FIFTH THIRD BANK re-sequencing electronic debits Augusta, Georgia

and spread it all over the worldwide web!

Thank you.

35 banks are charged with re-sequencing and have been involved in a huge class action lawsuit for doing so. The lawsuit not only caused changes in the banking industry such as no more auto enrolling in overdraft protection, but the banks one by one are starting to settle.

In November Bank Of America settled for $410,000,000 and their customers who were unjustly charged any debit card fees due to re-sequencing will get back close to half which is better then nothing.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/07/2491584/federal-judge-oks-bank-of-americas.html

Union bank settled at $35,000,000

A few days ago JP Morgan settled at $110,000,000.

The rest of the D-bags will follow suit so some of you will be getting a check soon. But more important is that they can no longer pull the shenanigans and overdraft fees will have to be legitimate.

I do not know what others banks have this policy, but Chase bank has a policy that is consumer friendly. Granted they charge a small fee per month for "free" checking if you do not keep a specified minimum balance, if you choose to enroll in overdraft protection and overdraft, as long as you make a deposit to cover it before the end of the business day, there will not be a fee. Oh, and they do not re-sequence or time manipulate transactions. Transactions are posted in the order they occur...imagine the logic in that?

I still prefer not to sign up for it since unauthorized, unknown amount holds that can occur at the gas pump, hotels, restaurants, rent a car places etc can cause pending charges against your account that will not be on your register, it is a good policy.

Granted the intent of the policy is to ENCOURAGE customers to sign up for overdraft protection. I wonder why they would do that? Oh I have some ideas why.

Wait until it happens to you. 

Fifth Third did agree to change the practice, and if you do not believe me you can read 10) a) in the settlement agreement:

Debits from Fifth Third Debit Card Transactions will not be charged to a customer's Fifth Third Account from highest amount to lowest amount; rather, the debits from Fifth Third Debit Card Transactions will be posted in chronological order

PNC didn't change any of their business practices.  All they really did was settle a lawsuit related to disclosure.  The bank fixed the disclosure, handed the award to their insurance company, and PNC paid the deductible on their E&O insurance policy, so they didn't even pay the $9.5M themselves.  It doesn't really matter what you think; it's actions that matter - and all that matters is that the bank still resequences transactions in dollar order.  Why?  Because the bank won't necessarily receive them in chronological order, depending on when the merchant transmits the original transaction.  In addition to process failure by the merchant, th merchant can also duplicate process the transaction, also destroying the chronological process, and putting an unnecessary hold on your transaction.  If you've ever eaten at a restaurant...it happens all the time.  That again isn't the bank's fault. 

Attorneys in other lawsuits against the banks all settled for the same general lack of disclosure, and the banks still resequence transactions.  Why didn't the attorneys try to go after the banks for resequencing??  Because the attorneys all agreed in every lawsuit that the bank is allowed to sequence transactions in any order they wish, for the reasons already stated, and more.  The law doesn't prohibit resequencing, and no one in any authority believes it to be illegal or a ripoff.  If they did, the laws would have been changed in 2009 to reflect that.

Even when the transactions clear pending status isn't up to the bank - that is up to the merchant.  All the bank does is do the accounting for your account - that's all they do.

At the end of the day, the consumer who suffers from cascading overdrafts on a debit card violates the most basic rule of debit card usage taught by consumer advocates:  if your balance drops below $100, leave the debit card at home, and stick to cash.  If you don't have the cash, don't spend the funds.  Even if you pull out more money than is in your account, OR draft a check that clears when you don't have enough in the account, it's one overdraft.  As others already said, the law was changed effective in 2009 that all new accounts opt OUT of overdraft protection; you have to ask for overdraft now.  If you opened your account prior to that, you have to go into your bank and have it changed.  It won't necessarily stop overdrafts, but it will stop the cascading of overdrafts.

This is not a debate as to whether its a rip off or illegal.  There is nothing to debate.  It is not a rip off now or then, and nobody in any lawmaking capacity believes it to be a ripoff.

There is a reason Fifth Third had to settle a class action lawsuit and change their business practice...

Hint: It was because their practices were shady.

...you seem to have taken the cake with this thread.

You are arguing as all wayward irresponsible liberals argue...about what you feel should be.

Here's your problem...what I am the Law and others have explicated to you represents REALITY.

Your little diatribe about posting order changes NOTHING about the inescapable FACT that ANYONE getting hit with debit card overdraft fees ASKED FOR THE FEES...both by virtue of asking to be opted into the service (which is now required...no more auto enrollment for debit card overdraft protection) and spending more money than is available in the account.

It also doesn't change the fact that basic second-grade addition and subtraction skills, combined with a little ADULT record keeping and responsibility, could avoid the fees altogether.

But no, like all liberals, you believe that ANYONE but the deadbeat overdraft is responsible for his/her deadbeat ways. It's the bank's fault...it's Bush's fault...it's my dog's fault.

Sheesh, GROW UP and start placing the blame with the deadbeat for a change. You'll find that golden brick road to adulthood that has thus far eluded you and your deadbeat ilk.

I am so sick and tired of the posters on this site who don't accept responsibility for their own accounts. If you have $20.00 in the bank DON'T spent $30.00 then get angry at the bank. YOU overdrew your own account. Did you leave another bank? Please, do me a favor and leave this one too. Freaking morons. I don't know or care how other banks do business so don't try to tell me about how you left whatever other bank for what ever reason. They were probably just as happy that you were taking your constantly overdrawn account from their bank as I will be when you leave this one.

FIFTH TURD POEM 3

Who's on second
What's on third
Something's stinky
It's Fifth Turd!
Oh my goodness
Spread the word
Songs and poems
It's Fifth Turd!
Poem's over
Eyesight's blurred
Pull your money
From Fifth Third!

End.

***MOB ALERT: Anyone can type in 646259 at this site to see if "MOB SONG 9" is available in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #646259. Don't forget to read Ripoff Report #646259, and spread it all over the web at sites like Twitter & Facebook!

Thank You

POWE TO THE PEOPLE

No, Mr. Consumer, I didn't run out of "straw man" arguments. I just ran out of patience trying to show you the truth. Some people (you) just can't admit to being wrong. It almost physically pains them.

It's kind of like trying to explain to an Al-qaeda terrorist how killing innocent people is wrong. You try and try, and deep down, they know they're wrong, it's just that they don't want their whole belief system shaken up like that. They'd have to rethink their entire being and purpose in life.

That's you in the nutshell. Like I said, it makes no difference to me if you want to have a skewed perspective on banks. Personally, I think it's hilarious when people think that their bank is "out to get them". I was just trying to help you. Oh well.... 

and "FIFTH TURD POEM 2" are both available in the consumer comments section at this Ripoff Report.

Thank You

***CREDIT CARD ALERT: Don't forget to type in 271454 at this site and read Betty's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a credit card in the USA.

It sure seems like once we examine and exclude the straw man arguments, the only thing you are left with is ad hominems...

You can simply take your business to another establishment like myself and many others that were ripped off by Fifth Third.

Another form of recourse when a business rips you off is a legal suit... one example would be the legal suit in this instance...

If you guys really want to stick it to the banks, let's make it mandatory for customers to submit to basic intelligence/logic tests when they first open an account and then on an annual basis from there. It'd be sort of like a license for having a bank account.

Just think about it. These tests would weed out all of the idiots who can't perform simple math or read basic account instructions, thus severely reducing (or possibly eliminating) banks' OD fee income. What do you say, overdrafters? You on board with this?

FIFTH TURD POEM 2

Who's that banker
Another nerd
Something's stinky
It's Fifth Turd
Tell aunt Mary
Spread the word
Get your money
From Fifth Third
Poem's over
Poop from bird
Fell on banker
At Fifth Third.

End.

***NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE ALERT: Don't forget to type in 481508 at this site and read St. Clair's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a mortgage in the USA.

Um, Mr. Consumer, the fictional example I used in my last post didn't contain any debit card transactions, it was four paper checks.

Don't worry; like I said, I'm done arguing with you.

Yes, I understand that... But I also understand and accept CHECK transactions being sequenced from high to low can provide a benefit... That has been repeated multiple times, and you continually go back to sequencing checks in high to low order to justify sequencing DEBIT transactions in high to lower order... I have explained how DEBIT transactions already affect the available balance before the sequencing is applied, illustrating why the same benefit does not exist when sequencing debits in the way Fifth Third was.

That is why checks being sequenced in high to low is irrelevant to this type of sequencing change, even if it as a standalone practice can yield a benefit to the customer... Checks were already sequenced in that manner, and the implemented changes were how the DEBIT transactions were sequenced... When the available balance is already modified by a debit transaction, re-sequencing the transaction will not grant a benefit - because the possibility of subsequent transactions going through is not increased.

Do you see why check sequencing is irrelevant?  Do you see why sequencing checks providing a benefit is a straw man when speaking about the sequencing changes implemented in this specific situation?  

It all goes back to the base point - the implementation of this type of sequencing was not put in place to benefit the customer, it was a calculated effort at assessing more overdraft fees.  While that in itself is a ripoff, if all customers are informed of this process then it is not unfair to the point of legal consequence.... but that was not the case, and Fifth Third was not completely transparent and proactive about notifying existing customers of their sequencing changes - which lead to a situation where unexpected multiple fees were being assessed. 

The reaction was a class action lawsuit, that Fifth Third settled - agreeing to pay back a portion of the fees attributed to re-sequencing debits in this manner, change their sequencing process, and train their customer service representatives on handling overdraft complaints.

is available in the consumer comments section at this Ripoff Report.

Thank You

***NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE ALERT: Don't forget to stay at this site and type in all of the following and read the Ripoff Reports for valuable information if you have a mortgage in the USA-

MERRILL LYNCH
GMAC
BANK OF AMERICA
CHASE
LITTON LOAN
PHH MORTGAGE
ONE WEST BANK
INDYMAC
HAMP
MODIFICATION
MORTGAGE

Um, Mr. Consumer, the fictional example I used in my last post didn't contain any debit card transactions, it was four paper checks.

Don't worry; like I said, I'm done arguing with you.

Imagine it more simply, where the end of the day sorting is done in chronological order, instead of the high to low type of sorting that was previously employed....

While sorted high to low merging check, debit, and credit transactions:
CHECK - $50
10/16/2011 at 6PM - $40
CHECK - $25
10/16/2011 at 5PM - $19
10/14/2011 at 7PM - $5

If sorting debits/credit transactions in chronological order, then checks high to low:
10/14/2011 at 7PM - $5
10/16/2011 at 5PM - $19
10/16/2011 at 6PM - $40
CHECK - $50
CHECK - $25

Do you see how the debit transactions posted in chronological order?  Even if a purchase made on 10/16 does not post until the next business day, the next business day you can still sort in chronological order... It isn't strict chronological order, which is why I think you exclude the possibility of chronological ordering... because an earlier days purchase can still post the next business day... but the SORTING is done in chronological order, leading to a situation where the banks sequencing most closely resembles a customers register, and debits sequencing is not manipulated to assess more fees.

