Wachovia Another Overdraft Ripoff charge Boca Raton Florida

First of all, let me quickly throw this end since you changed subjects. In one of your previous posts, after responding to my claims about BofA you ended your post with this final statement: 'That being said, still doesn't change a thing on this report. merchant error should be corrected by the merchant. End of story'. So I followed your lead and got back on the subject of this OP and the Merchant Error. I explained how a Merchant error and CORRECTION would STILL cause the SAME FEES at Wachovia, but at BofA the Merchant correction would have resulted in NO FEES. Then in your very next post, you didn't address this but you switched back to discussing how fees were assessed based on Posted or Available balance. Just wanted to point that out.

Now following your lead again and switching back to how the fees are charged, I reviewed Report # 323299 and as I said earlier, these BofA reports can be somewhat confusing. I have yet to see a BofA report where the author CLEARLY lays out what happened to them with specific transactions and balances by day. In Report # 323299, ONCE AGAIN you have the familiar pattern I've seen in most if not all of these BofA reports - a deposit. This is NEVER the issue in the Wachovia reports.

Let me first say this is ONLY SPECULATION on my part. But in these recent BofA reports what I suspect is happening is these customers are making DEBIT (pin #) purchases, as opposed to CREDIT CARD type purchases. Here's why this is important. At BofA, when you swipe your card as a credit card, theoretically you could overdraw your Available balance, but then go and make a deposit before cutoff. The deposit would post the SAME DAY, it would post BEFORE the transaction that overdrew your account and since BofA charges fees based on the Posted balance, the customer AVOIDS any FEE even though the customer overdrew his account.

However, if the BofA customer swipes the card as a DEBIT and inputs his pin #, BofA considers this a REAL TIME post to the ledger. It's confusing because when the customer checks the account online, that transaction will still show up as pending and the previous Postedd Balance is still the same. But from BofA's standpoint, they say the transaction has ACTUALLY POSTED. Thus, a fee is charged for it because the Posted balance is indeed overdrawn, even though the online ledger doesn't show this. Furthermore, even if a customer makes a deposit before cutoff and the deposit BEATS the transaction and the deposit posts BEFORE the transaction, and even though the ledger will show that the Posted balance never went negative, BofA will still charge a fee because BofA considers the transaction as POSTING IMMEDIATELY when it was made.

In this latter example with the debit purchase using the pin #, you're probably aware that some banks actually update the ledger and Posted balance REAL TIME. For example, if you go to Wal-Mart and make a debit pin # purchase, when you go back and check your online ledger at SOME banks, this transaction will NOT show up as a pending hold. It will IMMEDIATELY show up in the posted ledger and the Posted balance is updated IMMEDIATELY online. Thus, it's easier to see how you're charged a fee because you overdrew your Posted Balance with that swipe which posted IMMEDIATELY. I suspect Bank of America is charging its fees bases on this scenario, EXCEPT BofA is not updating the online ledger and Posted balance to reflect this. Pure speculation on my part, but I feel pretty confident this is the case.

My point is, BofA is not charging the fee based on the Available balance. But instead BofA is still charging fees based on the Posted balance. The confusion is BofA doesn't update their online ledgers REAL TIME to show the posted balance as negative, IMMEDIATELY after debit pin # purchases. So this gives the customer the WRONG IMPRESSION that BofA charged them a fee when their Posted balance was still positive. This is wrong. Behind the scenes, their Posted balance was actually negative, the MINUTE they made the debit pin # purchase. But they just don't see this IMMEDIATELY in the BofA online ledger REAL TIME. However, if you switch that transaction from a debit pin # purchase to a credit card type purchase, then the customer will NOT be charged a fee because the Posted balance never goes negative. This is because this transaction DOES NOT post immediately. It has to first be sent in by the Merchant. And if the customer beats this credit card type transaction with a deposit, then NO FEE. Even though the Available Balance went negative, the Posted balance never did. That's the subtle, yet very important difference.

But at Wachovia, no matter how the transaction is made a fee is charged no matter what. Because Wachovia DOES INDEED charge fees based on the Available Balance and it doesn't matter whether the swipe is made as a credit card type or debit pin # type.

Please read ROR report # 323299 on BOA. Clearly states they got fees when the item was on hold, which put their balance negative and received fees when the items posted. So it seems time to revise your 99.9% figure again.

Actually BOA and others can lead to more than one fee. If you have a total of $25.00 on holds, then any items that post leaving less than $25.00 in your account will be accessed an unavailable funds fee. However I do understand that your saying only Wachovia will then charge an Overdraft fee when the item(s) on hold come in and post to the negative. I think this is a wrong assumption and will look for the report that clearly states BOA charged when the item was on hold & again when the item posted negative. But again it is covered in T&C when it says any item that posts negative will be accessed a fee. I understand that you feel there should be fewer fees, but unforunately that is not the way that most banks are doing business these days.

