Wachovia Bank, NA Charged overdraft although my balance was positive Internet

Dr. Girlfriend, you're not as well versed in Wachovia's procedures as you think. Here's the flaw in your educated logic:

"...In order to receive $140 in overdraft fees, that means you had FOUR (4) signature-based credit transactions on your hold screen (each one is a $35 fee)."

Wrong. The fees you see were not for any holds because fees get charged only after transactions have posted. Here is the WELL DOCUMENTED SCAM used by Wachovia.

After Kelly's Available Balance reached $1.44, let's assume Kelly made one more transaction which was still ON HOLD on the 19th. This final and single transaction has overdrawn the Available Balance. This is not shown in the screen shot, as you mentioned.

The scam is for Wachovia to FIRST deduct HOLDS from the Posted Balance, BEFORE they proceed with posting the nightly transactions. After deducting the HOLD amount, most of the posting transactions STILL CLEAR the balance. But the final FOUR transactions, for the amounts of $7.71, $6.82, $4.47, and $4.28, do not clear this "revised balance" (Posted Minus Holds).

This is how you arrive at FOUR FEES, even though ONE transaction overdrew the account, and that ONE transaction is still ON HOLD. Furthermore, let's say this final transaction is CANCELLED and never even posts. Well, that's the other beauty of this scam. The damage has already been done with the four fees for OTHER transactions that never overdrew anything.

You need to recognize Girlfriend!

You left out a piece of the puzzle in order to play people to your side. In your cropped screen-capture, it only shows your ledger for that day. However, when you log into the Wachovia online-banking website, once you click on the appropriate account, it shows not only your ledger, but a "posted balance", an "actual balance", as well as a link to "view holds" as well. All three of these things play an important role in the occurrence of overdraft fees.

There are quite a few points for me to go over in order for you to fully understand the reason you overdraft, so bear with me.

CREDIT vs. DEBIT

Using your bank card as a:

- credit (signature based) transaction: There are some advantages to processing a purchase as a credit-transaction. 1.) It gives you that added fraud protection
through VISA or Mastercard (no liability) 2.) Depending on your card, you may earn reward points. HOWEVER -- there are drawbacks to this type of transaction (and this is important) -- please note that a purchase made using a signature-based CREDIT transaction using your bank card can take up to 5 DAYS TO HARD-POST TO YOUR ACCOUNT. When you give your debit-card# to a merchant (for example, a gym membership or a payment for gas & electric over the phone to pay a bill) they can only put it through as a "credit" based transaction because they have no way to verify your identity without having you input your pin-number. Also, take note, just because you don't sign your name doesn't mean it was not processed as a credit-transaction. Many stores now do not require a signature under $25 in order to expedite the process. What I have just told you about credit will play the biggest role in accumulating overdraft fees.

- debit (4 digit PIN # based) transaction: Advantages of using a pin-based transaction to complete a sale: 1.) It comes out of your account IMMEDIATELY (that means it HARD-POSTS right away)!! 2.) You can get cash-back with this type of transaction.

POSTED BALANCE vs. AVAILABLE BALANCE.
(example Posted Balance: $70.92** Actual Balance: $34.02)

- posted balance: Your posted balance includes only what has "hard-posted" to the account. This means that any recent purchases made using a signature-based credit transaction or something paid over the phone with your bank card HAVE NOT HARD-POSTED YET UNLESS THEY APPEAR ON YOUR LEDGER. Your posted balance may say $70.92, but yesterday you went to the mall and and purchased movie tickets for $21.00 and $15.90 for some sweet earrings at your local Emo-store using a credit based transaction. Your POSTED BALANCE does not reflect that because it has not hard-posted yet, so you keep thinking you still have $70.92, but in actuality you have the "actual balance" (see below).

- available balance: This is what you SHOULD be looking at before you go spending money. Your actual balance INCLUDES purchases that were recently made using signature-based credit transactions. Your credit transactions put a "hold" on your account to make sure the $ is put aside for those transactions. So you have to take $70.92-$21.00 (movies)-$15.90(earrings)=$34.02 your ACTUAL balance.  If you had paid for those transactions with a pin-based debit transaction your posted balance and your available balance would have been the same.