Even when taking into account offline card purchases, that process like checks... the date and time is stamped on every transaction - posting in chronological order can be as simple as sorting each days transactions in chronological order, as opposed to re-sequencing from high to low.  For that matter, even posting debits in chronological order only sorting in the order they are presented to the bank for payment (the way Fifth Third agreed in the settlement to do in the future) will result in an order that more closely resembles a customer's register, and lead to less fee manipulation than the previous system.  Any form of chronological order, even if transaction that are presented later post on a previous day, daily sorting can be done in chronological order - and as a system leads to less overall fees, and does not negate any service provided by sorting those same transactions in high to low.

You've been talking about the order of posting without considering the nature of the transaction, which is far more important to consider.  Keep in mind, an electronic debit is nothing more than an electronic version of a check.  The difference is this:  in an electronic debit, there is no float.  That's really the major difference between the 2.  (I still like float personally, and Warren Buffett got rich investing insurance float.  Not quite the same thing, but hey...I like float).



So you then ask, why can't my debits clear in chronologic order?  I'll ask you, do the checks in a checkbook clear in numeric or chronologic order?  Not usually.  Mine don't, and I suspect few people who even still write checks (like me) expect the checks to clear in numeric and therefore chronologic order.  Therefore the whole chronologic order argument falls on its face.



At the end of the day, a system that cleared everything in chronologic order would have 2 impossible requirements to hurdle:  (a) the merchant would have to approve the transaction immediately, which really can't happen because (1) the merchant may not know the final amount of the debit at the time the card is slid in the POS machine (like a restaurant, a gas station, etc...), and (2) the consumer essentially forfeits all rights for recourse in case a purchase is dissatisfactory for whatever reason.  I won't even get into the ID theft/fraud transactions portion of the argument, but there is that to consider.  In addition, (b) the system would have to be online, REALTIME system which would circumvent current laws because it would require banks to be open 24/7/365 to tend to issues (and there would be issues), and since regulatory requirements forbid banks to keep such hours, it becomes more than simply problematic to implement REALTIME systems.



At the end of the day, the consumer can indeed minimize the exposure to OD charges with all of the safeguards available, such as choosing to opt out of overdraft, keep the register, put away the card when the balance dips below $100, etc...  Or you can be like me - a bit primitive with the paper drafts, and credit cards.

When you run your card as a debit transaction, entering your pin, your available balance is reduced within minutes.

Any subsequent check or debit transaction going through is based on your available balance - NOT your account balance.

Example:
You have $100 in your account. You write a check for $90, and make a $15 true debit transaction.
Even though the true debit transaction will not take days, lets pretend the merchant does not get their money for three days, and the check only takes two days to process.

THE CHECK WOULD STILL BOUNCE!
Why?  Because the available balance on the day of the debit transaction is adjusted to $85!  Any subsequent transaction greater than the available balance will not go through.

This is why sequencing a finalized transaction that has already affected the available balance does not serve a benefit to the customer... it does not increase the chance of subsequent checks clearing, and all debit transactions are accepted and will clear.

Once a purchase has adjusted the available balance, the only realistic difference this type of change being put in place imposes is assessing more fees.

Sequencing checks providing a benefit in some situations does not mean sequencing the finalization of debit transactions serves a benefit.... that is what you have went back to over and over when talking about sequencing, but it evades the entire point - the ripoff, the sequencing change we are talking about, and the class action lawsuit... You are attempting to justify a sequencing change with a different type of sequencing that was already in place....

I predict you will yet again avoid talking about the rip off at hand, and will resort to ad hominemand straw man arguments.

Mr. Consumer, you have no idea how debit cards work, do you? 

When the card is swiped, the A V A I L A B L E  balance is adjusted immediately, but the A C C O U N T balance doesn't change until the merchant collects the money with a proof of purchase!!!! THE MONEY DOES NOT LEAVE YOUR ACCOUNT UNTIL THAT TIME. PERIOD! END OF STORY. OVERDRAFTS ARE NOT CAUSED BY PENDING ITEMS; ONLY WHEN MONEY LEAVES THE ACCOUNT. My God man, look at the documentation I've provided!

*sigh* You know what? I quit.... you've worn me out. Happy?

No matter how much PROOF I show you (alot) or how many people back me up (alot), you're just going to live in your little fantasy world, aren't you? Like most Americans nowadays, you just can't accept the truth or take responsibility for your own life. Well, that's fine. That doesn't effect me. I do admire your dedication to the illusion. You must play alot of Dungeons and Dragons. 

My last piece of advice to you is, if you're going to make these kind of outrageous claims about companies and people, keep it anonymous. I mean, if you talk like this in public, you're going to get hauled away to a mental institution or something. Then your mom would only have her welfare check coming in every month. What would she do? 

Good luck getting sober and please, for the sake of humanity, don't breed. 

You still believe those transactions, that were even ran as credit - not debit, did not adjust your available balance when your account reflected the changes on 10/06??

Your words:
Notice that all of those purchases were made the same day, but subtracted from the account on different days?

Seriously?  You think those were not subtracted from your available balance?  You believe the sequence in which Arbys gets money transferred to their account can create a situation where you a check that would otherwise bounce would go through?  Seriously?

Please, by all means, explain how a check that would bounce if the Arbys transaction was sequenced on top would magically not bounce if the Arbys transaction is sequenced last.  It is obvious how the type of sequencing put in place can cause a situation where more overdrafts are assessed, but it is NOT POSSIBLE that this type of sequencing grants a benefit to the customer.

You posted transactions you made running your card as CREDIT... you did not run your card as DEBIT.  Even then, as you show with your own example, the bank took into account the transfer, and put the money aside - adjusting your available balance.  I have explained multiple times how once your available balance is adjusted - sequencing DEBIT purchases the way fifth third did in this instance will never make those subsequent checks go through if they would otherwise bounce.

I have NOT claimed re-sequencing CHECKS can never provide a benefit, I CLEARLY stated that checks are a totally different situation... the type of sequencing that was in place BEFORE this sequencing change we talk about.

Re-sequencing checks in a timely manner can in some situations lead to the larger checks

you know, those debit transactions were talking about, not checks?

Changing the sequence to post checks and debits together, and re-sequencing from high to low debit transactions in no way shape or form serves the customer.

 Only CHECKS being sequenced in this manner provides a benefit to the customer, because outstanding checks that would overdraw an account can be BOUNCED.

Yes, every bank I have ever used sequences CHECKS, but a giant bold red and yellow flashing line exists between what we are talking about and sequencing checks, even though you attempt to muddy the water and equate them to both providing a service

Even checks, while I agree in many situations being processed in a high to low manner can be beneficial - is not always..

At what point after reading all of those posts did you lead yourself to believe that I was saying that CHECK resequencing could not provide a benefit?  ON THE CONTRARY - my claim is that the change enacted that created the situation in which fifth third was unfairly assessing overdrafts sequencing DEBIT transactions in a way that does not provide a benefit.  You have continued to claim that you showed how it can, but YOU HAVE NOT.  Where is your magical unicorn example where this type of sequencing can be beneficial to the customer?

You continue to use the tired argument that since sequencing checks, which was already done and was not disputed, can lead to a beneficial situation, sequencing DEBIT transaction to unfairly assess overdrafts is justified... You fail to understand, or refuse to acknowledge, that this type of sequencing DOES NOT provide a benefit to the customer - it can only lead to a situation where more overdraft fees are created.

You attempt to make the argument "sequencing can be beneficial", when that was never even the argument... I claimed early on that sequencing CHECKS can be beneficial in some cases.  Again, once more... one more time... that is not the heart of the issue, or why fifth third got sued... they did not begin sequencing checks, they ALREADY sequenced checks and changed the way that they sequenced DEBIT transactions, and that change does NOT benefit customers.

See the title of this report?  Have you read the class action suit in which fifth third settled?  It has NOTHING to do with the sequence of checks, it has to do with the sequence of DEBIT transactions. 

You act like I am the one linking together different concepts, all the while claiming prior check sequencing is relevant to this debit sequencing change...

Please, by all means, explain how sequencing of DEBIT transactions serves the customer... You have avoided this time and again, claiming that CHECKS have something to do with it...

Mr. Consumer,

Are you schizophrenic or what? You're trying to link together three or four completely different concepts in a pathetic attempt to save face after being humiliated by me. You forget your pill this morning or something? Let me break these arguments down individually. 

Argument 1: You said that resequencing transactions never, ever provides customers with any benefit whatsoever. 

Rebuttal: Bullcrap. I don't know how many times I need to show you this. Look at this example. I'll keep it easy for you; four paper checks in numerical order all presented on the same day.

    Check 1: Mortgage - $500 (presented last)
    Check 2: Car payment - $150 (presented third)
    Check 3: Insurance - $100 (presented second)
    Check 4: Grocery store check - $50 (presented first)

    Balance $400

    As it stands now with resequencing, the checks would come out in numerical order. You'd overdraw on the first check, but the bank would probably cover the mortgage since it would only overdraw you a small amount. They'd most likely turn away everything else. End result: 1 OD fee for the mortgage, 3 NSF fees for everything else.

    In chronological order (like that's possible, but I'll play along), the grocery store, insurance, and car payment check would go through fine, but they'd probably turn away the mortgage check since it would overdraw you a significant amount. End result, one NSF fee for the mortgage check. However, you're now living on the street since you didn't make your house payment.

    There's your PROOF about resequencing being a benefit. If this is too difficult of a concept for you to grasp, ask a toddler to come into the room and explain it to you. I've said numerous times that resequencing can possibly cause more fees. I agree with you that maybe this policy was driven by greed as well. But still, if you can't see the benefit to it in my example, well, it's your Constitutional right to be a moron.

Argument 2: You said all debit card transactions (PIN-based or not) post to your account the next business day. 

Rebuttal: This look familiar? It should. I copied it directly from one of your prior posts. 
"It is an electronic debit, which generally POSTS TO THE ACCOUNT WITHIN 24 HOURS.  You can make a purchase at say McDonalds, and SEE it through online banking the next day... IT IS NOT A CHECK - it DOES not take days."

    Well, Bright Boy, I posted documentation from my own account showing you how wrong you are. Good Lord, man, how many times do I have to show you this before you get it in that thick skull of yours that you've lost this argument? Oh, I know it burns being humiliated like that. Don't worry. You can create a new persona on ROR and start fresh again if you want to.

Argument 3: You say banks have to capability to take debits in chronological order.

Rebuttal: AGAIN, please refer to my account information that I posted previously. Notice that all of those purchases were made the same day, but subtracted from the account on different days? That's because the merchants presented their proofs of purchase on different days. Why can't you understand this? As for things like checks and non-card transactions, those are still mostly processed by hand. I don't care what the courts say. You act like the courts always are informed or make sensible decisions. Well, they don't. That's a fact of life. Other people on this site are backing me up, so that should tell you that YOU are the one with the flawed logic.

Well, I'm sure you'll post some more nonsense soon....  Looking forward to it.....

read Ripoff Report #565370, okay?

Have a nice day.

***POLITICIAN ALERT: Don't forget to stay at this site and type in all of the following and read the Ripoff Reports for important information-

POLITICIAN
OBAMA
BUSH
CHENEY
CLINTON
REAGAN
US GOVERNMENT

You ran your card as credit instead of a debit transaction, and your authorizations still affected your AVAILABLE balance on your account before the merchant got their money?

Those 10/06 authorizations affected your available balance, right?

Stick with me here...

BEFORE THOSE ITEMS "CLEARED", your available balance was reduced, RIGHT?!

