BB&T - Better Banking And Trust Unfair Overdraft Policy Columbus Georgia

Bridget, I am reading all these entries on banks ripping them off on NSF fees, and it is a SCAM. The best thing to do is change to a Credit Union. I have been with a Credit Union for the past 20+ years and have NEVER had a problem like this. Sure I have had some NSF fees, BUT I know I created them, not a banks SCAM.

Jim,
This is probably the only time you and i will ever agree. Yes! All banks are the same. They figured out crediting before debiting equals less money for them. BB&T is not the first one to impliment this policy, they will not be the last. It's an ugly truth,

However, Bridget, you need to understand something. some people on ripoff report have legitimate suggestions to assist. There are some however that will not read a d**n thing you type and head off to the races spoutng how you need to be more responsible, and no matter how many rebuttals you post, they will always go back to the same thing. I don't know why they do it, but i know how. They copy and paste the same suggestion over and over again on BB&T ripoff report, on Wachovias, on Suntrust and on Bank of America's reports as well. I think it's because being a cyberbully is more fun to them than actually reading the report.

Don't waste your time trying to rebuff them, or set them straight because they believe they're right and will never care what you say.

Bridget, closing the account is certainly your choice, but it cannot end there. The one thing you should remember is this:

ALL BANKS ARE THE SAME!

They have identical policies and function in an identical manner. If you end up at Chase, Citibank, BofA, a local, regional, or whichever bank - it doesn't matter. The advice we provide is universal for the INDUSTRY - not the bank.

While we're on the subject, it matters to not be so certain you're right. Coming here declaring your indignation and then accusing people of working for the bank (since we dare to oppose your opinion - which matters little here) is the argument of someone without substance. Going elsewhere and receiving sympathy, while it feels good, does nothing to solve the problem. My being nice won't change your behavior either...because you're coming here with the belief the bank is wrong and you're right. When you come with that belief, we will only be monsters.

Do we know whether we make a difference. Not certain it matters. If people take the time to understand they are wrong and implement change, then that's fine. If not, that's OK too, but the problem they have usually pops up again. They come here again complaining the new bank sucks too. Why is that?

ALL BANKS ARE THE SAME!

Remember that...

Let's assume, just for a moment, that you indeed don't work for a bank. Let's assume that, as you claim, you spend your free time patrolling Rip Off Report.com for new instances of people who are "blaming the bank for their own account mismanagement", making rebuttals only to show these unfortunate individuals a clearer path.

Do you really think you're making a difference? The person making the post has already heard this story from the bank. What makes you think they'll have an open ear to an anonymous Internet troller?

Furthermore, if they were in any way willing to accept your advice and consider that their situation may be no one's fault but their own, the attitude you present prevents them from doing so. Titling your responses with things like "you're wrong" isn't opening anyone's mind to what you have to say. You're just riling people up, not making a case.

If you really want to help people... if you really want to make a difference... I have some advice of my own.

1. Read what people are writing. In my situation, my complaint wasn't that I overdrafted, it was the third fee, which you didn't even address. Not every situation is the same, and you might surprise yourself by actually taking the time to read the report.

2. Be sympathetic. I've worked in customer service for a very long time. I understand you aren't getting paid (*supposedly) to make these rebuttals, but when a customer approaches me in an angry state about a fee that they've been charged, we don't start out by accusing them of being incompetent. Try saying that you understand that what they were charged by the bank is a lot of money, and you are sorry that they lost it. Say, "I've been there too, and I know how you feel. Here's some helpful things you could have done to prevent this from happening." From the very beginning of your post, establish yourself as an ally instead of an enemy.

3. Don't assume things. "I do know that most people don't overdraft their accounts." I'm confident that statistics will show that most lower class people actually DO. I'm 26, and in my (rather large) social circle, there is only one person I can name who hasn't overdrawn a bank account. I'm not saying it's impossible not to, but if you want to really make a case, get some proof. And good luck pitting them against articles like these:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/story_content.asp?story_uid=21014&prodtype=cc

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investing/fdic-study-outrageous-overdraft-fees-1.aspx


4. Have an open mind. You can't be a "teacher" without also being a "learner." Do you honestly think that the bank's policies are fair? Regardless of signed contracts, do you truly believe that these policies should be maintained as they are, or could it be possible that revolution of the industry practices be a good thing? Obviously law suits have been won in the "people's" favor, so it is debatable whether overdraft policies really are ethical. There's room for error, and there's room for disagreement. If you want your rebuttals to be taken seriously, and people to actually value what you have to say, you have to first at least consider the opposing viewpoint, just like you expect your readers to consider yours.

