- Report: #866899
Complaint Review: USAA Federal Savings Bank
Related Reports
Featured Ripoff Reports
Ripoff Reports
Ripoff Report on CBS 19
Ripoff Report on CBS 19 - Global Marketing Alliance
Ripoff Report on ABC 15 - Smart Shopper
Ripoff Report - Girls Gone Wild
Ripoff Report on Fox 11 - Car Repair
Special Features
-
Doctored Reviews is designed to help patients, doctors, and websites understand the problems created by Medical Justice, a company trying to restrict online patient reviews, and to offer some ways that let patients freely talk about their healthcare experiences. -
The government should serve voters, not corporate special interests. Public Citizen works to empower ordinary citizens, reduce the influence of big corporations on government, open the government to public scrutiny, and hold public officials accountable for their misdeeds. -
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BBB: NOT a government agency as listed in your local phone book. Instead the BBB is a private non-profit / franchise operation. 20/20 exposes the BBB, Hamas Terror Group Gets 'A' Rating - BBB is running a "pay for play" scheme.
| USAA Federal Savings Bank 10750 McDermott Freeway
San Antonio, Texas United States of America |
|
USAA Federal Savings Bank USAA Forcing Grandson to Pay $1050 for Their Mistake San Antonio, Texas
*Author of original report: Proof
*Author of original report: Not My Decision
*Consumer Comment: Not about right or wrong
*Consumer Comment: You admitted it
*Consumer Suggestion: I think I understand
*Author of original report: And wrong again
*Consumer Comment: TUCKER822, FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ALL OF YOUR LOCAL TV NEWS STATIONS.......
*Consumer Comment: Absolutely
*Author of original report: Wrong again
*Consumer Comment: My assumption...
*General Comment: Checks returned unpaid...
*Author of original report: Nope
*Consumer Comment: Clearly
*Author of original report: Not the facts
*Consumer Comment: Sure sounds suspicious to me
*Author of original report: I offered to help him
*Consumer Comment: We are not getting it?
*Author of original report: Still not getting it
*General Comment: The only ripoff was comitted by...
*Author of original report: Uh, wrong!
*Consumer Comment: Who is patronizing whom?
*Author of original report: You're not getting it at all...,
*Consumer Comment: I did re-read what you wrote...
*General Comment: Returned checks...
*Consumer Comment: I've Seen That
*Author of original report: Need to re-read what I wrote
*Consumer Comment: I see a problem.
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
On 9-30-2011 I wrote a check to my landlord in the amount of $1050.00 on check number 795. When presented to the bank on 10-7-2011 there were insufficient funds and on 10-13-2011 I was charged $29.00 as an NSF charge and, according to my bank statement dated 11-10-2011, the item was returned. I took care of this with my landlord by giving him cash to rectify the situation.
However, unknown to me, until yesterday, 4-10-2012, which is approximately 7 months later, $1050.00 was taken out of my account by USAA and which created a negative balance in my account.
I proceeded to contact the bank to discuss this and found out, and which was admitted by USAA, that they misread the account number on my check number 795 and took the money from another members account and deposited it into my landlords account. So, in essence my landlord was paid twice. In order for the bank to rectify their error, they replaced the money taken from the other members account and then put what is claimed as a hold on the situation.
At no time was I ever notified that this had transpired with the other member or that there was a hold on anything. All I ever knew was that the check I wrote was NSF, returned and I was charged an NSF fee of $29.00. I have electronic copies of both my bank statement dated 11-10-2011 and check number 795 attesting to this.
Even though I acknowledge that the check I wrote did bounce, I took steps to rectify it with my landlord and gave him $1050.00 in cash to cover the check. I thought the matter was closed. However, 7 months later, without any notice whatsoever, my account was dunned $1050.00 for an error that was made by USAA, not me, yet Im being forced to pay for this error that USAA created.
As a resolution to this, I would like to have my money returned to my account as I do not feel it is my responsibility to take care of USAAs mistakes and that this problem was solely the responsibility of USAA to rectify and not me.
In addition, all four times that I tried to get this straightened out with USAA, the customer service people in the resolution department were extremely rude and one in particular by the name of Amanda insulted me on a personal level. I have enjoyed banking with USAA, but am very disappointed that I have been treated this way and feel it should be righted by USAA.
Oh, and by the way, on top of all of this, USAA admitted that they do not know what became of the check and there are no records of where it went. In addition, I tried to put a stop payment on this and was charged $29.00 and no stop payment was issued adding insult to injury.
However, unknown to me, until yesterday, 4-10-2012, which is approximately 7 months later, $1050.00 was taken out of my account by USAA and which created a negative balance in my account.
I proceeded to contact the bank to discuss this and found out, and which was admitted by USAA, that they misread the account number on my check number 795 and took the money from another members account and deposited it into my landlords account. So, in essence my landlord was paid twice. In order for the bank to rectify their error, they replaced the money taken from the other members account and then put what is claimed as a hold on the situation.
At no time was I ever notified that this had transpired with the other member or that there was a hold on anything. All I ever knew was that the check I wrote was NSF, returned and I was charged an NSF fee of $29.00. I have electronic copies of both my bank statement dated 11-10-2011 and check number 795 attesting to this.
