Bank Of America BANK OF AMERICA'S INSUFFICIENT FUND FEE RIP OFF! Los Angeles California Internet

I'll answer my own previous question about why Bank of America won't reveal these numbers. It's so they can hide these fees and play magic tricks with the numbers so we can debate these profits over and over but it will always be speculation. But there's no disputing the facts of Rachel Poor's ordeal from the article in Erikson's earlier post.

Please explain how her problem with these excessive overdraft fees was IN ANY WAY related to her check register, poor math skills, carelessness, or anything else which was her fault, same as the OP Ramona here?

In Rachel's case, sure she FINALLY got her money back, a month later! But how much daily interest did BofA make off of these NSF fees during that time, before they had to give back what THEY STOLE, let alone the ID thief! Talk about irony!

When I read this article it didn't surprise me one bit who the bank was. Once again the BANDITS OF AMERICA strike again. And the profits just keep a rollin on in!

Stile,

You have stipulated the 34.6% increase in interest income is directly attributable to the MBNA merger as BofA themselves even stated in their own Annual Report. This means without the MBNA merger, we don't know what the difference would have been - possibly nothing?

On the other hand, the 6.5% increase in fee income (half a billion) is NOT SOLELY attributable to the merger. Sure, there may be late and overlimit CC fees mixed in but we don't know by how much? Why? Because BofA REFUSES to disclose THE DETAILS of these FEES. Is it any reason why? Could it be that the details might show that the MBNA merger accounted for only a small portion of the fee increase, while the majority of the increase was all related to NSF fees? We don't know. It's all speculation that BofA and other banks can answer but refuse to.

Once again, I'm only addressing the rip off addressed in the OP - NSF fees. I'm not arguing against CC fees and interest income.....here. That's a different ball game. Yes I know banks are FOR PROFIT, in business to make money? Why not disclose FULLY, just how they make that money? Why do they refuse to reveal these details so you, I and everyone else can end the speculation?

"While it's true there's nearly a ten fold difference between BofA's interest income and it's service charges, you (Stile) failed to add the important detail that the 78.5 Billion interest income is directly attributable to the MBNA merger, as BofA pointed out in their annual report."

The year over year increase is directly attributable to the MBNA merger, but the bank still had significant interest income in 2005. According to the 2006 annual report (page 100), BofA had 34.843 billion in interest income in 2005. This represents a 34.6% increase in interest income, most of which is attributable to the MBNA merger. Of course, BofA had interest income in prior years because they had their own credit card prior to MBNA, not to mention home loans, auto loans, business loans, and other lines of credit.

"On the other hand, the service charges income increased half a billion from 7.7 Billion in 2005 to 8.2 Billion in 2006. What caused this increase? Was it also an acquisition or merger? Not at all. This is a direct result of increased profits from all types of fees - overdraft fees, atm fees, etc - as BofA also points out in it's annual report. Remember, this is the whole point of the OP - NSF fees."

Except that you're forgetting the MBNA would have charged service fees as well (notably late fees and overlimit fees on their credit cards) prior to the merger. As I stated prior, they had 34.6% growth in interest income. By your own numbers, they only had a 6.5% increase in fee income. The increase in their fee income is negligible compared to their overall growth. In fact, it sounds to me like per capita fees probably went down, because their customer base surely increased by more than 6.5% following the MBNA merger.

Now, Scott

"Here we go again!
You're right Stile, the article can't be found on the internet anymore, it has expired but if you look at this ripoffreport.com/reports/0/149/RipOff0149122.htm

you'll see the same article referenced so either we're both full of it or the article really exist. I noticed your buddy Steve, who obviously has less of a life than you responded to this article, maybe you should put your 2 cents in there as well."

This was from before my time at RoR, hence my non-response. Thanks for the insult, by the way, I really appreciate being told that I have no life because I don't automatically agree with a customer every time they cry "rip off, rip off." The BG article referenced on the report you linked is in reference to a directive not to reverse fees unless it's a bank error, or unless there are extenuating or unusual circumstances. I don't really see what is so controversial about this. They're saying that if the fees are valid, then they are valid. I would imagine they do reverse some fees as a courtesy, if it's your first fee for example, or if it's claim related then they would be required to reverse fees. But other than these cases, it makes sense not to reverse valid fees.

"I know you work at a bank, would you mind telling us which one? We can already guess your position there. You've been trying to convince us that these fees are legitimate for almost a year now; is this because you can't convince your real live customers?"

I work for Wells Fargo as a claims officer. And I don't have to convince anyone of the validity of fees; you already agreed to them when you opened your account. If you don't like paying fees, then you don't have to. Maintain the account according to the terms you agreed to, and you'll never have to pay a fee again. Your other choice would be to hide your money under your mattress and use the "bank of Scott."

You're right Stile, the article can't be found on the internet anymore, it has expired but if you look at this ripoffreport.com/reports/0/149/RipOff0149122.htm

you'll see the same article referenced so either we're both full of it or the article really exist. I noticed your buddy Steve, who obviously has less of a life than you responded to this article, maybe you should put your 2 cents in there as well.

I know you work at a bank, would you mind telling us which one? We can already guess your position there. You've been trying to convince us that these fees are legitimate for almost a year now; is this because you can't convince your real live customers?

My earlier post had a typing error by one letter. I used "million" where I should have used "billion". It should have read something like this:

While it's true there's nearly a ten fold difference between BofA's interest income and it's service charges, you (Stile) failed to add the important detail that the 78.5 Billion interest income is directly attributable to the MBNA merger, as BofA pointed out in their annual report.

On the other hand, the service charges income increased half a billion from 7.7 Billion in 2005 to 8.2 Billion in 2006. What caused this increase? Was it also an acquisition or merger? Not at all. This is a direct result of increased profits from all types of fees - overdraft fees, atm fees, etc - as BofA also points out in it's annual report. Remember, this is the whole point of the OP - NSF fees.

