TD Banknorth TD Bank Rip off overdraft fees bernie madoff New York, New York

Td mentioned "crime"..not me.

- Your right TD mentioned crime but you took the word crime and moved it up a step to mean JAIL.  My response was that even if someone is convicted of a crime, that does not automatically mean jail time.  Because there are plenty of crimes that will not result in jail time, and yes writing NSF checks COULD be one of those crimes.

I agree actually. But I don't think it is a strong enough defense to try to debunk the reasoning these policy changes are going into effect. I do believe it is a non issue and not worth any of our time arguing. There have always been people put in jail or charged with crimes for bouncing checks all over town..that is not effected by the policy changes. As well..there are plenty of banking customers that have bounced checks...were charged an NSF fee or two...payed the fees and covered the check. And that is FAR more the norm...so why are we still discussing the non  issue with my case?

When I was with Wachovia and I was finally allowed to opt out..I notice when my account is below a certain amount and I swipe at the pump...the pump would read "transaction can not be completed at this time..please see attendant inside". So I go inside..tell the attendant how much gas I want..if the account can cover it...the gas gets pumped no harm no foul.

- You DID NOT answer the question.  I asked where can I see this new policy of the banks(you specifically said banks..meaning more than one), so I figured you must know something other people do not.  Telling us where you got this information could only help everyone.  The "go ask your bank" is not a valid answer.  After all how many people are going to do that..they don't ask their bank's policies about other aspects of their account.  But for the heck of it I may just do that if I get some time.  Since you KNOW that Wachovia does this what is this "magical" amount where they will stop it when you try to pay at the pump?

First off..I do not know if this is any "new" policy..since it wasn't even policy to normally allow any customer to opt out of OD protection. I was persistent and I guess they wanted to keep me as a customer enough to reluctantly heed my request..which was not unreasonable at all. OD protection was not needed for my type of banking and spending.

All I have ever stated regarding the relentless gas pump scenario..is that with Wachovia...I noticed once I opted out...that the card was declined if I tried to swipe at the pump once the account was below a certain amount. So since this NEVER happened before I was opted out..it is a safe assupmtion that this was the reason it was happening after. No big deal. I would go inside...tell the attendant how much gas I want...swipe the card..and be on my way. Now I really should have called the bank and thanked them..because if the pump had overdrafted my account without my knowledge..well we know what the end result could be..for WHATEVER reason I would have overdrafted...fees.

And this is why I request you ask your banks how they handle overdrafts at the pump if opted out...I can not guess what other banks do since i do not overdraft my accounts. Now..what I would assume...is the banks are smart enough to figure out how to deal with this..the pump is not going to shut off by itself if it puts in more gas then is in the account. So I would say the bank would have to cover it..since they do not want the gas station going after them. The customer most likely will be charged a fee for this..since it would be their fault for going over the amount they had. It ties the banks hands so the customer would have no reason to complain. I can only state as fact what I noticed happening with myself while with Wachovia..I didn't need to read anything..it was apparent by the actions.

it is a NON ISSUE to me so stop boring me with it..

- Well sorry if I am boring you.  So should I make sure all of my responses meet the "Ronny" test from now on?

Of course not Robert. Sorry, I know that statement came off as rudeness..I was most likely frustrated because it seems sometimes I have to type the same things over and over..and to make matters worse...it is all for no reason other then argument..it is not helping anyone and many times it is taking the issue off course.

Ronny G queried:

'There will be NO NSF "activity" because the transaction will be declined. What else is the point to opting out of overdraft protection?..and why are the banks allowing this now?'

Ronny G, IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. Banks have been charging NSF fees on transactions they decline (and don't pay) for YEARS.

We are all aware of this. The point is opting out of overdraft protection will cause a DEBIT CARD to be DECLINED at a point of sale or ATM if the funds are not available...hence no NSF, overdraft or any other fee is POSSIBLE. How can that be disputed? Funds not available means they are not there..the banks would have to literally put the money there and then take it away in order to approve a transaction for the sake of charging a fee. And that would end them up right back in court again.

Every time a check is bounced (and not paid by the bank), a customer gets an NSF FEE.