Even though I acknowledge that the check I wrote did bounce, I took steps to rectify it with my landlord and gave him $1050.00 in cash to cover the check. I thought the matter was closed. However, 7 months later, without any notice whatsoever, my account was dunned $1050.00 for an error that was made by USAA, not me, yet Im being forced to pay for this error that USAA created.
As a resolution to this, I would like to have my money returned to my account as I do not feel it is my responsibility to take care of USAAs mistakes and that this problem was solely the responsibility of USAA to rectify and not me.
In addition, all four times that I tried to get this straightened out with USAA, the customer service people in the resolution department were extremely rude and one in particular by the name of Amanda insulted me on a personal level. I have enjoyed banking with USAA, but am very disappointed that I have been treated this way and feel it should be righted by USAA.
Oh, and by the way, on top of all of this, USAA admitted that they do not know what became of the check and there are no records of where it went. In addition, I tried to put a stop payment on this and was charged $29.00 and no stop payment was issued adding insult to injury.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/11/2012 08:45 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/USAA-Federal-Savings-Bank/San-Antonio-Texas-78288/USAA-Federal-Savings-Bank-USAA-Forcing-Grandson-to-Pay-1050-for-Their-Mistake-San-Antoni-866899. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on USAA Federal Savings Bank
Search for additional reports
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Search Tips#1 Author of original report
Proof
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Monday, April 16, 2012
We have audio tapes of both convos with the bank. Which in our state is legal to do and is admissible in court as long as one of the persons speaking is you.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #2 Author of original report
Not My Decision
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Monday, April 16, 2012
We have discussed at length whether to contact TV/radio investigators or write letters to local newspapers. My grandson has just landed a new job and is deciding whether something like this being made public could jeopardize it or the company.
We both do not believe banks are evil. USAA happens to be a great bank, as opposed to some. Particularly, in their great help to our veterans. We simply have a disagreement of how they handled the situation and would like for them to do the right and honorable thing and he has other avenues besides going on TV with it.
As for listening to Elizabeth Warren talk about anything to do with the economy or banking would make me gag, as well as listening to lies from a left-leaning biased situation such as Frontline.
I don't let news orgs or politicians guide my life because they all lie. I prefer the truth and what you're peddling ain't it.
We both do not believe banks are evil. USAA happens to be a great bank, as opposed to some. Particularly, in their great help to our veterans. We simply have a disagreement of how they handled the situation and would like for them to do the right and honorable thing and he has other avenues besides going on TV with it.
As for listening to Elizabeth Warren talk about anything to do with the economy or banking would make me gag, as well as listening to lies from a left-leaning biased situation such as Frontline.
I don't let news orgs or politicians guide my life because they all lie. I prefer the truth and what you're peddling ain't it.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #3 Consumer Comment
Not about right or wrong
AUTHOR: MochaG - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Monday, April 16, 2012
I did not say that the bank run the check the second time. I said the bank have done the process and have approved it, but then they found out there was an error. As a result, they put a "hold" on the process but it has already been done. There was no need of the check for the second time because the transaction might have been completed but put on hold.
Your right or wrong from your perspective has nothing to do with what happened. The reason is that you do not know what bank have done internally but rather accept words from what the bank people told you only. Even though the fault could be from the person who ran the check, you could not really do anything with this but attempt to fix it (not to pay $1,050 again) because it is extremely difficult to prove. Even someone admitted it to you doesn't mean you could easily prove it in the court because the person just said I did not say that. Unless you have a video tape, you might win. By the way, please get out of your mind set from "I knew it because they told me" because it would not help you to understand what really did happen.
Your right or wrong from your perspective has nothing to do with what happened. The reason is that you do not know what bank have done internally but rather accept words from what the bank people told you only. Even though the fault could be from the person who ran the check, you could not really do anything with this but attempt to fix it (not to pay $1,050 again) because it is extremely difficult to prove. Even someone admitted it to you doesn't mean you could easily prove it in the court because the person just said I did not say that. Unless you have a video tape, you might win. By the way, please get out of your mind set from "I knew it because they told me" because it would not help you to understand what really did happen.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
You said the landlord got paid twice. Once by the check and once by your grandson in cash. Whether or not the bank made an error, the landlord is the one with your money. Good luck convincing a judge to get the bank to put the money back!
You need to find a lawyer that will take your case, after he stops laughing of course. Let us know how much money the bank doesn't give you back.
You need to find a lawyer that will take your case, after he stops laughing of course. Let us know how much money the bank doesn't give you back.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #5 Consumer Suggestion
I think I understand
AUTHOR: Alatar333 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Monday, April 16, 2012
This whole issue seems much more cut and dry now. I'm not going to argue any of the facts with you, but just disagree with your position. The majority of commentators on this topic are correct. The fact that the check was never run twice may be very true, but somehow USAA justified removing the $1050 from your grandson's account. I am 100% sure it wasn't because they were short after an audit. I have been a USAA account member (bank, investments, insurance) for many years now and although some of their employees can be inept, they have never been malicious.
I know you will respond with another "still wrong/wrong again" posting, but at least know that I have completely understood the chain of events as they have been reported. The outcome of all this certainly isn't the best for your grandson, but it really isn't USAA's fault. A good rule of thumb is to expect money to be removed from your account when you write a check. Nevermind the fact that he paid cash, the check was NSF, then "on hold", etc., etc. When I write a check, unless God miracle's it out of our world, I fully expect that money to be removed from my account.
