#1 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Nancy - Steilacoom (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 30, 2008
POSTED: Friday, May 30, 2008
If I had a coppy of all your transactions and your bank statement I could probably figure it fon you. Then you would have proof one way or the other.
#2 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: J G Shrugged - Austin (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, May 30, 2008
POSTED: Friday, May 30, 2008
Unavailable funds fee. Basically NSF on a hold.
http://www.wachovia.com/checking/faq.html#faq5-fees
Legal? Probably. Have you checked your bank statement every month since you opened the account (unless you opened it recently) and read the fine print that they occasionally throw in there? If they notified you of their policy either as part of the terms and conditions given to you when you opened the account or by notifying you in advance via mail since then, it's almost guaranteed to be legal.
Ethical? Maybe not.
I doubt you would win in small claims. But you could always fall through the cracks if their legal department doesn't get the summons in time.
#3 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Clev - Durham (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, June 13, 2008
POSTED: Friday, June 13, 2008
Karney Hatch did and Wells Fargo reimbursed all his money and paid his court costs.
His story was recently featured in the Chicago Tribune. Karney is also a documentary film maker and his recent film OVERDRAWN documents the problems of excessive bank overdraft charges.
The Federal Reserve has published a proposed rule change that would make it illegal for banks to charge overdraft fees on a bank "hold". The subtitle of the Federal Reserve Proposed Rules document is "Unfair practices" so despite what anyone here might tell you, apparently the Federal Reserve (responsible for overseeing US banks) DOES think it is an unfair practice to charge overdraft fees based solely on a bank "hold".
#4 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: J G Shrugged - Austin (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, June 14, 2008
POSTED: Saturday, June 14, 2008
It is only for holds where the settled charge is less than the amount of the hold, and if there were sufficient available funds at the time of the charge. This would affect holds for hotels, rental cars, and maybe restaurants if they submit a first charge in excess of let's say the amount plus 20% tip, but then you don't tip 20%. See pg 28910 of the Federal Register where the proposed change is published.
The media's summary doesn't mention that caveat.
#5 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Clev - Durham (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, July 21, 2008
POSTED: Monday, July 21, 2008
RESERVE RULES APPLY TO HOLDS WHERE HOLD EXCEEDS ACTUAL (POSTED) CHARGE
That is meaningful because it implies that HOLDS that DO NOT post will not trigger overdraft charges.
If you have specific information to the contrary cite your source including extracted text from the Fed Reserve document.
#6 Employee
AUTHOR: Chloe - B'ham (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, July 24, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, July 24, 2008
http://wachovia.com/file/DepositAgreementandDisclosuresforPersonal.pdf
It's not like we keep this hidden away like a secret..........
This should have been read before you signed it. Read carefully and pick up a copy of your state specific agreement from your local branch. (Which also has been signed indicating agreement/understanding)
Good luck with your "class action" bull. The attitude that the whole world owes you something, will get you nothing.
#7 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, July 29, 2008
POSTED: Tuesday, July 29, 2008
You post a link to Wachovia's two year old Deposit Agreement as if this was so noble an act. Then you make the statement QUOTE: 'It's not like we keep this hidden away like a secret..........' ENDQUOTE.
News Flash! Actually you do! That's the whole point. Just review many of the past discussions of Wachovia's version of the UNAVAILABLE FUNDS FEE where many posters, including myself, took weeks or months to figure out what was actually being done - DOUBLE FEES being charged. It took that long because of the DELIBERATE, AMBIGUOUS language in Wachovia's Deposit Agreement that you ironically reference. How else can you explain SO MANY missing this and getting it wrong for SO LONG?
Compared to the Deposit Agreements of other banks like Bank of America and others where they use CLEAR, CONCISE wording that makes it perfectly clear how they intend to RIP YOU OFF. Clear, concise wording like 'HOLDS', never mentioned in Wachovia's Deposit Agreement. FEES charged for HOLDS, plain and simple. Which the Feds intend to put an end to. So please rack em up and enjoy those RIPOFF fees while they last.
P.S. I agree with you about the class action. It is useless....for now. The courts are rightly and correctly doing their jobs by upholding the laws as they are written in the books now. It's not their fault. Those same laws which the Federal Reserve, YOUR BOSSES, seek to change because, guess what, they AGREE with the consumers about the RIPOFF practices of their subordinates. Interesting!
#8 Employee
AUTHOR: Chloe - B'ham (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, July 30, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
Such a very childish response, Edward. Regardless of the last time the D.A. was revised, it is STILL the same applicable information. We do not hide it, we present a copy for signature at the time the account is opened and we present a copy for you to take home and read. YOU SHOULD NEVER sign ANYTHING unless you understand it.
...If you sign, indicating that you agree to the terms and conditions.....how is it the banks fault that you didn't "understand"?
#9 Employee
AUTHOR: Sumerian - Pinson (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
Every single day I hear the same complaint over and over again about how banks are terrible, and how fees are just so terribly unethical. Fees destroy the common man, and how we should be ashamed of ourselves. This country really needs to wake up and realize that it has a problem. It can't stop blaming others for their misfortunes and mistakes. People say it's not fair how the banks treat the consumer, and how it's terribly deceptive practices generate fees in the billions of dollars. Well guess what, you're right. No bank has ever said we are a non-profit organization now have they. Hey your fees pay my bills so thanks in advance. But again back to this disclosure agreement, I mean really who read those things right? I mean come on it's so long with big words and I just don't have the time. But hey even though I don't have a clue what it says, I'll sign it anyway. Does that make any sense at all?
Lets just say for arguments sake you don't understand the "language" of the agreement. OK that's fair i mean I don't always understand what I am reading when it comes to contracts either. But I darn sure will ask If I don't know what it means. Oh but I forgot I had to have had time to be bothered to read the disclosure to begin with, ya know to ask questions about the agreement you didn't understand. This can't be argued, we are a society of, no patience and instant gratification when we deal with every day life. Just hurry up and open an account for me I'll sweat the small stuff later, right? No later you're hit with fees and say I had no idea what happened.