Striderq, I will grant you this. The BofA reports do in fact state the customer was charged fees when the Available balance went Negative. Or the customer was charged fees for transactions BEFORE they posted and before the POSTED balance went negative. If I have previously implied this was not true, I have tried to correct that wrong implication several times. I have have since admitted that BofA and other banks charge you fees when the Available balance goes negative and SOMETIMES before the transaction posts. And yes I do have a problem with this and have stated so on BofA reports, though not recently. However, even though I have a problem with what BofA is doing, in my opinion it's STILL not as bad as what Wachovia is doing. I repeat - I think what both Wachovia and Bank of America is doing is wrong. But what Wachovia is doing is FAR worse. Here's how.

The Bank of America reports concern customer complaints about fees charged when the Available balance goes negative, but BEFORE the items post. Here's the reason for the complaint. You'll also notice an additional pattern in these BofA reports. The customer is aware of their mistake and try to make deposits to cover it. However if the deposit doesn't post the customer is charged a fee. And sometimes EVEN IF the deposit posts, the customer is STILL charged a fee. But THE POINT IS the customer is only charged a fee for THOSE transactions which overdrew the account when the card was SWIPED. Fees are ARE NOT charged for OTHER transactions previously made when BOTH balances were still postive.

On the other hand at Wachovia, the customer is charged fees before the GUILTY transactions post, but that's just half the story. Because of the SLICK way Wachovia does the posting by first deducting HOLDS, this causes OTHER transactions to post in SUCH A WAY that fees will be charged for them also - DOUBLE FEES. At Wachovia, a fee is charged BECAUSE of a pending transaction on hold, but this FIRST fee is charge AGAINST OTHER TRANSACTIONS. Then the GUILTY transaction is ALSO charged a fee, resulting in DOUBLE, TRIPLE or even QUADRUPLE FEES.

At Bank of America - ONLY the GUILTY transaction is charged a fee. At Bank of America, a fee is charged before the GUILTY transaction posts, and yes I have a problem with that. But no matter how the transaction posts, only ONE FEE will be charged for that ONE transaction. No OTHER fees are charged to ANY OTHER transactions. That's also the reason that a lot of these Wachovia reports use terms like DOUBLE FEES, something that you don't see in the BofA reports. That's the KEY difference between the two.

Wells Fargo, Chase, National City, 3 Rivers FCU and Union Workers FCU. We have accounts at all of these banks and they are all the same.....available balance is the new posted balance..... in fact NO ONE should be banking off there posted balance anymore.... it is a obsolete practice.

that other banks, to include BOA, are charging fees when the available balance goes into the negative, although the posted balance is still positive.

Please see the following reports for the following banks:

First Convenience # 316092
Suntrust # 317919
US Bank # 282465
BOA # 322124; 321398; 322075; 321907; 319770

All these reports state the bank charged fees based on items/amounts that were on hold with the posted account balance still positive. So I guess your claim that Wachovia and ONLY Wachovia charges fees on items/amounts on hold taking the available balance into the negative just flew out the window.

To get back to the issue in this OP and the Merchant error, the Merchants will be just as ANGRY as customers about this, if in fact they have to START paying fees for money they DID NOT RECEIVE. I agree with John of New Jersey, as well as Striderq that Merchant's should be held responsible for its mistakes. And I'm sure the Merchants will have no problem with this either, if in fact they actually receive money unjustly. But that's the WHOLE POINT of HOLDS and BATCHES. The Merchant sends in the BATCH to the bank telling the bank AT THAT TIME to give them money from this customer's account. If the Merchant NEVER sends in the batch, the Merchant NEVER RECEIVES any duplicate funds. No damage done to the customer's account......that is if you're a customer at 99.99% of OTHER banks who POST only using the POSTED balance - when BATCHES are received.

Following that line of thinking, here's a different way to look at the ledger samples between Wachovia and Bank of America to show what DID happen to Fred at Wachovia and what WOULD NOT have happened to Fred at Bank of America:

----------
Date....Item....Amount....Available Balance
3-11....HOLD...$10.........$ 35
3-11....HOLD...$02.........$ 33
3-12....HOLD...$20.........$ 13
3-12....HOLD...$20.........($ 7)......Merchant Error - Duplicate transaction
3-12....HOLD...$20.........($ 27).....Merchant Error - Duplicate transaction

In this MODIFIED example, the customer only MAKES ONE $20 debit on the 12th. After making this last purchase, the customer's Available balance is positive $13. The customer NEVER overdraws his account. However, the Merchant mistakenly runs that purchase TWO ADDITIONAL times. Here's how this MERCHANT MISTAKE would have played out at Wachovia and Bank of America:
----------

Wachovia's Ledger during NIGHTLY POSTING on each day:

Date....Item Description..Amount...Posted Balance
3-10....Prev Balance......$00........$100
3-10....Check # 123......$30........$ 70
3-10....Check # 456......$25........$ 45

3-12....Deduct HOLDS....$60........($ 15)
3-12....Debit Purchase...$10........($ 25)
3-12....Debit Purchase...$02........($ 27)
3-12....Unavail Fees......$70........($ 97)

3-13....Add HOLDS back.$60........($ 37)
3-13....Debit Purchase...$20........($ 57)
3-13....Overdraft Fee....$35........($ 92)
----------

Bank of America's Ledger during NIGHTLY POSTING on each day:

Date....Item Description..Amount...Posted Balance
3-10....Prev Balance......$00........$100
3-10....Check # 123......$30........$ 70
3-10....Check # 456......$25........$ 45

3-12....Debit Purchase...$10........$ 35
3-12....Debit Purchase...$02........$ 33

3-13....Debit Purchase...$20........$ 13
----------

At BOTH banks, the Merchant realizes their mistake and when they send in the BATCH, they REMOVE the DUPLICATES and only ONE $20 purchase is sent in. Because the Merchant realizes its mistake and CORRECTS it before the DUPLICATE transactions are submitted - NO FEES AT ALL at Bank of America as would be the case at 99.99% of OTHER banks which post SOLELY based on the Posted balance. Wow!