Wachovia's online-banking website has a REALLY cool feature that many other banks DO NOT HAVE. Next to your posted and available balance to the right, you can actually VIEW HOLDS. Click on the words and it will take you to a screen that lists all the signature-based credit transactions you have recently made (name and amount) that have already taken money out of your AVAILABLE BALANCE, but have not HARD POSTED YET (posted balance). If you recently made a deposit but there may be a hold on it for ANY reason -- it will also show this here.

Now, the reason all of the above things I mentioned are important is this: you only showed the ledger portion in your image which shows overdraft fees literally appearing out of thin air. You did not receive those fees for nothing, contrary to popular belief. You received those fees because you spent more than what you actually had. In order to receive $140 in overdraft fees, that means you had FOUR (4) signature-based credit transactions on your hold screen (each one is a $35 fee). That means the money was already put on hold (taken out) of your ACTUAL balance but not your POSTED balance (which you failed to include in the image; the only thing that could have given you ANY leverage on this argument). The overdraft fees will show up (and subsequently ADD up on the same line in your online-banking) as you continue to make purchases in excess of your "available balance" for EACH DAY. In actuality, you are not only short the $140 in overdraft fees, but the overdraft fees PLUS all of the purchases because they have not shown up on the "posted balance ledger" in your picture.

The balance you see on the ledger in the image you posted is your POSTED balance, not the ACTUAL balance, so you can NEVER go by that balance. ALWAYS use the

AVAILABLE balance as your frame of reference when making purchases because that includes recent purchases you've made. Please note: if you have scheduled recurring transfers of any kind, you MUST factor that in yourself using a CHECKBOOK REGISTER (and a pen) because they will never be reflected in your online banking hold screen. They will just come out and then, again, you will be overdraft because you forgot those things are due to come out.

Unfortunately, many overdraft fees come from people not completely understanding the things I mentioned above, but Wachovia gives you all the tools you need in order to keep your accounts in good-standing. Ontop of that, you have the responsibility of keeping track of your own money and educating yourself as to how the banking world works. This situation was not a scam. He just simply over-spent. Fortunately, with the new law passed, you CANNOT OVERDRAFT with a bank-card unless you opt-in to overdraft. If you have set-up overdraft protection previously, you are automatically opted-in. THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF OVERDRAFT FEES YOU CAN ACCRUE IF YOU OPT-IN TO OVERDRAFT. You can call or write to your bank at any time to change your opt-in or out of overdrafs.

In the case of Wachovia -- if you have overdraft protection and your $ rolls over from another account to cover the overdraft, you WILL BE CHARGED A $10 FEE FOR EACH ITEM THE MONEY HAS TO COVER (basically, a fee to move the money).

I hope this was helpful in educating you on how overdrafts occur. However, it's a moot point now that the law has been passed. 

I banked with Walk-Over-YA for 3 years. When I got married my now ex-husband had a car loan through them too. We decided to open a joint checking account.......BAD IDEA!!!!! I kept my 3 year old account open, we used the joint account, until he bounced it 400.00 in the hole.........they closed the account. What does Wachovia do? They empty my personal account and overdraw it in the process......since this happened in 2003, I have never and will never use this bank again.

And to any student like me applying for financial aid......Wachovia used ACS for student loans......as far as I have read the IBR (income based repayment) is supposed to last 12 months per re qualification. I was an idiot and got a loan through this bank and just qualified for IBR for my loan........I just got the IBR in May......it's now August.....I get a letter stating I have 60 days to re-qualify for IBR????? Because of the letter I got today (which was dated 8/11......2 weeks ago!) I plan to move my loan to a different bank.........mainly because I just re-enrolled in school and I really really really hate WALK-OVER-YA!

The IBR thing just pissed me off cuz I've been having problems since the beginning of the year with them on this loan........I was even sent to NCO financial (whom called me on a cell phone and I threatened to sue them if they ever called me again) which I got pulled. The statement I got was for 12 months how in the hell can I pay it 2 months later with no job as a FT student? Do these people even think (rhetorical......don't answer that!)