I'm 29 now I have been hearing people complain since I was 17, either friends or family about fees, from many different banks. I learned the hard way when I was young how to balance my checkbook with tons of fees. But I will tell you this, they were never the same fee for the same issue. Heck it was only a matter of time before I did not receive any more fees if only because I had gotten them in every way possible. I learned from my mistakes. And of course I have sympathy for someone who is 18-20, their first account did not read the depositors agreement, I was that person. The sympathy ends there. If you are in your mid 20's or older and week after week you get the same fees, something is wrong. I hear I didn't know about any cut off times or, my other bank did not do that. That's just 2 of thousands of excuses I hear in a week. Cut off times have been around as long as I can remember, nothing new here.
It's amazing, older Americans the greatest generation and most in their 50's and 60's I rarely if ever have an overdraft call from them. Number one they DO read the disclosure, how do I know that? Because they tell me or cite a parts of the agreement mostly for POA or POD information. Oh and they are anal, I mean super anal with their checkbooks, these people write down the 55 cent coffee they had 2 weeks ago and wont stop calling till they see it post. Lets all take some responsibility, If i mess my account up it's on me and I knew that long before I worked at a bank. Lets be honest how many people that complain on these things actually keep a detailed check book? I mean detailed as in write everything down not just big items, not just gas purchases. I don't, I am to lazy to do so. And if i get burned it's on me. This is a game like it or not, the tools are provided to play and win the game, online banking, registers and atm's but they must be used properly, and for god's sakes if you don't understand something ask us, just call and ask us, we are not perfect by any means and im sure misinformation happens from time to time, but call anyway before it happens, or before you open an account at any bank, the house will always win if you don't know the rules of the game.
#10 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
Chloe, I must first say I agree with you. My previous report did come off as childish but that certainly wasn't the intent. I'm usually better than that. But still you missed my point. It's not the Deposit Agreement that you hide, but instead the information within it. Here's the informatin directly from the agreement you reference to show you my earlier point you missed:
----------
Wachovia's Deposit Agreement:
[1] We may determine whether or not your account contains sufficient funds to authorize a point-of-sale transaction or process any other electronic transaction at any time between the time we receive the point-of-sale transaction authorization request or other electronic transaction and our return deadline, and only one determination of the account balance is required. If that determination reveals insufficient available funds to authorize the point-of-sale transaction or other electronic transaction, you agree to pay a service charge, and we are not required to authorize the point-of-sale transaction, or process the other electronic transaction and may return and/or decline it. Alternatively, we may authorize the point-of-sale transaction, or process the other electronic transaction and create an overdraft and impose a service charge for paying the overdraft. You are responsible for the full amount of any overdraft and the related service charges.
----------
And before they were bought by Bank of America, LaSalle was already charging the Unavailable Funds Fee just like Wachovia. LaSalle's Deposit Agreement had an Overdraft/NSF fee section with wording almost exactly identical to Wachovia's above. But then LaSalle had a SECOND paragraph:
----------
LaSalle's Deposit Agreement:
[1] (Same wording as Wachovia)
[2] If an item is initiated as a POS transaction, you agree that the Bank may immediately charge the amount of the item to your Account or place a 'hold' on the available balance in your Account in the amount of the authorized item. This could result in an overdraft if sufficient funds are not available in your Account to cover both the hold and any items posting to your Account.
----------
Once again, the CLEAR, CONCISE wording in LaSalle's Deposit Agreement PLAINLY discloses how you will be charged this fee for HOLDS. Notice they are even brave enough to use the word HOLDS. Now please point out how and where this is CLEARLY spelled out in Wachovia's Deposit Agreement. That was the point of my prior post.
After you respond and explain it, I'll be sure and pass on your explanation to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) who filed a report in March of this year confirming that THEY TOO often came up empty when trying to locate and make sense of these fees EVEN AFTER reading Deposit Agreements such as yours. I'll use your explanation to show them how they could have missed it.
#11 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
I surely hope someone else is keeping up with the constantly growing number of Wachovia employees. I lost count long ago. I won't bother to point out what the increase of the employee masses indicates. I digress.
As I get back on subject, let me clarify something for Chloe and now also for Sumerian. Both of your statements are true regarding SIGNING and AGREEING to something. But can you please point out in the Wachovia Deposit Agreement where the customer is AGREEING to be charged fees for HOLDS? You know, like it CLEARLY said in LaSalle's Deposit Agreement.
And furthermore, the Wachovia Unavailable Funds Fee was inherited from First Union Bank after the two merged. So prior to the Merger, Wachovia customers had PREVIOUSLY signed and agreed to their Deposit Agreements which had wording similiar to that in my previous post. And prior to the merger, Wachovia customers DID NOT get fees for holds. Then AFTER the merger, the Wachovia customers received their NEW Deposit Agreements in the mail. There's nothing UNIQUE or DIFFERENT about the wording. So they think nothing of it. Nothing different jumps out at them.
But when they do start to get fees for holds., then they go back and review the Deposit Agreements again to see how they missed this CHANGE, but they find nothing DIFFERENT. The BEFORE and AFTER Deposit Agreemnts use virtually the same wording. The only thing different is the Effective Date. How can the wording be 'virtually' the same when the RESULT is now obviously different? What's SO HARD about adding new wording that CLEARLY reflects the NEW policies? I repeat - like the CLEAR wording in LaSalle's Deposit Agreement.
And that's the ripoff here.