I know you will respond with another "still wrong/wrong again" posting, but at least know that I have completely understood the chain of events as they have been reported. The outcome of all this certainly isn't the best for your grandson, but it really isn't USAA's fault. A good rule of thumb is to expect money to be removed from your account when you write a check. Nevermind the fact that he paid cash, the check was NSF, then "on hold", etc., etc. When I write a check, unless God miracle's it out of our world, I fully expect that money to be removed from my account.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #6 Author of original report
And wrong again
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Monday, April 16, 2012
You seem to keep missing the point:
No check was ever presented a second time....ever. The bank admitted that. The bank also admitted they made the error and debited grandson's account to correct the mistake after an audit was done.
The bank was covering their own mistake by taking the money from grandson's account 7 months later to satisfy their audit. Pure and simple.
The bank is culpable for that.
No check was ever presented a second time....ever. The bank admitted that. The bank also admitted they made the error and debited grandson's account to correct the mistake after an audit was done.
The bank was covering their own mistake by taking the money from grandson's account 7 months later to satisfy their audit. Pure and simple.
The bank is culpable for that.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #7 Consumer Comment
TUCKER822, FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ALL OF YOUR LOCAL TV NEWS STATIONS.......
AUTHOR: Karl - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Monday, April 16, 2012
and send them a copy of your Ripoff Report. Put it to the attention of 'Investigative Reporter'.
There is a chance that one of them will contact you and do a story on TV about this mysterious check, right? That would be a good way to get to the bottom of this, wouldn't you agree?
There are people who will come to this site and defend the banks, but many of us know that the banking system in the USA is corrupt and diseased, correct?
Anyone can 'Google' the following eight videos and watch them on the web in order to understand that a cartel of corrupt, greedy, and inept bankers were the main reason that much of Wall Street collapsed and the banking system 'melted down' in September of 2008-
1) FRONTLINE: INSIDE THE MELTDOWN
2) FULL SHOW: HOW BIG BANKS ARE REWRITING THE RULES OF OUR ECONOMY
3) EX-SALT LAKE MAYOR ROCKY ANDERSON FORMER DEMOCRACY NOW
4) AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM
5) YOUTUBE FALL OF THE REPUBLIC
6) FRONTLINE: BREAKING THE BANK
7) THE ASCENT OF MONEY PBS
8) ELIZABETH WARREN ON THE ECONOMY NOW ON PBS
Good luck to you and keep us posted if your story goes on TV, so we can watch it on the web.
Thank You
***NATIONWIDE BANK ALERT: Make sure to stay at this site and type in- BANK, and read the Ripoff Reports from people all over America for important information if you have a bank account or a mortgage in the USA.
Then type in 481508 at this site and read St. Clair's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a mortgage.
There is a chance that one of them will contact you and do a story on TV about this mysterious check, right? That would be a good way to get to the bottom of this, wouldn't you agree?
There are people who will come to this site and defend the banks, but many of us know that the banking system in the USA is corrupt and diseased, correct?
Anyone can 'Google' the following eight videos and watch them on the web in order to understand that a cartel of corrupt, greedy, and inept bankers were the main reason that much of Wall Street collapsed and the banking system 'melted down' in September of 2008-
1) FRONTLINE: INSIDE THE MELTDOWN
2) FULL SHOW: HOW BIG BANKS ARE REWRITING THE RULES OF OUR ECONOMY
3) EX-SALT LAKE MAYOR ROCKY ANDERSON FORMER DEMOCRACY NOW
4) AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM
5) YOUTUBE FALL OF THE REPUBLIC
6) FRONTLINE: BREAKING THE BANK
7) THE ASCENT OF MONEY PBS
8) ELIZABETH WARREN ON THE ECONOMY NOW ON PBS
Good luck to you and keep us posted if your story goes on TV, so we can watch it on the web.
Thank You
***NATIONWIDE BANK ALERT: Make sure to stay at this site and type in- BANK, and read the Ripoff Reports from people all over America for important information if you have a bank account or a mortgage in the USA.
Then type in 481508 at this site and read St. Clair's Ripoff Report for valuable information if you have a mortgage.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
" The bank put the money back into the member's account they mistakenly took it from and 7 months later discovered, after an audit, that the money needed to be replaced. So, instead of going after the landlord to recoup their funds, they went after my grandson who had already taken care of the problem back then. "
They aren't going to go after the landlord. He has broken no laws or regulations. He had a legal check and they paid a legal check. The bank is unconcerned that your grandson had already paid the debt in cash. Of course the bank is going to collect it from your grandson. Now its your grandson's job to collect the money from the landlord. The landlord is the one swindling you here, he is the one ripping people off. It would be a simple matter for him to go to his bank and have the money sent back to your grandson.
Instead of going after the lowlife landlord that is double dipping your account, you want to go after the bank for letting him?
Advice: Get a lawyer. They can tell you who is legally responsible for what in this case. You are likely going to have to sue the landlord.
They aren't going to go after the landlord. He has broken no laws or regulations. He had a legal check and they paid a legal check. The bank is unconcerned that your grandson had already paid the debt in cash. Of course the bank is going to collect it from your grandson. Now its your grandson's job to collect the money from the landlord. The landlord is the one swindling you here, he is the one ripping people off. It would be a simple matter for him to go to his bank and have the money sent back to your grandson.