That available balance is what is used by your bank to decide if that mortgage payment BOUNCES... the SEQUENCING of those charges as they "CLEAR" as you call it is not what affects your AVAILABLE BALANCE... your AVAILABLE BALANCE was reduced on 10/06, like you show in your top image, correct?  IE: Your bank knew on 10/06 that you made those purchases, and set that amount of money aside until they actually transfer the money to Target and Arbys.  The money is tracked under your account, but the point that they consider you overdrawn is your AVAILABLE BALANCE, and does not include the money PUT ASIDE for the pending transaction.

So you see, even if your mortgage payment was on 10/07 (DAYS before Arbys gets their money) your mortgage check would bounce if it is greater than your AVAILABLE BALANCE - because your AVAILABLE BALANCE already reflects those charges.

Now, wrap your head around this logic... take it even a step further... in an actual debit transaction, where you enter your PIN at the point of sale, the signature is ELECTRONIC.... Your PIN itself is your signature, and the entire process is treated like a DEBIT transaction, instead of a CREDIT card transaction that deducts from your account.  Never, ever, ever, does the type of DEBIT re-sequencing that was put in place in by fifth third yield a service to the customer...

IT CANNOT MAKE YOUR MORTGAGE PAYMENT GO THROUGH BEFORE DEBIT TRANSACTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY REDUCED YOUR AVAILABLE BALANCE....

It lists non-pin on your imagine...

Does that mean you did not run your card as DEBIT, like predicted?

When you run your card as a DEBIT TRANSACTION, your available balance is modified at that point in time.

Did you run your card as a DEBIT, or a credit?

Why do we see nothing but authorizations?  Where is your available vs current balance?

Mr. Consumer,

Finally the day has come!

I believe that you said that all debit card purchases clear the next day. Well, I promised you proof that you were wrong and it's attached to this report.

Let's go over it, shall we? The top box shows all of my debit card purchases as of 10/6/11. All of these purchases were done between 10 AM and noon that day. The bottom box shows debit card purchases as of 10/11/11. I actually made some other purchases that day so you didn't think I posted the same screenshot twice. 

Underneath the bottom box, you'll see the transactions actually CLEARING the account. Granted, most of them did clear on the next business day (10/7/11), but it looks like Arby's didn't clear until 10/11/11. You'll also notice that the target.com purchase was STILL pending on 10/11/11. You are wrong. I am right. Period. I'd say that this makes you officially stomped, destroyed, annihilated, and humiliated. 

I've asked you to prove your outrageous claims multiple times and you haven't lifted a finger. Unlike you, if I make a claim, I can back it up. 

read Ripoff Report #411913 about the $120 Billion in 'secret life insurance policies' that many of the banks in the USA have taken out on their current and former employees.

Thank You

***BANK CD ALERT: Don't forget to type in 453956 at this site and read Jim's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have money invested in a CD at any of the banks in the USA.

I agree that when they are up front about their practice, and consumers accept, then no problem exists.

It is when they are not upfront about their practice, they change the system without adequate notification to existing customers that did not accept the practice, or when agreement language does not explain the process that courts look upon agreements as unfair.

If the banks that put this type of system in place conducted business in a fair manner, it would have been legally defensible... but in instances like this one, banks have lost cases and been forced to settle for a reason.

I have explained how debit transactions modify the available balance, correct?  I have explained how the available balance is what is used to calculate subsequent transactions being approved or denied, correct?  I have explained that if the available balance already takes into account a debit transaction, that sequencing the debit transaction with checks and other electronic transfers does NOT increase the chance of said subsequent transfer going through...

Sequencing debit transactions with other transfers does NOT increase the possibility that your mortgage payment will go through... it does not create a situation where your cable bill would get paid before your mortgage payment... debit transactions were already naturally first, because sequencing those later down the line serves no purpose other than to create more fees.

You seem to grasp that more fees are calculated, what you fail to grasp is that debit transactions effect your available balance at the time of the transaction... you can then treat your account as if the available balance is how much money you have in your account - because that is the magic number that dictates if a subsequent transaction will be approved.

If your available balance is less than your mortgage payment and your cable bill, ONE of those will bounce.  How they ALREADY sequenced those payments, the largest check would go first... and on down the line of checks in sequence... THEN your automatic electronic transactions...  In that hypothetical situation, in both instances your mortgage gets paid first... the ONLY difference is the amount of fees applied.

Mr. Consumer,

I don't know if you're not reading my previous posts, not understanding them, or if you're just being juvenile, but I said that I agreed that resequencing transactions can lead to more fees. I might even go so far as to agree with you when you said that the reason banks did this was to maximize fees. (Although that's 100% irrelevant if you maintain your balance.) However, after the numerous examples I've provided to you, you are STILL saying that there will NEVER, EVER be a time when resequencing transactions would benefit the customer? STILL? Are you THAT stubborn? ONE ... MORE ... TIME... Anyone on the street with an IQ bigger than their shoe size would want larger transactions taken care of first because they're typically more important. I swear that God himself could come down from Heaven and tell you this and you'd still fuss about it. Now, answer one question for me.... it's a yes or no question; no banter, conspiracy theories, historical banking stories or whatever......

Question: If you didn't have enough money in your account, would you personally REALLY want the bank to possibly consider your mortgage payment AFTER your cable TV payment? Check one of these boxes, please...

[] YES
[] NO

I await your response. And speaking of waiting, I've completed my debit card purchase project and I plan on posting that on here within the next day or so. I'm sure you're looking forward to that.  

I agree to a certain extent with the so-called bank defenders. If the bank tells you that they're going to fee the h**l out of you if you do something, then you intentionally do it, you really can't blame the bank. This is why poor people are poor; because they always make excuses for what happens to them instead of taking control of their own lives.

was submitted at this website on October 11, 2011.

Just stay at this site and type in- BANK OF AMERICA, to see if it is available in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #506506.

Thank You

***MORTGAGE ALERT: Don't forget to type in 481508 at this site and read St. Clair's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a mortgage in the USA.

Right, because a change that in no way serves the consumer, but generates millions of dollars in fee revenue, obviously could not have been thought out... they must have just changed the system randomly, to see what would happen, right?

I find it very hard to swallow that the administrators of the banks that enacted this type of policy did not do so with the motivation of making profit... that is the sole purpose of a business... They knew what they were doing... they are not idiots... The only real difference between these specific types of changes and every other service is that the sole purpose is to generate fees, and the consumer gains no mutual benefit in the transaction.

Pointing that out does not equate to forming a conspiracy theory... we are not talking about grassy knolls here...

Jim,

Thank you for injecting some more common sense into this conversation. It's nice to know that there's someone else out there that actually advocates thinking about things instead of going right to conspiracy theories.

is available at this website!

Just type in 449235 at this site and it appears in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #449235.

Thank You

***BANK CD ALERT: Don't forget to type in 453956 at this site and read Jim's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have money invested in a CD at any of the banks in the USA, and spread it all over the web at sites like Twitter & Facebook!

But you miss a few things... First, posting checks and debit card transactions together was not the original industry standard policy.  It was common place for banks to post debit transactions, THEN checks etc.  Check transactions have been resequenced for as long as I remember, but they were not sequenced with debit transactions - the debits always cleared first, naturally.  Without overdraft protection, this was neither a service or a burden on the consumer - because since every debit was guaranteed to go through (the available balance was higher than the amount when charged, and money was "put aside" at that time) - it could never lead to an overdraft, and the sequence did not matter.

You point out the changes in overdrafts, and as far as I know you are 100% correct about every issue - except for opting OUT of overdraft protection.  As mentioned earlier in this article, to apply overdraft protection to debit card transactions, consumers now have to specifically OPT IN, signing a separate document granting the bank their authority.

The specific difference in THIS situation, is the way in which fees are sequenced, and how overdrafts are assessed.  Fifth Third (and others) made a sequencing scheme that allowed them to charge overdraft fees on those approved debit transactions that already affected the available balance.  Overdraft protection being applied to all accounts was part of it... but the unfair sequencing and calculation that does not benefit the customer - and serves solely to create fees - was the crux of this class action suit.

The reason dates back to before debit cards; when multiple checks would post to a customer's account, the bank wasn't certain what check to post first.  There was no question - the consumer and customer wanted the most important charge to post first.  This was interpreted as the largest because the largest checks were indeed (a) mortgage/rent, (b) car payment, etc... and therefore most important.  In those days, the bank would NOT pay on any check once the account was overdrafted, so the question the bank posed was important.  You didn't want a rent check bouncing because of a purchase at Montogomery Wards, or Sears, etc...  I still remember small merchants putting up pictures of deadbeat customers on their walls, as if they made the 10 most wanted at the Post Office, and the merchants were serious; their bad debt expenses were approaching 8%-10% of revenues.

Fast forward several years...and we now have debit cards.  The same policies were implemented for the very same reason, except customers (and merchants) didn't like the idea of the card shutting off when the account would reach zero.  At the same time, there were instances when the card would shutoff for either no reason, or for incorrect reasons.  Accordingly, and at the request of consumer rights groups back then, banks expanded their overdraft protection to cover any and all transactions you the consumer would incur.  This speeded the process for merchants and consumers.

However, this has had what can best be described as unintended consequences.  Banks have made a lot of money off the consumers the rights groups specifically intended to help, and now with the system we have, there is no real way to change it.  So now banks have provided customers with the ability of having the card shut off when the account overdrafts.  Now, it won't necessarily stop the cascading from happening (because of paper drafts, EFT wires, etc... that generally post after debit cards in the batching process), but it does slow the process down.  I no longer consult for a bank any longer, so I don't know the specific stats, but my contacts tell me very few people are taking advantage of opting out of overdraft protection, and more importantly, I am finding articles written by consumer advocates advising others NOT to opt out - though many of the reasons they state so are combined with taking other necessary steps like (a) using a register correctly, (b) stop using a debit card when your balance drops below $100, and (c) determine if the purchase is a need or a want.

At every step of the way, the bank worked with consumers to get a system that served the consumer, the merchant, and the bank, and the truth is...the system serves that consumer and more!!  Today, consumers have even more choices in order to avoid the problems of overdrafting.  There are electronic check registers that eliminate the 1st grade level math errors people make.  You can apply for secured credit cards if your credit is in the toilet.  If after all of the choices available, you still REALLY don't like how this whole thing works, you can do a couple of things:

1.  Opt out of overdraft and have the card shut off when you overdraft

2.  Don't use a debit card (I don't) and stick to paper drafts (I still do)

3.  Use a credit card and pay the balance off each month

If people were truly educated on all aspects of money and spending, and the importance of a register, banks would not make money off of consumers through overdrafts, because people would never overdraft.  If you never overdraft, you never cede control of your money.  If you do overdraft, you are at the mercy of the bank, and there is nothing you can do at that point.

FIFTH TURD POEM

Oh my goodness
Have you heard
There's a bank
It's called Fifth Turd
Golly-jeepers
Spread the word
Something's stinky
It's Fifth Turd
Poem's over
How absurd
To keep your money
In Fifth Turd.

End.

Anyone can 'Google' this- TURD, and read the definitions available on the web. Here are two definitions-
1. A lump of excrement.
2. A person regarded as obnoxious or contemptible.