I would hate to short change the bank 1 digit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars right? Never let it be said I'm not man enough to admit my own flaws and shortcomings.

Stile,

While it's true there's nearly a ten fold difference between BofA's interest income and it's service charges, you failed to add the important detail that the 78.5 million interest income is directly attributable to the MBNA merger, as BofA pointed out in their annual report. On the other hand, the service charges income increased half a billion from 7.7 million to 8.2 million. What caused this increase? Was it also an acquisition or merger? Not at all. This is a direct result of increased profits from all types of fees - overdraft fees, atm fees, etc - as BofA also points out in it's annual report. Remember, this is the whole point of the OP - NSF fees.

From MSNBC.com 6/1/07:

"Two major studies are being conducted to examine bank bounced check practices -- one by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and one by the General Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm. Federal legislation introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., would bar many current bank overdraft practices. And a congressional hearing is planned for later this summer to highlight abuses of the practice."

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/06/bank_overdraft_.html#posts

From MSNBC.com 6/1/07:

"Two major studies are being conducted to examine bank bounced check practices -- one by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and one by the General Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm. Federal legislation introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., would bar many current bank overdraft practices. And a congressional hearing is planned for later this summer to highlight abuses of the practice."

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/06/bank_overdraft_.html#posts

From MSNBC.com 6/1/07:

"Two major studies are being conducted to examine bank bounced check practices -- one by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and one by the General Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm. Federal legislation introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., would bar many current bank overdraft practices. And a congressional hearing is planned for later this summer to highlight abuses of the practice."

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/06/bank_overdraft_.html#posts

"You guys as usual with your defend the bank BS. There is no question that BOA is the absolute worst when it comes to these charges. For one thing, they charge you $35 for an auto bill pay even if there is no money in the account. If the auto bill bill tries it 2 or 3 times you get two or three NSF charges. No, not all banks do this, most just decline it as there is no money there and don't charge you."

Which begs the question, since you know that the auto pay is going to come out on a set date (since you are the one who set up the auto pay) then why aren't funds present. Keep in mind, you've instructed the bank to withdraw funds on a specific date, the bank is simply trying to follow your instruction.

"I read an article that was in the Boston Globe about how BOA specifically trains their employees to NOT refund any fees no matter how much you yell or stand on your head."

I did a google search for "Boston Globe Bank of America fees" and came up with no hits for the article you claim to have read. Can you provide a citation, or is this an unfounded statement?

"BOA has raised their NSF fees 3 times in the past 20 months, they really suck."

They raised their first level OD fee from 19 to 20, and their 2nd level fee from 33 to 34 to 35. It's a 3 dollar swing, not some catastrophic change designed to ruin customers.

"They can't make money by LENDING like a normal bank so obviously they need to resort to these stupid fees."

Well, looking at their 2006 annual report, it looks like BofA earned interest income of 78.5 billion. Under their non-interest income they have a line item called "service charges" which I believe to be their fee related income. For their service charges, they earned 8.2 billion. That's nearly a 10 fold difference.

"I don't care if that was the agreement, the policy plain sucks."

So, do you always go back on your agreements if you decide later on that you don't like what you agreed to?

The facts are that the OP agreed to a certain fee structure when they opened their account. As I've said, I believe that they should be reimbursed for the bank's error stemming from not linking the credit card for overdraft protection, but other than that it sounds to me as if everything else is being processed correctly.

You guys as usual with your defend the bank BS. There is no question that BOA is the absolute worst when it comes to these charges. For one thing, they charge you $35 for an auto bill pay even if there is no money in the account. If the auto bill bill tries it 2 or 3 times you get two or three NSF charges. No, not all banks do this, most just decline it as there is no money there and don't charge you. I read an article that was in the Boston Globe about how BOA specifically trains their employees to NOT refund any fees no matter how much you yell or stand on your head. BOA has raised their NSF fees 3 times in the past 20 months, they really suck. They can't make money by LENDING like a normal bank so obviously they need to resort to these stupid fees. I don't care if that was the agreement, the policy plain sucks.

When you sign in for overdraft protection all companies will disclose their timeframes for a service to become effective...we all agree to everithing a rep is reading to us but do not really leasten to what they are saing; when your acct. goes overdrawn you freak out and look for someone to blame (the bank). If you stop, leasten and read the info companies give to you educating you on how their services work and what your responsabilities are to assure a good experience, you would not be blaming it on others...with all respect.

When you sign in for overdraft protection all companies will disclose their timeframes for a service to become effective...we all agree to everithing a rep is reading to us but do not really leasten to what they are saing; when your acct. goes overdrawn you freak out and look for someone to blame (the bank). If you stop, leasten and read the info companies give to you educating you on how their services work and what your responsabilities are to assure a good experience, you would not be blaming it on others...with all respect.

When you sign in for overdraft protection all companies will disclose their timeframes for a service to become effective...we all agree to everithing a rep is reading to us but do not really leasten to what they are saing; when your acct. goes overdrawn you freak out and look for someone to blame (the bank). If you stop, leasten and read the info companies give to you educating you on how their services work and what your responsabilities are to assure a good experience, you would not be blaming it on others...with all respect.

When you sign in for overdraft protection all companies will disclose their timeframes for a service to become effective...we all agree to everithing a rep is reading to us but do not really leasten to what they are saing; when your acct. goes overdrawn you freak out and look for someone to blame (the bank). If you stop, leasten and read the info companies give to you educating you on how their services work and what your responsabilities are to assure a good experience, you would not be blaming it on others...with all respect.

Let the facts speak for themselves. The readers don't need my anger to understand the truth about people like Steve and they have dealt with banks enough to understand what a batch of crooks they all are. Therefore, to the high road I ride, fella...thanks for the support :)

Edward,

Good advice to Erickson, I am going to follow it myself. The unsuspecting do need to be warned where needed though.