Instead of going after the lowlife landlord that is double dipping your account, you want to go after the bank for letting him?
Advice: Get a lawyer. They can tell you who is legally responsible for what in this case. You are likely going to have to sue the landlord.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #9 Author of original report
Wrong again
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Monday, April 16, 2012
You can say the landlord's bank ran the check a second time over and over and it doesn't make it true.
The bank told both of us on the phone what happened, not once but twice when we spoke to two DIFFERENT people there. I've explained it 10 times already.
The bank ADMITTED the check was never run a second time. Are you saying the bank lied to us?
In hypothesis, if that were true his bank would show another NSF charge 7 months later because the money simply was not there 7 months later either. Why didn't that happen?
I don't know of any banks who pay a check a second time when the money is not there. Especially, one for $1050. Banks just don't do that. The bank dunned the account that amount to cover their error at my grandson's expense. Plain and simple.
The bank told both of us on the phone what happened, not once but twice when we spoke to two DIFFERENT people there. I've explained it 10 times already.
The bank ADMITTED the check was never run a second time. Are you saying the bank lied to us?
In hypothesis, if that were true his bank would show another NSF charge 7 months later because the money simply was not there 7 months later either. Why didn't that happen?
I don't know of any banks who pay a check a second time when the money is not there. Especially, one for $1050. Banks just don't do that. The bank dunned the account that amount to cover their error at my grandson's expense. Plain and simple.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #10 Consumer Comment
My assumption...
AUTHOR: MochaG - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Monday, April 16, 2012
1) 09-30-11 : Gave the check #795 ($1,050) to the land lord
2) 10-07-11: The check was presented to the bank
3) 10-13-11: The check bounced and $29 fee for NFS
4) 10-13-11 ~ 11-10-11: Rectify the rent by paying cash
5) 11-10-11: Statement display NFS
6) 04-10-12: Got charge for $1050
I think the situation that most people mentioned on here is a perfect case. In other words, the mistake might occur and it was the bank mistake, the bank followed their process to fix it. Or if the mistake was from your grandson's land lord, the bank did nothing wrong but followed its process.
Before I dive into my assumption below, I would want to clarify about the expiration of a check. I have seen checks that has void date (such as 3 months or 6 months after the date on the check). However, I am not certain for personal check. You may have to look on the check whether it has the void date. If it does not, I guess there are other rules applied and may have infinite expiration time.
From the original report, I am not certain about the time line when the bank hold the transaction of the check. I do not know their rules. However, I would take Flynrider's words - the check transaction can be held up to 6 months. Now, what could have happened was that the check was presented and the money was transferred from a wrong account. However, the bank found out the error and simultaneously rectify it by putting the "on hold" to the other member account transaction and attempting to take the money out from the correct account - your grandson's. However, the account did not have enough money, so your grandson was charged NFS.
What I believe is that the bank found out the error AFTER they approved for the transaction. Once transaction occurred, they might not be able to stop it. As a result, they put the transaction "on hold" for an investigation. Whether or not the investigation is done, I don't know.
Now, the check was still valid and kept in the bank system because it was on hold, but the original check could have been discarded because they thought they already have it in digital format.
I still believe that his land lord got the money twice. He might recently get the money (6 months later) from the bank after the "on hold" effect wore off. You should try to contact the land lord as soon as possible. The problem is that the land lord may deny it. I do not know how the bank would be able to give more information. Your grandson may have to contact them directly and find out how and where the $1050 went. They must be able to explain it to your grandson (but not you because you are not the account holder).
2) 10-07-11: The check was presented to the bank
3) 10-13-11: The check bounced and $29 fee for NFS
4) 10-13-11 ~ 11-10-11: Rectify the rent by paying cash
5) 11-10-11: Statement display NFS
6) 04-10-12: Got charge for $1050
I think the situation that most people mentioned on here is a perfect case. In other words, the mistake might occur and it was the bank mistake, the bank followed their process to fix it. Or if the mistake was from your grandson's land lord, the bank did nothing wrong but followed its process.
Before I dive into my assumption below, I would want to clarify about the expiration of a check. I have seen checks that has void date (such as 3 months or 6 months after the date on the check). However, I am not certain for personal check. You may have to look on the check whether it has the void date. If it does not, I guess there are other rules applied and may have infinite expiration time.
From the original report, I am not certain about the time line when the bank hold the transaction of the check. I do not know their rules. However, I would take Flynrider's words - the check transaction can be held up to 6 months. Now, what could have happened was that the check was presented and the money was transferred from a wrong account. However, the bank found out the error and simultaneously rectify it by putting the "on hold" to the other member account transaction and attempting to take the money out from the correct account - your grandson's. However, the account did not have enough money, so your grandson was charged NFS.
What I believe is that the bank found out the error AFTER they approved for the transaction. Once transaction occurred, they might not be able to stop it. As a result, they put the transaction "on hold" for an investigation. Whether or not the investigation is done, I don't know.
Now, the check was still valid and kept in the bank system because it was on hold, but the original check could have been discarded because they thought they already have it in digital format.
I still believe that his land lord got the money twice. He might recently get the money (6 months later) from the bank after the "on hold" effect wore off. You should try to contact the land lord as soon as possible. The problem is that the land lord may deny it. I do not know how the bank would be able to give more information. Your grandson may have to contact them directly and find out how and where the $1050 went. They must be able to explain it to your grandson (but not you because you are not the account holder).