The issue I had was caused by a shady merchant. The transaction should not have gone though if it was to overdraft the account as I told Wachovia I wanted to opt out. The register made no difference. What did was my persistence, and that was the only way I got the fees reversed, it was not easy. I don't know about where you live, but here in Los Angeles I had a rental car place charge 300 dollars to  my debit card 28 days early, a restaurant place a 50 dollar hold without my knowledge or consent for a week, and a gas station held 75 dollars overnight, also without my knowledge or consent. None of this could possibly show on my register since I was not aware of the holds, and these are some examples of how overdraft fees can occur regardless of a register. And the confusion and manipulations of the banks online statement makes it more difficult to figure out, as often the bank employees can not even figure it out, refuse to figure it out, or take days or weeks to figure it out.

Why it is legal for any merchant to hold funds without consent is beyond me, but until that is illegal, the banks can continue to profit from it. However the new laws regarding OD coverage will help in all cases where the customer is wise enough to remain opted out. Transaction DECLINED, no fees, no ripoff, no merchant hold without consent can overdraft the account, period.

To answer your question directly which I have been doing on this site for almost 2 years now...

 "exactly how is your advice going to help the people avoid OD fees? But if they follow the advice of the "bank defenders" they can keep their money and use it on what they want, not give it to the bank.

"

Because the bank defenders advice is redundant. If someone does not know that if they don't overdraft they won't get a fee, then they are beyond any advice. This whole issue is not about preventing a fee for overdrafting nor telling the banks they can not charge fees for overdrafting, it is about ending the unnessecary tactics of auto enroll into OD coverage, and the related transaction manipulation scams which when ended will really help most customer to avoid the excessive unjust fees.

But if the customers learn how this scam works, they are apt to be more careful, and now that all banks must allow it, to opt out of OD protection to at least prevent where MOST of these fees were occurring..small everyday point of sale, and ATM withdrawals. See how simple the answer is?

Now most of you can stop reading here..but if interested here is another analogy that may clear things up. It is hard to use analogies in these cases since NO other business can get away with this, and no other business has complete unfettered access to our savings, checking and direct deposit..but here goes..


Lets say you put a quarter in a parking meter. The meter tells you it gives you 15 minutes. So, you look at your watch to make sure to be back in 15 minutes. You assume without reading a contract, that if the meter expires..you get a ticket.

Now lets say your watch is slow or you forgot to check it and you didn't get back in time. You would expect a ticket..fair enough.

But what if the meter was set up to jump around time so you actually get more then one ticket? Yes, a SINGLE parking ticket for the SINGLE offense would not be complaint worthy...even if it was the fault of the watch..but certainly someone would complain that the meter was altering time to cause additional fines even though the coin was inserted at the time of parking..this is similar to re-sequencing transactions.

Now hypothetically what if there was a service called "overtime protection" where if the meter expired, the city automatically put another quarter in the meter for you at 35 dollars a pop..but it would also increase the fines since the time altering scam is causing fines to be applied even though the coin was put in the meter to prevent the ticket in the first place. Would any person really want that kind of "overtime protection" if they had the choice? Of course not. Now a bank defender would say "get a better watch so you never go over time in the first place"..but since we know nothing in life really works 100% and unforeseen events happen, the better advice would be to warn others and expose what the city is doing with the meters, and that something must be done to make this ripoff illegal so it can no longer happen again in the first place.

In other words, it is REASONABLE and FAIR to expect a parking ticket if you run out of time..it would be UNREASONABLE and UNFAIR if the meter was altering time, and the city was extending you a line of credit without giving you a choice at an interest rate many times higher then the cost of putting money in the meter..and at thousands of percent interest rates, regardless if this was in a contract somewhere the city gave you that is allowed to "change at will".

Like the banks can not come up with a valid reason they are re-sequencing small DEBIT card transactions, or why they were automatically enrolling every single customer into OD coverage without due disclosure or choice, other then to cause excessive fees to customer who need to use a bank, if the city had no just reason for manipulating the meter times or automatically enrolling everyone in overtime protection when it should be a choice for no other reason then to rip off people who need to park, this analogy has some merit.