Yes, correct..now can you show me where I EVER stated if a check bounces there won't be a fee. You are not debating me here..you are agreeing with me.

Every time a customer bounces an ACH transaction (not paid by the bank), the customer gets an NSF FEE.

Yes, correct...I have stated this many time before...so once again..you are trying to rebut something we agree on.

Every time a customer tries to withdraw funds from an ATM or initiate a debit transaction sans available funds, an NSF FEE CAN AND WILL BE IMPOSED. How do I know this? My deadbeat sister-in-law did it just two days ago. She "opted out" of overdraft protection, ran to the store to use her debit card, then watched in horror as her bank socked her with an NSF FEE.

I have also stated there are scenarios where a consumer can incur fees even if opted out. Kind of like going over-limit on a credit card..or an NSF. And that is how the bank will handle these situations..no one will be going to jail. If someone figures out a way to overdraft even when opted out..and incurs a fee for succeeding..then I don't see how we can blame the bank for that.

I have to say this over and over because you do not understand my intent. I do not want to help deadbeats or anyone try to steal the banks money. I just feel that aside from keeping track with a register, another avenue to take for an additional piece of mind is opting out. Since I will never want to overdraft my account with intent, and since I do not use checks..I have NO USE whatsoever to be enrolled in any OD protection service. And neither do many other customers...and why this tactic is included in the lawsuits..AND why the banks are no longer requiring it..it is simply unnecessary for many consumers. Those who wish to opt in..by all means go ahead if you feel it is really going to protect you..your right..and others have the right not to opt in..fair and simple.

Now as far as your deadbeat sister in law..please do not judge everyone because she is a deadbeat. Bear in mind..back when I was a Wachovia customer..they did not normally allow opt out. I insisted it was not necessary for me and they eventually told be I was opted out. An unauthorized merchant hold put me into overdraft. I sat down with the bank manager..explained what happened..he apologized, returned all the fees..and reluctantly put in WRITING...that no more transactions will be approved if the funds are unavailable. Now I did not ever purposely overdraft just to see if the bank would screw me..but if it was to happen..you can bet I would have been waiving that signed contract in the bankers face until every penny was refunded.

But...but...but..."opt out" is supposed to eliminate those fees, right? There is NO need to use that dumb old CHECK REGISTER, right?

Wrong. I never said that. But at times it is annoying when the bank defenders throw that in the face of someone lodging a complaint here..who understands already that they have overdrafted by fault or error of their own, and makes good with a deposit to cover it.

I just feel it is a good policy change to give consumers the choice, and of course they should keep a register..at least until or if ever online banking becomes reliable. And although I know it will not eliminate all types of fees, and I never said it would..it will cause a decline of transactions in most cases at point of sale and ATM's..regardless of the reason, and save the consumers a potential bundle in fees. The banks of course do not like this...but perhaps you should ask the banks why they are no longer forcing OD protection onto every single customer, instead of trying to provoke an argument with me.

WRONG, Ronny G. Have you stopped to wonder why banks so willingly allowed customers to "opt out" of overdraft protection when NSF fees generate BILLIONS for their businesses? Do you think they did it out of the goodness of their hearts?

When a consumer bounces a check and they are opted in to OD protection...what happens? They get an NSF fee. Now granted if they are opted out..they may get two fees..because the check may be returned instead of redeposited by the vendor..or the vendor/merchant whomever gets charged a fee and then charges the person who wrote the check.

Now..look at the evidence in all these reports...not what I say..but all the complaints. Show me a single complaint where someone opted out of OD protection has complained about an NSF fee or two. For customers that choose to opt out in the future..if there is no policy change regarding NSF and ACH (which there is talk of BTW, not that I agree with it or not)..then they still get fees..I have stated this before but somehow you are missing it.

Now...do you want me to show you how many consumers have complained that they do not know why the bank is allowing transaction to be approved when the funds were unavailable...AND added fees brought on by re-sequencing that the overdraft that was allowed to happen caused? Years ago the bank would always decline debit card transaction that would overdraw the account...because even the banks know there is a difference between check users..and those that use a debit card for everything. But once they realized what a cash cow the check policies being applied to debit cards as well could be..they simply started treating debit card use..even for a cup of coffee..as if is was a mortgage payment. We will all see in the future how this holds up in court..and with legislation..but for now it is evident the banks are making reasonable changes by there own choice.