#12 Employee
AUTHOR: Sumerian - Pinson (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
First I'd like to say more than likely there are a lot of Wachovia employees on these things because it's a form of stress relief to us. Second you have an excellent point, I would want the depositors agreement to read so that my mother who is older, could understand it clearly. I asked her about it and she agrees with you. There is not an easy solution to the problem, because of course lets make it simple and clear. Less fees all around. But if I were the owner of a business I would probably do the same thing with a not so clear agenda. Why you ask? out of necessity for more money. So my business grows. We as bankers do not make a lot of money contrary to popular belief, and we darn sure don't love it when we get our throats torn out every 3 seconds due to overdraft fees on a customers account. I think banks and consumers have gotten so far apart in terms of a partenership that this is what we have, a mutual distrust of each other. I believe we as a banking industry need to try and earn back the trust of the consumer, but by no means is this a one way street, the consumer needs to bring a little more responsibility to the table as well. Don't forget people, bank employees are people to, we do care if someone is overdrawn and can't feed their kids. And even we get fees from time to time The point is regardless of any agreement both sides need to get it together, and i do mean both sides. Being proactive on both sides would go along way to a healthy relationship of consumer and bank.
#13 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Nikki - Coconut Creek (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, July 31, 2008
Can the bank tell you which items were on hold after the hold comes off? One Tuesday, I called my bank to ask what company had held $50 on my account over the weekend. By Tuesday, the hold had fallen off and I was curious as to why my available was $50 less over the weekend when I hadn't had anything outstanding. The bank said there was no way they could tell me which merchant held money a few days ago if the hold was no longer there. If it had made me overdrawn and they charged a fee, would they have been able to tell me then?
So, if you are told your available balance was less than zero, can they tell you which merchants were holding how much money when your available balance was negative a few days ago?
#14 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, August 01, 2008
POSTED: Friday, August 01, 2008
Sumerian, I can tell your mother is very wise, and not just because she agrees with me :). But aside from your mother, how about you, yourself. Can YOU even tell all of us with a straight face that after reading the partial section from the Deposit Agreement above that you come away CLEARLY with the impression that you will be charged a FEE merely for a HOLD? Because that's what your coworker Striderq would have all of us believe.
Striderq and I have had this same argument going back for months. And I used the same exact wording from the same agreements above. Even though it's OBVIOUS to EVERYONE ELSE, including the GAO and your mother, Mr. Striderq would have ALL OF US believe that after reading Wachovia's wording above, it CLEARLY tells you that you will be charged a fee for HOLDS, just like LaSalle's Deposit Agreement does. Give me a break! Oh yeah, I have also asked Mr. Striderq to sell me some of that Tropical Rainforest property in South Carolina while he's at it.
Kudos to you Sumerian for having the decency and credibility to not dispute or argue against sound logic which cannot be disputed. Take me out of the equation. Just ask the GAO or the Federal Reserve.
#15 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: John - Califon (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, August 01, 2008
POSTED: Friday, August 01, 2008
that the customers are suppose to keep track of their own spending. Nothing groundbreaking there.
#16 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Truth Detector - Intercourse (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, August 02, 2008
POSTED: Saturday, August 02, 2008
Anyone who reads these threads knows that Edward and I have breathed fire down each other's nostrils for quite some time. However, on this point I am unequivocally supportive of his assertions because they are 100% true.
First the disclaimer:
I am a consumer advocate, but one with a responsibility requirement. If you CHOOSE to open an account, it is YOUR responsibility to know and understand the terms of the account. If you do not understand the terms, MAKE the bank employee explain them to you. If you cannot comprehend and/or agree with the policies, DO NOT SIGN THE CARD TO OPEN THE ACCOUNT...PERIOD.
That being said, Wachovia intentionally placing vague and ambiguous language in its terms and conditions is a dishonest and unethical act. In fact, present it to the right judge and one might say it borders on illegal (see the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals out West for examples of these sorts of judges). Banks have a legal and ethical obligation to explicitly and specifically disclose ALL fees and charges associated with the account before it is opened. By virtue of failing to achieve this essential aim, Wachovia falls flat.
In my estimation, this makes the demand on the part of banks and their employees to read the terms and conditions and demonstrate responsibility somewhat of a farce. As the bank, you expect the customer to exercise responsibility and diligence - yet you fail to demonstrate the same responsibility to your customers at the outset of the account via incomplete terms and lack of thorough disclosure?
I'm sorry, Striderq...but in this case there IS an obvious rip-off on the part of Wachovia. Expect consumers to be responsible with their accounts, yes. But as consumer, they have every right to expect the same of their bank and its disclosure policies. Be VERY cautious regarding your bank's vague and incomplete fee disclosure policies. It was precisely that issue that cost Nations Bank millions many years ago.
#17 Employee
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, August 02, 2008
POSTED: Saturday, August 02, 2008
For Nikki, here at Wachovia, yes we can go back and see what check card holds were active on a certain date. I don't know if the tellers at the branch can see this but the phone service representatives can easily pull this information up and tell you what was on hold on a certain date.
For Edward, again your complaint is basically that the unavalable funds fee is not mentioned by name. However, the terms and conditions clearly and succintly states that is you spend more than is in your account you will get a fee. Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.
For Truth Detector, I understand that you are now supporting Edward's position. That's fine as that is your perogative to do. However, as in the above answer for Edward, in all reality his complaint is that this fee isn't mentioned by name. but the T&C clearly says over spend = fee. Should the T&C be rewritten to mention this by name? Yeah it probably should be. But in my opinion it's still not a ripoff. the unavailable funds fee is caused when someone has items on check card hold and an item(s) post leaving less in the account then the customer needs to cover the total amount of the hold(s). A rip off? No, just people not keeping a register and overspending their accounts.
