WACHOVIA BANK Even when you have enough money, they arrange the transactions so that you have overdrafts Internet

"Even when you have enough money in your checking account, it seems that Wachovia arranges the transactions to come in a certain way so that you have overdraft fees."

   How can that be?  If you have enough money in your account, it shouldn't matter how they arrange the transactions.  You can't overdraft if the amount of the transactions does not exceed the amount in the account.

 

So how were you ripped off?  If, as you say, you had enough money in your account they couldn't charge an overdraft fee. It doesn't matter what order the items are presented in. Changing banks won't solve the problem. You need to learn better money management.

Not everyone is as articulate as myself and others ..so I will briefly explain.

What I think the poster is trying to convey..and I admit it was not very comprehensive...is that by "transaction manipulation", re-sequencing the order of transactions highest to lowest, altering the time said transactions took place...among the fact that the poster must have incured an overdraft at some point..was charged fees for some of the transactions that did have the funds available at the time of said transactions, be it according to a register..the online statement..an ATM machine balance check, calling the bank..or scribbled on a cocktail napkin with lipstick.

The excessive fees... were a direct result of the poster overdrafting..AND the bank covering said additional transactions with a "service" they "offer"..and enroll you in without giving the choice to decline when you open a checking account. This service is called "overdraft protection". The fee for each transaction they "protect" with the overdraft protection service..is from what I recall..$35.00 per transaction.

To wit...anyone can play judge and/or assume as to if this customer was truly "protected"... or ripped off.

However..there are not enough details given in this particular report to determine if this was the case..

Note that I was once a Wachovia customer..so I do know this is how they operate first hand.

This is a very cryptic complaint about the overdraft fees that is so nondescript in nature that one could not even glean anything regarding (a) their understanding as to available vs. account balance, (b) reliance on online tools or a check register, (c) how much they used a debit card (even if there was a debit card used for that matter), or (d) how much this person was dinged for.  I don't even know how much the OD fees per item as a result of this report.

The only thing I would advise this person is that (1) all banks, through regulation and otherwise, operate in pretty much the same manner, and (2) credit unions are becoming more like banks than they used to be because they are financially suffering.

Ronny, you may have your own personal issues with Wachovia and I understand those issues.  But I would not take those issues and assign them to someone else.

..but I agree there was a tone of sarcasm..with intent.

Yes I have my issues with Wachovia...but I did not state anything that I feel was false.

I also feel that the previous comments before mine had a slight tone of sarcasm as well, but I could be wrong..you see this form of "communication" can and often does allow for misinterpretation, and many times does not convey the true emotional state of the writer..and allow for assumptions of what the intent or motive is for writing the response..kind of like I sometimes wonder what the bank (and Target and Walmart) defenders true intent or motive is. But I didn't attack any other poster or mean insult to anyone personally in my response..although admittedly there is negative demeanor towards Wachovia.

Now I did make assumptions in my response..but at the end clarify there is not enough information posted to draw a conclusion.

However..using common sense and logic, and based on the 50 zillion reports regarding the banks..is it safer to assume the poster is angry that he incurred overdrafted fees when funds were posted as available..and then incurred additional fees because it is stated that transactions were "re-arranged"..hence must have fallen victim to re-sequencing and an actual overdraft? Or that the poster is implying that he was ripped off by the bank charging excessive fees and there was actually "ALWAYS" enough money in the account? I think based on other reports..and the info given albeit vague,,a hypothesis can still be drawn ...but inconclusive until further info is posted in a coherent fashion.

Some years ago I had Compass bank screw me just this way,

I deposited CASH with a teller, and they held the deposit "Until the checks cleared" NO DAMN CHECKS as a direct result I over-drafted because THE MONEY WAS THERE but they bounced me about 8 "FEES" unjustly.

 

So I went to the bank and showed the manager the "Error" and he agreed they had made an error, and would correct it.

THEY DID NOT.

two days later I removed all cash left and then closed the account.

they tried to continue to charge "FEES" even when

there were no checks outstanding, no annual fee or any other charges, so I went back to the Manager who had promised to "Correct It" and told him

"ONE MORE LETTER FROM THEM AND i WOULD SUE, NOT THE BANK, HIM".

Never heard from them again.

By the way I highly recommend using a credit union, I've NEVER had ANY trouble with any CREDIT UNION in 30 year and counting.