Respond to this report!
What's this? #11 General Comment
Checks returned unpaid...
AUTHOR: Striderq - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, April 15, 2012
When a check is not paid it is returned to the bank that presented it. That bank's policies then dictate what happens to the check. Most banks have a policy of representing a check a second time. If it's then paid, fine. If it comes back a second time unpaid is when the bank sends it back to their customer.
What this means is the landlord's bank presented the check to USAA. There was not enough money to cover so USAA returned the check to the landlord's bank and charged the NSF fee. The landlord's bank represented the check to USAA. At this point an error was made by the machines that process the checks and the money was paid to the landlord's bank from the wrong USAA account. When the account holder as USAA said "Hey, I never wrote a check for $1050" USAA investigated and found the error. The money was then taken from your account, oops I mean your grandson's account and placed in the USAA account that it was wrongly taken from. But the landlord's bank is the one who sent the check through a second time. When USAA returned it unpaid they no longer had the check to process.
Errors made in this process: 1) Your grandson wrote a check without having the money to cover it. 2) When he found out it was returned unpaid he paid cash to the landlord without getting the check back. 3) When represented the check was paid from the wrong account 4) You (and your grandson maybe) being upset at USAA when the landlord is the one with the money since he got a double payment (once in cash and once via the check). The error the bank made is inconvenient but not a ripoff. The attitude of wanting the bank to put the money back in your grandson's account is a ripoff.
What this means is the landlord's bank presented the check to USAA. There was not enough money to cover so USAA returned the check to the landlord's bank and charged the NSF fee. The landlord's bank represented the check to USAA. At this point an error was made by the machines that process the checks and the money was paid to the landlord's bank from the wrong USAA account. When the account holder as USAA said "Hey, I never wrote a check for $1050" USAA investigated and found the error. The money was then taken from your account, oops I mean your grandson's account and placed in the USAA account that it was wrongly taken from. But the landlord's bank is the one who sent the check through a second time. When USAA returned it unpaid they no longer had the check to process.
Errors made in this process: 1) Your grandson wrote a check without having the money to cover it. 2) When he found out it was returned unpaid he paid cash to the landlord without getting the check back. 3) When represented the check was paid from the wrong account 4) You (and your grandson maybe) being upset at USAA when the landlord is the one with the money since he got a double payment (once in cash and once via the check). The error the bank made is inconvenient but not a ripoff. The attitude of wanting the bank to put the money back in your grandson's account is a ripoff.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #12 Author of original report
Nope
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, April 15, 2012
The landlord got the money the second time from the bank when the bank took it from someone else's account and gave it to him. That's how he got it. The bank admitted that.
I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating this...the check was NEVER run a second time. The bank TOOK the money out 7 months after the fact as a debit. A check was NEVER presented a second time.
The bank put the money back into the member's account they mistakenly took it from and 7 months later discovered, after an audit, that the money needed to be replaced. So, instead of going after the landlord to recoup their funds, they went after my grandson who had already taken care of the problem back then.
All of this was done without one word, letter, phone call, email, nothing to my grandson by the bank about any of this happening or what happened to the check...not 7 months ago and not even now. My grandson had to call the bank to find out what was going on after the money was deducted and which put him in a negative.
Does that sound right to you? Do banks normally hide what they're doing and not tell the owner of an account what's going on with their account?
I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating this...the check was NEVER run a second time. The bank TOOK the money out 7 months after the fact as a debit. A check was NEVER presented a second time.
The bank put the money back into the member's account they mistakenly took it from and 7 months later discovered, after an audit, that the money needed to be replaced. So, instead of going after the landlord to recoup their funds, they went after my grandson who had already taken care of the problem back then.
All of this was done without one word, letter, phone call, email, nothing to my grandson by the bank about any of this happening or what happened to the check...not 7 months ago and not even now. My grandson had to call the bank to find out what was going on after the money was deducted and which put him in a negative.
Does that sound right to you? Do banks normally hide what they're doing and not tell the owner of an account what's going on with their account?
Respond to this report!
What's this?
someone did present the check a second time and it was cashed. The landlord had to get the money a second time somehow.
Did the bank make an error? Sure. They fixed that. the problem is you wrote a check that was never voided to the landlord. You also paid that same landlord in cash. You need to get a lawyer and sue the landlord, he's the one that has stolen money from you.
Did the bank make an error? Sure. They fixed that. the problem is you wrote a check that was never voided to the landlord. You also paid that same landlord in cash. You need to get a lawyer and sue the landlord, he's the one that has stolen money from you.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #14 Author of original report
Not the facts
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, April 15, 2012
We didn't say we didn't know what happened to the check, it was the BANK who ADMITTED they don't know what happened to the check. We thought the check had been returned by the bank as NSF. Interestingly, there is no record of what they did with it. I wonder why that is?
So, assuming the landlord's bank has it is just that - an assumption.
The landlord DID collect the money twice, once from cash from my grandson and once from the bank giving it to him from someone else's account. So, in my opinion, the bank made the mistake of taking the money from someone else's account, without telling my grandson they had done so, and paid the landlord with it. Therefore, the bank mistakenly gave the money to the landlord, NOT my grandson. It's their problem not his and they shouldn't have made him pay for their mistake, which is exactly what they did.