#18 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, August 02, 2008
POSTED: Saturday, August 02, 2008
First of all my argument is not just the absence of the fee by name. The name is really not that important. What is important is HOW and WHEN the fee will be assessed. LaSalle doesn't mention the fee by name either. What's important is LaSalle CLEARLY and SUCCINTLY mentions 'HOLDS'. Customers beware, you can and will get charged fees for HOLDS. Customer beware, this DID NOT happen before but it WILL START happening now. In other words, DIFFERENT PROCEDURES, which calls for DISCLOSURE. Can you say NationsBank 1999?
Now, Striderq hedges his bet on the generic statement that Wachovia's Deposit Agreement says if you overdraw your account you will be charged a fee. So this GENERAL statement encompasses ANY and ALL transaction types including holds. So let me get this straight. For years, 100% of banks have stated in their Deposit Agreements that very statement. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the Unavailable Funds Fee a new fad? The charging of fees for HOLDS? Using Striderq's increasingly weakening logic, banks should have been charging fees for HOLDS from DAY ONE, right? Why did they just now start? Why wasn't Bank of America charging fees for holds five, ten years ago? Why wasn't Wachovia charging fees for holds five, ten years ago, or better yet, before the First Union merger? Spend more than what's in your accout, you get a fee, right? So where was this fee five, ten years ago?
And for the record, Truth Detector is not supporting my position. Truth Detector is SMARTLY supporting 'THE' position that makes sense. The same is true of your co-worker Sumerian and her mother. The same is true of the GAO. It has nothing to do with me. Look out Striderq! You're out there on that limb all by your lonesome and the limb is starting to get weak. Symbolic of your argument here. Hate to break it to ya.
#19 Employee
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
The fee is nothing new. As you yourself hav posted it was a First Union policy that Wachovia kept. And now all other major banks are using it. As we have debated, as soon as the customer uses the check card to make a purchase the money must be considered spent. When the customer then uses this money for another purchase (often a check or automatic debit authorized before the check card use) then they get a fee. Generic? No really rather simple and stright forward. The rest of the paragraph you like to post tells people about how holds are generated and the one sentence says if you over spend you get a fee. Again seems pretty self explanatory.
On a limb by myself? Not at all. Just willing to explain what's happening and try to educate people how to avoid this fee. Now a question for you that you've never answered even though asked several times. You say I provide the same old routine of 'register, don't over spend, no fee'. It's great because this advice, if followed, will eliminate these fees. But again, exactly what advice are you giving to the customer to eliminate the fee? Oh yeah, that's right. Just sit back and let/hope the rules change. Even if the rules change if the customer's habits don't change, the accessment of fees won't change.
#20 Employee
AUTHOR: Sumerian - Pinson (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
I have carefully read over all of the comments, and I can only come to one conclusion. There is simply to much information out there for consumers to accurately use. And the second item is that, if you have not noticed not all bank employees are trained equally.
First issue OK forget the darn depositors agreement, lets look at the facts. Simple right, spend to much money, or more than whats in your account you get a fee. I don't think anyone is at odds here. It's a straight overdraft. After that it gets complicated. Customers and even myself in the past have ideas already in their head about how debit cards work. Ya know the old myth of using credit it would go though later, still having the notion that you can time transactions in your account to link up with your direct deposit like floating a check. Information like that is a problem, because what's true today wont be so tomorrow and that's just the tip of a huge iceberg. The biggest complaint is unavailable funds fees.
I mean I am a consumer too If I look online and see my account never went negative yet all of a sudden it is, I have a problem. It looks like online we overdrew the account with fees right? Ahhhh see the perils of online banking, some use this as their only means of account reconcilement, and all it is, is a big electronic journal. It's not real time and it can be down right confusing. Here is a big disconnect between us and customers. The call center has one program similar to online banking the customer has online banking and the branches have something totally different. So for us to assume the customer should just know how this works is not realistic.
I mean the call centers have weeks of training about a month and a half then 2 weeks on the floor training and it's still a work in progress 3 months down the road, so for us to think the customer should get this in a 5 min or less conversation is not fair. That being said if the customer would actually eliminate online banking and what the atm tells them ans simply write down their transactions as they happen, and hey if your like me I'm a sloppy writer I can't fit my stuff in a ledger I use a notepad I keep in my car. Think about it any purchase you make you gotta get back in your car at some point and then write it down.
OK here is my feeble explanation of an unavailable funds fee. Lets say you have $100.00 on Monday June 1st on Monday you spend $50.00, logic would dictate you should only have $50.00 left correct? OK now lets bring in online banking. On Tuesday it says your available balance is $75.00. But wait you know better because you wrote everything down you did on Monday right? No, OK here we go you check the ATM and online it says you have $75.00 you go spend $60.00. Makes sense right you have $15.00 dollars left right? Nope, remember you only had $50.00 to use no matter what any machine said. So Tuesday night we process from about 6pm to 6am, where I work we also have a processing center that's how i know the hours. Anyway uh oh fees happened, but how?
Remember you had $100.00 you spent $50.00 of it, you did not write it down, we all do it. $25.00 of the $50.00 you spent was on gas, now for those of you who don't know we only see what is reported to us. If a gas station does not have enough purchases to justify sending the authorizations in because it's costs them money when they do, if they don't send it we don't see it to tell our customers. In other words we have no idea you spent your money there. So you really have $50.00 and don't know it. You proceed to spend $60.00 thus spending money already allocated elsewhere. OK wait a minute if you knew I only had $50.00 why did you let me spend $60.00. Remember we didn't know you only had $50.00 we showed $75.00. When you see a continuous positive balance online then fees out of the blue this is what is happening, the customer is spending money out from under themselves. Would this happen to someone writing all of what they do down, probably not. Now you see where to much information can be a bad thing.
Remember only use online banking, the ATM and customers service as a guide, we are by no means the final answer, only you know exactly where your money goes.
By the way that was a very watered down unavailable funds fee explanation it's 5:11 in the morning I'm to tired to go into detail but bad things happen with those fees.