What they do to make up for this is another story...stay tuned to ROR to find out.

Don't be silly now..the banks are not happy about this. The banks WILL take less in fees because of the policy changes. Most complaints (and there are a lot or the banks would not be making changes now) are NOT due to check bouncing fees...but more due to excessive unpredictable hold times contributing to overdrafting. And that will most likely be dealt with as well by those who have had fees due to it.

So I agree..the banks are doing nothing out of the "goodness" of their hearts..they are doing it because of the endless complaints..the pending law suits..the pressure from congress..and the FACT that they realize these policies have no place with a person that uses a debit card in lieu of cash..the policies were designed to protect check users from bouncing checks with mortgages etc. The policies have done nothing but hurt debit card consumers in the event of an overdraft..so it makes sense for the customers that have been hurt by the policies..to want them changed..and why they have been posting here.

They're doing it so they can continue to collect fees without the risk of paying for transactions that DEADBEATS will NEVER cover on their own.

Huh? You are going to have to clarify this one. What does it even mean? If deadbeats won't cover it on their own..then that means they bounced a check. So how is this any different with any polices? A deadbeat is a deadbeat regardless..the bank collects fees from deadbeats as well as anyone they can..no news here. The thing is..a "true" deadbeat would not even pay the fees or make good on the bounced check..You must agree there has to be some cases where a customer simply made an honest mistake..or had an issue with a merchant or vendor..and then made good and PAID their debt? I mean is that even remotely possible to you? Because like it or not...this happens all the time. Much more then a true deadbeat skipping out on the bank because of a fee and subjecting themselves to a ruined credit rating and potential criminal charges.

The single piece of legislation that has even bothered to be introduced (it died TWICE) was Carolyn Maloney's junk bill. NOTHING else has even sniffed the floor of either chamber of congress. Do you really think that banks would just give up those BILLIONS (justifiably derived from the spending habits of DEADBEATS) when the chances of legislative action to stop the collection of these fees are ZERO?

Once again I really do not know what you are talking about. The banks have stated they are changing the fees due to customer demand. So if you think the banks are lying about this..then that is whom you need to be debating with. Personally I feel they are making the changes due to customer demand..but not because they care about the customers..it's because they fear the lawsuits..and the possible legislation, congress is not joking around this time..we are in a crisis if you hadn't noticed. Yes..even the banks could not pay their debts..do you consider them deadbeats as well?...you know the banks have no goodness in their heart..you even implied this...they will take in around 40 billion dollars in fees this year..do you really believe they WANT to change anything? Be realistic..don't act a fool just to try to prove me wrong..look at the obvious evidence.

I refuse to believe that you are this stupid, Ronny. In the interest of fairness, I will allow you to redeem yourself with your next rebuttal.

Interest of fairness? Funny to hear you say that..as that is the MAIN reason I really think the policy changes are overdue.

Td mentioned "crime"..not me.

- Your right TD mentioned crime but you took the word crime and moved it up a step to mean JAIL.  My response was that even if someone is convicted of a crime, that does not automatically mean jail time.  Because there are plenty of crimes that will not result in jail time, and yes writing NSF checks COULD be one of those crimes.

When I was with Wachovia and I was finally allowed to opt out..I notice when my account is below a certain amount and I swipe at the pump...the pump would read "transaction can not be completed at this time..please see attendant inside". So I go inside..tell the attendant how much gas I want..if the account can cover it...the gas gets pumped no harm no foul.

- You DID NOT answer the question.  I asked where can I see this new policy of the banks(you specifically said banks..meaning more than one), so I figured you must know something other people do not.  Telling us where you got this information could only help everyone.  The "go ask your bank" is not a valid answer.  After all how many people are going to do that..they don't ask their bank's policies about other aspects of their account.  But for the heck of it I may just do that if I get some time.  Since you KNOW that Wachovia does this what is this "magical" amount where they will stop it when you try to pay at the pump?

it is a NON ISSUE to me so stop boring me with it..