Regards,

Erickson,

I know how difficult it is, trust me, but your best option is to take Stile's advice and not get bunkered down by Steve too much. It will only frustrate you to the point of bringing yourself down to his level and result in name calling or other tactics that we criscize him for.

Trust me, I speak from experience. When I first starting reading and posting to the ROR, I too immediately branded everyone who defended the bank as "bank employees" before I knew all of the facts. Stile himself was one of my first targets and I, like you, became very angry and insulted Stile without reason because of his opinions. You know what Stile did? He simply replied to my posts with more LEGITIMATE FACTS, maintaining his calm, cool, professional demeanor, never waivering from the facts. Boy did it make me look stupid and idiotic.

The best way to combat Steve is the same way. Kill him with kindness but not to the point of becoming obsessed. Sure, his advice might be accurate sometimes, but when his advice is questionable or when his accusations are without merit, simply point this out for the record, without stooping to his level. As you can see from his earlier correction attempt to me and my Re-correction rebuttal WITH FACT, he has yet to reappear and has drifted off quietly into the sunset as Dennis correct stated earlier.

I would like to respond to your posts as well.

While I agree with Elaine that debts shouldn't be paid without research as to whether they are valid or not (I think most people agree with you here), Steve openly admitted that he spent $170,000. Why didn't he pay back the $170 grand? I can see boycotting the fees and "un-agreed upon" interest; However, he should have paid what he rightfully owed.

Also, with your logic in regards to contracts: if the credit card companies were, in your opinion, obligated not to change the terms of your contract, doesn't the consumer have some responsibility to make sure they are not entering into a contract that this can happen with? Like I stated before, CC companies are in the business to make money; they are going to take advantage where they can.

And I'm not "sticking up" for them; I'm merely stating something we all understand. But as smart consumers, we have a responsibility to know what CAN/MIGHT happen to us the second we first swipe that card. That's where Steve fell short - he didn't find out the reprecussions of racking up all that debt.

"What's controversial about Steve telling people to balance a checkbook?"
I think it's hard for people to keep reading all of Steve's posts where on one hand, he's bragging about a large sum of money he got away with spending and not paying back, but on the other hand, chastizing those who incur a $35 NSF fee. If the fees the banks charge are legal and valid, so were the higher interest rates Steve ran into (for whatever reason).

The way they tried to COLLECT them wasn't - and that's how Steve got away with what he did. I think that's where the morality comes in. No one wants to listen to a hypocrite acting self-righteous and boasting while belittling others. And NO ONE wants to be called any of the names that Steve can't go without slinging at people for disagreeing with him.

Stile, if you need proof of the names, search the most recent Discover Card posting. Also, I personally don't "follow Steve around"; I read and respond to RipOff Report as a whole, and Stile, you have to admit, Steve has posted on at least 65% of these things; he's hard to miss.

Also, Stile, I think his decision not to pay his bills really WAS as arbitrary as what you said - or at least Steve never said anything to the contrary (and he's said A LOT of things). I never said anything he did was illegal. I said he stole that money, and by the definition of theft (which Steve told me to look up and I did), he fits the bill. Not all theft is necessarily illegal. There are loopholes, and Steve found them. - See Discover Card posting.

The reason I advise people not to take Steve's advice is because it COULD BE dangerous to people. What Steve does to collection companies could be considered harassment (sending all those faxes) or being a nuisance to a business (which is also illegal in some cases) if not done with complete legal knowledge of what you can get away with in that state. Also, most people don't have the time or the inclination or resources to follow through with Steve's advice, and anything done half-a$$ed could get them in deeper than they already were.

Stile, you sure were right about being branded as an employee of the "rip-off" artist. Steve has already gone there (see the US Bank post). Even though I already told him what I do for a living, he still accused me of being an "uneducated collector". Haha :-) I do appreciate your well thought out post though, and I respect the fact that you don't need to resort to name-calling to get your point across. I have yet to find one rebuttal from Steve that doesn't call someone "stupid" in some way, shape or form. It's so silly.

Finally, Elaine gave some great advice:
"If you're so concerned about your rights and interest rates climbing, pay cash for everything and sign no contracts. People without contracts have no reason to expect they will ever have to abide by them, although the rest of us continue to expect you to follow the LAWS OF THIS LAND."

Steve you, may have wanted to heed this.

-Heather ["Whatever you say to me bounces back to you and sticks like glue"] in D.C. :-)

"You are the quintessential Kool-Aid drinker because, regardless of the flaws of his arguments and his ZERO credibility, you defend this thieving hypocrite to the end. Jim Jones had the same type of followinghence the correlation. But enough with your history lesson"

You haven't pointed out any flaws in his argument. You disagree with his tone, fair enough, and you have problems with his credibility, fine. But his argument itself is sound; Keep track of your charges, and don't spend more than what is in your register balance. What is so controversial about that?

"There is a reason you have not addressed the issue of his hypocrisy and that reason is, THERE IS NO DEFENSE. The man openly admitted to taking $170,000 from lendersthen bragged about the fact that he escaped the RESPONSIBILITY of paying his debts. His tone is far from helpful in assisting those who feel they have been taken advantage of by banks. He is rude and condescending to anyone he disagrees withtherefore, I will show him the same lack of respect and courtesy due to the fact that he is a self-admitted deadbeat bill payer."

The reason that neither she nor I will address his hypocrisy is that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Political types love to throw around the question of credibility as if attacking the man serves to defeat his arguments. Steve's argument stands or falls regardless of his personal actions in the past. Whether or not he's a "deadbeat bill-payer" says nothing about the validity of his argument.