Thank You

***MORTGAGE ALERT: Don't forget to type in the following at this site and read the Ripoff Reports for valuable information if you have a mortgage in the USA-

MERRILL LYNCH
LITTON LOAN
GMAC
INDYMAC
COUNTRYWIDE
PHH MORTGAGE
ONE WEST BANK
HAMP
BANK OF AMERICA
WELLS FARGO
CHASE
MODIFICATION
MORTGAGE

I predict you will run your card as credit, show the date that it posts, and then scream "OMGZ LOOK IT TOOK DAYS!"

What I predict you will also evade is providing any benefit to re-sequencing already pending DEBIT transactions.

Go run your card as a debit card, entering your pin.  Once approved, your available balance will change... that available balance is the magic number they use to decide if a check, or debit transaction without the presence of overdraft protection - will be accepted after that transaction.

And that is what you overlook - the fact that the merchant getting their money is not the factor that banks use to calculate if you have the available funds to cover a subsequent transaction....

When they base approval on your available balance, re-sequencing the finalized transaction that transfers the money to the other party is never a benefit or service to the customer...

Even checks, while I agree in many situations being processed in a high to low manner can be beneficial - is not always... here is another quote from the judge in the wells fargo case:

The supposed net benefit of high-to-low resequencing is utterly speculative, Its bone-crushing multiplication of additional overdraft penalties, however, is categorically assured.

Not all banks settled...

If you would like to read a court judgement that ruled against the banks when it comes to this practice, take a look at the Wells Fargo case - they fought it and lost.

About the practice, the judge wrote - The banks dominant, indeed sole, motive was to maximize the number of overdrafts and squeeze as much as possible

The finalized transaction is when the money is actually transferred to the account of who you paid...  when your available balance is reduced by that "pending transaction" - a check can still overdraft you BEFORE that "finalization".

In no way, shape, or form does re-sequencing debits from high to low provide a service to the customer...  the ONLY change that was enacted is the amount of potential fees charged.

Again, not every bank in the country re-sequences debit fees in this manner... Many of those banks that get sued, or people complain about now - did not do this when debit cards were invented... It is NOT an inherent part of the technology...

Please explain this magical unicorn of a situation in which a service is granted to the customer by re-sequencing debit transactions in this manner... I have asked multiple times, and you still cannot yield a single one.

I have been following this conversation for the last few days but too busy to respond until now.  It seems Mr. Consumer, that you are completely unaware of the process involved in the electronic debit card process.  Since I was there when the system was created, let me relieve you of your fantasies.

Fallacy one:  Banks should post my charges in chronological order:

Reality 1:  They do, but not in the chronology you think........

Reality 2:  Banks have no control over when items post to your account....

For starters, whenever you see a pending transaction on your account, it really means nothing except that you used your debit card and there is an approximate value in which you used the debit card.  The bank's computer systems receive information from the merchant's and batch them at end of day.  The batching is done in numerical order, not date.  Why?  Because the pending transaction isn't considered a complete and valid transaction until the merchant confirms the transaction.  It is also the reason why a bank will NEVER be able to provide you an accurate balance on any hand-held device...explanation forthcoming.  Transactions are considered complete when the bank receives information from the merchant; that information is then considered complete because you and the merchant agree that (a) you spent funds, and (b) the merchant agreed to accept those funds for the item/service.

The merchant then has about 24 hours to as long as 72 hours to confirm the transaction.  The bank has absolutely NO CONTROL over when something is moved from "pending" to "actual".  All of that control rests with the merchant.  All of it!!  If you see the date change on the transaction, that...again... has nothing to do with the bank.  It has everything to do with the merchant and when the merchant decides to confirm the transaction.  When the merchant transmits the confirming information, again, the information is batched in numeric order to the bank and posted for the real dollar amount the account holder spent (there are several instances, such as gasoline purchases, dining purchases, etc... in which the pending amount will change when the transaction is finally posted to your account...and again why you'll never be able to get an accurate balance on a hand-held device).

You have been assigning blame to the bank for all of the issues.  The reality is that the bank is really nothing more than tracking your transactions.  It has very little control over when transactions post to your account.  Do they make a lot of money on overdrafts?  Sure.  But the system makes far more money for the merchants - far more!!  Merchants can electronically transact business with little risk of bad debt, deadbeats, and the like - and didn't pass those savings onto the consumer!!  It was actually cracking me up when someone was writing on another report that when an OP ran lower balances, the bank actually posted items faster to the account than when the OP had lots of $$ in the account.  I was sort of cracking up because the greater likelihood is that the OP went to certain merchants when there was more money in the account and other merchants when not.

Fallacy:  Not all banks arrange transactions in numeric order and certainly Credit Unions don't....

Reality:  Incorrect on both counts

Since all banks are pretty much tied into the merchant systems, they have to batch transactions in numeric order.  They're out of business if they don't - not because of the lack of fees (well, that may be a part of it), but if they try and work outside the merchant system, the cost becomes prohibitive. If you read ROR regularly, you'll find more OP's complaining about CU's posting transactions in numeric order.  I mean that was an eventuality as well, for all of the reasons already stated.  My understanding is that the only financial institution that doesn't arrange posting in numeric order is USAA, which is available if you happen to be a veteran, and they may never change because they have deep pockets (the Feds) and can afford to not be profitable.

Fallacy:  Banks have been found guilty of resequencing transactions

Reality:  Banks were not found guilty of resequencing, though they settled for lack of disclosure

It was so bad for the prosecution, that they actually admitted in court that the bank can sequence transactions in any order they wish, 'we simply want them to disclose that', was really the best the prosection could do.  At the end, without admitting guilt of any real sort, the bank made a small payment and shoved the award to the E&O insurance policy, paid the deductible on the policy, and the insurance took care of the rest.  The banks fixed their disclosure statement, and that was that.

At the end of the day, I understand you believe the bank makes tons of money off the backs of people ill equipped to afford it.  However, as I communicated to a classroom of adults recently, "if people really knew the full and complete consequence of their financial actions, they would never overdraft."  But most don't know, and their lack of knowledge does them in every time.  They overdraft thinking it won't cost them that much.  Once you do, you are at someone's mercy, and you have lost control of your account and your money.  These are people who should never have a debit card.

No, no, Mr. Consumer!

The only reason you're trying to stop me from my little debit card project is because you know I'm right and you don't want to be humiliated.

Too bad; you're not stopping me.

You made a BS claim and I'm going to prove you wrong in front of the world. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See you in a few days...

trickery, deep corruption, & the constant pursuit to financially injure the innocent people living here and all over the world.

That's precisely WHY our country is in such bad shape.

You can 'Google' the following videos and watch them on the web to see that most of the banks in the USA are out to deceive, trick, & manipulate, as many consumers as possible in order to make their profits-

FRONTLINE: THE CARD GAME
FRONTLINE: INSIDE THE MELTDOWN
FRONTLINE: THE WARNING
FRONTLINE: BREAKING THE BANK
THE ASCENT OF MONEY PBS
DID SPECULATION FUEL OIL PRICE SWINGS

Don't forget to 'Google' this- WHO OWNS THE FED?, and go to the site with the 5 charts to see who controls the banking system in the USA.

Good luck to you.

***BANK ALERT: Don't forget to stay at this site and read the Ripoff Reports for valuable information if you have a bank account or a credit card in the USA-

WELLS FARGO
JP MORGAN CHASE
US BANK
BANK OF AMERICA
CITIBANK
ONE WEST BANK
WACHOVIA
ALLY
VISA
MASTERCARD
AMERICAN EXPRESS
CAPITAL ONE
DISCOVER
GM CREDIT CARD SERVICES

Someone has $100 in their bank account.. this money has cleared, and their available balance is $100.

On Monday, they use their debit card making three purchases - one for $50, one for $25, and one for $5. They write two checks - one for $50, and one for $25.

Now, as they key in their electronic pin number, the card data, charge price, and pin are submitted to their bank.  Since they have an available balance to cover these charges, the charges are accepted - and holds are put on their account... one for $50, one for $25, and one for $5...  At this point, their available balance becomes $20...

Even if the check and debit purchases "finalize" on the same day, NEITHER check will clear...

Sequencing the transactions in a fair way that reflects how consumers keep their personal records:

All Deposits
Debits
Checks, high to low

Would lead to:

$50 debit
$25 debit
$5  debit
($20 balance at this point)
$50 BOUNCED CHECK
$25 BOUNCED CHECK

Both checks will bounce, and they will likely incur a fee for both bounces checks... since the debits cleared with sufficient funds, no overdrafts should be charged for the debit purchases.

Sequencing the transactions high to low, mixing checks and debits:

All Depoists
Debits and Checks mixed, high to low

$50 Debit
$50 BOUNCED CHECK ($20 AVAILABLE BALANCE)
$25 debit
$25 BOUNCED CHECK ($20 AVAILABLE BALANCE)
$5 debit

In both situations, both checks bounce.. because the AVAILABLE BALANCE is less than the check value... The way Fifth Third was assessing overdrats, many of those debit transactions will be considered overdrafts... I do not know offhand what Fifth Third's fee was for a bounced check while this policy was in place, but lets go with $25 hypothetically... since two $25 fees makes the account $30 overdrawn ($20-$50), the $25 and $5 debit transactions are considered overdrafts, and a fee is charged for both transactions... If the overdraft charge is $35, then the account is now -$100, without either check clearing.

The moment you enter your pin and the bank accepts the charges - within minutes of the transaction -your account will have set that exact amount aside.  Unlike a check, where the bank does not know of the charge until clearing the transaction - your AVAILABLE BALANCE will change... The money for the transaction is set aside all the way up until it fully clears, even in a rare instance where days go by before the transaction is finalized.

That is why it makes sense to clear debit card transactions first... because the available balance already reflects those purchases... If a check is not going to clear, finalizing the debit card purchase last will not magically increase your available balance to allow a check to clear... 

Re-sequencing debit card purchases does not grant a service to the customers, it only creates a situation where more potential fees can be applied...

Ok, Mr. Consumer, I guess I'll PROVE AGAIN that debit card purchases can take a few days to clear. (Not authorize, but clear; as in the money physically leaving my account.) Give me a few days and I'll make some transactions on my debit card. I'm currently on a business trip in Kentucky, but I'm sure there are places around here I can use to prove my point. After which time I'd love to see how you're going to weasel out of scanned documentation being posted.....

See you in a few days.

My account does NOT take a "few days" to update debit card purchases - I can see it posted to my account the next morning.

On very rare occasions, when records are not submitted automatically it *could* take days - but even in these cases a marker is already placed on the account... the bank already accounts for that purchase, since they ELECTRONICALLY ACCEPTED the purchase for a specific amount.  The bank knows when the purchase was made - they accepted the purchase... it is not a check transaction, where they do not know a check has been written until it is processed - they know exactly how much within moments of swiping your card and keying in your PIN.

Re-sequencing debit transactions does not lead to the "more important" transactions being paid first... debit transactions are ALREADY accepted... they WILL BE deducted from the account... Posting their sequence from largest to smallest DOES NOT lead to the larger debit purchases being paid "first" - because they are ALL PAID PERIOD.  Only CHECKS being sequenced in this manner provides a benefit to the customer, because outstanding checks that would overdraw an account can be BOUNCED.  Electronically accepted debits do not BOUNCE - they are already ACCEPTED BY THE BANK.  Mixing check and debit purchases during sequencing is part of the sequencing change - and does not justify the practice, because it also does not benefit the customer.  You attempt to use debits and checks being mixed during sequencing to justify sequencing debits, but it does not make it yield a service.