Why should my grandson go after the landlord when the bank was the one that made the mistake? My grandson didn't make the mistake and take the money from someone else's account, the bank did and then proceeded to cover their tracks by "pretending" they didn't know what happened to the check. The check was never presented a second time. If it had, it would have bounced again. But it wasn't and it didn't.
So, assuming the landlord's bank has it is just that - an assumption.
The landlord DID collect the money twice, once from cash from my grandson and once from the bank giving it to him from someone else's account. So, in my opinion, the bank made the mistake of taking the money from someone else's account, without telling my grandson they had done so, and paid the landlord with it. Therefore, the bank mistakenly gave the money to the landlord, NOT my grandson. It's their problem not his and they shouldn't have made him pay for their mistake, which is exactly what they did.
Why should my grandson go after the landlord when the bank was the one that made the mistake? My grandson didn't make the mistake and take the money from someone else's account, the bank did and then proceeded to cover their tracks by "pretending" they didn't know what happened to the check. The check was never presented a second time. If it had, it would have bounced again. But it wasn't and it didn't.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #15 Consumer Comment
Sure sounds suspicious to me
AUTHOR: Ashley - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, April 15, 2012
"" The check was never run a second time. The landlord is not returning calls. My grandson doesn't live there anymore. He moved out of state with his job. This happened 7 months ago. ""
So, you don't know for a fact that the landlord has not collected the money twice. The fact that he won't talk to you about it seems suspicious to me. Banks don't just take money and it vanishes in to thin air. If your son had $1050 taken out of his account it went somewhere. You say it was to replace money in another account that was mistakenly drafted $1050 for the check and the bank was correcting the mistake. That means that SOMEONE has $1050 that was taken out of the other account. The other posters are right, that landlord has screwed your grandson out of $1050
You don't know what happened with the original check. Its at the landlord's bank, and last time I checked banks won't give you any information about other customer's accounts. There is not original physical check anymore, banks covert them to electronic copies and destroy the originals. Even stores have started doing that. I hope your grandson has learned to make sure there's no outstanding checks out there before paying a bill a second time.
Also, checks can be good past 6 months. I recently deposited a year old check just fine.
So, you don't know for a fact that the landlord has not collected the money twice. The fact that he won't talk to you about it seems suspicious to me. Banks don't just take money and it vanishes in to thin air. If your son had $1050 taken out of his account it went somewhere. You say it was to replace money in another account that was mistakenly drafted $1050 for the check and the bank was correcting the mistake. That means that SOMEONE has $1050 that was taken out of the other account. The other posters are right, that landlord has screwed your grandson out of $1050
You don't know what happened with the original check. Its at the landlord's bank, and last time I checked banks won't give you any information about other customer's accounts. There is not original physical check anymore, banks covert them to electronic copies and destroy the originals. Even stores have started doing that. I hope your grandson has learned to make sure there's no outstanding checks out there before paying a bill a second time.
Also, checks can be good past 6 months. I recently deposited a year old check just fine.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #16 Author of original report
I offered to help him
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Friday, April 13, 2012
I offered to help him try to get this out there so someone might give some insight as to what to do about it and that's why I posted it here. He has posted this in other places, too.
The check was never run a second time. The landlord is not returning calls. My grandson doesn't live there anymore. He moved out of state with his job. This happened 7 months ago.
The check was never run again. The bank admitted that. They simply took the money out to cover their error with the other member. The bank also admitted that they do not know what happened to the check as they have no record of what was done with it. This makes the bank culpable, not my grandson.
Until two days ago, the only thing my grandson knew was that the check was NSF/returned, it showed as such on his bank statement and he went to the landlord at that time (7 months ago) and took care of it and thought that was the end of it.
The bank caused this problem when they created the error. The bank should go after the landlord to recoup the money they took from another member's account, not my grandson. He did what he was supposed to do and took care of his end of it.
The check was never run a second time. The landlord is not returning calls. My grandson doesn't live there anymore. He moved out of state with his job. This happened 7 months ago.
The check was never run again. The bank admitted that. They simply took the money out to cover their error with the other member. The bank also admitted that they do not know what happened to the check as they have no record of what was done with it. This makes the bank culpable, not my grandson.
Until two days ago, the only thing my grandson knew was that the check was NSF/returned, it showed as such on his bank statement and he went to the landlord at that time (7 months ago) and took care of it and thought that was the end of it.
The bank caused this problem when they created the error. The bank should go after the landlord to recoup the money they took from another member's account, not my grandson. He did what he was supposed to do and took care of his end of it.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #17 Consumer Comment
We are not getting it?
AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, April 13, 2012
Okay first of all originally you gave NO indication that you were just posting a letter HE wrote. He seems to have a pretty decent grasp of the English Language and unless you just copied his handwritten letter he has a computer. Which brings up the question why the heck didn't he just post this report?
Perhaps you can have him answer this question. Has he talked to his landlord and what does his landlord say about all of this? Is the landlord denying that they ever got paid from the check? Where by "check" I mean either the original check or if it was re-run electronically after it initially bounced. Is the landlord denying that your Grandson paid cash? Because as has been stated before this appears where his problem lies, and where it needs to be solved..NOT with the bank.