"Oh, and to correct another statement of ignorance from your so-called mind, I am nothing close to a mindless Church-goer following the tenants of a religion without questioning it. I am a consumer advocate of the highest level, and I will drop the hammer on anyone who dares lecture an OP on responsibility when he has the credibility of Mark Fuhrman at a diversity conference."

If you're a consumer advocate of the highest level then your goal should be to provide proper information to the consumer to prevent future occurrances of the same problem, and to help resolve the present issue. Arguing about Steve's credibility does none of these things.

You're stuck on the fact that Steve defaulted on $170K in debts which, incidentally, is not illegal. He entered into a civil agreement which is governed by federal law. His creditors either failed to abide by federal law in their attempts to collect, or failed to take the proper legal actions to enforce the agreement, but neither of these things changes the fact that Steve is not required by law to pay back his debt. He may be honor-bound, but that is a different matter altogether, and not germane to the issue at hand. We should focus on the OP's problems, not Steve's pecadillos.

In this case, the proper procedure would be to keep a balanced register and to be aware of cut-off times at the ATM and online banking. As far as the overdraft resulting from the credit card wasn't linked, I do believe that those fees should be refunded, and the OP needs to follow the proper escalation procedure. If a supervisor doesn't give her satisfaction, the she needs to request an address to write the office of the chairman.

Well said.

You are the quintessential Kool-Aid drinker because, regardless of the flaws of his arguments and his ZERO credibility, you defend this thieving hypocrite to the end. Jim Jones had the same type of followinghence the correlation. But enough with your history lesson

There is a reason you have not addressed the issue of his hypocrisy and that reason is, THERE IS NO DEFENSE. The man openly admitted to taking $170,000 from lendersthen bragged about the fact that he escaped the RESPONSIBILITY of paying his debts. His tone is far from helpful in assisting those who feel they have been taken advantage of by banks. He is rude and condescending to anyone he disagrees withtherefore, I will show him the same lack of respect and courtesy due to the fact that he is a self-admitted deadbeat bill payer.

Oh, and to correct another statement of ignorance from your so-called mind, I am nothing close to a mindless Church-goer following the tenants of a religion without questioning it. I am a consumer advocate of the highest level, and I will drop the hammer on anyone who dares lecture an OP on responsibility when he has the credibility of Mark Fuhrman at a diversity conference.

You are so consumed with calling names (me? A kool-aid drinker? Ahem. I didn't drink kool-aid when I was a kid, thank you very much. I can think. AND RESEARCH, dear Erickson/Erikson, unlike you who just preaches what little he knows. You must be a mindless Church-goer following the tenants of a religion without questioning it. Oh, well. I can't argue with you.

But, if you were just a LITTLE bit reasonable, and you:

1. Had a contract said that we will loan you X number of dollars, and you will pay X % interest for X period of time.

2. Contract signed and accepted by all parties at time of initiation...and there is NO clause in the contract to make any unilateral (that means one-sided for those dictionary-challenged) changes.

3. You borrow the money and make payments on time as per the contract.

4. And all of a sudden, the contract is changed by one side (the lender) without reason, without just cause, without legal precedent to do so.

5. Causing the amount of money you owed per the contract in # 1 to jump to an exorbitant amount. (by the way, 'exorbitant' means big, really big)

Why would you pay it without fighting?
What rules do you fight with since the original contract was ignored?

You use the FEDERAL laws made to fight such laws and if you win, and you are relieved of your obligations, per the FEDERAL laws and the courts.

How does this make Steve or ANYONE who follows the instructions a deadbeat?

If you're so concerned about your rights and interest rates climbing, pay cash for everything and sign no contracts. People without contracts have no reason to expect they will ever have to abide by them, although the rest of us continue to expect you to follow the LAWS OF THIS LAND.

I'm shaking my head. you all just don't understand. You don't get it. You blindly follow what was taught you from childhood - PAY YOUR DEBTS. What if these AREN'T your debts? Oh, sure, you say, nodding your head. Sure those aren't your debts. Well, you can't possibly understand until it's happened to you through identity theft or something as mundane as a unilateral contractual change.

I still feel that Steve's advice to people who are blaming the banks for overdraft charges is correct - and so is the advice from Amber, the bank employee who took the time to explain how the banking systems work.

Bottom line: you can't trust the computer online system nor your telephone access to be accurate when you've got outstanding charges pending. Use a register and don't write checks/use a debit card BEFORE your deposits are credited (and not have a hold on them). Do those things, which Steve and others have advocated, and VOILA (that's pronounced WA LAH for those French challenged) you won't bounce checks.

It's hard to be logical with the illogical, so I'll call it a day here and continue drinking my ICED TEA (Erikson) and shaking my head at the amount of people who are taken and ripped off despite forums such as this.

To Steve and Elaine,

Simply take a look at this ROR:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff240963.htm.

Steve was the VERY FIRST person to post a response to the author and pay close attention to his TONE and SARCASM without being provoked and without having all of the facts. He uses phrases like "This just sounds like a pattern of carelessness." Please tell me how he was provoked?

Then I strongly encourage everyone to read the entire ROR, and the sequence of events. There were many other contributors who had questions about the author's story, but notice the difference in their tone compared to Steve's.

Then finally, notice how the author ANSWERED EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS and the final outcome completely validated her story. Then notice how Steve failed to reappear and apologize at worst or at least congratulate the author at best, for getting her rightfully deserved money back. Dennis is exactly right!

Edward,

If you would look a little closer, my rebuttals that are rude and condescending are ALWAYS as a result of an unprovoked attack against me.

I always try to help someone if possible, but lets face it. There are many people who are just too stupid to live and I don't beat around the bush.

If you think about it, that response may be more helpful than coddling someone who needs a foot in the a*s.