But on the other hand, even though the Merchant realizes its mistake before the DUPLICATE charges are sent in to Wachovia, Wachovia has ALREADY reaped the benefits of the fraudulent fees. The customer screams RIPOFF because the customer DID NOT MAKE these transactions. No problem. So Wachovia goes after the Merchant for the fees. The Merchant screams RIPOFF because the Merchant realized the mistake and CORRECTED it BEFORE the duplicate charges were batched or sent in. Nevertheless, Wachovia sees $$$$ and SOMEONE will pay. They could CARE LESS who.

That's the ripoff here, which you will NOT find in any BofA reports or the 99.99% of OTHER banks.

To Striderq. When you first brought it to my attention about LaSalle and other banks who also charge the Unavailable Funds Fee, you conveniently were able to provide actual report numbers also. I have read all of the recent Bank of America reports. And YES, those customers are complaining about getting hit with fees BEFORE their POSTED balance goes negative, but the complaints ARE NOT the same as Wachovia. The BofA complaints are because BofA charged the fee based on the Available Balance going negative and they also involve Deposits that did not post. At any rate the customer is complaining about fees ONLY for those transactions that CAUSED the issue, as shown in my example above.

These Bank of America customers are NOT complaining about getting charged fees for OTHER transactions. Why? Because Bank of America DID NOT do that, as my example has shown above. These Bank of America complaints are because the customers TRIED to make deposits to COVER their mistakes BEFORE the transactions POSTED and for one reason or another, their efforts were unsuccessful. So they're complaining about getting hit with the fee, when they felt like they should NOT HAVE, but the complaint ONLY involves fees for THOSE transactions that caused it, NOT OTHER fees for OTHER transactions, like at Wachovia. Because, you guessed it once again - BofA doesn't charge the EXTRA fees, as my example above shows.

In other words, in these BofaA reports which you fail to list by the exact report number like you did for LaSalle, you will not find complaints that EXACTLY match the complaints found in Wachovia report # 319896 or Wachovia report # 321683. You will NOT find BofA reports like these two from Wachovia which you have STRANGELY not posted to. Hmmmm....... And yes I'm aware I cannot dictate when and where you post, that's not my intent. I'm only stated this fact to point it out to OTHERS, not you.

To Striderq. When you first brought it to my attention about LaSalle and other banks who also charge the Unavailable Funds Fee, you conveniently were able to provide actual report numbers also. I have read all of the recent Bank of America reports. And YES, those customers are complaining about getting hit with fees BEFORE their POSTED balance goes negative, but the complaints ARE NOT the same as Wachovia. The BofA complaints are because BofA charged the fee based on the Available Balance going negative and they also involve Deposits that did not post. At any rate the customer is complaining about fees ONLY for those transactions that CAUSED the issue, as shown in my example above.

These Bank of America customers are NOT complaining about getting charged fees for OTHER transactions. Why? Because Bank of America DID NOT do that, as my example has shown above. These Bank of America complaints are because the customers TRIED to make deposits to COVER their mistakes BEFORE the transactions POSTED and for one reason or another, their efforts were unsuccessful. So they're complaining about getting hit with the fee, when they felt like they should NOT HAVE, but the complaint ONLY involves fees for THOSE transactions that caused it, NOT OTHER fees for OTHER transactions, like at Wachovia. Because, you guessed it once again - BofA doesn't charge the EXTRA fees, as my example above shows.

In other words, in these BofaA reports which you fail to list by the exact report number like you did for LaSalle, you will not find complaints that EXACTLY match the complaints found in Wachovia report # 319896 or Wachovia report # 321683. You will NOT find BofA reports like these two from Wachovia which you have STRANGELY not posted to. Hmmmm....... And yes I'm aware I cannot dictate when and where you post, that's not my intent. I'm only stated this fact to point it out to OTHERS, not you.

To Striderq. When you first brought it to my attention about LaSalle and other banks who also charge the Unavailable Funds Fee, you conveniently were able to provide actual report numbers also. I have read all of the recent Bank of America reports. And YES, those customers are complaining about getting hit with fees BEFORE their POSTED balance goes negative, but the complaints ARE NOT the same as Wachovia. The BofA complaints are because BofA charged the fee based on the Available Balance going negative and they also involve Deposits that did not post. At any rate the customer is complaining about fees ONLY for those transactions that CAUSED the issue, as shown in my example above.