This type of sequencing was not the industry standard in the past, and was not accepted by some banks until roughly late 90's and later... this type of sequencing change DOES NOT provide a service to the customer.  No matter what you like to believe, not every bank did this.  Yes, every bank I have ever used sequences CHECKS, but a giant bold red and yellow flashing line exists between what we are talking about and sequencing checks, even though you attempt to muddy the water and equate them to both providing a service.

You keep saying it helps pay the "more important" fees... maybe you can give us an example of how the bank is helping out the little guy by this sequencing change:

All deposits
Debit purchases
Checks
Automatic withdrawls

Changed to:

All deposits Checks, debits, and automatic withdrawls from high to low

If someone is has ONLY a savings account with a debit card, it is not a service.  If they have a checking account with a debit card, it is STILL not a service...

Fifth Third USED TO SEQUENCE the first way... the change DID NOT provide a service to the customers.. they AGREED - they were not forced by the courts - they AGREED to change back to the old system... It is not impossible to sequence transactions in a manner that more closely reflects how customers keep their own balance records - it was the way that came natural... they had to CHANGE the system to do this.

It IS a scam to re-sequence transactions that have already POSTED to the account - that have already BEEN taken out in previous days... this does not even address purchases made a day prior that hit the account on the same day... we are talking about purchases that actually POST TO THE ACCOUNT on previous days... where someone could theoretically log into their bank account online, see a balance of $5, go out and spend $10 in a single transaction, and get charged 5 $35 overdrafts....

Seriously, your inability to acknowledge this scam is ridiculous.

Mr. Consumer, you are now clinically insane. I have never seen someone hold onto a fantasy like you have. Well, I'm not a psychologist, but I'll see what I can do....

1. Ok, you said, "You can make a purchase at say McDonalds, and SEE it through online banking the next day... IT IS NOT A CHECK - it DOES not take days." Really? Is that so? It doesn't take days? Hmmm. Well then, explain to me why when you use your debit card for something, there's a numerical difference between the ACCOUNT balance and the AVAILABLE balance for a few days. For example, if you have $100 in your account and you use $5 at McDonald's, your account would read:

Account balance: $100
Available balance: $95

This PROVES that the money doesn't leave your account until the merchant submits a proof of purchase (which may take days or they may submit a receipt the next day; it's up to the merchant). Weasel out of that, Einstein. If you need a scanned copy of MY PERSONAL bank record, I'm more than happy to humiliate you (again) by posting it. That's just one more piece of PROOF that these types of transactions CAN NOT be posted in chronological order. Court decisions are irrelevant just based on this fact.

2. You said, "Lets say a customer does not even HAVE a checking account... re-sequencing transactions is not in any way shape or form a service to them.... standard savings accounts often have debit cards attached to them... you know, those debit transactions were talking about, not checks?" 
    *Sigh* .... you're dumb. Ok, the example I used in my previous post can easily be translated to a savings account. Can't your mortgage payment, car payment, lawn care payment, etc. etc. be auto-drafted from a savings account? Um, yeah, I'm fairly certain that they can. So again, DESPITE what type of account that I have (checking or savings) and if my account was short, I would rather have my mortgage payment drafted first from my savings account over my lawn care payment. (Who wouldn't?) Wow, you'll grab at anything to argue with someone, huh? 

3. You said, "I am not running around to banks to get their agreements to scan for a loser on the internet who already understands he is full of crap, but argues anyway." Loser? Oh, my feelings are hurt now; I thought we were friends. Besides, I don't think that I'm the loser since I'm obviously winning the argument. All you're doing by avoiding my challenge is PROVING that you're lying about the existence of a bank that doesn't resequence transactions like EVERY OTHER BANK in America. I'm not asking you to climb a mountain, slay a dragon, or find a cure for cancer. I'm asking you to scan a document from any bank in your area with a non-resequencing policy. It's not difficult. You'll notice that I live in Chicago. I hardly think that it's fair to ask me to drive all the way over there when you're in the area. So, I'm still waiting...... 

4. You said, "Again, I ask, IF THIS IS NOT A SCAM, EXPLAIN HOW IT IS A SERVICE.  So far you have failed to do this, and I HAVE explained in detail how it is a scam." Ok, I've told you this a million times. One more time..... so larger (and typically more important) transactions are considered before smaller (and typically less important) transactions. I agree with you that it often causes more overdrafts for the simple fact that people usually have many more smaller transactions than large ones. If you think that the underlying reason for this policy is to maximize fees, fine, go ahead and think that. I'm just showing you that there is indeed a benefit for the customer. Jeez... you might want to ask your doctor if you have A.D.D.

5. Finally, RESEQUENCING DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU KEEP ENOUGH MONEY IN YOUR ACCOUNT! THE CUSTOMER AGREED TO THE POLICY WHEN THEY OPENED THE ACCOUNT! YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO ARGUE THIS POLICY IF YOU SIGNED YOUR NAME ON THE DOTTED LINE WHEN YOU OPENED THE ACCOUNT! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND IT? Does this need to be tattooed on your mom's rear for you to finally read it?

Well, I'm sure you'll respond with some conspiracy laden ramblings about how banks force the good, hard-working people of America into poverty with overdraft fees. You should know that I show them to my friends and co-workers and they all get a good chuckle out of them. Keep 'em coming! 

Or you might just be overlooking, the fact that we are not even talking about re-sequencing within the same day....

They re-sequenced previous days fees that had ALREADY POSTED.

Lets say someone overdrafts on a Thursday... they re-sequencing previous days fees, processing already CLEARED DEBITS as OVERDRAFTS.  In no situation would this ever be a service to customers... and it was not the practice before the changes... It was only to charge more overdrafts, like the entire change.

That BEFORE this policy change FIFTH THIRD posted debits in chronological order.  IF IT IS SO IMPOSSIBLE, HOW DID THEY DO IT THEN?  HOW DO THEY DO IT NOW?  It is an electronic debit, which generally POSTS TO THE ACCOUNT WITHIN 24 HOURS.  You can make a purchase at say McDonalds, and SEE it through online banking the next day... IT IS NOT A CHECK - it DOES not take days.

Lets say a customer does not even HAVE a checking account... re-sequencing transactions is not in any way shape or form a service to them.... standard savings accounts often have debit cards attached to them... you know, those debit transactions were talking about, not checks?

Even checking accounts, before the change, sequenced the TYPE of transaction differently.

IE:
All deposits
THEN debit transactions
THEN checks
THEN automatic payments

Changing the sequence to post checks and debits together, and re-sequencing from high to low debit transactions in no way shape or form serves the customer.  It is a rip off specifically aimed at charging more fees.  It is obvious, it is simple to see, and you know it.

I have told you multiple times that even before these changes FIFTH THIRD did not do this... this was not a practice put by even the banks that did it until around 1998-2000... in general banks DID not employ this type of scam.  If you want proof, go get it - I am not running around to banks to get their agreements to scan for a loser on the internet who already understands he is full of crap, but argues anyway.

Banks that I KNOW did not do this previous to changes:
Wells Fargo
Fifth third
(Oh hey look those are the only two we have mentioned, and they DIDN'T employ this scam until 2000+)

I now do my banking with IU Credit Union, and I have NEVER seen an overdraft scam like this from them.  You can go get their terms if you like, prove it to yourself - but if you get an overdraft, they DO NOT do this.

You want to make the argument about providing banks legal terms, when it is really irrelevant.  Just because other banks chose to rip people off does not make it legal... If they put in their contract every overdraft must be paid in kidneys, that would not make it legal... they unfairly assessed overdrafts, it is pretty simple - it was a scam designed to garner fees without providing a service.  Many banks and credit unions did not do it, you can scream all day that you want someone to run out and get irrelevant documents from multiple banks, but all you are doing is attempting to avoid the issue of the scam.

Again, I ask, IF THIS IS NOT A SCAM, EXPLAIN HOW IT IS A SERVICE.  So far you have failed to do this, and I HAVE explained in detail how it is a scam.

I am still waiting - I forsee you will find something else to argue about instead of addressing this point - like you have been doing in circles.

is available at this website!

Just type in 502469 at this site and it appears as 'Consumer Comment #18' at Ripoff Report #502469.

Thank You

***MORTGAGE ALERT: Don't forget to type in 481508 at this site and read St. Clair's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a mortgage in the USA. Then type in 782926 and read that Ripoff Report for more information.

Again, Mr. Consumer?

    I am thorougly convinced that you know absolutely NOTHING about banking. Debit card transactions CAN NOT be taken in chronological order. I don't care if the courts think they can or not. Maybe this example will help: 

    A person makes purchases at Walmart on January 1st, Target on January 2nd, and Kmart on January 3rd. Those stores A U T H O R I Z E the transacation when the card is swiped, but the money doesn't LEAVE the persons account until the store submits a receipt. Agreed? Let's say Kmart sends in their proof of purchase to the bank on January 5th, Target sends in theirs on January 8th, and Walmart on January 20th. So, Wonder Boy, tell me in your infinite wisdom how in my example, the bank can pay these three merchants in "chronological order". They can't! Unlike you, I can prove things. 

    As for your check argument, fine; I can best you there, too (again). Let's say I've got a business day with ONLY paper checks going through my account. Again, this is all on the same business day.
 
$900 mortgage payment check (cashed last)
$300 car payment check (cashed 4th)
$100 utility check (cashed 3rd)
$75 grocery store check (cashed 2nd)
$50 lawn service check (cashed 1st)

Account balance: $900.00

    Ok, so as it stands now with resequencing, the bank would cover the mortgage and probably the car payment. They'd probably start turning away things from the utility check on down. So, end result is five fees, but you'd have your home and car, and you'd most likely have to pay a NSF fee to the utility company, store, and lawn service.
    With non-resequencing, you'd have your lawn, store, utility, and car paid for, but oh no! Your house has an eviction notice on the door since you didn't pay the mortgage company! Well, on the plus side you can park that car on that beautiful lawn for a few days and survive on the food in the grocery bags. In terms of fees, you're right, you'd only have one from the bank and maybe one from the mortgage company. 

    I've said before that, yes, resequencing can possibly lead to more fees (like in my example). But, it seems to me that OD fees are a lesser issue considering you're now LIVING IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER! Get the picture now, Einstein? 

    And finally, this is my third request for you to PROVE to me that there is a bank in this country that doesn't resequence transactions. Don't say it. Prove it. Don't you understand the difference between saying something and proving it? Prove it by getting new account paperwork from this imaginary bank of yours, scanning it, and posting it here on ROR. Until then, everyone's just going to keep calling you a joke and laughing at you.    

is available at this website!

Just type in 271454 at this site and it appears in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #271454.

Thank You

***CD ALERT: Don't forget to type in 453956 at this site and read Jim's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have money invested in a CD at any of the banks in the USA.