Like the NSF issue that started this thread. If people would learn how to use a register and balance an account, they would not have an NSF issue. Guaranteed. But, people want to be totally irresponsible and/or fail to read agreements they signed, then scream rip off!

No, I don't have patience or sympathy on these.

I don't tell people what they want to hear, i tell them the way it is.

You who are supporting Steve are missing the big picture. The question here isn't whether a BOA customer should have kept better track of her finances. The issue at hand is whether a self-admitted irresponsible deadbeat has the credibility to belittle someone for their lack of responsibility.

And for the record, Edward is 100% correct in his analysis of Steve's tone. He is snotty and condescending to people who are negatively affected by the policies of these banks. Perhaps that is why so may of us are firing at Steve with both barrels.

Steve, no one is buying your book or your logic. You are a hypocrite and a thief...and for you to lecture ANYONE on responsibility doesn't pass the laugh test.

You who are supporting Steve are missing the big picture. The question here isn't whether a BOA customer should have kept better track of her finances. The issue at hand is whether a self-admitted irresponsible deadbeat has the credibility to belittle someone for their lack of responsibility.

And for the record, Edward is 100% correct in his analysis of Steve's tone. He is snotty and condescending to people who are negatively affected by the policies of these banks. Perhaps that is why so may of us are firing at Steve with both barrels.

Steve, no one is buying your book or your logic. You are a hypocrite and a thief...and for you to lecture ANYONE on responsibility doesn't pass the laugh test.

You who are supporting Steve are missing the big picture. The question here isn't whether a BOA customer should have kept better track of her finances. The issue at hand is whether a self-admitted irresponsible deadbeat has the credibility to belittle someone for their lack of responsibility.

And for the record, Edward is 100% correct in his analysis of Steve's tone. He is snotty and condescending to people who are negatively affected by the policies of these banks. Perhaps that is why so may of us are firing at Steve with both barrels.

Steve, no one is buying your book or your logic. You are a hypocrite and a thief...and for you to lecture ANYONE on responsibility doesn't pass the laugh test.

You who are supporting Steve are missing the big picture. The question here isn't whether a BOA customer should have kept better track of her finances. The issue at hand is whether a self-admitted irresponsible deadbeat has the credibility to belittle someone for their lack of responsibility.

And for the record, Edward is 100% correct in his analysis of Steve's tone. He is snotty and condescending to people who are negatively affected by the policies of these banks. Perhaps that is why so may of us are firing at Steve with both barrels.

Steve, no one is buying your book or your logic. You are a hypocrite and a thief...and for you to lecture ANYONE on responsibility doesn't pass the laugh test.

Gentlemen,

My issues with Steve are fairly simple. First he is condescending towards anyone with a financial problem. Steve believes he is "always" right and there can never be another opinion, his and only his is the only opinion that counts. Read any of his posts and one can see that for themselves. We all know banks will take advantage of the customer if given the opportunity to do so. Many OP's have come back and reported that the bank gave them their money back after Steve has posted his favorite line "no rip off here". If there was no rip off why did the bank return the money? Steve never returns to that thread again.

Secondly Steve has branched out to become the final opinion on issues other than banks now. Again when OP's prove him wrong instead of apologizing or closing the thread he just never returns. There have been threads where I have stated that Steve was right, when he was. But he feels he has to always be right or he gets his feelings hurt and runs off. Nobody is right 100% of the time especially Steve.

Lastly the $170,000.00. Steve tells people how to handle their money, how to deal with their credit cards and manage their money. Yet people like Steve have cost us all a great deal of money. The merchants he stole from have to re-coup that money from someplace, us the consumers! He has been called a hypocrite many times over the last few weeks and I could not agree more.

Best regards,

Stile,

To address the last point in your post, many on the ROR don't simply post rebuttals against Steve simply because he gives advice they don't agree with. Many object to his condescending way of giving it. You and I have debated before and though I disagree with some of your positions, I appreciate your repsectful tone. There are many others like you who also give suggestions to ROR authors that indicate that the author themselves were at fault, not the bank.

That's what this site is for, meaningful suggestions. But no one is going to appreciate being talked down to and belittled. If you follow the pattern of posting for the usual contributors you can separate the kind ones from the not so kind ones. Remember the phrase it's not what you say, it's how you say it? That's Steve's problem. So when he bites first unprovoked and for no reason, of course the author and other contributors will bite back.

Heather,

First of all, you STILL need to learn how to read. I made it VERY clear in several prior posts that the credit card companies changed the rates without just cause, and not in accordance with ANY specific part of my contract due to any fault of mine.

AND, the money owed was already spent and on the account long before the rates were hiked up. This is my whole point. I did not spend any money after they raised the rates.

Can you comprehend this or is it too difficult for your little brain?

I was a good customer with perfect credit for more than 14 years. Not one late pay on anything, none of my accounts were maxed out or even close, and I never just paid the minimum, always at least 2-3 times the minimum and usually much more.

What they did, more than doubled my payments on each account, meaning due to their GREED, I would never be able to pay off these accounts. I would be living just to pay interest.

How much sense would that make? What they did was robbery. Can you not see this? have you not read about this same scenario countless times here on ROR and in other forums?

I gave them a choice. I told them to lower my rates back to where they were, or they would never see another payment. They laughed like I had no choice. Just like a loan shark thinking about intimidating you, etc.

Big business got taught a serious lesson, and I won. That is what really pisses you off because you work in a bank or collection agency, or both, obviously.

I'll send you a FREE copy of my book when it comes out. I'm sure you'll REALLY love that.

Get a life.


You wrote>>
"To answer your question, I would not sit back and say "thank you" if someone ripped me off. Your creditors didn't either. No one "ripped you off" - they violated collection laws. They weren't asking for money that you didn't spend and owe. They were asking for it in an illegal manner. And for that, I agree that they deserved to be punished. But in your case, banks could change the terms any time they want because by accepting credit from them, you accepted their terms and conditions which stated that they could do this. If the "little guy" doesn't read the terms and conditions, the "big guy" will try taking advantage like this.