I doubt this will change anything about your future rebuttals, because I think you actually enjoy the rush of the argument. I think that's the real reason you spend time in this forum (*assuming it's in no way lucrative for you.) But who am I to say? Just because you come across as judgemental doesn't mean you really are... right? If that's the case, I'm sure you'll have no problem adjusting your attitude to reflect that you aren't out to bully those who you make rebuttals against.

P.S. - I blogged about this the same day I made this inital Report. The responses were 100% empathetic and positive. If anyone ever did make a negative response, I would not even consider deleting it, just as I've never deleted any negative comments in the past. I'm not biased, and I don't obstruct the opinions of others. I also have now closed my BB&T account, so you won't have to worry that I'm "donating" them any more of my money.

Ciao.

The "bank employee" fallacy is a tactic often used by those who have no substantive argument. Do you people seriously think that I get paid by all of the banks?

Of course you'd rather move to a blog. You can delete posts by people who disagree with you and point out your errors. The fact that you would go to these lengths in a childish fit instead of owning up to your mistakes speaks volumes about you.

I won't stoop to making another rebuttal or another post on Rip Off Report.com, so you can stop paying Edgeman and Jim to do your dirty work. I'll just blog about it, where oddly enough, people actually read what you write and take it into consideration instead of bullying you.

It seems to be more effective anyway.

What you want is the bank to post transactions they way YOU want them. It doesn't work that way. You signed an agreement with the bank, remember? It gives the BANK the right to post transactions in ANY order they wish. Claiming something is unfair (like a child) as you did is subjective; what is fair for someone is unfair for another. So is claiming their behavior is unethical for the very same reason; what is ethical for one is unethical for another. Banks, like every other business out there, work with written agreements or contracts. There can be nothing unfair, unethical, or otherwise subjective assigned when something transpires unless there is a dispute as to the meaning of the T&C's. Once the contract is signed, it signifies BOTH parties AGREED to the terms.

It's not a matter of being a moron; it's a matter of simple ignorance on your part. Your rage is misplaced, unnecessary, and self-inflicted. Once again, the fault for this can be found in your mirror. If you look into it, you should be able to see who did this to you. It's OK, there are thousands like you who have done this to themselves all over the country at every bank out there. It isn't the bank. It's the lack of money management and the lack of exercising any care about money.

Lose the attitude, Bridget. There's no need for it here.


Bridget wrote: "Yes, I did have the $50 initially in my register, but when it didn't clear, and there was no record of it on file with the credit card company, I made a second payment-- FIFTEEN DAYS later -- for $60, ten dollars more."

Response: A bit of friendly advice - merchants can submit charges long after you authorize the transaction. It's possible for a charge to be submitted nearly a year later. Your best bet is to assume that the money is spent as soon as you authorize it. I'm surprised that you didn't get a confirmation number with your payment.


Bridget wrote: ". I'm pretty sure that was made perfectly clear in the initial report, but you felt the need to assume the issue was my fault regardless."

Response: Do you always behave like this?


Bridget wrote: "If you don't have an affiliation with BB&T, why do you feel the need to make a rebuttal?"

Response: Simply because you asked a question and I decided to answer it. You struck me as intelligent, articulate and open to a few pointers. I hope that I'm a good judge of character.


Bridget wrote to Jim:

"Let me try to dumb it down you, so maybe you can feel a little bit of the rage that I felt when you responded to me like I'm a complete moron."

Response: This is simply fascinating. Why do you feel rage over an internet posting and why do you resort to insults?


Bridget wrote: "And people should be able to make their complaints without being HARRASSED by people who have nothing better to do than make inaccurate rebuttals."

Nobody is harassing you. I'd say that people should be able to make rebuttals without thread authors feeling rage and resorting to childish insults.


Bridget wrote: "Making fun of me has nothing to do with the fact that this is an unfair policy."

Response: Nobody made fun of you. If you feel that bank fees are unfair then you should stop donating your money to BB&T.

I"ll try to help with the math.


- Balance in my account on 7/13 according to the BB&T online banking website is $156.45. I knew I had a $75 credit card payment and a $1.22 debit transaction pending.

- Evening of 7/13, I purchased 36.85 in groceries, using my debit card.

- At midnight, the $75 and $1.22 posted, along with a $50 charge I hadn't expected. The $50 is a long story of a missing transaction from months before that I thought had been cancelled. BB&T charged two $35 overdraft fees for the $50 and the $1.22 transactions. All transactions appear in online banking with a date of 7/13.