These Bank of America customers are NOT complaining about getting charged fees for OTHER transactions. Why? Because Bank of America DID NOT do that, as my example has shown above. These Bank of America complaints are because the customers TRIED to make deposits to COVER their mistakes BEFORE the transactions POSTED and for one reason or another, their efforts were unsuccessful. So they're complaining about getting hit with the fee, when they felt like they should NOT HAVE, but the complaint ONLY involves fees for THOSE transactions that caused it, NOT OTHER fees for OTHER transactions, like at Wachovia. Because, you guessed it once again - BofA doesn't charge the EXTRA fees, as my example above shows.

In other words, in these BofaA reports which you fail to list by the exact report number like you did for LaSalle, you will not find complaints that EXACTLY match the complaints found in Wachovia report # 319896 or Wachovia report # 321683. You will NOT find BofA reports like these two from Wachovia which you have STRANGELY not posted to. Hmmmm....... And yes I'm aware I cannot dictate when and where you post, that's not my intent. I'm only stated this fact to point it out to OTHERS, not you.

To Striderq. When you first brought it to my attention about LaSalle and other banks who also charge the Unavailable Funds Fee, you conveniently were able to provide actual report numbers also. I have read all of the recent Bank of America reports. And YES, those customers are complaining about getting hit with fees BEFORE their POSTED balance goes negative, but the complaints ARE NOT the same as Wachovia. The BofA complaints are because BofA charged the fee based on the Available Balance going negative and they also involve Deposits that did not post. At any rate the customer is complaining about fees ONLY for those transactions that CAUSED the issue, as shown in my example above.

These Bank of America customers are NOT complaining about getting charged fees for OTHER transactions. Why? Because Bank of America DID NOT do that, as my example has shown above. These Bank of America complaints are because the customers TRIED to make deposits to COVER their mistakes BEFORE the transactions POSTED and for one reason or another, their efforts were unsuccessful. So they're complaining about getting hit with the fee, when they felt like they should NOT HAVE, but the complaint ONLY involves fees for THOSE transactions that caused it, NOT OTHER fees for OTHER transactions, like at Wachovia. Because, you guessed it once again - BofA doesn't charge the EXTRA fees, as my example above shows.

In other words, in these BofaA reports which you fail to list by the exact report number like you did for LaSalle, you will not find complaints that EXACTLY match the complaints found in Wachovia report # 319896 or Wachovia report # 321683. You will NOT find BofA reports like these two from Wachovia which you have STRANGELY not posted to. Hmmmm....... And yes I'm aware I cannot dictate when and where you post, that's not my intent. I'm only stated this fact to point it out to OTHERS, not you.

Please search for Bank of America here on ROR and read the titles and the posts. You will find the the customers are complaining of being charged overdraft fees when their account balances are still positive. Guess what? Your beloved BOA is charging unavailable funds fees to so I guess you need to adjust your made up percentage of what banks charge this fee.
That being said, still doesn't change a thing on this report. merchant error should be corrected by the merchant. End of story.

Once and for all to address Striderq's claim about how other banks, like Bank of America compare to Wachovia and this Unavailable Funds Fee, I'll go back to SAMPLE ledger examples. In these ledger examples the customer makes the following four purchases, on these dates, and the amounts are placed on HOLD with the AVAILABLE BALANCE shown after each card SWIPE in SEQUENCE.

Date....Item....Amount....Available Balance
3-11....HOLD...$10.........$ 35
3-11....HOLD...$02.........$ 33
3-12....HOLD...$20.........$ 13
3-12....HOLD...$20.........($ 7)

When all transactions come in and POST during nightly processing, here is the DIFFERENCE between Wachovia and 99.99% of OTHER banks, with respect to how these HOLDS result in MANY more fees at Wachovia.

----------
Wachovia's Ledger during NIGHTLY POSTING on each day:

Date....Item Description..Amount...Posted Balance
3-10....Prev Balance......$00........$100
3-10....Check # 123......$30........$ 70
3-10....Check # 456......$25........$ 45

3-12....Deduct HOLDS....$40........$ 5
3-12....Debit Purchase...$10........($ 5)
3-12....Debit Purchase...$02........($ 7)
3-12....Unavail Fees......$70........($ 77)

3-13....Add HOLDS back.$40........($ 37)
3-13....Debit Purchase...$20........($ 57)
3-13....Debit Purchase...$20........($ 77)
3-13....Overdraft Fees...$70........($ 147)
----------

Bank of America's Ledger during NIGHTLY POSTING on each day:

Date....Item Description..Amount...Posted Balance
3-10....Prev Balance......$00........$100
3-10....Check # 123......$30........$ 70
3-10....Check # 456......$25........$ 45

3-12....Debit Purchase...$10........$ 35
3-12....Debit Purchase...$02........$ 33

3-13....Debit Purchase...$20........$ 13
3-13....Debit Purchase...$20........($ 7)

3-14....Overdraft Fee....$35........($ 42)
----------

The clever play on words used by Wachovia - Bank of America charges you fees when you go over your Available balance, just like Wachovia does. Yes, that is true. The DIFFERENCE is Bank of America ONLY charges you fees for THOSE transactions that CAUSE the overdraft. In this example - The Available Balance goes negative after ONE SINGLE card swipe. The VERY LAST card swipe. Thus, you're charged ONE SINGLE FEE, at Bank of America. At Wachovia, you're charged FOUR FEES, all because you overdrew your account with ONE SWIPE. This is done because Wachovia FIRST subtracts pending HOLDS from the Posted Balance during NIGHTLY PROCESSING. Something that 99.99% of OTHER banks DO NOT do.