Oh yeah my co workers on here, I have a great deal of respect for all of them no matter their position at the bank I know they work hard and trust me the easier it goes for you guys the easier it is on us. Some find this easy and post the agreement, and that's cool they are right, but the customer is also right, am I double talking? No I am simply stating both sides have valid points, now who flipping cares about points and lets get things worked out, so we can have a good trusting relationship with each other, I love my job and I want to keep it, only way to do that is having good customer service and retaining customers so spread the word, we are not all hard liners, but even the ones who are they are just doing their job ya know.
#21 Employee
AUTHOR: Sumerian - Pinson (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
I see this a lot too. Tell me if you heard this before.." So wait your charging me fees on charges that have not cleared the account yet?" Sound familiar? This again has happened to me personally with another bank up north. OK..I get this a lot. Again my feeble attempt to tell you whats going on behind the scenes. The word hold is misleading, it should be changed to "Gone" Let me explain. When you have $20.00 in your account you go to a pizza place have dinner for $8.00 If you called us we would say your available balance is $12.00. If the customer asks me what is on "hold" I say $8.00 to pizza place. OK end of story Kind of. In reality the $8.00 is gone there is no timing issue here or, " they haven't taken it yet" scenario either, it's gone. Our verb age is misleading the customers to believe that oh it's still here they just have to come and get it. Doing that open up a giant can of worms as far as, why are you paying it if it's making my account negative, and it's only on hold why a fee for something not gone yet. Well cause it is gone, we can't say at this point because of the type of transaction it is we are not going to pay it. It's a fact they have to be paid. We can defer checks and ach's with stops given enough time but not debit card purchases, so yes it's on hold, but it's really gone. Is it fair well yeah i mean you did get a service like food or whatever and you still have to pay for it, but maybe how we word our explanation to the customer should change. Like a teller saying about a deposit made after 2pm. " Oh yes it's available to use" Sure but how about saying " oh yes it's available to use COMMA but won't be available to cover any items coming through that night". it's all bout how we present it to the customer in my opinion.
#22 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Truth Detector - Intercourse (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
The fees are not the issue here. Even the most ardent supporter of consumer rights and/or opponent of overdraft/unavailable funds will likely readily admit that a consumer who is fully advised of any and all specific charges, yet still insists on managing his account in an irresponsible manner, has basically brought the misery upon himself.
The issue here is FULL DISCLOSURE. As you must know by now, Nations Bank settled a case (and in the process set case law) against banks failing to fully disclose specific fees in accordance with terms and conditions back in 1999. A pathetically vague and ambiguous 'register, don't over spend, no fee' (your words) doesn't even come close to meeting the standards set by that case. We have said it before, but evidently you are refusing to acknowledge the point so let me reiterate it:
Charge ALL the fees you like per current industry regulations and laws, but as a bank you have a legal and ethical obligation (NOT option) to fully and specifically disclose any and all fees before those fees are ever assessed. Your present attempt to justify this masked assessment practice has you coming off looking like a company stooge, not someone who has any interest in full disclosure.
Striderq, you know full well that you and I have agreed more than a few times regarding customer responsibility on many different threads. It is a great and worthy message that some irresponsible spenders need to hear. However, it is time for YOU and your bank to hear an equally great and worthy message. Adhere to the same standard of responsibility that you demand of your customers by thoroughly detailing any and all SPECIFIC fees and charges. Otherwise, your company may suffer the same fate that Nations Bank did back in 1999 - and subsequently move industry regulations from your 'sit back and let/hope the rules change' mindset (again, your own words) to more consumer-friendly 'choke the fee assessment capability from greedy banks after Obama and his 60-seat majority in congress get a hold of us' mindset.
The choice is yours...
#23 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Friendly Help - Anderson (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
Then your ''HOLD'' problems will all go away.
*Use a REAL credit card
*DO NOT carry a balance on that credit card. Pay your entire CC balance on time EVERY MONTH
And you will NOT have to worry about ''HOLDS''.
#24 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
My God, how hard is that to understand? Let me back up and say if you overdraw your account you should be charged a fee. OK? Let me continue on and say it is up to consumers to be responsible and manage their finances properly. Now having said that, since the begining of time of the use of debit cards, with ALL banks you could conceivably go over your AVAILABLE balance, but you never got a fee until you went over your ACCOUNT balance. So customers have gotten used to this practice. When your ACCOUNT balance goes negative, you're charged a fee. When your AVAILABLE balance goes negative, you're not charged a fee YET until the ACCOUNT balance goes negative. And if you're able to beat the transaction with a deposit and if that deposit posts before the transaction, you're not charged a fee.
That's how things used to work. NOW most banks are starting to charge you a fee when your Available balance goes negative, no matter if you make a deposit the same day that beats the transaction or not. As soon as the transaction is made, if it overdraws your Available balance at that very second, it's been predetermined you will be charged a fee. I GET THIS, Ok? And to echo what Truth Detector said, charge all the fees you want. I don't care, no problem. Once again, here is the problem. This is NOT how it used to be. This is now a NEW policy and procedure that WAS NOT used before. Ever!
So the very simple point is how can you NOW have a new policy and procedure, yet the Deposit Agreement is still the same as it was before. The Deposit Agreement WAS NOT and still HAS NOT been updated with wording to reflect the NEW policy. And then the statement is thrown out - 'if you overspend your account you should be charged a fee'. And Striderq poses the question of how hard is that to understand. It's not hard to understand at all. The point is, IT WAS NEVER DONE BEFORE! Now how hard is THAT to understand? NEVER in the history of EVER have fees been charged for 'HOLDS' or when just the Available Balance went negative. Until now.