-The next day, 7/14, the $36.85 charge posted, causing another $35 overdraft.

- This left my balance at $-111.64, $105 of which is in fees. This doesn't add up.

- By my mathwork, even with the $50 erroneous charge, I didn't go under a zero balance until the $36.85 posted on 7/14. Before that transaction, I had $31.43 available.

-So I go to the bank, where I'm told that the $50 and the $1.22 overdrafted because the funds weren't available due to the $36.85 transaction, which was being "held."


They say the 36.85$ funds were being held. I'm going to assume that the 75$ and the 1.22 were also.

156.45 - 36.85 =119.60 available funds at midnight.



At midnight the 75$, the 50$ and the 1.22$ hit in that order. That leaves you with a balance of -6.62$, with 36.85$ still out there to secure the other transaction. That -6.62 is from 2 transactions. This triggers two overlimit fees.

So at midnight your balance does:
119.60 - 75 - 50 - 1.22 - 35 - 35= -76.62

Now if you looked at your balance with that pending amount out there it would have shown you: -39.77, so the account is in the negative when that secured transaction goes through. Problem is the overdrafts have eaten any of the remaining positive balance that was being held. Taking you to -76.62 from paying it. Then you get hit with an additional fee: -111.62.

My math has me 2 cents off from your bank. I'm not saying its fair but that's how they arrived at the number.

I think that you should have only been charged two overdraft fees, instead of three. The reason you were charged three is your 36.85 purchase happened after business hours.

Ultimately, it was your fault from not checking on that 50$ payment. Personally, if I had authorized a payment and it NEVER posted, I would be very concerned about it. Remember to keep stuff like that in your register. Merchants have 60 days to post a transaction. I realize bills are different, but the grocery store could have run that 36.85 and waited 6 weeks to take the money. This is why its very important to track your purchases, and when something doesn't post you need to track down why. When you made the payment again, you should have gone to your bank to stop payment the previous one.

Edgeman,

Yes, I did have the $50 initially in my register, but when it didn't clear, and there was no record of it on file with the credit card company, I made a second payment-- FIFTEEN DAYS later -- for $60, ten dollars more. The second payment posted right away, within three business days. The first payment then mysteriously appeared several days later, causing me to overdraft my account. I'm pretty sure that was made perfectly clear in the initial report, but you felt the need to assume the issue was my fault regardless.

If you don't have an affiliation with BB&T, why do you feel the need to make a rebuttal?

Jim,

Take the time to read what I wrote. I know that authorizations cause overdrafts. That isn't my complaint. Don't assume that just because I'm saying that I was charged overdraft fees that I'm an irresponsible account holder.

Let me try to dumb it down you, so maybe you can feel a little bit of the rage that I felt when you responded to me like I'm a complete moron.

I had enough money in my account for the first charge I made- Charge #1 7/13, 7:00pm- AND the pre-authorized electronic payment of $75 (authorized three days prior.) - Charge #2. Charge #2 and #3 ($50) caused me to overdraft at MIDNIGHT (technically the next day, mind you) because Charge #1 had already taken out my available credit. So Charge #3 caused overdraft #1 and overdraft #2 (for the $75 and the $50) as a result of Charge #1. Charge #1 was then charged a fee when it posted the next day, as a result of the overdraft fees alone. Charge #1 was already taken out of my available balance in order to allow overdrafts #1 and #2 to happen, but then charged a THIRD fee when it posted. This third fee is my complaint. Cause and effect should be linear, not cyclic.

I'm not saying it's illegal -- I'm saying it's unfair. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

I do work for a bank (not BB&T), but I'm not a bank teller. I work on the back end.

And people should be able to make their complaints without being HARRASSED by people who have nothing better to do than make inaccurate rebuttals. Making fun of me has nothing to do with the fact that this is an unfair policy.

"I work for a bank. I'm sure you do too, spending time rebutting my complaint as you have, so you should know how this works."

Actually, I don't. I doubt that a bank would hire me and I'm fine with that. Nothing against bank employees, but it's just not a job that I would want.



"You use your debit card. An authorization is then sent to your bank, which is instantly either approved or declined. If it's declined, no harm, no foul-- just use another form of payment. I know, what a concept, right?"

But it just doesn't work like that. Most banks write in their terms and conditions that they may pay or deny a transaction that would result in a negative balance. When you agree to those terms and conditions, wouldn't it be safer to assume that the bank is going to pay it and charge you an overdraft fee in accordance with the aforementioned terms?