umm--the processing orders do matter--most of you bank defenders give the example of this--if you have 100$ and spend 100 you will not be overdrafted--this is true---but most people don't just have a 100 dollars and spend it---in the middle there are deposits----so if you mke a deposit---it seems to be held until you spend more pushing you in overdraft---how many times have i got paid direct deposit--saw the money in the account the next day--spent a couple dollars here and there using my atm--the next day i look online and magically--my deposit was pushed back and the money i spent was pushed before the deposit reflecting overdrfat as i would have 5$ at the end of the week---i am sorry i live check to check and i enjoy a 3$ gatorade and 5$ pollo tropical meal after a depsoit is made---if i had a cushion of say 100$ left over every week--i wouldn't worry about overdraft would i????---and that is what you bank defenders do not understand--it never happened to you mostly for this reason as you have a cushion----basically---i now spend a lot less and i never use my atm--i have learned to avoid overdraft----and i can now look online and my balance actually reflects my records cause i do not always have things pending by using the atm---i have a total of roughly 7 transactions per month--inactivity allows you to know what is going on on the banks side-----i think these overdraft fees can contribute to less consumer spending based on my example---in the end they are screwing themselves and everyone else--but they don't give a f**k--they are making millions and are set for life--which is why i don't understand why the business news reports a ceo got fired like awww it is to bad for them and there career is ruined--for them it is a reward--now they are rich and never have to work again

I agree with you Edgeman that we are all focusing on the same objective, which is eliminating fees.  But there are several differences.  For one, "the language is different", as you stated. It's going to be kind of hard to get someone to listen, much less consider your advice, when you use condescending and insulting language, as a lot of "bank defenders" do. I don't place you in that category because you're always very tactful.

Even the Wachovia employee, Striderq is always tactful in his advice as well. My only issue with Striderq is him persistently trying to fool everyone into thinking this Unavailable Funds Fee is really no big deal and "all banks are doing it". After many came to understand how it works, most, including some "bank defenders" admitted how devious, tricky and sneaky this fee is. And that brings me to my simple question.

So Edgeman, help us all out here. Looking at the real running ledger screen shot in the original post, what would be your advice to Kelly about why they were charged four fees?

Please Edgeman. Help explain this ripoff here.

Edward...

"There's no need for myself and others to give advice about how to avoid OD fees, in a generic sense. All of these customers already know how to do that".

Given the reports that I have read over the last two years. I question that.

"What others and myself are doing are (1) first explaining or further clarifying just HOW they were ripped off and (2) how to avoid being ripped off with these UNJUST fees in the future."

While the language is different, that's exactly what those of us you have previously referred to as "bank defenders" are doing. We explain how the fees were assessed and how to avoid those fees in the future. If one feels that overdraft fees due to reprocessing of transactions are unjust, he or she should not open an account at a bank or credit union that reprocesses transactions. We also point out that so long as one doesn't overdraft his or her account, the processing order doesn't matter. It seems that we are on the same side- don't pay overdraft fees to the banks.

If a customer is complaining about their Electric company ripping them off by tripling their bill by purposely using an incorrect higher rate, this customer doesn't need advice from me about how to save on their electric bill with energy saving tips. That's not their complaint.

If a customer is complaining about their cell phone company ripping them off by tripling their bill by wrongly reporting the amount of minutes the customer used, when the customer used far less, this customer doesn't need advice from me about how to cut their cell phone bill in half with family share plans and other alternatives. That's not their complaint.

If a customer is complaining about getting ripped off off by their local gas station using very subtle price gouging at the pump, this customer doesn't need fuel efficiency and gas mileage tips from me, like checking their tire pressure and using STP gas treatment. That's not their complaint.

There's no need for myself and others to give advice about how to avoid OD fees, in a generic sense. All of these customers already know how to do that. What others and myself are doing are (1) first explaining or further clarifying just HOW they were ripped off and (2) how to avoid being ripped off with these UNJUST fees in the future. These customers are not trying to duck and dodge ALL fees. They accept the fees directly related to those transactions that OVERDRAW their account, in a one-to-one relationship.

What they don't accept, and what many of them are confused by are mystery fees for other transactions that NEVER overdrew anything. But thanks to TRICK ACCOUNTING, and slight of hand, the additional fees magically appear. You've got to fight through all of the mazes and winding roads to uncover just what the bank is doing with these Unavailable Funds Fees (refer back to the screen shot in the OP).