I had a credit union before and after Compass, and have a different one today, (Moved)

 

 

Some years ago I had Compass bank screw me just this way,

I deposited CASH with a teller, and they held the deposit "Until the checks cleared" NO DAMN CHECKS as a direct result I over-drafted because THE MONEY WAS THERE but they bounced me about 8 "FEES" unjustly.

 

So I went to the bank and showed the manager the "Error" and he agreed they had made an error, and would correct it.

THEY DID NOT.

two days later I removed all cash left and then closed the account.

they tried to continue to charge "FEES" even when

there were no checks outstanding, no annual fee or any other charges, so I went back to the Manager who had promised to "Correct It" and told him

"ONE MORE LETTER FROM THEM AND i WOULD SUE, NOT THE BANK, HIM".

Never heard from them again.

By the way I highly recommend using a credit union, I've NEVER had ANY trouble with any CREDIT UNION in 30 year and counting.

I had a credit union before and after Compass, and have a different one today, (Moved)

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/25/business/econwatch/entry5339908.shtml

That website agrees with me. The banks reorder your transactions, and put on holds so you get hit with overdrafts.

"Authorization holds and transaction reordering are among the banking practices taking increasing heat recently from both consumers and lawmakers. Although nickel-and-dime fees are pervasive - just check your cable bill - the big financial institutions have become poster children for customer abuse. With direct access to your cash, they have developed a range of sneaky tricks that can quickly whittle down your account."

Its disgusting, and I've banked with several banks before I was a Wachovia customer. I never had this problem until I banked with Wachovia. I'm looking to switch to a smaller bank, maybe a credit union. I've heard good things from friends and acquaintances that have banked with credit unions.

From now on I will just use cash. At least with cash you pay and are done and over with. There are no holds with cash like there with debit cards, no sneaky ways for anyone to reorder transactions. Its really hard for me because I'm in college, and every penny counts when you're a college student and when a bank like Wachovia screws you over, its very hard to make ends meet as a student.

I need a bank or a credit union that is on my side.

There may be some bank defenders that will respond regarding this. What they will say (and maybe I can save them some typing), is that "all banks and credit unions do this" and "it is ALL your fault because in the terms and conditions you signed at the bank, states they can reorder transactions anyway they see fit..at any time". So the bank therefore holds no blame or responsibility..and it is ALWAYS the customers fault 100% of the time, without question.

And..those statements in my opinion and experiences..are half truths at best..and not always applicable.

Now at the risk of generalization and oversimplification..but quite reasonably accurate as witnessed here at ROR and based on public testimony and common knowledge..I will describe 4 "categories" or "targets" for overdrafting.

1) Someone new to banking and keeps a very low balance..ie: a college student, a young person just starting in the workforce etc.

2) Someone older and has been with the same bank for years..but suddenly is facing financial hardship due to the current economic conditions..and not until recently have incurred an overdraft...and people on fixed incomes such as disability and SSI, retired etc.

3) Someone who is victim of fraud or error, unauthorized charges etc.

4) A habitual and consistent overdrafter..ie: careless scatterbrain, financially irresponsible. (this "type" often has no right to complain or blame the bank or anyone else..however if the bank applied any unethical or legally questionable tactics to maximize fees...then even in this case the bank may be allegedly guilty of a rip off..as everyone has the same rights in this country..even the financially inept irresponsible morons) Welcome to the US and A. Love it or leave it.

Now any of these 4 target groups can all overdraft with intent...OR without intent, if they have overdraft protection...I hope we agree as it really is very simple to comprehend. I will highlight some key terms for those who are simple..you can connect the dots so to speak.

Now as far as re sequencing..I did not realize my last bank was doing this. I was young when I opened my account..and was given a debit card and a brief explanation of it's use..and encouraged by the bank to set up direct deposit. I don't even remember what I did with any papers or contracts they gave me..but I remember all the nice full color brochures on the benefits of online banking..they made sure to give me a password so I can excess my account online 24 hours a day. wow.

Now I won't get into all the specifics of overdrafts..I had a few due to fraud, errors and unauthorized charges..but what really got me was I had thought my overdraft protection would cover the single cause of the overdraft..and I could pay the 35 dollar fee until I can deal with the merchant or responsible party..and possibly get reimbursed. $35 dollars is a lot of money..but it won't cause me that much financial distress. The thing is..the fee was not 35.00..by re-sequencing and manipulation, the bank was able to tack overdraft fees onto MANY previous transactions that had the funds available at the time of the actual transaction..and were cleared. So the fees combined were hundreds of dollars I didn't have..and I had no recourse. And could not prevent my paycheck from going in since I was duped into direct deposit..so they were getting the money regardless of the outcome of a dispute..in other words I had lost ALL control of my money due to the policies and the system overall, and it's LACK of any real protection of the customers hard earned money.