First, debit card transactions CAN be posted in chronological order... the date and time is stamped electronically on the transaction... That is not rocket science, and even Fifth Third has agreed to leave transactions in CHRONOLOGICAL order... it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

What you either do not understand, or understand and attempt to ignore to argue... is that debit card transactions and check transactions are handled separately.  When a debit card is electronically accepted, the bank ALREADY accepted the charge... hold markers can already be placed on the account, even if the business has not already finalized the transaction... think gas purchases.  Since debit charges are ELECTRONICALLY ACCEPTED, the bank cannot go back and DENY charges they ALREADY ACCEPTED.  This means if you make 5 $1 purchases, a $200 purchase that overdrafts your account will not make the bank re-sequence and then deny the $1 purchases... IT IS NOT CHECKS!  Re-sequencing checks in a timely manner can in some situations lead to the larger checks (mortgages, insurance, etc) going through first, insuring those get paid and the smaller transactions are the ones that bounce if any - THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO DEBIT CARDS - SINCE THE CHARGES ARE ALL ALREADY ELECTRONICALLY ACCEPTED.  This is not rocket science.....

The type of transaction IS relevant, because checks and debit purchases have always been handled different by banks - ever since the invention of the debit card.  In RECENT history - not 20 years ago like you imagine - debit card transactions were re-sequenced - not that days transactions, but MANY DAYS of transactions that already cleared - with the sole purpose of generating more fees.  The type of transaction is important, because this YIELDS NO SERVICE TO THE CUSTOMER.  It was simply a calculated method of charging MORE FEES.

Some banks conducted business in an unfair manner.  They were called out in court, and some lost judgements - while others settled, knowing what they did was wrong.

    Mr. Consumer, 

    I wish I knew how many times I have to humiliate you in front of everyone before you just give up. Well, let's go for one more time, shall we?

    First off, IT... IS... IMPOSSIBLE... FOR ... DEBIT... CARD... TRANSACTIONS... TO... POST... ON... THE ... SAME... DAY... OR... IN .... CHRONOLOGICAL.... ORDER... Did I say that slow enough for you this time? Think, idiot. That money doesn't leave your account until the merchant presents a proof of purchase to the bank, right? So, even if you used your card at many different locations on the same day, those merchants will present their individual proof of purchases to the bank on different days. Now, if we're talking non-electronic transactions processed by hand (like paper checks), they are obviously processed at different times, too; basically, whenever the bank gets the check and processor gets to that specific item. This isn't rocket science.

    Second, I'm familiar with this lawsuit that you're talking about. As far as I'm concerned, it just proves my point. The courts were convinced that resequencing is done ONLY for the bank's benefit and will never benefit the customer (which is total crap; see my previous posts). Just because they ruled in a certain way doesn't make the court right or even informed. After all, this same entity ruled in favor of racial segregation, let that murderer O.J. back on the streets, and let the 401(k) scandal slip through the cracks. And besides, after all that hoopla, your typical idiot overdrafter gets maybe, what, $12 back? (if that much) Oooo! Big money! Well, enjoy your 5/3 Bank funded meal at McDonald's.
 
    Third, I'm STILL waiting for you to PROVE that there's a bank out there that doesn't resequence transactions. I challenged you to scan and post some new account documentation from a bank (any bank) to support your claim and you ran away with your tail between your legs. Boo h*o... Again, put up or shut up.

    Fourth, you said, "So, I ask again, please explain to us why this is a service to the customer." How many times do I have to explain it, idiot? Resequencing allows larger (and most likely more important) transactions to be considered before smaller (and usually less important) transactions. Hey, if you want your mortgage check considered LESS of a priority than little trivial transactions; well, you go right ahead and fight for that. As far as I'm concerned, anyone with this type of logic should be examined for mental problems.

    Finally, the example I used in my previous posts was not just checks, moron. I don't suppose that you ever considered that paper checks AND debit card purchases could both hit your account in one day? The TYPE of transaction doesn't matter. My example is perfectly valid.

    In closing, no matter how much you whine, fuss, and scream, this all comes down to people who don't keep enough money in their accounts, try to beat the system, and act like the victim. Take responsibility, people. There's a reason why only a small fragment of customers pay overdraft fees.

Part of the class action lawsuit agreement was that Fifth Third agrees to post debit card purchases in chronological order... If you understood what you were arguing about, you would know that... as it is even in the FAQ on the class action website... Please go read it and check it out... You can also walk into a Fifth Third bank yourself and take a look at the agreement...

When asked to supply a reason this is a service to the consumer, you failed miserably, citing an argument that would only be beneficial to a customer in certain cases pertaining to CHECKS, and will not help at all when considering electronically accepted debit card transactions.

I have explained in detail how it is used to calculate fees in an unfair manner... Court cases of nearly identical nature have been cited for you...  Fifth Third themselves agreed to pay out 9.5M to their class action lawsuit....

So, I ask again, please explain to us why this is a service to the customer... 

You say "Put up or shut up"... but it seems you are the one dancing around, ignoring the facts.

Well, Mr. Consumer,

Anyone can SAY that they know of banks that don't resequence transactions, but why don't you put your money where your mouth is and PROVE it. Why don't you ask this fantasy bank of yours to send you a copy of their new account paperwork, scan it, and post it on ROR?

Now my prediction here is you saying "Well, I shouldn't have to do that." or "Just trust me." Well, the problem there is that if you're going to lie like that on the internet, someone's eventually going to call you on it. 

Good luck. 

No matter how you attempt to argue, re-sequencing in this manner is NOT the industry standard... many banks have done it, but it is NOT done by all banks... An attempt to jusify the bad business practice because "everyone is doing it" fails when a number of banks, and many credit unions do not re-sequence in this manner... INCLUDING FIFTH THIRD.  You want an agreement that does not include re-sequencing?  Walk into a Fifth Third today and ask for it....  You know why it is no longer a practice?  Because if they continue to do it, they will continue to get sued by the customers who feel ripped off...

We are not talking about a policy change that came into play when debit cards came into existence... you seem to reach pretty far when you do not understand the issue you are talking about, don't you?

The re-sequencing does not help customers... that argument was rejected by the courts.  If you like it or not, that actually does matter... our court system is arbiter between parties, and they have been pretty clear on this issue. I believe the case that was actually referenced in the Fifth Third settlement agreement was Gutierrez vs. Wells Fargo.  

Since the bank will not go back a week and cancel a cleared transaction, the practice does not help to pay the larger transactions first... they clear the older ones first, and then re-sequence them in order to charge more fees... They are not re-sequencing to help their customers, they are re-sequencing them to charge more fees... the customer gets a raw deal, and is not provided a service.

    Oh, I have to get in on this, Mr. Consumer.

    You said, "No matter how you spin it, the practice of re-sequencing previous transactions in order to created more fees is not a service to customers.  The practice was a calculated effort to charge fees, without providing a service in return.  The bank did not give customers notice when they enacted the practice, and the practice was not included in the agreement when many people opened their accounts."

    Response: bullcrap.

    Assuming the person opened their account before the age of debit cards and electronic transactions (which was, what 1980? give or take?) All banks notified their customers of resequencing transactions when they opened the account. ALL of them. Period. This is a federal law. Now you're just lying. I challenge you to go into any bank in America, ask for their new account paperwork, find one that does not mention this practice (along with a breakdown of their fee schedule), and post it on ROR. You'll be looking for a long time, my friend.

    You also said that banks don't notify customers of account changes.

    Response: bullcrap.

    Changes to bank policy MUST be relayed to the customer. Federal law. Period. I have personally have received numerous ones in the mail over the years. Again, you're lying.

    As for your "court" comment,  who cares? (I'm noticing that you didn't even mention the bank's name. Hmm.) Even if there is a court case out there that some moron overdrafter won against a bank, I'm sure I could find ten more where the bank won. Court decisions, in most cases, are subjective to the presiding judge. 
 
    And finally.... I'll be more than happy to explain how resequencing IS a service to the customer. If you don't have enough money in your account (perish the thought), wouldn't you rather have your large transactions taken care of first before the small ones since large transactions are typically more important? Can you honestly tell me that you'd rather have a check for your newspaper subscription covered BEFORE your mortgage payment? Would you really want your cable bill paid BEFORE your car payment? Come on, get real. 
    I won't dispute the fact that resequencing can possibly cause a person to get more overdraft fees (again since people tend to have more small transactions than large ones). But for the zillionth time, taking transactions "as they are presented to the bank" isn't possible anyway since many transactions must still be processed by hand. If you have enough money in your account IT DOESN'T MATTER! Why do you keep asking banks to do something you know they can't do? Just keep a sufficient balance! It's simple second grade math! 
   

No matter how you spin it, the practice of re-sequencing previous transactions in order to created more fees is not a service to customers.  The practice was a calculated effort to charge fees, without providing a service in return.  The bank did not give customers notice when they enacted the practice, and the practice was not included in the agreement when many people opened their accounts.

You can scream all day long about things that happened years later as a consequence of this bad business practice, or argue the false concept that it was done because of technical limitations... but all that does is avoid the actual issue, or make excuses based off of lies or lack of understanding.

The courts, in an extremely similar case ruled that this type of re-sequencing is not a legit business practice. This specific bank, after being sued, did not even attempt to defend their actions - knowing that the business practice was not defensible in court - they settled and changed the practice.

Please, explain to us ignorant folk how re-sequencing transactions that have already cleared an account offers a service to the customer - or how changing an agreement without notifying your customer is a reasonable business practice.

A ripoff is a ripoff, no matter how you attempt to spin it.

You shot yourself in the foot, Ronny. You said, "re-sequencing transactions CERTAINLY does matter in the event of an overdraft."

Notice the last six words of that sentence.

So, what you're saying here is, if you don't overdraft, resequencing doesn't matter at all. Agreed? Thank you for confirming what I've been saying for years.

P.S. I'm sensing that you've been in a mood the last few days. Word of advice, don't blog on ROR while you're on your period. It makes you look like an angry person.

In trying to "reason" with a Walmart shopper tard like "I am the law"...who is really no law at all..just a d****e bag.

He does not get it...he can only say over and over "if you keep enough funds blah blah blah" that re sequencing transactions would not matter.

He does not understand, well he simply refuses to understand the other side, and that is that re sequencing transactions CERTAINLY does matter in the event of an overdraft.

Now understand the dolt "I am the Law" NEVER,. EVER overdrafted or had a fee since in his own mind he is the picture of perfection (lol)...so somehow.. he feels this makes him an expert in the law..

He ought to look at the lawsuits themselves against this bank and many others ...and then he may, just may learn something..we all could.

Mr. Consumer...

Fine, I quit. I can lead a horse to water......

I guess that there's no convincing you of the simple fact that if you keep sufficient funds in your account that resequencing transactions doesn't mean a d**n thing. (By the way, I'm over ten years at USB and still no overdraft fees for me.) Oh well, no skin off of my teeth.  

It's absolutely shocking to me to see what great lengths people will go to to avoid personal responsibility in this country. The bank tells you all of their policies upfront, customers sign off on them (now twice), yet people still claim that they're the victim. Don't like the terms? Don't sign it. 

It's no surprise that other countries are now prospering more than us.

Arguing that changes were made after the fact, does not change what they were doing.  The exact type of re-sequencing they were using was ruled against in another case, and the requirements you speak of would go even a step further....

Those are changes that are in place NOW... kind of like how they no longer re-sequence transactions, solving the issue...

These issues were before that requirement... issues like this are the reason those requirements were made.  If bank did not do this, the requirement would have never been put in place... but they did, and they got called out on it - and they are no longer permitted to do it.