- Well sorry if I am boring you.  So should I make sure all of my responses meet the "Ronny" test from now on?

You seem to be one of the more level headed bank defenders..so I feel I can share my predictions with you.

Actually there are many things that may happen..but I will stick to the more obvious and common.

Lets use Chase for an example..since they are not only limiting fees..but letting the customers choose opt in to OD protection..and are not going to re-sequence anymore.

The reality of it is..most banking customers do not come here and read reports...and younger first time bank customers will most likely not investigate or read ROR before choosing a bank...and the banks know this.

The bank at time of signing up a new customer..will have to ask the customer if they would like to opt onto OD protection. They will have to then explain how it works and not just hand them a booklet and harp on the debit card and online banking..they will HAVE to explain it.

Most likely those customers that choose to opt in..and I am sure the bank will encourage it..will get fees if they overdraft. But since Chase does not re-sequence..in most likelihood since it had to have been explained to them at sign up..they really would have no reason to lodge a rip off report..every action of the bank was fair..even if the customer doesn't want to believe it.

Those that choose to opt out...probably will not have any complaints about overdrafting at a point of sale or ATM..since it will not be possible. Also complaints of OD fees occurring from fraud, theft and unauthorized merchant, bar and restaurant holds should be nil....since transactions will be declined if the account can not cover it...seems logical to me. As far as gas pumps...that is up to the bank to decide if they are going to allow swipes at a pump..or request the customers to "see attendant" such as Wachovia did with me.

Now where there will still be some problems..is the banks that are letting the customers chose to opt in..and still re-sequencing. If those customers opt in and incur overdrafts..and then realize they are being charged additional fees due to the banks manipulations..you can bet they will still be coming here until said bank stops re-sequencing.

As far as checks...if the customer is opted out..and the bank will not cover an NSF..then guess what? If no other policy changes are made to deal with checks.. ....the check bounces. Seems fair to me and the way it should have always been..the customers choice how they see fit to protect their account.

No one I have ever seen post a complaint here has done and jail time for an NSF so stop being ridiculous

Ronny you don't have to have jail time to determine if a crime has been committed, and TD said nothing about jail time(that I could read).  As I have mentioned before just about every major city has a "Check Restitution Program" run by the District Attorneys office.  Will you get jail time for one NSF check...very unlikely.  Could you have fines and "probation"..more likely.  Then IF you have multiple NSF checks after this you may have a new address courtesy of your local Sheriff or Police Department for a few months.

Td mentioned "crime"..not me. And what does it have to do with the topic..just another typical bank defender diversion.

Still, the point being is that an NSF is an NSF...regardless of the upcoming changes..so WHY are we still on checks???? I have stated before..if there are no policy changes regarding ACH or checks..then it will be the same rules as always..so WHY do the bank defenders keep bringing THIS up?

The gas pump has been debunked..if you are opted out of overdraft protection..the banks will not allow a customer to swipe at the pump if the balance is below a certain amount

- Am I reading this correctly?  The Gas Pump Authorizes $1, so are you saying that they are going to know you are trying to pay at the pump and if you have less than a higher amount(for example $50) they won't authorize it.  If so where can I see this information?

If that is the case I can see at least a few problems with that.  For example what if a person knows they have $15 in their account, but only want $10 worth of gas.  I can just see the complaints now(probably on the Gas Station) that says they wouldn't allow them to use pay at the pump and had to go inside.  Some may not even know they now need to go inside and just complain that they were denied outright when there was enough money in their account.  I wonder if this start a new wave of "disclosures", and add several additional pages to the Terms that people already don't seem to read now.

Again I have to state the same story over and over..don't you bank defenders get bored of reading the same responses over and over? Or do any of you actually "read" responses?

When I was with Wachovia and I was finally allowed to opt out..I notice when my account is below a certain amount and I swipe at the pump...the pump would read "transaction can not be completed at this time..please see attendant inside". So I go inside..tell the attendant how much gas I want..if the account can cover it...the gas gets pumped no harm no foul.

No as I have also stated a gagillion times...it will be possible if we delve into every possible hypothetical to overdraft even if opted out.