I have never been a Wachovia customer, thank God. But if I were here is what I hope is the simplest way to put this. Until recently, as a Wachovia customer I could go use my debit card, overdraw my Available balance but NOT get charged a fee if I made a deposit that beat the transaction and prevented the Account balance going negative. And day after day, year after year, I COULD and I DID do this, yet I was NEVER charged a fee for these 'HOLDS'. Then all of a sudden, I start to get charged a fee for this practice. Yes I understand when you overdraw your account you will be charged a fee. But IN THE PAST, apparently this statement ONLY referred to the Account balance. But now after all of these years, this SAME STATEMENT now means something different. If I was a Wachovia customer, I would be in my lawyers office so fast, my own head would spin. You mean to tell me that after 20 years of being a Wachovia customer, they let me overdraw my Available balance and DID NOT charge me a fee and now after 20 years they have STARTED to charge me a fee, when they never did before? But the Deposit Agreement READS the exact same way? Come on now! This is ENTIRELY identical to the Nationsbank 1999 case.
#25 Employee
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, August 03, 2008
No, I see the point completely. I agree that the T&C does not mention the unavailable funds fee. However the T&C does spell out that if you overspend you will get a fee. Should the T&C be clearer? Yes, I agree it should. However, it does give the customer the information they need. Over spend = fee.
As far as the 'lets set back' attitude, no that's not my attitude. I have consistently tried to help people try to understand why these fees are being accessed and then educating them as to how to avoid the fees. The fact is that the fees are there right now and legal, so no ripoff. The 'let's set back' attitude is displayed by people such as Edward, ScamBuster and others that post here about the fees being ripoffs bit having no advice to people as to how to avoid the fees except to 'sit back and hope the regulations change'.
#26 Employee
AUTHOR: Nicole08 - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, August 04, 2008
POSTED: Monday, August 04, 2008
I see where some of you asked about "Why the fee's now?" Well now most banks offer Free accounts, free checks, and over services that are free. Back in the day even as less as 5 years ago, most of the services are "Perks" where not free. And most banks depending on your account type could make money off of those services. Prime example at Wachovia, depending on the type of account you have some customers can get checks, money orders, cashier checks, and safe deposit for free or at a discounted rate. Back then, some customers had to pay full price for the items. Now that a lot of customers have these type of account where they get free services, and no longer charging for accounts, the money needs to be made somewhere else.
#27 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, August 04, 2008
POSTED: Monday, August 04, 2008
By George I think we have set a record. FOUR different employees and counting, all on one thread. I guess it takes a massive defensive effort. You Wachovia employees would not have this headache if you made one simple change. Here is THE example to pattern yourself after:
----------
Bank of America Deposit Agreement, 2006
Insufficient Funds - Overdrafts
.... Please note that funds in your account are not available to cover a check or other item if we determine that they are subject to a hold, dispute or legal process that prevents their withdrawal.
----------
Bank of America Deposit Agrement, 2008
Insufficient Funds - Overdrafts
..... Funds in your account are not available to cover a check or other item if we determine when we process the check or other item that the funds are subject to an authorization we place on the account for a debit card transaction, to any type of hold we place on the account, to a dispute, or to legal process.
----------
Now I'm going to assume the difference is obvious. And keep in mind I didn't include the ENTIRE overdraft sections which have wording similar to Wachovia and any other bank which state if you overdraw your balance, you will be charged a fee. Well Duh! But BofA, like LaSalle GOES BEYOND this. Notice in the 2006 agreement it uses the word 'hold'. On the surface, this might already seem sufficient. But does BofA try to SLIDE this by, like First Union/Wachovia? Oh No! BofA has already been burned once (Nationsbank 1999). They ARE NOT goint to make THAT mistake again! Smart move!
Bank of America felt THE NEED to UPDATE its 2008 Deposit Agreement with the ADDITIONAL wording that mentions what? You guessed it debit card authorizations (holds). I suspect the use of the word 'hold' in the 2006 agreement may in fact only refer to DEPOSIT holds anyway. So Bank of America SMARTLY wanted to ensure they FULLY explain the NEW procedure of charging fees for DEBIT CARD HOLDS, a procedure NEVER used before. Otherwise the word 'hold' would be left up to interpretation.
Now when a Bank of America customer complains about getting charged fees for HOLDS, there is no debate, interpretation or reading between the lines. BofA employees have ONLY to point the customer to the Deposit Agreement. Now on the otherhand you have Wachovia employees like Chloe and Striderq, who ALSO point their customers to their Deposit Agreement. And their customers, like Yeon in this OP, say huh, what? The Deposit Agreement says EXACTLY what it did before. Lo and behold they find out, AFTER THE FACT, the INTERPRETATION is now different. In the past, Wachovia's Deposit Agreement referred to the ACCOUNT/POSTED balance when referring to having sufficient funds. But NOW Wachovia interprets that SAME WORDING as Available Balance. The wording is the same, just the MEANING or INTERPRETATION is NOW different. Huh? What?
And that's the ripoff here Wachovia employees. You guys crack me up. Hope you have your legal counsel team at the ready.
#28 Employee
AUTHOR: Sumerian - Pinson (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, August 07, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, August 07, 2008
It's really funny there was not one single response to my last 2 posts. Maybe because they acknowledge that it's not fair about the way fees are gotten from customers, and how both consumers and banks need to do better.
No my god why would anyone ever want to agree with that statement, when we can all simply beat a dead horse over and over and over again about an agreement says. And clearly defined jargon, who freaking cares, anyone who spends this much time saying the same things over and over again I just don't understand. Hey guess what? Even at other banks where it is CLEARLY SPELLED OUT HOW YOU WILL GET FEES. People still regularly get them or haven't you read any other forums here at rip off report.com Bottom line it could say everything it should ever say, it could have pictures, a small movie and a pie chart it doesn't matter, after this week It is very clear, this week I did not hear the usual " Oh I did not know" excuses. I heard " Yeah I know how the fees work I still want my money back"
It's just all about whining and crying it's not fair blah blah blah. I have been nice. I have been understanding. But enough is enough, corporations rule the world either get on board or get run over. Rules may change and yeah maybe the little guy might just get a victory or two. Who knows maybe the banks will change, yeah sure we will just as soon as the customers do.....oh wait I guess this is gonna be a while then.