And that's the ripoff here - CLEARLY.

'I don't believe that there is a bank around that will file a dispute until the item posts.' Striderq's statement here is EXACTLY right and I agree 100%. By the SAME TOKEN, there are also 99.99% of banks who will NOT CHARGE FEES either until the item posts. That's the slight of hand here. Wachovia knows they can GAIN the fees AHEAD of time even before the item POSTS. And those fees will be VERY TOUGH to get back because the transactions cannot be disputed because they will never post. This dilemma is NOT an issue at 99.99% of OTHER banks. Why? Because these OTHER banks WILL NOT charge any fees UNTIL the item POSTS.

To answer the claim in a previous post about BofA threads and Unavailable Funds Fees, yes I have seen a few reports that are kind of similar to this issue. However, I've said MANY times on SEVERAL threads, BofA and many other banks DO charge fees for transactions that OVERDRAW the Available Balance. Here's what sets BofA and these other banks apart from Wachovia:

1. BofA and these other banks charge fees ONLY for those transactions that overdraw the Available balance at the time the card is SWIPED.
2. BofA and these other banks POST transactions SOLELY from the POSTED balance. BofA and these other banks DO NOT deduct pending HOLDS from the POSTED balance and THEN begin the nightly posting using this ADJUSTED balance.

Edward, I don't believe that there is a bank around that will file a dispute until the item posts. When you go to a restaurant and their machine is set to add 20% extra in case you leave a tip, but you leave the tip in cash. You can not file a dispute until the transactions posts and then only if it posts for the wrong amount. When the transaction is on hold, you have promised the money. If, as in this case the merchant runs the card more than once there are ways to correct it. But filing a dispute is not one of them. I understand that you are saying that the customer should be able to get this situation corrected, andI agrre. There are ways to do this. But when you deal with a company you need to make sure that the terminology you use matches the definition that the company has . Dispute is started when the customer has authorized the transaction but it POSTS for a different amount than the customer authorized. Fraud is when the customer did not authorize the transaction and it POSTS to the account. Until it POSTS: no dispute, no fraud.

However as outlined in previous posts there are ways that we can help the customer in the removal of multiple posts. but they do involve the customer being proactive and reviewing their account for these holds and letting us know when they occur.

And when a dispute is filed the fees caused by the disputed item are returned. In your world, a customer could go out and overspend their account and when the fees occur they would call in and say oh I didn't authorize that. the fees would be returned and then the transactions would be found to be valid. Wachovia will dispute items that post and return fees caused, but the transaction has to post first.

The ripoff that you are so obviously overlooking is the merchant running the card multiple times, causing the fees and then saying oh we don't have anything to do with that. Where is your indignation for the merchant who made the mistake?

as Walk-Over-Ya lives up to its name.

'Number one: an item can not be disputed until it has posted to the account'. But they're more than happy to Walk-Over-Ya and charge you the Unavailable Funds Fee BEFORE, that's right, BEFORE an item has posted. Huh? What?

Did anyone else catch the very clever SLIGHT OF HAND there? They charge you the fee for these HOLDS before they POST. But, they are oh so sorry they can't refund fees for disputed items until they post. Huh? This is just so IN YOUR FACE and BLATANT it's UNBELIEVABLE! The fees have ALREADY been charged BEFORE the HOLDS post. But you can't dispute the charges and get the fees refunded because the HOLDS will never post. Did you get it that time?

How do they pull it off? Before Wachovia starts its NIGHTLY POSTING, they FIRST subtract the amount for outstanding, pending holds. THEN from this ADJUSTED balance, that's what they use to POST transactions. Bank of America and MANY OTHER banks DO NOT do this. These OTHER banks actually POST solely from the POSTED balance. What a novelty. Do other banks like Bank of America charge fees based on the Available Balance? Yes. But the fees are only charged for transactions that CAUSE the overdraft. But when Wachovia FIRST deducts the HOLD amount from the POSTED account balance BEFORE POSTING, this results in ADDITIONAL fees for OTHER transactions that had NOTHING to do with the overdraft. Bank of America and MANY OTHER banks DO NOT post transactions this way. And no, you will not find any reports that indicate this.

That's the ripoff here.

For Nikki,
Yes if something posts that is disputed and the investigation finds the customer did not authorize the transaction then they will receive the transaction amount and all fees caused by that transaction back. However, two things need to be kept in mind. Number one: an item can not be disputed until it has posted to the account. Number two: this is not a dispute because the customer did authorize the merchant to do the transaction. This is clearly a merchant error since the merchant is the one that ran the card several times and created several holds. Since the merchant made the mistake, why should they not be held responsible for their error. If the customer demanded the merchant correct the error and the merchant either had to pay the fees for the customer or lost business because of their practices, then maybe the merchant would be more careful and responsible in their processing of the debit cards.