These things happened BEFORE the requirements... fixing the problem keeps it from happening in the future, but previous to the changes that is exactly what happened....

Again, you do not understand the situation....

This practice occurred BEFORE that requirement... the lawsuits that brought up the issue directly lead to those requirements... Arguing that the bad business practice lead to a requirement, therefore the practice never happened - is illogical.

This lawsuit regards previous business practices, that are no longer going - BECAUSE of lawsuits and requirements put on banks.

So yes, they SHOULD have done that anyway... but at the time they DID NOT.

Again, you speak of things you do not understand - building a strawman argument that avoids the actual issue.

Again, you do not understand the situation we speak of. This practice occurred BEFORE that requirement...
This practice, and the lawsuit, is for a period of time BEFORE that requirement was put in place.

So yes, they SHOULD have done that anyway... but at the time they DID NOT.Again, you speak of things you do not understand.

Mr. Consumer,

I guess you don't keep up on current events.

One of the new laws set up while President Obama has been in office REQUIRES banks to ask the customer whether they want their account set up to accept or reject transactions from debit card purchases that would put them negative. (I received one of these notices in the mail myself). Thus, if your account goes negative for this reason and you get hit with a fee (however many), you have no one to blame but yourself because you agreed to pay said fee(s) with a SECOND, signed legal document. (The first one being the agreement signed when the account was first opened.) TWO contracts saying you'll do something and you still think they are the bad guys? Sounds to me like you're trying to weasel out of a legal obligation to me. 

Since approximately 90% of OD fees come from only a small fraction of bank customers, Mr. Consumer, that tells me that your average person can understand bank policies fairly easily. If the bank was really trying to "set you up", I'm sure that number would be higher and I would've gotten a fee as well.

.....It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to to avoid taking responsibility for their mistakes. Keep those excuses coming, overdrafters!

It was estimated at approximately 97 million in charges attributed to re-sequencing, not 10 million.

We are not just talking about multiple transactions in one day...

We are also talking about someone buying a small item many days beforehand, and that charge actually posting to the account.  In this case you would even be able to log into the online portal and see the charge that has cleared the account....  Maybe many of these were made in the previous week that already cleared, and the account status is updated to reflect those charges...

THEN this person goes and uses their debit card... the bank knows that they only have $5, and that $20 purchase will overdraft their account...  While I agree that everyone should always be responsible, this is not a check we are talking about... The bank electronically accepts the charges, and overdrafts their account... This should not happen without at LEAST notifying customers of the change, and in a recent case it was ruled that this type of system should not be put in place without the individual account holder specifically opting in to that type of program... They can accept or deny the charge, and the argument that it is a service to the consumer was rejected by the court.

In this case, the bank would re-sequence the transactions that were ALREADY applied to the account... all those charges in the previous week that had already cleared, are now re-sequenced so that instead of one $35 overdraft being applied, they apply maybe 5 - depends on the exact situation.

See, this is not only someone making 15 charges in a day that overdraft the account... it is not due to a technicality of how the charges are received by the bank, or how they have to keep their records... it is a well thought out change that was put in place without notifying customers.  The re-sequencing in no way shape or form serves customers - it is a calculated effort to generate more fees.  It is estimated that in the amount of time the class action covers, 10 million dollars was charged in unfairly assessed fees alone.

First off, Mr. Consumer, I'm not a lawyer. If you must know, my last name has the word "law" in it. 

Second, I'm assuming your main complaint is that banks can possibly charge multiple overdrafts per day? (I believe it's a maximum of six per business day.) 

Well, good,  they should be doing that. I think what you're failing to realize is that if someone overdrafts their account, the bank is providing a service by covering that item (and basically giving them a small loan). If they do this multiple times, they should be paid a fee that many times (the amount the customer overdrew is not relevant and the customer agreed to pay the fee when they signed that LEGAL contract when they opened the account). So, if you got services from another type of business more than once in a day; you wouldn't feel the need to pay them more than once? That's outrageous. Who are you to steal from a business?

You can scream all day that people should be responsible for overdrafts they caused... your argument still ignores the point of the issue.  The issue has nothing to do with someone overdrafting their account, it has to do with how the overdraft fees were assessed in an unfair manner leading to more charges.  I fail to understand how a lawyer cannot grasp this not so fine point, seriously.... I have pointed it out in the last how many posts?  That is, ofcourse, unless you want to circumvent the actual issue.

You can call faulty overdrafts relevant all day long, but Fifth Third was not called out in a class action suit because of fairly assessing charges on faulty overdrafts - they got sued because the unfair calculations used to charge extra fees.  That unfair calculation part is the crux of the issue.... and is why they settled.

You can scream all day long that it is not possible to post transactions in a chronological order... but I doubt you will convince many people... seriously, dates are recorded on transactions.  For that matter, even though I feel people should be responsible, some have argued that a bank should not accept debit charges that overdraft the account, without an opt-in overdraft protection plan.  This has been examined in at least one other lawsuit, and unless it has been repealed I believe the case went in favor of the plaintiff.

Banks do not keep account balances on a legal pad of paper... we live in a modern age that includes intranets and databases...  The fact that credit unions and many other banks are capable of transferring money in a reasonable amount of time, posting in chronological order, and assessing overdrafts in a fair manner points out the fact that the practice of gaming multiple overdrafts in this manner is not a technicality of the system.

Again, Mr Consumer.....

people tend to have many more small transactions than large ones. Can we agree on that? Yes, mathamatically that COULD cause more OD fees to generate if some yo-yo doesn't pay attention to his balance. But, I've stated why transactions are taken this way a million times and yet overdrafters continue to use this argument to mask the fact that THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN THEIR ACCOUNT. PERIOD.

If you maintain a sufficient balance, order of transactions is not relevant. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

The re-sequencing and how it was done created a situation in which multiple overdraft fees were generated in situations where chronological ordering would lead to less fees.

In some cases, the overdraft fees themselves were being applied to yield more overdraft fees... People got overdraft fees, believed the next day when the paid the overdraft fees in person inside the bank that they had a positive balance (in many instances being told so by the tellers)... but the balance that day was not updated with a separate incurred fee... then low and behold the next time they look at their account they are negative by a significant amount... because the amount applied to take their balance positive was applied after another fee was generated, putting them only slightly negative - but fees were then applied because of that.

The language of the agreement was changed over the years, and this practice was not in place when some people opened their accounts... so even if they read the agreement, they would still not understand the change unless they kept up on every updated agreement.

People never argued fees should not be assessed if they overdraft their accounts... The issue is not "should the bank charge overdrafts if you are at fault" - the issue is "should 7 $35 overdrafts be charged on a $20 overdraft".....

Nobody is claiming fees should not be paid if they overdraft their accounts... only that the fees should be calculated in a fair manner.  Fifth Third settled the case, and has agreed that the policy will be to post transactions in chronological order... resolving the issue.

I need to repost this. Apparently, some people are under the impression (Mr. Consumer) that banks resequence items just to be sneaky or something. Anyway....

UNDENIABLE FACT: The fact that banks resequence transactions by posting credits first, then taking highest to lowest debits makes absolutely NO difference as long as you close out the business day with a positive balance.  

1. You must complete business day with a negative available balance for overdraft fees to generate. Then you will see them post the next business day. For example, if you're overdrawn at 9 AM Monday when I cash a check that you wrote to me, and you make up for it before the end of the business day, you're fine. (Obviously, there are funds availability rules to follow, though. So, in my example, you'd most likely have to deposit cash same day with a teller.) If you fail to make up for it, you'll see the fee show up Tuesday morning. Not exactly rocket science.

2. It is impossible to post transactions "as they are presented to the bank". Even though most transactions today are done electronically, a large number are still processed by hand. (Paper checks, for example.) Even if it was possible to post transactions like this; it would make your statement (or online web summary) confusing as hell to read.
 
3. The only way that resequencing items "causes" more overdraft fees to generate is because people usually have many more small debits than large ones. In other words, a large transaction could wipe out the account and then all of those little things each generate a fee. But again, DON'T LET YOUR ACCOUNT GO NEGATIVE AND IT'S NOT EVEN AN ISSUE! 

Overdrafters are constantly trying to use the fact that banks resequence items as an excuse to mask a bigger issue; as in them not keeping enough funds in their account. I guess that's just human nature; people not wanting to accept the blame for problems that they brought on themselves.

Re-sequencing of transactions has not always been Fifth Third's policy...

Fifth third is over 150 years old and the agreement given out in 2004 is not the same account holder agreement that everyone was handed when they opened their account.

While one can argue that the agreement does grant the bank the ability to change their policies at any given time, the re-sequencing of purchases has not always been the case.

If re-sequencing transactions was a good business practice, they would not have agreed to change their policy...

this person didn't read the terms and conditions booklet that the bank provided to them (by law) when they opened the account.

Regarding paying the money back the same business day - that is how it SHOULD be... but they were in some cases hitting accounts with overdrafts before they cleared the deposits.  That shady practice, however, is not even the main meat of this problem, which you seem eager to circumvent instead of address...

When you make an overdraft, you should be charged a fee... that fee, however - is already a set amount, and gaming/manipulating the way the overdrafts are calculated is fraudulent.  Re-sequencing transactions in a manner to create more overdrafts fees, or in some cases create overdraft fees - is a shady practice no matter how you look at it.

When customers started banking with Fifth Third, the language regarding overdrafts did not lead them to believe they would calculate overdrafts in that manner... it was deceptive, it was predatory, and it was in my opinion illegal.

Other banks have done similar things in the past - but the difference here is that Fifth Third was actually called out in a class action lawsuit.  Fifth Third would likely lose more than what they settled for, and give themselves an even darker black eye if they did not settle - so they did.

Nobody in the class action claimed fairly calculated overdraft fees should not be payed, or that they should not have to pay overdraft fees.  In many cases - Fifth Third was turning fees for minor overdrafts into ridiculous charges... in some cases the manipulations accounted for multiple hundred dollar overdraft fees.

That business practice was shady and misleading... and Fifth Third has settled, agreed the practice will no longer be carried forward, and trained their representatives to handle the situation.  How someone can argue that the practice was legit is beyond me - unless they have no clue what they were doing.

It's kind of hard to know how much money is in your account when there's a two-to-five day hold put on check deposits and re-sequencing is only done so that banks can maximize the amount of over-draft fees put on an account.  That may be the law.









But that and your derisive ad hominem aren't ethical, in the slightest.

There's no nice way to say this, Mr. Consumer; you're wrong.

You can be negative in your account during the day, but as long as you make up for the negative by the end of the business day, you're fine. Granted, you'd have to either put in cash with a teller, or get enough of an upfront credit from things that "need to clear" like ATM deposits and checks, but this is how banking works. Learn it, live it, love it.

If someone used their debit, caught the mistake, and deposited before the end of day... before the money would hit their balance sheet - charges would already be calculated.  So no, you could not wrack up a bill and then pay before the close of the day - because they will not calculate that advantageously to you - incorrect.

And the problem had nothing to do with that - it is not about the overdrafts, or the overdraft charge - the problem was how they gamed the calculation to get multiple overdrafts off of one charge.  The way they were calculating overdrafts yielded multiple hundred dollar overdraft fees for small overdrafts - due to how they would re-sequence fees.  If you believe many banks doing that in the past justifies that behavior, I disagree - and many banks do NOT re-sequence in that manner.  Including, NOW, Fifth Third....