****In your case, you failed to know everything there was to know about your creditors' conditions (or else none of this would have happened). Unless you DID know that they COULD change your rates and you spent the money anyway, refusing to pay when it actually happened. That would be called intent to defraud, Steve. You have to pick one. You either failed to find out what the terms of your credit were or you knew the whole time and spent the money anyway. Which one was it"?****
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"...so you can stop the name calling. How immature.

We called your ACTIONS selfish, immoral, irresponsible, etc. Not you as a person."

This may be so, but what I've seen in every thread where Steve has posted recently is "Don't bother to listen to Steve, he's a thief." This is classic ad hominem. Steve's reasoning may be right or wrong, but whether or not he's right or wrong has nothing to do with his own actions or opinions. What Steve has said is to keep a balanced checkbook. What is so controversial about that?

"Why is it that when someone challenges what you did, you resort to calling people "stupid, inbred, illiterate, gay, uneducated, morons, etc. etc. etc."? Why is it so hard for you to debate a point without attacking people with child-like name calling? You're obviously older than 40; you would think that you'd realize that people will not take you seriously when you resort to posting like this. Going forward, it would help your case to post with logic and valid arguments rather than playground speak."

I've seen him call his attackers stupid, I don't know about the rest, but I'm sure he's quite exasperated from 3 - 4 people following him to every thread and telling people to ignore him based on fallacious reasoning.

"To answer your question, I would not sit back and say "thank you" if someone ripped me off. Your creditors didn't either. No one "ripped you off" - they violated collection laws. They weren't asking for money that you didn't spend and owe. They were asking for it in an illegal manner. And for that, I agree that they deserved to be punished. But in your case, banks could change the terms any time they want because by accepting credit from them, you accepted their terms and conditions which stated that they could do this. If the "little guy" doesn't read the terms and conditions, the "big guy" will try taking advantage like this."

Well, I would argue that violating a collection law is a rip off, not that I would agree that it should completely excuse you from a debt. This being said, I did have a $1000 debt that became past due because of a medical situation from years ago. Recently, a collection agency attempted to collect the out of statute debt, and artificially inflated the amount. I sued and won and had the debt expunged.

"****In your case, you failed to know everything there was to know about your creditors' conditions (or else none of this would have happened). Unless you DID know that they COULD change your rates and you spent the money anyway, refusing to pay when it actually happened. That would be called intent to defraud, Steve. You have to pick one. You either failed to find out what the terms of your credit were or you knew the whole time and spent the money anyway. Which one was it?****"

From what I've read, he spent the money, was paying it back, and his creditors changed the terms of the account. He objected to the terms, and refused to pay under the new terms. If his decision was really this arbitrary (and not motivated by a hardship of some sort) then I would disagree with what he did, although it would still not be illegal. Moreover, his creditors would have had the option to file suit and obtain a judgment for the past due amount. Their failure to do so absolves him of any obligation to pay back the debt.


"You stole the money Steve. They alllowed you to spend that money under the pretense that you would pay it back. You did NOT pay it back, whether you had any intention to or not. You found a loophole in someone else's mistake. Just because you got away with it doesn't make it right. I could walk around a store with an item I intend to purchase, then at the last second, sneak away with it and never get caught. I could use the defense of "I had every intent to pay but THEY should have asked for the money before I walked out the door - and in a way that suits me." Even if they asked me for it illegally (like beating it out of me or something) and they got caught asking illegally, it doesn't mean that I get to keep the item for free because they beat me up. I am not defending the credit card companies; I am pointing out the wrong in what you did, and that seems hard for you to handle."

But morality doesn't enter into the equation here. Whether or not Steve's actions were moral has nothing to do with whether or not they were legal. Steve's actions were legal, and his creditors failed to enforce the terms of their agreement (arbitration or lawsuit). And Steve will almost certainly pay for it with a damaged credit rating. And again, even if Steve "did wrong" this wouldn't invalidate his advice.

"The other point you failed to address amongst calling us all "stupid" is:
-Why do you think so many people post rebuttals against what you say, and why do you feel that so many people disapprove of your advice and what you did? I would really like an answer to this question (that doesn't involve any personal attacks on my intellect, sexual orientation or relationships of my familiy)."

People post against his advice because this site is set up in such away that unless you immediately agree with the OP bleating "rip off rip off" then you're branded as a bank employee who is out to screw the customer. Steve's evasion of $170K in debt gives people a convenient (if specious) excuse to write him off and pretend that his advice isn't relevant, when indeed it may be.

When Steve of Florida posts comments to bank customers complaining about overdraft fees, 99% of the time his posts usually repeat the same themes - "You spent money you didn't have" and "Read your Terms and Conditions". Steve preaches over and over that these bank customers should grow up, act like adults and get used to it. What the banks are doing is legal, the courts have confirmed it, so everyone should stop whining about overdraft fees.

Stop the presses! On the other hand, Steve has admitted to walking away from large amounts of credit card debt. Why? Because he didn't agree with the fees the credit card companies were charging - even though THE FEES ARE LEGAL and most likely printed in HIS credit card Terms and Conditions. Yet he has the GAUL to preach a different tune to everyone else.

I second the motion to all of the prior comments from those who called out Steve and I question Elaine and any other Steve supporter to please explain the hypocrisy here. More power to Steve for fighting against the big bully credit card companies. But please explain the hypocritcal and condescending remarks to those fighting the same battle with the big bully banks and overdraft fees, like Ramona here.

...so you can stop the name calling. How immature.

We called your ACTIONS selfish, immoral, irresponsible, etc. Not you as a person.