"As for the $50, since I now feel the need to defend myself... I make an online credit card payment each paycheck, on the 15th and the 1st. I scheduled one on 6/15 for $50. By 7/1, the transaction had neither posted to the credit card, nor cleared my BB&T bank account. I assumed that although I had noted the transaction and accounted for it, that I must not have clicked the final button to authorize it, as usually these transactions post within 3 days. I made a $60 payment on 7/1 which posted to the credit card and cleared BB&T by 7/3. The initial $50 charge posted to my credit card on 7/10, and cleared BB&T on 7/13, a month after I'd initially scheduled it."

And your check register took that $50 into account, correct?


"This is something I know I need to work out with the credit card company, but just so you don't think I'm a deadbeat, I do keep a register, and I monitor my accounts daily. I may still live paycheck to paycheck, but I am young and still building my savings. You can't fault me for that. I am a responsible account holder and I should be able to put my complaint in writing without someone judging me in defense of an evil corporation who preys on situations like this."

I didn't judge you, nor did I think that you were a deadbeat. I wrote that if you know that a transaction will cause you to overdraft your account, it doesn't make sense to authorize that transaction and hope that the bank will deny it. That is just begging to pay unneccessary overdraft fees. It's your money, do what you want with it but I can think of better uses for it (such as earning interest).

I've NEVER worked for a bank and I KNOW banks have used available balance in the account to calculate overdrafts since about the time debit cards became an everyday occurrence in our lives. It is inconceivable to me that someone who actually works for a bank doesn't know this - whether this is due to simple or intended ignorance is for others to judge.

Just for you to also know - debit cards aren't declined unless you have them specially setup that way and 96% of people (including bank employees) don't. The reason they don't is because merchants have told banks they prefer debit cards not be declined so that they can be paid and the transaction speed accelerates. Banks listen to their merchants - they help the bank make money and they're partners in the debit card process. Credit cards can be declined - debit cards won't be.

Finally, there is no need to rely on the online banking for anything if you already keep an accurate register of all your transactions. If you want to know your REAL available balance, it's in your register. If you're overdrawn in your register, there may be a chance you might not be overdrawn if you have a check outstanding. However, if your register never gets into the negative by a good amount, your bank can and will NEVER figure a way to overdraft your account. They can sort transactions in any order to try and overdraft you - it will never happen.

If you want to find fault - find a mirror. There you will find who did this to you.

"Why would you authorize a transaction only to decline it?"
I work for a bank. I'm sure you do too, spending time rebutting my complaint as you have, so you should know how this works.
You use your debit card. An authorization is then sent to your bank, which is instantly either approved or declined. If it's declined, no harm, no foul-- just use another form of payment. I know, what a concept, right?

As for the $50, since I now feel the need to defend myself... I make an online credit card payment each paycheck, on the 15th and the 1st. I scheduled one on 6/15 for $50. By 7/1, the transaction had neither posted to the credit card, nor cleared my BB&T bank account. I assumed that although I had noted the transaction and accounted for it, that I must not have clicked the final button to authorize it, as usually these transactions post within 3 days. I made a $60 payment on 7/1 which posted to the credit card and cleared BB&T by 7/3. The initial $50 charge posted to my credit card on 7/10, and cleared BB&T on 7/13, a month after I'd initially scheduled it.

This is something I know I need to work out with the credit card company, but just so you don't think I'm a deadbeat, I do keep a register, and I monitor my accounts daily. I may still live paycheck to paycheck, but I am young and still building my savings. You can't fault me for that. I am a responsible account holder and I should be able to put my complaint in writing without someone judging me in defense of an evil corporation who preys on situations like this.

--Bridget

From the OP:

"Banks try to tell you that they allow a transaction to go through out of courtesy, because declining it would be embarrasing, and overdraft fees are the cost of this courtesy. But they don't give you a choice to decline the charge instead of incurring the cost, which most people would prefer."

Why on Earth would you authorize a transaction only to decline it? As a responsible account holder, I assume that you keep an accurate check register and that would have included the $50 payment that you mentioned. If you know your account balance won't cover the transaction, why would you authorize that transaction?

I have no idea if most people would prefer the option to decline transactions that they authorized or not. I do know that most people who have checking accounts do not overdraft their accounts. That means they do not authorize transactions unless they have the available funds to cover them.


"There wasn't a way for them to "decline" it after that point, so why should I have to pay a fee when they POST the transaction?"

Because YOU authorized the transaction.