So think about it..what is most likely going to happen in this case? Is the customer going to go to jail...or pay a fee?

Now the gas pump thing is confusing to some I understand...and I understand the bank defenders use this as an example..of what I do not know...but ..lets say a customer swipes at the pump and is opted out. The pump is not going to stop if the account holder goes over the account. So I would assume if it goes over..that the customer will be charged a fee such as an overlimit fee or however the bank is going to figure it out in such a hypothetical event. I only know how Wachovia handled it..but you can bet the bank has considered this scenario so if you are so concerned ask your bank what they do as a safe guard..it is a NON ISSUE to me so stop boring me with it..thanks.

Now if someone is opted out of OD protection...they still have the same personal responsibility as anyone else when writing a check

Keeping in mind that if someone wants to opt-out of OD protection I do not have a problem with that.  While I have ideas of what will happen when it goes into full effect, until it does it is really a guess as to the long(or even short) term effect that these new policies will have.

And why should you or anyone have a problem with it? It is a fair and reasonable choice..and as far as the way most people use debits cards today..OD protection was unnecessary for any reason I can deduce...other then for it make it easier for the banks to collect fees.

You don't need to be Nostradamus to figure out what is going to happen. Some will choose to opt in and get fees. Some will choose to opt out and not get fees. Why the mystery? What is not known 100%, is what the banks are going to do to make up for the loss in revenue since OD fees were such a large chunk of income this year and several previous. That is what you should be thinking about..because THAT is what is going to effect YOU.

Even though the laws make a distinction between a physical check and a debit transactions, a person still has the same responsibilities to maintaining their account regardless of how they access their money.  Which if I am reading you correctly you agree with this up to here.  But this is also where your logic fails.  IF they opt-out of OD protection for debit card transactions they are basically saying that they want the bank to tell them when they are out of money.  Since they have the "same responsibility" as anyone else writing a check, why would this also not apply to allowing the banks to returning checks.  Because they have already told the bank to not pay on items that they no longer have the money for.

I feel this way about it. I say it over and over. Courtesy OD protection..and re-sequencing are policies that made some sense in the days before debit cards were handed out like candy to everyone and anyone young and old. The bank knows many people are going to use them in lieu of cash, and think of them as "credit cards" even though it really is just access to your checking account. And therein lies part of the deception..that "tactics" to increase the chance of overdrafting..and maximizing fees are the other part of the deceptions. Regardless of how much fault it is of the customers..does not in my opinion..and MANY other customers opinion release the bank from it's use of shady unnecessary tactics..as far as checks..if someone bounces a check..they get fees//no one said that was going to change..this issue is about debit card usage and tactics.

The bottom line for me is this...yes customers need to use a register and use caution..given. Overdrafts are GOING to occur with some customers..for more then one reason...given. For many customers these days...there is absolutely NO reason for them to be enrolled in any OD protection..and there is no sound logical FAIR reason the banks should re-sequence any transactions.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Ronny G queried:

'There will be NO NSF "activity" because the transaction will be declined. What else is the point to opting out of overdraft protection?..and why are the banks allowing this now?'

Ronny G, IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. Banks have been charging NSF fees on transactions they decline (and don't pay) for YEARS.

Every time a check is bounced (and not paid by the bank), a customer gets an NSF FEE.

Every time a customer bounces an ACH transaction (not paid by the bank), the customer gets an NSF FEE.

Every time a customer tries to withdraw funds from an ATM or initiate a debit transaction sans available funds, an NSF FEE CAN AND WILL BE IMPOSED. How do I know this? My deadbeat sister-in-law did it just two days ago. She "opted out" of overdraft protection, ran to the store to use her debit card, then watched in horror as her bank socked her with an NSF FEE.

But...but...but..."opt out" is supposed to eliminate those fees, right? There is NO need to use that dumb old CHECK REGISTER, right?

WRONG, Ronny G. Have you stopped to wonder why banks so willingly allowed customers to "opt out" of overdraft protection when NSF fees generate BILLIONS for their businesses? Do you think they did it out of the goodness of their hearts?