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fifth Third for these predatory policies, and last I heard they were negotiating a settlement at 9.5 million.  They have also agreed to no longer calculate overdrafts in that manner, and they claim they will train all of their customer service representatives on handling incorrect overdrafts.

So, Fifth Third has even decided that these business practices they engaged in will not be carried forward...

UNDENIABLE FACT: The fact that banks resequence transactions by posting credits first, then taking highest to lowest debits makes absolutely NO difference as long as you close out the business day with a positive balance.  

Let me do a preemptive strike on all of you complete MORONS in the world that didn't pass third grade math and thus, can't seem to stop overdrafting their accounts.

1. You must complete business day with a negative balance for overdraft fees to generate. They don't generate in real time. Anyone who says different is either lying or a product of a drunken sexual experience between two people who are brother and sister. For example, if you're overdrawn at 9 in the morning when I cash a check you wrote to me, and you make up for it before the end of the business day, you're fine. (Obviously, there are funds availability rules to follow, though.) 

2. It is impossible to process transactions "as they are presented to the bank". Even though most transactions today are done electronically, a large number are still processed by hand.

3. Even if it was possible to post transactions like this; it would make your statement (or online web summary) ridiculously difficult to read.

Overdrafters, stop trying to use this as an excuse for your own stupidity. You're embarrassing yourselves.

I love you guys.  I really do.  Your grasp for the language is absolutely psychopathic.  I bet you've convinced the consumer it's "their" fault.  They're feeling all alone and lashing out at a banking practice which has been profiting off of memory lapses and timing adjustments and other such non-sense and here you are to perversely commiserate with some "friendly" advice that makes the OP feel, well, stupid.

Great job, everyone.  The advice on keeping a checkbook, while ignoring the available balance as it would be listed on both the ATM and the internet gateway was a real bonus.  I used to work in accounting and remember reconciling transactions in the account and "knowing" what the available balance should be by adding all of the debits and credits to the account.  Of course, reconciliation with the checkbook is a little useless when banks hold deposits that are discernibly cleared on an internet statement.

That's what happened to me with Fifth Third.  I'm sure you'll say something like, "Well, you have to wait for the transaction to clear!"  Oh, irony.  Telling someone to keep a balance sheet when items on the balance sheet can't possibly be reflected in the account in a manner which is timely enough to be reconcilable. 

And I love how you guys all gang up and make it appear as though this is just the way things are.  You must be so proud of yourselves: projecting an industry narrative as fact when the unfair practices it serves could just as easily be done away with.  We are in the 21st Century, after all, and  banks DO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ENSURE OVERDRAFTS DON'T HAPPEN.

To say otherwise is a lie, but you all seem fairly practiced at that.  Lying, that is.  It must be a capacity you have which allows you to sleep at night.  It's either that, or you have no conscience, what-so-ever.  





I'll be around.

Since this is one of the many reasons I no longer bank with Fifth Third, I will explain the issue to people who do not seem to understand what is happening. I do believe valid overdraft fees should be payed. I also believe the way Fifth Third handles overdrafts is not legal - and should be criminal.

Lets say I, as a customer, have $50 in my account. On Tuesday, I make ten seperate $1 purchases. On Friday, I make one $49 purchase. Obviously, this would overdraft my account, and an overdraft fee should be applied, but...What Fifth Third Bank would do, is place my $49 purchase made on Friday at the top of my statement, followed by ten $1 purchases...

So, instead of paying a single overdraft, the customer is hit with nine overdrafts... Yes, every $1 purchase made earlier in the week is counted as an overdraft...

The part that makes this so obviously predatory, is it will only be re-sequenced this way if it will result in more overdrafts... You will not see this the opposite way.

PS, I got a postcard in the mail referring to a class action lawsuit, and low and behold, they settled: (((Redacted)))

CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.

Debit Sequencing is when the bank holds your timed debits for days after the transaction purposely, and then posts them in the order they want, instead of the timed order of the debit received.

Then you (dumb,poor person) mistakenly overdrafts your account, by just a few cents, (maybe a gasoline debit, that you might of forgotten about) and the bank instead of charging for the one overdraft, charges the overdraft fee first and then posts the debits it was holding in the order they want, and receives numerous overdraft fees, instead of just the one overdraft fee.

Yes, some of us , don't keep the extra balance in our accounts, to offset any debits we may have forgotten about, (because we are poor) and we go by the banks posted balance, (because we are dumb), and overdraft our accounts, maybe by as little as a few dollars or cents.

Originally the money for the debits was in the account, but of course after the numerous overdrafts fees, the money was not in the account.

This is legalized stealing in my book, no matter how you slice it.

I am a fast learner tho, now I do not use my debit card, and I write one check for cash to withdraw most of my money and leave them the few dollars and cents. That way I know what my true balance is, and I bury the rest of my money in a tin can in my back back yard, and draw a treasure map to the location.

For many of us poor people a bank account is needed to receive our social security checks, but you are right, the answer is to pay cash at all times. It was my fault, for over-drafting my account and giving them the opportunity.

My account was not on overdraft protection and if I did not have the funds to cover a debit the debit should have been declined, or I should have been charged the one overdraft fee, not numerous overdrafts.

Of course most of us poor people can not afford to hire a good attorney,however I believe in the near future there maybe be some class actions filed.
There still are a few good guy attorneys out there that will fight for the little guy.

A timed electronic debit should not be held for the banks benefit, it should be processed in the timed order recieved.

Just because a person has limited funds does not mean they are stupid.
Stealing is stealing, whether its the little guy or the big guy,
the only difference is that the little guy goes to jail.

.
 

"Banks has been putting the largerst items first and has been doing it for at least 15 years or so now., People are acting like this is something new..Have you been reading your statemenst?..What I can't understand is that most people never ever read their statments and act like overdrafts are something that banks

just thought of in the past year.."

Not all banks or credit unions did this. But regardless the reason many people are surprised is because of several reasons. Number one..it really doesn't matter UNTIL an overdraft occurs..takes no Einstein to figure that out..however the horrible recession we are in (have you noticed?) is causing people to overdraft who never did before..and then they discover that IT DOES matter that their bank resequenced transactions..since so many additional fees were charged.

As well..the policy of re-sequencing and courtesy overdraft protection are policies designed to protect check users...but has many find out..it does nothing but financial harm to those who use debit cards in lieu of cash for many small purchases..and once the customer realized how these policies caused so many additional fees..it is too late..the bank got their money. Now correct customers need to be very careful to always have enough funds..but IF NOT for mandatory courtesy overdraft protection COMBINED with the completely unnecessary re-sequencing of transaction..perhaps only one fee would be charged instead of the avalanche.

Now I agree the banks are not mind readers..but it appears by the FACT that most are changing policies ..that they can predict something coming in the future..otherwise why would they change policies that have given the banks almost 40 BILLION dollars in fees this year alone? Think about it. Do you really think the policies are being changed just to appease irresponsible customers?

Banks has been putting the largerst items first and has been doing it for at least 15 years or so now., People are acting like this is something new..Have you been reading your statemenst?..What I can't understand is that most people never ever read their statments and act like overdrafts are something that banks just thought of in the past year..

I agree with everyone else here that if you had enough money in your account, it does not matter which debit came first or last..You would of still had the money in there to cover everything.. I believe the only people who understands banking on this web site is either people with brains or bank employees..Everyone here who writes to complain conplains about the same thing..Overdrafts..Plain and simple..Keep money in your account at all times and write down what is coming out, and if more than one person is using the account, talk with each other about what is transpiring.. Never ever use a debit card, pay cash. Never put money into a ATM.. Never ever rely on auto banking such as using the website or the ATM to run you account on unless you can do it about 50 times a day , everyday.. Banks are not mind readers. YOU ARE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACCOUNT , NOT THE BANK. If you cannot take care of your account, then don't open one up.. 

 

...if you have enough money to cover the transactions BEFORE you initiate them. Of course, that type of information tends to be concealed in CHECK REGISTERS.

Lesson learned for the OP: Keep an accurate CHECK REGISTER, and your overdrafting days will dissipate.

Here endeth the lesson...

"Fifth Third Bank will re-sequence your debits from highest to lowest instead of posting the debits in the order of which they were actually received in order to put its customers into a negative balance and artificially increase the number of overdrafts it charges its customers"

I know it was implied that I won't make any "sense" with my advice..but in all fairness...the way you have the above stated in incomplete. The tactic of re-sequencing is not in itself going to put your account into a negative balance.

The tactic of re-sequencing is used to "more quickly" place the account into the negative in the event of an overdraft....and then fees will be applied to transactions that did have the funds available at the time of the transaction.

Now granted we can as customers take every available defense to prevent an overdraft from  occurring in the first place..however it does not in my opinion give the bank the right to use any manipulations to charges ADDITIONAL fees. I think the amount they charge per legitimate overdraft is enough..and if it is not...then we will all see soon enough what they try to pull next to make up for it.

Fifth Third Bank will re-sequence your debits from highest to lowest instead of posting the debits in the order of which they were actually received in order to put its customers into a negative balance and artificially increase the number of overdrafts it charges its customers"

Yes..exactly. No need for myself or Robert or anyone to give any additional advice. You seem aware of the tactic..so be extra careful.

Now what is NOT true..is that every bank re-sequenced transactions. WAMU never did..until Chase took over. But guess what? Sometime in the first quarter of next year..Chase will no longer re-sequence any transactions. Kind of makes you wonder why they would change this policy if it "didn't matter".

Now this change does not mean customers do not have personal responsibility to keep track of their account. I would never advocate irresponsibility. But as well..I can not advocate a policy of a bank that is completely unnecessary for any function other then to cause fees to be charged to transactions that had the funds available at the time. That is wrong no matter how you slice it.

As far as it being "perfectly" legal...many of us feel it simply has not yet been proven to be illegal. We shall see..I have a strong feeling there are a lot of surprises in store for of us in the not too distant future.

By all means listen to Marcia.  She's right when she says, ''But the bottom line is that if you have enough money in the bank to cover your withdrawals it shouldn't matter''. Because if you have enough money to cover everything, that means everything will get paid and nothing will get returned. That's why the order doesn't matter.

Here's the hidden secret. Using that logic, this means the same is true with any and all Overdraft Protection programs. Because the end result is everything will get paid and nothing will get returned. Let me paraphrase Marcia: ''The bottom line is that [if the bank is going to pay everything anyway and not return anything, the order] shouldn't matter''.

The order matters because of the number of fees incurred.

"Fifth Third Bank will re-sequence your debits from highest to lowest instead of posting the debits in the order of which they were actually received in order to put its customers into a negative balance and artificially increase the number of overdrafts it charges its customers"

Not exactly. Yes, they resequence. It sucks, but it's true and perfectly legal. So does every other bank I know of. But the bottom line is that if you have enough money in the bank to cover your withdrawals it shouldn't matter. The bank doesn't put you in an overdraft - YOU DO. There's nothing artificial about it. You have to pay attention to when deposits clear and become available, and not depend on online or ATM balances. Keep a register - it's the only way to be sure.

You're going to be given all kinds of good advice from Robert (probably) and comisseration from Ronny G (probably). Listen to Robert. He makes alot of sense.