Why is it that when someone challenges what you did, you resort to calling people "stupid, inbred, illiterate, gay, uneducated, morons, etc. etc. etc."? Why is it so hard for you to debate a point without attacking people with child-like name calling? You're obviously older than 40; you would think that you'd realize that people will not take you seriously when you resort to posting like this. Going forward, it would help your case to post with logic and valid arguments rather than playground speak.

To answer your question, I would not sit back and say "thank you" if someone ripped me off. Your creditors didn't either. No one "ripped you off" - they violated collection laws. They weren't asking for money that you didn't spend and owe. They were asking for it in an illegal manner. And for that, I agree that they deserved to be punished. But in your case, banks could change the terms any time they want because by accepting credit from them, you accepted their terms and conditions which stated that they could do this. If the "little guy" doesn't read the terms and conditions, the "big guy" will try taking advantage like this.

****In your case, you failed to know everything there was to know about your creditors' conditions (or else none of this would have happened). Unless you DID know that they COULD change your rates and you spent the money anyway, refusing to pay when it actually happened. That would be called intent to defraud, Steve. You have to pick one. You either failed to find out what the terms of your credit were or you knew the whole time and spent the money anyway. Which one was it?****

The ONLY reason that you didn't have to pay this money back is because the collection companies messed up in their attempts to collect the debt. NOT because you didn't owe it, and NOT because the banks did anything illegal in raising your interest rates. That's how they make their money, Steve, like it or not. Yes, they take advantage of people. Yes, they DO try to get one over on "the little guy". This is all common knowledge of the way credit card companies work. I don't know why you're acting so shocked and in awe that they would try to make money off of someone who used $170,000 worth of their money.

People like you DO affect our rates, and I think you know that, whether you choose to admit it on this site or not. You're right, credit card companies would still charge high interest rates even if no one stole from them. However, they charge HIGHER interest rates when people DO steal from them to make up for the lost $170 GRAND (or insert any amount here).

You stole the money Steve. They alllowed you to spend that money under the pretense that you would pay it back. You did NOT pay it back, whether you had any intention to or not. You found a loophole in someone else's mistake. Just because you got away with it doesn't make it right. I could walk around a store with an item I intend to purchase, then at the last second, sneak away with it and never get caught. I could use the defense of "I had every intent to pay but THEY should have asked for the money before I walked out the door - and in a way that suits me." Even if they asked me for it illegally (like beating it out of me or something) and they got caught asking illegally, it doesn't mean that I get to keep the item for free because they beat me up. I am not defending the credit card companies; I am pointing out the wrong in what you did, and that seems hard for you to handle.

The other point you failed to address amongst calling us all "stupid" is:
-Why do you think so many people post rebuttals against what you say, and why do you feel that so many people disapprove of your advice and what you did? I would really like an answer to this question (that doesn't involve any personal attacks on my intellect, sexual orientation or relationships of my familiy).

Thanks, and I look forward to your response.

I don't know how many times I'll have to say this, but too many of you just cannot read. I never engaged in any fraud against anyone. I never racked up debts without intention to pay. I made it very clear that I had both the ability and intention to pay. Is there something here that is hard to understand?

Where do you self righteous morons come up with this crap? These big companies engaged in an overt action against me and thousands of other customers. They just assumed they are the big almighty entity that the little guy cannot fight.

Well, in my case, they found out they were wrong, AND, they lost! Yes, the little guy won.

Tell me Heather, if someone rips you off, you just sit back and say thank you? Then you pay something you don't agree with? Why can banks change the terms anytime they like? Why can't we?
Are you blind or just stupid?


And, FYI..Nothing I did had any effect on your interest rates. If everyone paid every credit account, we would still pay the same interest rates. You are just too stupid to see the facts and understand how big business works. They will charge whatever the market will bear. They will charge what they determine they should make.

That is the whole point here! These credit card companies are ripping people off on a grand scale and YOU are defending THEM!

Erikson,

What I did had absolutely nothing to do with being irresponsible, but just the opposite! I took responsibility for defending myself against being ROBBED! How is that irresponsible? If more people would do what I did, we would be much better off.

You self righteous types are just too stupid to live, and shopuld get some education before jumping on others. I can guarantee you that there is nothing wrong with my morals, but I suggest you examine yours.

Elaine,

While what Steve does may be "legal", it is still immoral, selfish and irresponsible to rack up such an EXCESSIVE amount of debt and look for loopholes to get out of paying it back - which is essentially what he did (please admit this). There are lots of things people do that are "legal" but that doesn't make them "right". If you don't see my point, I think you may have a VERY different definition of "the right thing to do" than many, many other people.

Besides this, he literally has posted hundreds of of write-ups bragging about the amount of the debt he incurred and how he got away without paying it. This doesn't sit well with me and at least a few other ROR readers.

Please refer to the following: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff242274.htm

Call me bitter if you want to - I'm pissed off that it's people like Steve who make interest rates skyrocket for the rest of us (and gloat about it in the process). It's NOT fair and it's NOT right, and I think (or HOPE, rather) that you know that.

The issue here, Elaine, is Steve's credibility when he chooses to preach responsibility to others. Leave it to a kool-aid drinker to miss the point...

Anyone who rolls up enormous amounts of debt and walks away from HIS RESPONSIBILITY has NO business preaching responsibility to anyone. That is tantamount to Charles Manson lecturing the Son of Sam on value of human life.

Stop the whining and lose the rabbit ears, Elaine. And while you're at it, learn to read and copy correctly. My name is ERIKSON.

