the charge for mistaken extra night went through that Monday. 

I had more than enough money in my account to cover that hotel charge so that charge DID NOT deplete the account. 

Not knowing the hotel charged an extra night, I assumed I had $250 more in the account than I did. 

However, five charges were allowed AFTER the account hit zero. 

However, five charges were allowed AFTER the account hit zero.

However, five charges were allowed AFTER the account hit zero.

However, five charges were allowed AFTER the account hit zero.

However, five charges were allowed AFTER the account hit zero.

If the card had been declined the first time the account hit zero on Wednesday and not two days later (Friday), I could have gotten it fixed that Wednesday or Thursday at the latest, and would've had money that weekend. 

But since the card was not declined until Friday night, there was nothing I could do until the next Monday.

For the nth time, I don't blame Wachovia for approving the extra night, but the hotel did not authorize the five charges when there was no money in my account to cover them.  That's WACHOVIA's fault!  And apparently, Wachovia agreed with me and refunded ALL the NSF fees. 

Now, do you get it?

And please read my whole post before you respond. 

Yes I read all of your post. Again if you want to opt out of your card being approved when you do not have available funds to cover the trasactions you need to call the Customer Service line to request it.

No this was not Wachovia's fault. The error lies with the merchant. Wachovia did a courtesy refund of the fees based on the merchant error. I know this explaination doesn't fit your view of the situation but that's okay. As all of my posts here, I'm trying to help people understand what happened and how to avoid the fees. I agree nothing inthis situation was your error but it wasn't Wachovias either. 

I shouldn't be upset with Wachovia for allowing five transactions after the account hit zero? 

And why should I not be upset with the bank when I told them more than once not to do this very thing?

Good God...

It is appalling to me how far we have fallen as a society. There was once a time when Americans took responsibility for their poor choices instead of taking a child's route out by always blaming someone else.

The answer to your query, Sheri, is NO. You should NOT be upset with the bank. You should be upset with YOURSELF. Lost in this thread is the fact that you wouldn't have paid the bank a dime had you not overspent.

But what's worse, you can't simply admit guilt, pay the price for your poor choices, then resolve to never pay them again. Instead, you opt to come on this website and whine to anyone who will listen.

Forgive me for saying what no one else here has the sack to say:

GROW UP

As an adult, you must take responsibility for your poor choices and face the consequences. If you really are as mad as you seem, then simply manage your account properly and deprive the bank of NSF fees. In the end, you will be better for it and they will have none of your money.