Perhaps you can have him answer this question. Has he talked to his landlord and what does his landlord say about all of this? Is the landlord denying that they ever got paid from the check? Where by "check" I mean either the original check or if it was re-run electronically after it initially bounced. Is the landlord denying that your Grandson paid cash? Because as has been stated before this appears where his problem lies, and where it needs to be solved..NOT with the bank.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #18 Author of original report
Still not getting it
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Friday, April 13, 2012
Yes, he did do that. He's young and make a mistake. I guess you've never done that. You must be perfect. At any rate he corrected the mistake with the landlord as he should have.
The landlord's bank is not the bank that ran the check again. My grandson's bank is the one that created the debit in order to cover their mistake.
Once again...the payee bank NEVER ran the check again. However, the payor bank, because of their error, debited the money to cover their mistake.
According to the bank, the second withdrawal NEVER involved this check at all and it was never presented a second time. The bank was covering their own error by simply taking the money.
The landlord's bank is not the bank that ran the check again. My grandson's bank is the one that created the debit in order to cover their mistake.
Once again...the payee bank NEVER ran the check again. However, the payor bank, because of their error, debited the money to cover their mistake.
According to the bank, the second withdrawal NEVER involved this check at all and it was never presented a second time. The bank was covering their own error by simply taking the money.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #19 General Comment
The only ripoff was comitted by...
AUTHOR: Striderq - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 12, 2012
your grandson. He wrote a check on his account when he didn't have the funds available to cover it. He then compounded the error by paying cash and not getting the check back. The landlord's bank took the physical check and converted it into an electronic representation. If the error had not been made taking the money from the wrong account, the landlord's bank would have sent a copy of the check back to the landlord informing him that it had been returned unpaid. This copy of the electronic check is as valid a the paper check that was written by your grandson. And carries that notice on the copy. The bank made an error that was then corrected. The landlord has been paid twice for the same month's rent. Have your grandson contact the landlord for his money back because he certainly won't get it back from the bank.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #20 Author of original report
Uh, wrong!
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 12, 2012
This is not my deal! This is between my grandson, HIS landlord and HIS banker. Not me. I'm just trying to help him get the word out that he got ripped of by the bank because of THEIR mistake.
The letter I posted is HIS letter that HE wrote.
The letter I posted is HIS letter that HE wrote.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #21 Consumer Comment
Who is patronizing whom?
AUTHOR: Flynrider - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 12, 2012
The only reason I posted here was to offer a more plausible explanation of events. The explanation you gave does not sound plausible. As you can see, I'm not the only one who thought so.
" Also, you do realize that after 6 months, a check is void and cannot be redeposited. "
Really? Well I happen to know that's not true at all. My information comes from the UCC. Where does yours come from?
" Plus, I've been banking for 40 years and know how it all works. "
Ohhh! That explains it. I had no idea I was dealing with Mr. Know-it-all. Your vast experience balancing a checkbook certainly should be taken over actual banking regulations. What were we thinking?
" Please do not be patronizing. "
Thank you for adding that bit of irony on the end. It really brightens everyone's day.
" Also, you do realize that after 6 months, a check is void and cannot be redeposited. "
Really? Well I happen to know that's not true at all. My information comes from the UCC. Where does yours come from?
" Plus, I've been banking for 40 years and know how it all works. "
Ohhh! That explains it. I had no idea I was dealing with Mr. Know-it-all. Your vast experience balancing a checkbook certainly should be taken over actual banking regulations. What were we thinking?
" Please do not be patronizing. "
Thank you for adding that bit of irony on the end. It really brightens everyone's day.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #22 Author of original report
You're not getting it at all...,
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 12, 2012
Um, what part of the bank doesn't have a record of sending the check back to the landlord do you not get? What part of the landlord does not have the check nor ever received it do you not get, either?
Neither the bank nor the landlord has the original. The only record that exists of this check is a COPY of it in my bank statement, not the original. The bank ADMITTED they don't have it and don't know what happened to it.
Also, you do realize that after 6 months, a check is void and cannot be redeposited. Plus, I've been banking for 40 years and know how it all works. Please do not be patronizing.
Neither the bank nor the landlord has the original. The only record that exists of this check is a COPY of it in my bank statement, not the original. The bank ADMITTED they don't have it and don't know what happened to it.
Also, you do realize that after 6 months, a check is void and cannot be redeposited. Plus, I've been banking for 40 years and know how it all works. Please do not be patronizing.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #23 Consumer Comment
I did re-read what you wrote...
AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 12, 2012
And everything you wrote, including your own words tell that the Landlord is the one who has actually been paid twice. So why are you not going after your landlord?
Have you even talked to your landlord about this? You should have a $1050 "credit" with your landlord. With this you should be able to just pay your Grandson the next month when your rent is due. That is use the "credit" for your rent, and use the money you would have paid your landlord to pay your Grandson.
This of course if figuring that when you paid your Landlord the $1050 in CASH that you got a receipt and the landlord agrees that they were double-paid. If you don't have a receipt then proving this is going to be next to impossible and you may be out $1050. But not because of USAA.
Have you even talked to your landlord about this? You should have a $1050 "credit" with your landlord. With this you should be able to just pay your Grandson the next month when your rent is due. That is use the "credit" for your rent, and use the money you would have paid your landlord to pay your Grandson.