First, I do not work for any bank. Next, I've been monitoring ROR for approximately a year now and have found some of the reports to be of great assistance. A great many of them are ridiculous and written by people who apparently didn't make it far in school or life to realize when they were being scammed. But I've been following Steve from Florida's posts and he's absolutely correct. If you would do ANY research instead of just slamming Steve, you would find that the laws Steve cites about validating debts is true and accurate according to the Fair Debt Collection Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Go google these laws and their follow up amendments. Learn about them. Steve had EVERY right to request validation of each and every one of the debts he claimed he 'walked away' from. If the creditors had any valid claim to his money/assets, they would have gone after him - in accordance with the laws. But no, they failed to meet their end of the bargain.

So why should you be so intent on besmirching his name here...not that Steve could care one iota what you think. But you passed yourself off as a gossip-monger and that nothing Steve said has any merit. You're wrong. Look up the laws and leave personalities out of it. Steve has only offered supporting advice to those who've been victims of scam artists and scumbag collection agencies who - although they SAY they abide by the laws - routinely flaunt violations and don't care because ignorant people are paying them out of fear, not because they truly owe any debts. If everyone who was harassed by a collection agency actually followed the law and disputed the alleged debt, the collection agencies would either get their acts together or go out of business for lack of revenue.

Do some research and leave personalities out of your posts. That's all for now.

Ramona,

I definitely feel your frustration and anger. The same thing happened to me. The BofA rep told me the same thing about my Visa card and the overdraft link but the funds failed to get transferred because the link was not made, as I was told.

Upon calling BofA back, all of my fees were refunded, but I understand this is simply a luck of the draw depending on what kind of rep you get. There's no question your complaint is valid.

But I'm afraid you have a tough fight on your hands recouping all fees unless you kept detailed names and notes of your conversations. Because the Bandits will pull their usual routine and say that your recollection of what was said is faulty and you never indicated you wanted to have the Visa card linked to Checking for overdraft protection. But I would continue to fight it, if I were you.

Ramona,

All we can do is when we find one of Steve's [Not a Lawyer] idiotic condescending rambling posts showing a total lack of any education is expose him. Steve is a liar, fraud and a thief, many have known it for a long time but Steve through his own stupidity has verified what hundreds have suspected for awhile.

Now he is bragging and instructing others how to rip off their creditors and banks which of course will lead to higher interest rates for them as well as the rest of us. Retailers have to add an extra margin for shop lifting. Credit card companies and banks have to add extra basis points to help cover their loses due to the likes of Steve [Not a Lawyer]. Thank you very much Steve for hurting the innocent with your thieving corrupt ways.

As I read posts on the ROR I can't help but observe more and more people have had it with the little thieving troll and are asking him to shut up and stay out of their posts. For the most part he is being asked to shut up and leave but Steve may just be to ignorant to see it. When cornered about his lies and thieving ways he bites back like a rabid dog calling people names. He can call me and others all the foul names he wants, bottom line Steve is the liar and thief not us.

Whenever Steve tells someone how to manage their money all we can do is point the unsuspecting innocents back to Steve's own posts where he admits to being a crook and a thief and stealing $170,000 from his creditors that trusted him. Steve may or may not be able to balance his check register but he has displayed a total inability to manage money or show compassion to those that have been taken advantage of by the financial institutions.

Best Regards,

Ramona,

All we can do is when we find one of Steve's [Not a Lawyer] idiotic condescending rambling posts showing a total lack of any education is expose him. Steve is a liar, fraud and a thief, many have known it for a long time but Steve through his own stupidity has verified what hundreds have suspected for awhile.

Now he is bragging and instructing others how to rip off their creditors and banks which of course will lead to higher interest rates for them as well as the rest of us. Retailers have to add an extra margin for shop lifting. Credit card companies and banks have to add extra basis points to help cover their loses due to the likes of Steve [Not a Lawyer]. Thank you very much Steve for hurting the innocent with your thieving corrupt ways.

As I read posts on the ROR I can't help but observe more and more people have had it with the little thieving troll and are asking him to shut up and stay out of their posts. For the most part he is being asked to shut up and leave but Steve may just be to ignorant to see it. When cornered about his lies and thieving ways he bites back like a rabid dog calling people names. He can call me and others all the foul names he wants, bottom line Steve is the liar and thief not us.

Whenever Steve tells someone how to manage their money all we can do is point the unsuspecting innocents back to Steve's own posts where he admits to being a crook and a thief and stealing $170,000 from his creditors that trusted him. Steve may or may not be able to balance his check register but he has displayed a total inability to manage money or show compassion to those that have been taken advantage of by the financial institutions.

Best Regards,

It was supposed to be set up so money would be advanced from the credit card to cover overdrafts. Thus, no more overdrafts as long as there is available credit on the VISA. There is a fee for this (which will be added to the credit card balance, not the checking account balance) but it is much less than the overdraft fee. The bank messed up and should refund those fees without question.

Note that because of the fees and higher APR, this is an expensive way to borrow money compared to just charging a purchase on the VISA in the first place.

For now, you should immediately call the number on the VISA card and tell them to advance money into your checking account to cover the pending items. Unless the only reason it is overdrafted is because of fees which you expect to be refunded.

In keeping with his other postings regarding personal responsibility, don't forget to run up $170,000 in credit card debt...then walk away from it.

For more information regarding Steve and the validity of his reasoning, please see the Discover Card posting thread at: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff242274.htm

Most of all, Ramona, PLEASE do not feel bad as a result of anything that he posts against you here. The man is a fraud and the living definition of a hypocrite.

Ramona,

FIRST, you need to kepp an accurate checkbook register, and only spend money when it is posted and available in your account. Period.

Those methods of overdarft protection DO NOT eliminate fees, they just keep transactions from being declined and/or checks from bouncing. That's it.

Keep an accurate register and spend ONLY what you have AVAILABLE in your account, and you will never pay an NSF fee, guaranteed.

You need to READ and UNDERSTAND your funds availability disclosure in your account terms and conditions. Yes, people actually do need to read this stuff!

This is not just BofA, this is any bank! The responsibility is YOURS!