That's the ripoff here and that's the advice that I give. But apparently I don't have to give this advice as much anymore since Wells Fargo trashed this Ripoff Here.

the only one who made you a victem is yourself. If you (or anyone) has an available balance of $100.00 and they spend $100.00  less in any number of transactions they will not get an OD fe. But if the account owner doesn't keep an accuate register and they overspend their account thenthey are causing the fees themselves. The sad thing is that people don't seem to learn how to avoid these fees even though a lot of posters tell them how. They like you just listen to the people that reinforce their idea that the evil bank ripped them off. I'll ask you again as I have several times and I've also asked Edward an never received any answer from either of you: exactly how is your advice going to help the people avoid OD fees? But if they follow the advice of the "bank defenders" they can keep their money and use it on what they want, not give it to the bank.

GoodManBadSerf is obviously articulate, reasonable, and able to state his point with integrity, just has Edward and I have been doing for some time now, Edward substantially longer then myself.. I found this site because I was VICTIM to Wachovia policies which caused financial burden by absolutely 100% no fault of my own, and regardless of the accuracy of my register, which I keep with due diligence, and encourage others too as well.. Yet I was taunted, belittled and basically accused of being a fraud.

I am also quite often accused of advocating irresponsibility regarding checking account customers, yet when I request anyone to post any evidence that I have done so, there has yet to be any evidence presented.

The problem is, the "bank defenders", or so called "advocates of responsibility" can not be swayed by logic, reason, ethics, morals, or fact.

The bottom line to the bank defenders, is "if you never overdraft, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a fee".

The way I see it..if there is any way possible a SINGLE banking customer can incur a fee where a register would not have prevented that fee, then something needs to change, or at least be investigated.

Fortunately, the problem is being dealt with. The unfortunate thing is however on this site, those that have devoted their lives and free time to defending the banks and blaming the victims, will not admit the banks have done anything wrong.

So in leaving any factual and helpful TRUTH on this site, you may have a chance of exposing the truth to some, but don't expect any bank defender to be swayed by logic, reasoning, or fairness..as those attributes do not exist in their mindset. It is on par with kicking a dead horse.

  I'm just stunned, as I've scanned the internet looking for similar overcharge complaints, at how many comments I've encountered whereby the customer is blamed for the overcharge fees. Usually something akin to: "You should have been more responsible/try to keep better records next time/you should have put money aside for this".

 The common denominator with all these arguments of course, aside from lacking entirely in appreciation for life's nuances and the finances attached to them, is that they don't at all address the ethics, or lack thereof, involved in overage charges to begin with. (Or at the very least it is shrugged off with a statement of "they're just trying to make money like everyone else").

 So you're telling me the bank's account database is unreliable, and therefore I should keep better records for myself? Than why should these databases exist in the first place? Is it so abhorrent that we, the one's who provide for the bank's very existence, place our trust in a system that they themselves are telling us to put our trust in? Telling us that it is an accurate representation?

 After all, when you call to inquire, is it your written records they ask for? No, of course not. They themselves are only ever going to abide by their own database, and to hell with whatever you, the villainous and untrustworthy consumer have written. To me it simply strikes me as the one instance in which you can provoke a bank employee into admitting bank error, and of course this admittance is only ventured because they happen to be using it as an excuse to rob you.

 That's right, I said "rob you". Because if it were a simple matter of consumer protection and not sheer profit-motive induced thievery, you would only ever be charged the difference, and then your account put on hold until the difference were payed, so as to not continue incurring charges. Or better yet, simply denied the sale at it's inception. I'd much rather face a bit of embarrassment than be charged a $35 cup of coffee. Then another $60 for a $35 overage charge. And wherever the hell it dominoes from there.

 And now the biggest question of all for those of you who absolutely must blame the victim: why the charge to begin with? Does it reflect expenses incurred on the bank itself? Well, obviously not, otherwise it would be the difference represented. Does it represent labor? No, it's almost entirely automated. The most that is being applied is a push of a few buttons. I suppose they would rather have you believe that there is physical money being extracted from a vault somewhere and rushed post haste and with great vigor to close the gap. Super Wachovia to the rescue!...?

 In other words, no they're not just "making money like anyone else would". The vast majority of us only receive payment for services rendered (and hopefully that's all most of us would want to receive). And beyond that, If I lend you five dollars, I'm not then going to return looking for thirty five. (If I'm anywhere near as affluent as the executives running these institutions, I'm likely not gong to mention it to begin with). Let's face it, if they were making money like the rest of us, they would have been faulted for their many past transgressions, and be bankrupt many times over.