For Edward.
Believe me Edward, you are crystal clear to me. I know your agenda and I see that your crusade is all about Wachovia right now. Tell me have you found the BOA reports about unavailable fees yet???
The reason I pointed out to you that there had been no fraud, is that you are the one that says we should read and accept the OP at their own words and not make assumptions. However, as soon as you posted, even though there was no fraud as the customer authorized the transaction, you immediately introduced fraud procedures into the post. That's a whole other discussion for a different post since it has no bearing on what the OP stated.

Nikki, Nikki, Nikki. Alas you have seen the light that is SO evident on SO MANY of these reports. Sometimes fees are the result of very strange circumstances beyond the customer's control and yes, even when it's not bank error. But SO MANY times, we hear the same ole GENERIC advice even when it doesn't apply. 'Check Register', 'Don't spend money you don't have', etc. But, in situations like this where THE CUSTOMER did nothing wrong and THE BANK did nothing wrong, who should fix it? Or how does the customer get his money back?

I will answer your question as a former Bank of America customer. Here's what would have happened had FRED been a Bank of America customer. Once Fred noticed the duplicate charges from his Merchant, he would have called up Bank of America and reported the problem. If Fred was aware of BofA's dispute procedures he might have SPECIFICALLY asked for this to be done. But if Fred was not aware of this, just him reporting duplicate charges by the Merchant, BofA would have TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES to offer to file a DISPUTE on Fred's behalf and investigate the issue.

Here's where it gets really good. After this decision is made to file the dispute and initiate the investigation, BofA would have IMMEDIATELY refunded the DUPLICATE CHARGES and BofA would have IMMEDIATELY refunded all FEES back to Fred's account. They would have done this IMMEDIATELY before the dispute process even began and well before the conclusion is reached. They do this TRUSTING that their customer's word is correct - Customer Friendly. Otherwise, why else would the customer call and complain, right? Once the investigation is complete days or weeks later and BofA confirmed that Fred was right, there's nothing left to do except mail Fred a letter confirming the findings. That's all that's left to do because, remember, BofA had ALREADY refunded ALL CHARGES and ALL FEES beforehand - Customer Friendly! Then the bank goes after the merchant to recoup the fees.

On the otherhand, if at the end of the investigation BofA finds out the charges were indeed authorized, then of course, BofA deducts the charges BACK FROM Fred's account again, and they also deduct the FEES back out of his account again also. But, hey, if Fred knows HE'S RIGHT, he also knows this second outcome will not come true. This is what Bank of America did in cases like this, coming FIRST HAND from a former Bank of America customer.

Now in the case like this, the Merchant is the one whose at fault, but as Striderq THE EMPLOYEE said himself, he would have asked the Merchant to refund the fees. But if the Merchant refused, THEN Striderq would have refunded ALL fees. Just like you said Nikki, it's not like Wachovia actually LOST $35, they just didn't GAIN or MAKE $35. So if the Merchant refused, oh well. No harm, no foul. On the otherhand, by forcing Fred, THE CUSTOMER to go after the Merchant and the Merchant also tells Fred they're not refunding any fees, well NOW you have THE CUSTOMER who HAS wrongfully lost $35*2, because THE BANK won't give it back to him and THE MERCHANT won't give it back to him. Now you might say Fred could simply go back to the bank and explain the Merchant's refusal and THEN the bank might refund the fees. Really? Then why not do that at the VERY BEGINNING, you know, like BofA - Customer Friendly.

Yes, this is coming from a former Bank of America customer, but if you know my posting history, then you also know this is coming form a former BofA customer who has MANY RANTS against BofA on it's threads. How's that for NON BIAS and calling it like it is, FAIRLY? Just like the Unavailable Funds Fee, but I digress on that.

Since I have been banking with a credit union, I'm not sure about most banks rules about this matter:

Say you have an actual dispute about a charge. A merchant ran a charge that was never authorized by you. The bank investigates, finds you are not at fault, and reverses the debit against you. Does the bank also reverse any overdraft fees that stemmed from the unauthorized charges?

If so, then the same should apply here. Couldn't the customer dispute the other two swipes? The bank would deem that the other two swipes were unauthorized and refund the OD fees that stemmed from the unauthorized swipes.

Since the banks are now charging OD fees based on available balance, they should also allow the customer to dispute the holds.

Overdraft fees are for people who negligent with their bank accounts. I completely agree with that. I completely agree that people should keep track of their accounts and keep registers. However, in the case of the OP, how does that help? We tell people all the time, and the banks tell people all the time, to keep an accurate checkbook register. I guess that is not the answer anymore. Too many other variables. I also guess that consumers are screwed. Looks like the customer can do everything right (as in this post) and the banks will still find a way to get at the customer anyway.

Sorry, but I'm just pissed. This is just plain wrong.

By the way, even though we live pretty close to each other, I don't know Fred.

I see that for SOME, I will need to elaborate on just about EVERYTHING I say, even though OTHERS with COMMON SENSE can read between the lines. But yes I AGREE this OP is NOT about fraud. In my previous post, I only mentioned this as a point of reference for the next points I was about to make in that PREVIOUS POST. The same points I will try to make MORE CLEAR in THIS POST.