#29 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, August 08, 2008
POSTED: Friday, August 08, 2008
Oh about a year or so ago, Mr. Striderq and I began our long running debate about Wachovia's Unavailable Funds Fee. Up to that point, like many others I did not understand it. After reading many Wachovia reports in years past, I simply blew passed them because I didn't get it. After the SHOCKING revelation, I began trying to enlighten everyone else, including Truth Detector. Day after day, post after post they all said the same thing. Unavailable Funds Fees were no different than any other Overdraft or NSF fee and stop 'whining' about it. Then FINALLY for even the most hardened bank supporters, the light came on also about how these fees TRULY worked. Charging one fee BEFORE the transaction posts and then charging a fee again WHEN the transaction posts. DOUBLE FEES. Had I not 'beat a dead horse' many might still be in the dark. Truth Detector, my long time nemesis being one of those many.
So I kept posting something over and over again. You know, kind of like 'check register', 'balance your checkbook'. Can I ask the same question about why bank supporters or employees would keep posting these same phrases 'over and over again' on each and every thread, even when they have nothing to do with the OP. Say for example the OP is complaining about fees the bank refuses to refund because of FRAUDULENT charges the customer didn't authorize, for a lost or stolen card. Or the OP is complaining about fees incurred because the TELLER told them that deposit was IMMEDIATELY available but the customer finds out later the teller lied or misinformed them. How are either of these related to 'keep a check register', 'learn to add and subtract', 'balance your checkbook'? Yet these phrases are used 'over and over' again meant SOLELY to insult ALL customers. And of course the customers get upset about it.
Now, do I detect a little bit of turnabout is fairplay here? Now you can relate to how many customers have felt in the past. Not too fun is it? And a bitter pill to swallow. You'll notice in my last post I only used the names of Chloe and Striderq. That's because I DID and STILL DO respect the HONEST rebuttals from yourself and Nicole.
#30 Employee
AUTHOR: Sumerian - Pinson (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, August 09, 2008
POSTED: Saturday, August 09, 2008
Hey I'm all about fair, and consumer advocates are a good thing. There are a lot of fraudulent things going on in the world.... Where do we draw the line though? How do we separate a victim of the system between a player of the system? I think the information you provide is useful, and warranted as far as an honest customer goes. It truly does help someone who wants to be helped. On the other hand there is a growing tide of consumers who don't wish to be helped. The kind that make it bad for the honest customers.
The kind that opens an account, overdraws it, then expect fees back simply because they say so. So the grey area here is who is here to learn from people like yourself and learn from the information I provide them over the phone? And who is here to take advantage of people like yourself and run all over me just because they think they are entitled to something because they say so. We as a nation need to stop having the " I'll do something I know I shouldn't do, and someone will help me clean it up" mentality. I said it before unless your very young and have not been around the block some of this stuff should be common knowledge. Between sites like this and the internet in general and news TV 24 hrs a day I have seen it addressed more than once.
So I say it may not be clear in writing, and yes it should be, but honestly and sadly almost half of the customers I talk to in a day already knew about how we do things, they just don't care. Which sours the mindsets of people like myself. If I came off to harsh before I do apologize. I try not to be a typical bank yes man and agree with whatever they say, because I don't...But still I pose the question. What is the solution?
#31 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, August 09, 2008
POSTED: Saturday, August 09, 2008
The Federal Reserve is working on The Solution. When you read these proposals it's basically a SWEEPING INDICTMENT of their subordinate banks like the one you work for. It's almost as if the proposals were written BY CUSTOMERS instead of BANKERS. They have basically addressed MANY of the complaints voiced by customers for YEARS, here on the ROR and elsewhere.
I posed these questions to Striderq several times. Why would the Feds waste time with this if there wasn't a REAL PROBLEM or if it only affected a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of customers and not the other 99% of customers who know how to balance their checkbooks? And now I hate to answer your question with a return question. But why would the Feds be wasting time with these proposals if they were concerned about sneaky customers who only seek to BEAT and take advantage of the system? What does that say about what the Federal Reserve thinks of a lot of these PREDATORY practices? But as I've said before, I acknowlege that these are ONLY PROPOSALS and may fall flat and go nowhere. But still the customers can feel VINDICATED in a sense. Just the mere thought that the Feds would even go through this procedure, it confirms THEY TOO agree with a lot of the customer's concerns.
You have to start somewhere. And that's the reason I 'beat a dead horse' with something 'over and over' again, like the Deposit Agreement. To let people like Striderq and others know that what they're dishing out, I'm not buying. And I want to be certain that everyone else sees past their smoke screens also. And apparently this is the case, otherwise why would it strike such a nerve? Bank supporters can INSULTINGLY throw out Check Register comments 'over and over again'. But in return I can't throw out 'Deposit Agreement', 'Deposit Agreement' over and over again because the truth hurts? The way I see it customers have A LOT of return insults to make up for. But that's not for you because you already get it, and I digress anway. The Feds have, or will soon have the solution. We'll see.
'Those who stand for nothing fall for anything' -Alexander Hamilton.
#32 Employee
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, August 10, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, August 10, 2008
first of all thank you for your kind words. And I also respect you and your passion. I agree that in the specific situations that you mentioned (deposit 'available' immediately; unauthorized charges) that the register answer does not fit. However, the majority of the posts here are about people that had say $100 in their account and spent more than that and were 'surprised and ripped off' by the fees. In these situations the answer is indeed the register answer.