 The fact of the matter is that over charge fees alone are a multibillion dollar a year industry unto themselves, (24 billion inn 2008 alone) and the fees themselves have risen over 35% in the last three (Consumer Affairs). Americans now pay more in overdraft fees every year than they do for books, cereal, or fresh vegetables! And the vast majority of these charges incurred were small, and could easily have been denied at point of sale!

 And none of this even addresses the fact that many of these overage charges are due to unethical withholding, charging, and stacking of deposits and purchases on the bank's part, and do not reflect in any way any lack of responsibility on the part of the consumer. If the account they're using does not reflect your own records, and yet their accounts are admittedly unreliable and shouldn't be trusted, then why have either?!? Why not just throw away your paperwork, turn off your computer, avoid the tellers, throw up your hands and let them wreak havoc on your money? Honestly, the results would not be much different, though I think most would agree that they would love nothing more.

 And for those who will suggest that I'm just another disgruntled compulsive spender with no foresight or accounting sense: if I were making a case for irresponsibility, why would I propose denying purchase at the point of sale? Why would I be opining for banks to make overdraft coverage optional, rather than default? Hell, I'd even be in favor of a small fee if the difference were not payed after a certain period. Heck, you could even make it twice the difference! All I want is a system that accurately reflects the severity (or in-severity) of the situation, not a blatant racket. And is it too much to ask that people show a little solidarity for their fellow man, rather than assist these fat cats (whom we've already bailed out of many of their own misadventures) in the propagation of victimology?  

I understand what you are explaining about the NSF fee. The thing is..there is nothing that can protect you from this fee if it was an auto pay..as that goes into the check/ACH category.

The purpose of opting out of overdraft protection, and the laws going into effect that will now force all banks to fully disclose, only applies to debit card transactions. The FDIC report determined that most of the fees occurred due to small debit card point of sale transactions and ATM withdrawals.

Now an auto pay is similar to a check transaction and in all fairness to the bank, they can and will charge an NSF fee is your account can not cover it. There is really no way around that.

Now IF the auto pay was a mistake, fraudulent, untimely or unauthorized you will be able to (as was always the case) lodge a dispute against the merchant. If the charge is legitimate, the customer is responsible to make sure the account can cover it.

Has I have stated before, a major benefit of "opting out" of OD protection, is if this was your fault due to human error at least you are still  protected if the account is depleted (funds TRULY unavailable regardless of what your register OR the banks statement tells you) and you did not know. The debit card will be declined at a point of sale or ATM, hence avoiding an overdraft fee..and any bank manipulations that can cause excessive fees, even for transactions that did have the funds at the time of the actual transaction.

The whole sham is actually so simple, it seems complicated to some. It is simple, and it is done with malice and intent against loyal banking customers who make a human error, or if a merchant did something unorthodox. It is not a reason to be careless and not keep a register, but an unavoidable byproduct of opting out is that it also protects those that are careless as well as those that were truly victims.

This actual ledger snapshot is what many posters like myself have been unsuccessfully trying to explain to many others forever, going back years on this site.

But it's a moot point now. Wells Fargo does not practice this ripoff, just like 99% of all other banks don't either.  Wachovia was in that very small 1% of banks who felt this ripoff was legtimate.  And look where it got them.

Striderq, the employee here has never disputed what Wachovia was doing, and it was actually Striderq who opened my eyes, ironically. Even so, numberous other bank defenders consistently questioned my examples.

I guess now their next defense will be the screen shots are photoshopped.

you said in your rebuttal that banks now cannot charge OD fees and if the money is your account is "truly unavailable" and you try to purchase something it will be declined--this is true--but you are forgetting 1 minor thing---now--they will charge you a NSF fee and not pay the charge---the NSF fee is 30$--this happenbed to me at my wachovia account---i had 10$ and had an automatic charge coming for 12$--i tried to stop the charge but could not cause it is an automatic thing--anyway--the bank didn't approve the charge and they charged me 30$ nsf fee which brought my account balance to -20$---some banks(sun trust) this happened to me but with overdraft--cause they charged me an overdraft or 2 or 3(you can never get 1 overdraft it seems-it is always followed by many OD fees)--so they charge these fees putting you in negative--then charged me a fee for being in negative