This of course if figuring that when you paid your Landlord the $1050 in CASH that you got a receipt and the landlord agrees that they were double-paid. If you don't have a receipt then proving this is going to be next to impossible and you may be out $1050. But not because of USAA.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #24 General Comment
Returned checks...
AUTHOR: Striderq - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, April 12, 2012
This is what happens when a check is returned NSF: Your landlord depsoited the check into his bank account; his bank used Check 21 and sent an electronic representation of the check to your bank; the "check" was returned NSF and it went back to your landlord's bank; your landlord's bank sent the check back to your bank a second time. If it had not been paid then the check would have been returned to your landlord. When you paid your landlord the cash and didn't pick up the check (because it hadn't been returned to him/her yet) you left a vallid, negotiable check in your landlord's hands. Basically the landlord has been paid twice.
As far as the bank reimbursing you the money. Let's see what you'd want if you were on the other side: If someone else had written a check and the bank's machines had misread the account number and the money came out of your account, would you call the bank and demand your money back? Of course you would. The bank would investigate, find out the money shouldn't have come from your account and they would have replaced the money. They then would have taken the money from the account the check was written on. This is what happened. When you found out the check was returned you should have contacted your landlord and said I have cash to pay you when you have the check in hand to return to me. You didn't take this step and allowed your account to be charged twice. Is it an inconveniance? Yes. Is it a rip off? No. Except where you're trying to rip off the bank by demanding the money back into your account. Go talk to your landlord, they're the ones that have your money having been paid twice.
As far as the bank reimbursing you the money. Let's see what you'd want if you were on the other side: If someone else had written a check and the bank's machines had misread the account number and the money came out of your account, would you call the bank and demand your money back? Of course you would. The bank would investigate, find out the money shouldn't have come from your account and they would have replaced the money. They then would have taken the money from the account the check was written on. This is what happened. When you found out the check was returned you should have contacted your landlord and said I have cash to pay you when you have the check in hand to return to me. You didn't take this step and allowed your account to be charged twice. Is it an inconveniance? Yes. Is it a rip off? No. Except where you're trying to rip off the bank by demanding the money back into your account. Go talk to your landlord, they're the ones that have your money having been paid twice.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
20 years ago, when I worked for another company, some guy orders a watch for $4,800 and sends us a check. We deposit the check and it bounces. We call the guy up and he sends us a USPS money order. Before he sent us the money order, we gave the bounced check to our bank "FOR COLLECTIONS". EIGHT MONTHS LATER, our bank sends us a cashier's check for $4,800. They had finally "collected" on that check. The funny part was the guy was soo stoned all the time he never missed the $4,800. I wonder if your landlord sent your check to HIS bank for collections? Normally a NSF check is returned to the maker.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #26 Author of original report
Need to re-read what I wrote
AUTHOR: Tucker822 - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, April 11, 2012
The landlord never got the check returned to him. The statement says it was, but that didn't happen. The check has "disappeared." This was admitted by the bank. We have an electronic copy of it, but that is all there is.
When the check was presented the first time, the bank mistakenly took money from someone else's account and then had to reimburse that person's account from the bank's own funds because, according to them, they couldn't read the account number at the bottom of the check because the check had been folded (???).
At any rate, it wasn't until 7 months later that an audit was done and the bank decided to take back their funds to cover their mistake by debiting my account...with no notice for 7 months of the error they had made.
They made the mistake and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
When the check was presented the first time, the bank mistakenly took money from someone else's account and then had to reimburse that person's account from the bank's own funds because, according to them, they couldn't read the account number at the bottom of the check because the check had been folded (???).
At any rate, it wasn't until 7 months later that an audit was done and the bank decided to take back their funds to cover their mistake by debiting my account...with no notice for 7 months of the error they had made.
They made the mistake and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #27 Consumer Comment
I see a problem.
AUTHOR: Flynrider - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, April 11, 2012
I'm don't know about the bank's explanation, but I see an issue that could explain this.
" Oh, and by the way, on top of all of this, USAA admitted that they do not know what became of the check and there are no records of where it went. "
Here's where my alarm bells started going off. If things happened the way you said they did, the check should have been in YOUR possession. You paid your landlord $1050 in cash to make up for the returned check. At that point, he should have handed you that check. Did you let him keep it? At that point it was still a negotiable check, even though it had been returned.
Banks can stop payment on a check, but the stop will not last indefinitely. You need to check your bank's rules. Most stop payment orders are only good for 6 months.
I think what really happened here is that you paid your landlord for the bad check without getting the check back. Your landlord then redeposited the check once the hold had expired. That's why the money appears to have gone into his account.
That is certainly a simpler and more plausible explanation than the one you gave.
" Oh, and by the way, on top of all of this, USAA admitted that they do not know what became of the check and there are no records of where it went. "
Here's where my alarm bells started going off. If things happened the way you said they did, the check should have been in YOUR possession. You paid your landlord $1050 in cash to make up for the returned check. At that point, he should have handed you that check. Did you let him keep it? At that point it was still a negotiable check, even though it had been returned.
Banks can stop payment on a check, but the stop will not last indefinitely. You need to check your bank's rules. Most stop payment orders are only good for 6 months.
I think what really happened here is that you paid your landlord for the bad check without getting the check back. Your landlord then redeposited the check once the hold had expired. That's why the money appears to have gone into his account.
That is certainly a simpler and more plausible explanation than the one you gave.
Respond to this report!
What's this? 