As far as the proposed changes, it's not a done deal yet. There's been lots of government panals look at things that produce no results when all is said and done. I feel the biggest reasons the feds are doing this review now is due to the economic problems caused by the mortgage troubles and this being an election year. Will something good come out of this review? Possibly. Will this review do as other fed reviews and come to nothing? Possibly. Again, the banks are going by current regulations and if the regulation is changed then the banks will change their procedures.
But again, I'm going on record as saying even if the regulations are changed, the majority of people posting here will continue their current bad financial management habits and continue to get hit with fees.
#33 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, August 11, 2008
POSTED: Monday, August 11, 2008
Mr. Striderq, I can tell from the subject of your last post that you seem SHOCKED that I would actually be giving you some kind words. You should be shocked because I don't think you read my last post entirely. I was referring to your colleague Sumerian. But instead of coming across as completely heartless and bursting your bubble too much, STRIDERQ, I'll give you credit. You are persistent. How's that? If you want to continue to say that Wachovia's Deposit Agreement CLEARLY tells customers they will be charged fees for holds, when everyone else can clearly read and see otherwise, by all means stand your ground.
Oh, but I forgot you FINALLY admit on this thread that yes the wording probably should be changed. Wow Striderq. That's a far cry from the line in the sand you've drawn on all of the past threads when presented with the SAME INFORMATION. From your past posts on other threads, I can tell you're fair and level headed. That's why it completely baffled me how you would continue to defend something so obvious that cannot be defended and damage YOUR OWN credibility. Ok, that's enough of the sentimental, kind words crap.
I agree that even if the Fed's proposals are adopted, many customers will continue to rack up numerous fees. Those are the scam artists or the absolute irresponsible who know they're at fault. But focus on alll of the reports from those who have been customers for YEARS. Never a problem with overdrafts or NSFs until now. How can SO MANY develop amnesia all of sudden at the same time and forget how to add, subtract and balance their checkbooks? These customers are being UNFAIRLY categorized and grouped in with the others. And it's THIS GROUP the Feds have in mind with their proposals. And your bank which is Wachovia in NAME ONLY but with First Union policies tries to play oh so innocent.
Unless and until you update your Deposit Agreement that will always be the ripoff here. And I'm done (Sumerian), I promise. ;)
#34 Employee
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, August 12, 2008
POSTED: Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The terms & conditions say if you overspend you get a fee. Doesn't get much simpler. What you are argusing over is the name of the fee. Doesn't really matter what the name is. If it's disclosed in the T&C and the customer agrees to it by opening the account, it's not a rip off.
However, I've been asking you a question on several of these posts that you seem to be ignoring. You say the 'keep a register, don't overspend' advice is generic and a dead horse. Exactly what specific advice do you have for people to avoid this 'rip off'? It seems to be hope the rules change. While thr register,don't overspend will correct the problem now.
#35 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Edward - Dallas (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, August 12, 2008
POSTED: Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Striderq, just reading the first two sentences from your last post and your colleague Sumerian wonders why I have to continue 'over and over again'? But Sumerian is right. We all get it. No need to hammer it into the ground anymore. Sumerian gets it, her wise mother gets it, Truth Detector gets it. And even YOU get it Striderq, when you said earlier 'Should the T&C be clearer? Yes, I agree it should'. But yet in the SAME BREATH you say 'The terms & conditions say if you overspend you get a fee. Doesn't get much simpler'. Now which is it Striderq? And why aren't you a candidate in the Presidential election? You seem to have the first essential skill required to be a politician. Saying TWO DIFFERENT things at the same time.
I'll use your SECOND stance and position, 'The terms & conditions say if you overspend you get a fee. Doesn't get much simpler'. There's just one problem with that. The T&Cs have ALWAYS said this even going back years ago. Yet you didn't charge Unavailable Fees YEARS AGO even though - ''The terms & conditions say if you overspend you get a fee'. How is that? And now you've suckered me in again when I promised Sumerian I was done. And I am. Because I understand how soo tired Sumerian and a lot of people are with THE OBVIOUS and my apologies to everyone else.
To answer your question Striderq, my advice to Yeon and all Wachovia (First Union) customers is to CHANGE BANKS. First of all Yeon will be better off because NOT ALL banks charge fees for HOLDS. But even if Yeon switches to a bank that does, like say Bank of America, Yeon will know this UPFRONT. Simply refer back to BofA's CLEAR Deposit Agreement wording. So that's my advice. But even without my advice, it seems a lot of them are WISELY reaching this conclusion and taking this action on their own. Smart move!
#36 Employee
AUTHOR: Striderq - Columbia (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, August 19, 2008
POSTED: Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The T&C says if you overspend you get a fee. Quite straightforward. Yes, I know it doesn't name the unavailable funds fee by name. So, basically you are arguing semantics on a problem that is solved by mathematics. Register, don't overspend, no fee.
So even if the OP takes your advice of going to a different bank, if they don't change their financial management style they will be accessed fees from the new bank.
You offer semantics, most responders offer mathematics. Which will keep the account holders from getting fees? And I notice you're still ignoring my question of exactly what advice you're giving that will help the people who posts here. But that's fine if you don't want to answer you don't have to. Although that is an answer by itself.
#37 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Yabadabado - Columbus (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
POSTED: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
You mean banks and ethics can be in the same sentence?
#38 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Ryan - Jacksonville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, September 29, 2008
POSTED: Monday, September 29, 2008
Not saying I don't believe in your situation, as I work for a financial institution myself and see this happen reguarly but your complaint doesn't have enough details such as your transaction history (when deposit or deposits were made versus when the overdraft occurred, if there were pending ATM/Check Card transactions), if you have overdraft protection, and other information that would help your argument. If there wasn't a valid response to your complaint, I would trust that Wachovia would've refunded your fees and provided an apology. Oh, and I would also take the time to review the disclosures information that came with your account so that you're fully aware of Wachovia's transaction processing policies. Coming in with knowledge of your own bank's procedures goes a long way to helping your argument.