Actually you, like all others posting here, are posting your opinion not the TRUTH. The truth in this case is the person spent more than they had available in their account and caused themselves fees. The truth is that the best, most reliable and only way to avoid these fees is to keep an accurate register. The truth is that customers that don't keep registers are not being ripped off, they are choosing to give their oney to the bank. And per my first statement, these truths are my opinion but more closely hold to the reality of what the OP stated and the way the banks work.

and, this is how these THIEVES have been fleecing their honest long term loyal customers. I was with Wachovia since they were First Union...then Wachovia...then Wells Fargo. And they pulled the same thing on me..after I was a customer for over 15 years. So...guess what?,..... I am no longer a Wachovia customer. And it does not matter really since Wachovia is pretty much being absorbed, and it will soon only be Wells Fargo. Wachovia is soon to be nothing but a bad memory for so many. Dust in the wind.

Of course the best line of defense is to never overdraft..but those who keep a low balance and live paycheck to paycheck, are most vulnerable to bank tactics and excessive fees in the event of an overdraft/human error/bank error/merchant error or fraud..whether intentional, inadvertent, or due to an unknown or unauthorized charge or "hold"...and/or, a check that did not clear in a reasonable length of time.

I am not going to say Chase Bank has not had their share of issues..and they are also defendants in a current class action lawsuit for using such tactics and non disclosure..but here are Chase banks current policies...

You are given a comprehensive contract that you must check and sign whether or not you wish to be enrolled in overdraft protection. Unlike Wachovia and many other banks, you will no longer be automatically enrolled in OD protection with the DEBIT card unless you sign up for it. The good news is that there is a Federal Law going into effect August of this year that requires EVERY bank and financial institution to follow suit, so expect a letter and or email.

Now if you CHOOSE to opt out of OD protection, ANY transaction conducted with the DEBIT card at a point of sale or ATM, will be DECLINED if the funds in the account are TRULY unavailable..hence ENDING any manipulation, shenanigans or policies that would allow the bank to cover it, and charge fees accordingly. It also protects the account holder from excessive fees due to unknown merchant holds, fraud, and excessive check clearing times.

If you CHOOSE to opt into overdraft protection or "coverage", with Chases current policies, you will not be fleeced into the poor house. Because Chase does not manipulate, or otherwise re-sequence the times and orders of debit card transactions,,,they actually POST the transactions in the order they occur..imagine that?...their statement might actually coincide with your register..UNLESS there is fraud, or unknown/unauthorized charges or holds. Seems fair to me. And if the result is that in the long run we have to pay for checking, although it has been totally 100% free since I have been with them, it is well worth it for the peace of mind and true "protection". I am a firm believer in a service charged for a service rendered, as long as it is disclosed with integrity.

It is the banks customers hard earned money the banks have been STEALING..and they WILL pay for their evil ways, mark my words.

Those that do not like the TRUTH I have posted, are not obligated or requested to comment or rebut. Those that wish to debate or rebut, kindly stick to the topic at hand. Thank you in advance.

The reason you were charged 4 ovrdraft fees on the 19th is that you had an amount of $17.02 or more on debit card hold. Since the holds are subtracted from your posted balance leaving an avilable balance, when your hold(s) were subtracted from the transaction that left $17.01 your available balance went into the negative. The same thing happened on the next 3 items that posted. Whewn the items on hold posted they took your balance farther into the negative and each was accessed an overdraft fee as well. I'm sorry to hear this happenedto you but most banks are using this method so please be careful and keep an accurate register. It'll help you keep your money for your spending and not gibe it to the bank in fees.

After filing a BBB report, they gave back $105 but after a domino affect the next day with an additional $140 NSF fees due to their screw up the day before (we didn't have the money to cover the 1st round of NSF fees.) Something that is screwed up is that they originally said that a pending authorization is what gave us the 1st round of NSF fees but the 2nd day when that pending authorization went through they gave us another NSF fee for the same transaction that caused the 1st round of NSF fees! $240 in NSF fees for 1 transaction of $20! (or $135 after 'refund'.) Needless to say, we are closing our Wachovia account. After 5 years of no problems, this is how we were treated!