So I went to check my online statement to see how this was possible..my register clearly listed every transaction in a logical sequential order and time. What I found is nothing is re-sequenced until the end of the day..in which every transaction is then processed highest amount first..to lowest. Only ATM fees will stay on my statement right after the transaction that caused it. Seems the online statement is untrustworthy and in constant flux..for many reasons the banks will tell you. In a sense the banks have figured out how to alter time..and get away with it...for now.

But they can get away with the end of day re-sequencing highest to lowest legally (at this time) by a clever deception which can make it seem the bank is protecting us somehow..and doing us a "courtesy".

The banks have decided..whether you want it or not....that THEY can take in upon themselves to decide which transaction was "most important". So the use they "assumption" as a defense, that a higher amount is for a mortgage or car payment or rent..certainly more important then a cup of coffee...makes sense..right?? But it's a pile of cow dung..and here is why...

First off..if you have this type of OD protection...the transaction will be covered whether is was a 150 dollar transaction that went over by $50.00  or a $3000.00 transaction that went over by $50.00. In addition..how would the bank know for a fact if the $3000 transaction was for a home theater system..and the 150 dollar transaction was for heart medication? Which one is really more important? You see the banks defense does not hold water..but they seem to be legally getting away with it until someone in power decides to do something about it..or the banks make the terms more fair by their own choice....saving the expense and hassle of further lawsuits and legislation. Fortunately..due to the abundance of complaints..and the threat of legislation and lawsuit action and decisions..some banks have started to change some policies regarding overdrafting by "choice". Which can at least get the ball rolling for it's customer money to be protected. After all...why should a cookie jar or under the mattress be a safer place for our money then the bank?

I will cut this short but I expect possible rebuttals or criticism. That is okay because it only gives me more ammunition to completely debunk it. But I will list a few "services" and policies the bank offer..and briefly explain so a 3 year old could understand..how it can be misleading, deceptive, encourage overdrafting..and cause the subsequent avalanche of fees. I will only list a few ways..there are plenty of others such as "authorization holds" and delaying deposits for excessively long time periods..hiding information on our statements etc.. And I will GLADLY discuss those at any ones request..but these are very common as well...

Courtesy "overdraft protection service": In most cases we read here in ROR..and many that have been publicized...we come to the conclusion that in MOST cases..this type of service in reality protected NOTHING but the banks financial gain and interests..encouraged overdrafting in it's very name..it implies an overdraft is protected..and was a MAJOR contributor to all the excessive ADDITIONAL fees brought on by one or two overdrafts..whether caused by intent..or any other of 1001 reasons.

In addition..it is recently noted that some banks did not even allow opt out of this service...have the customer sign for this specific service that can cause so many fees to occur..and if they did allow opt out never offered the customer to opt out at time of joining the bank..and why would they?...38 (B)illion reason perhaps?

"Couresty" re-sequencing highest to lowest transactions: In most cases (and I explained this in detail previously) this also in reality did not protect the customers money in any way shape or form..and contributed DIRECTLY and mostly to the additional excessive fees.

"Available" funds: Well anyone who has ever seen an online statement, checked a balance at an ATM..or called the bank..has seen this one. Now we have come to understand this term is not always correct..and if we go by it..we can suffer an overdraft..and all the additional fees the other "services" and policies and terms and tactic bring on. So WHY then..if the bank cared about protecting us from overdrafting..would they continue to use this term on our statements..if it is not truly accurate or to be depended on? Same answer as earlier....38 (B)illion reasons perhaps?

Understand..that no matter how articulately I state this..no matter how logically and reasonably I explain it..some still won't get it, and will always with ignorance come to the banks defense. So perhaps they need to watch the news a little more..or pick up a newspaper. Surely everyone soon will know we are on to what the banks were trying to get away with during an economic collapse..and that they needed 700 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money to prevent them from complete FAILURE, and was taking advantage of thier customers using unfair and allegedly unethical (questionably legal in some cases..we will see soon) tactics.