Wachovia here has been notified by its CUSTOMER Fred that he DISPUTES a charge from a merchant and the subsequent fees caused by those charges. MY POINT was that upon receiving a dispute request from a customer, OTHER customer friendly banks will perform an investigation for the DISPUTE, or they will look into, or research the DISPUTE. All of this is done BY THE BANK, for OR on behalf of THE CUSTOMER and its done even when the DISPUTE involves charges made by a KNOWN merchant that the customer is familiar with. For most banks, this is all they need to hear to at least LOOK INTO IT for the customer. But as Nikki correctly pointed out, Fred was lucky. Not only did HE notify Wachovia of the dispute, but Wachovia ALSO heard from the MERCHANT which ALSO fessed up to the bank and said 'Yes we messed up'. Most customers aren't so lucky.

Now. I made the statement about FRAUD earlier, only to show that some banks will perform this courtesy research, definitely in cases of FRAUD. But OTHER customer friendly banks will do this for its customers, no matter whether its outright FRAUD or a simple DISPUTE with a known, friendly merchant. The point is, the PROCEDURE performed is the same irregardless of whether it's fraud or a simple dispute. But LET ME BE CLEAR! This OP DOES NOT involve fraud. It was only mentioned for comparison of the type of service provided by customer friendly banks who actually CARE about their customers. Let me REPEAT. There is NO FRAUD here. Just a simple dispute between a customer and his friendly merchant. The issue here is most customer friendly banks would have looked into this SIMPLE DISPUTE, the same way they would have if it HAD BEEN FRAUD. My apologies to EVERYONE ELSE for the over simplification, when you 'GOT IT' from the beginning.

Next. I agree with those, like John earlier, who say The Merchant should pay for fees caused by their mistakes. Here's my point yet again. How OUTRAGEOUS is it for the bank to say to their customer - 'The Merchant should pay. Go get your fees back from The Merchant'. Yes, the Merchant should pay. It's been my experience in cases like this that the bank will refund ALL CHARGES and ALL FEES to the customer, and THE BANK will then GO AFTER the Merchant and make the Merchant pay. How customer friendly is that? Once more - this is done FOR THE CUSTOMER, no matter if it's outright fraud or a simple dispute. This OP here involves a simple dispute, not FRAUD. Okay?

Nikki could not have said it better earlier - 'They are really getting ridiculous'.

And that's the Ripoff here!

somehow the bank is the ONLY one responsible for people's/merchant's mistakes? The fees are to teach you to PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU ARE DOING. The merchant accuse doesn't fly. They need to stay at the terminal until the get authorization or call the bank to find out why or use a credit card. People need to stop overspending what's in their account and keep a register. Once those 2 things happen, you will see a great decline in alleged 'ripoffs'. As strider said, I'd reconsider using that merchant again. Who's to say they are not really incompetent and this won't keep happeneing?

""So, how can the bank expect you to get the money from the merchant?""

Your assumption is incorrect. The fees were assessed and an electronic record of the fees is maintained. Further, someone had to logon to the system to reverse the fees - another record is maintained in the system database that includes the date, time, EMPLOYEE IDENTIFIER of the person that "removed" the fees. Further, the database contains the identifier of the actual computer that the employee used to make the correction.

There is a record of the fees and there is a record that the fees were "removed" by human intervention of the system. These records may not show up on the consumers account balance (although at Key Bank they DO) but I can assure you that the bank has a record.

When an employee intervenes to remove or otherwise correct an account there is ALWAYS a record of the action in the system. In fact there are MULTIPLE RECORDS of the transaction.

The machines and the processing for them do not belong to the bank. The machines are owned by third party vendors and are the procedures are controlled by the credit card companies (Visa & Mastercard). Since the merchant is the one that made the mistake of swiping the card multiple times, why should the merchant not be held responsible?

The customer has the option and should exercise that option of monitoring their account with online or telephone banking. Either of those routes will give the holds that are current against their account. At Wachovia the holds are for three business days, unless the merchant requests payment sooner. So there should be time for the customer to see if there are multiple holds.

Until and unless the bank is told that a hold is not valid then the bank has to treat it as valid, meaning removing that amount from the available balance. When the merchant confirms it's an error, then the bank can delete it. Should the machine that swipes the cards delete the holds if the transaction is cabcelled? Yes I agree that it should. However that is controlled by the credit card companies not the bank. As I noted in my post, if the customer calls with the merchant on a three way call, I will ask the merchant to refund the fees since they caused them. If not, especially in this case I would refund the fees. But the bank is under no obligation to refund the fees as it was not a bank error. Why should the merchant that caused the error not be held responsible?

You asked why shouldn't the merchant be responsible. Here are a few reasons:

In my years, I have seen this happen. The merchant swipes the card, but the machine gets hung up and the merchant never gets an authorization. So the merchant tries again until the authorization code comes up. Those multiple swipes could be on the account for each try. This could be bank error or not (how the machine dialed in), but there is really no way to tell.