So yes..customers need to take responsibility and reasonable caution with their funds..but if they can't trust their own banks..and are afraid to use their debit cards anymore..and are getting their paychecks fleeced..I feel very sorry for this country..we need to be able to pick ourselves up..dust ourselves off..and get this economy rolling again, not kicked back down by huge corporate greed and financial institutions..this is the WORST possible time for their shenanigans...we need this money in circulation..not to pay for some greedy bankers bonus so they can buy another yacht or plane. And as long as the banks are reasonable and fair and ethical..I would only hope they make enough money to buy the bank tellers a plane...I have nothing against any business making a buck..as long as it is not taking advantage of and abusing their customers with misleading and deceiving tactics. Let them go back to fair lending to make a buck..and stop lending to people who can't afford to pay it back as what contributed to the mortgage fiasco and real estate plummet.

there is no manipulating..when you make a purchase, we set the funds aside for the merchant..then the merchant sends us a receipt. then we post the transaction. if your purchase made on the 4th gets us their receipt before the purchase on the 3rd, we pay it first. and technically, you will never be able to opt out of overdrafting..simply because there are merchants that underauthorize. you may have 12.00 in your accnt, and go out to eat. they swipe your card for your 10.00 bill. you leave a 5.00 tip AFTER its authorized. they send us a receipt for 15.00. we take it out. you go to a gas station and pay at the pump. once again, authorized before transaction. they only authorize 1.00 up front to make sure accnt is active. you have 3.00 in account. you pump 5.00. we get receipt. we take 5.00 out. once again, something that can't be prevented. sorry!

Actually I shouldn't be surprised an employee has NO idea how this bank "works".

First of all..Wachovia did allow me to opt out of overdraft protection. They were not happy about it..but it was that..or everyone in my family close their accounts..so I had the branch manager put IN WRITING that I am opted out.

Now does this mean it is impossible to ever get a fee? Of course not..it is just a safe guard to help prevent the avalanche.

In other words..lets say a restaurant attempts a 50 dollar hold at the bar and you do not know about it.  But the bank CERTAINLY does since the BANK is the one that approves or declines it..right?

So now there is 50 dollars LESS in my account then my register states. With courtesy overdraft protection I can go on and on and on using the card while the funds are depleted and not even know about it until I check the statement. And then when the bank MANIPULATES the transaction at the end of the day from highest to lowest..adds even more fees on top of fees.

IF opted out of courtesy OD protection...ANY use of the debit card AT A POINT OF SALE, or an ATM would be DECLINED if the funds were not available for any reason. And according to the FDIC report, POS and ATM transactions are where MOST overdraft occurs.

The gas station thing has been de-bunked over and over but apparently the "employee" does no research.

Regardless, I noticed when the Wachovia debit card was below a certain balance..the reader at the PUMP would tell me to go inside to see the attendant..where I tell the attendant how much gas I want..the card is swiped, and the transaction is simply approved, or declined by the BANK...no need to overdraft.. is this So hard to understand???


Now the example with merchant holds blah blah blah...opting out helps this way. If the customer is careless of course it is still possible to overdraft..or what the bank may call an NSF..which is bad of course. BUT..if opted out..at least even the careless customer is truly "protected" from additional fees..since once the account is officially NSF..the debit card will no longer work..and no more additional excessive fees. Simple..right?

Now the ultimate goal of course should be that every merchant was honest..and never made mistakes or unauthorized holds. As well, it would be nice if every single checking account customer was perfect and never made a mistake or was careless..bit in reality it is a FACT that overdrafts and NSF's are going to occur.

All we ask is the bank change some un-necessary policies aka "tactics" to make it more fair for ALL checking account customers..since this can happen to ANY customer no matter how perfect they THINK they are. ..and for the bank policies to be geared to actually "protect" the customers money, not use it to line the bank officers pocket with bonuses and drain a paycheck to paycheck customers paychecks.

For the average customer that uses their debit card for everyday small purchases in lieu of cash..there is no need for the bank to re-sequence the transactions..and certainly for many no need to automatically enroll them in courtesy overdraft protection..because it has been clearly exposed by the media, the complaints and congress that charging a student 35 dollars for a cup of coffee is unconscionable. The customer is certainly going to be better off with the card simply being declined if the funds are actually "unavailable"..and then can make the choice to either go without the coffee, or fund it using other means. And if the card is declined..it gives the customer a fair chance to figure out what is wrong..and it may help them to be more careful and responsible..since who wants the embarrassment of a declined card?