Many merchants do not tell the consumer that they made an error. The OP was very lucky. Most merchants just redo the swipe and the customer finds out later. Since the banks cannot seem to prove to you why the account went into the negative, and they cannot prove it after they have charge you, but that extra hold comes off, you have no proof to go back to the merchant to recoup the money. So, how can the bank expect you to get the money from the merchant?

Many merchants are under the impression that the swipe must be for the full amount. For example, if the merchant swipes $200 on a $500 charge, they cannot just swipe an additional $300. Merchant has to swipe the entire $500 charge, for a total now of $700 on hold. I can only ascertain that this is a rule between the banks and the merchants. Now, if you only have $600 in the bank, the merchant may lose the sale due to the second swipe being denied and the consumer may lose the purchase. Not really fair.

Since the bank will not allow the merchant to undo his mistake, he should have to pay what could be a lot of money? This is completely unreasonable. That is why the machines should allow merchants to take the money off hold.

The banks do not have to pay out $35 for every NSF. The computer just sees the account is negative and automatically puts on the fee. The bank does not lose the $35 per transaction, they just don't get the $35 per transaction. The merchant and customer actually lose the $35 per transaction.

I understand bank charges due to customer error. But when the error is completely out of the customer's hands, no fees should be charged. Once again, the bank does not have to pay out $35 per NSF, they just don't get the $35 per. Not reversing the fees in this instance is just being selfish and money grubbing (more than they already are). That is why I advised the OP to go to another bank.

Are you trying to tell us that you really think the merchant or customer should have to pay? You really think the bank should get the money?

Edward, if you read the OP you will see that no fraud or dispute was reported. It was a case of merchant error. The customer admits to making the purchase, so there would be no fraud. The company admits to the mistake and will only process one transaction, so there's nothing to dispute. And I don't see where the bank tried to push the "investigation" off onto anyone else. When the customer and merchant called to let us know there was a mistake by the merchant, it was corrected. The merchant is the one who ran the DBC multiple times causing multiple holds. Therefore the merchant is the one who caused the overdraft and the fees. Since it was not a bank error the fees do not HAVE to be refunded. The fees MAY be refunded. We will request the refund come from the merchant as they are the one that made the mistake and caused the fees. If there is fraud then Wachovia will refund any fees associated with it, but again there's no fraud here.

For the OP: I'm sorry to hear of this situation. However it's not as cut and dry as you mention. It's not a matter of being able to tell that one or more holds are not valid. I have dealt with customers that have had multiple holds for the same merchant for the same amount done at the same time that were all valid. Until and unless we hear from you, the customer, or the merchant that an error has occured we have to treat the transactions as valid. So it has nothing to do with the intelligence of the representatives but the policies of the bank.

For Nikki: Why should the merchant not be held responsible for the multiple swiping of the card that caused the multiple holds that caused the fees? The merchant is the one who made the mistake and therefore they are the ones who should make it right. However, I do agree with you that not many merchants will make it right. That would cause me to rethink my patronage of that merchant. As far as the available balance being free of errors, it was the merchant that caused the error. Why should the bank be held responsible for correcting the mistake of the merchant? That being asked, I will state that the refund of only 25% was in my opinion incorrect. Since the merchant was on the line with the customer and admitted the mistake, the merchant should have been asked point blank to refund the fees. if they did not then I would have refunded the full fee.

They are really getting ridiculous.

Technically, if it's not a bank error, the bank does not have to refund the fees. However, if it is evident that the merchant made the error and swiped the card more than once (especially since the merchant called the bank), most banks will refund the fees due to the merchant's error. Only a few banks will not. Therefore, if I were you, I would bank at another bank if Wachovia cannot have the decency to reverse the charges.

The fees are supposed to be for the consumers who do not keep track of their money correctly, and for the consumers who use the banks to "float" until they get more money coming in.

What are we supposed to do? Have the merchant reimburse us for those errors? Give me a break! Don't punish the merchants or the consumers because the card swiping machines cannot reverse the hold on the money immediately (they can place a hold immediately, why not reverse it?).

If the banks expect us to pay NSF fees based on available balance, I expect them to make sure that the available balance is free from errors such as this one! This is something they can fix.

It's been my experience with OTHER banks, THEY will initiate a FRAUD inquiry if certain, strange circumstances warrant it. But at the least, at the request of the customer, THE BANK will initiate a DISPUTE inquiry on behalf of the customer. OTHER banks will do ALL of the investigation work for the customer and when the outcome is reached, THE BANK will either confirm to the customer that the charges and fees are legit, or THE BANK will confirm to the customer that the charges were indeed unauthorized, and the THE BANK will refund ALL of the fraudulent charges and THE BANK will refund ALL of the FEES caused by said charges. There are SOME customer friendly banks that provide this very customer friendly service.

It's kind of ironic HERE to suggest that a bank with weak computers should be SOLD to a bank with better systems equipped to detect things like this. It's ironic because that's EXACTLY what has YOU and Wachovia in this situation - the fact that Wachovia was SOLD to First Union, which has these customer un-friendly computer systems and POLICIES.

Go after them for the overdraft charges. If they didn't make the error, there allegedly wouldn't be any charges. Why should the merchant get off scott-free? And since you claim this as 'another' alleged ripoff, you already know this.