They're doing it so they can continue to collect fees without the risk of paying for transactions that DEADBEATS will NEVER cover on their own.

The single piece of legislation that has even bothered to be introduced (it died TWICE) was Carolyn Maloney's junk bill. NOTHING else has even sniffed the floor of either chamber of congress. Do you really think that banks would just give up those BILLIONS (justifiably derived from the spending habits of DEADBEATS) when the chances of legislative action to stop the collection of these fees are ZERO?

I refuse to believe that you are this stupid, Ronny. In the interest of fairness, I will allow you to redeem yourself with your next rebuttal.

No one I have ever seen post a complaint here has done and jail time for an NSF so stop being ridiculous

Ronny you don't have to have jail time to determine if a crime has been committed, and TD said nothing about jail time(that I could read).  As I have mentioned before just about every major city has a "Check Restitution Program" run by the District Attorneys office.  Will you get jail time for one NSF check...very unlikely.  Could you have fines and "probation"..more likely.  Then IF you have multiple NSF checks after this you may have a new address courtesy of your local Sheriff or Police Department for a few months.

The gas pump has been debunked..if you are opted out of overdraft protection..the banks will not allow a customer to swipe at the pump if the balance is below a certain amount

- Am I reading this correctly?  The Gas Pump Authorizes $1, so are you saying that they are going to know you are trying to pay at the pump and if you have less than a higher amount(for example $50) they won't authorize it.  If so where can I see this information?

If that is the case I can see at least a few problems with that.  For example what if a person knows they have $15 in their account, but only want $10 worth of gas.  I can just see the complaints now(probably on the Gas Station) that says they wouldn't allow them to use pay at the pump and had to go inside.  Some may not even know they now need to go inside and just complain that they were denied outright when there was enough money in their account.  I wonder if this start a new wave of "disclosures", and add several additional pages to the Terms that people already don't seem to read now.

Now if someone is opted out of OD protection...they still have the same personal responsibility as anyone else when writing a check

Keeping in mind that if someone wants to opt-out of OD protection I do not have a problem with that.  While I have ideas of what will happen when it goes into full effect, until it does it is really a guess as to the long(or even short) term effect that these new policies will have. 

Even though the laws make a distinction between a physical check and a debit transactions, a person still has the same responsibilities to maintaining their account regardless of how they access their money.  Which if I am reading you correctly you agree with this up to here.  But this is also where your logic fails.  IF they opt-out of OD protection for debit card transactions they are basically saying that they want the bank to tell them when they are out of money.  Since they have the "same responsibility" as anyone else writing a check, why would this also not apply to allowing the banks to returning checks.  Because they have already told the bank to not pay on items that they no longer have the money for.

So now I can either ignore it..or come to my own defense..so I choose to defend myself...again.



Next possible scenario: A customer CHOOSES to opt out of courtesy OD protection when the bank offers it. The customer is at the convenience store buying a soda, and pack of gum, a beef stick, and a box of condoms. He goes to swipe the card and it is declined...Either this customer (if they have an ounce of intelligence), will think.."oh, I had better check my balance or register..I thought I had money in there"..or..will be angry at the bank.'

No, what this customer will think is:

"WHOA! I was charged an overdraft fee ANYWAY because I was guilty of initiating checking account activity sans available funds. Hence, my NSF fee!"

You see, boys and girls (you too, Ronny), "opting out" of overdraft PROTECTION doesn't mean you are not guilty of NSF activity. It just means that the bank will not cover for your deadbeat behavior, per your request.

That is the way you look at it..because you see everyone as a deadbeat and no one else is as perfect as you.

There will be NO NSF "activity" because the transaction will be declined. What else is the point to opting out of overdraft protection?..and why are the banks allowing this now?

Oh, and make sure you realize that repeated activity of this sort leaves you vulnerable to Chexsystems reporting, account closure, criminal charges (in the case of pay-at-the-pump, check, and ACH transactions) and an ultimate life without a checking account for FIVE YEARS.

You are going to have people think you are dumb..because you keep making me REPEAT THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

The purpose of opting out of courtesy overdraft protection..is so transactions will be declined AT A POINT OF SALE OR AN ATM if the funds are not available. This has NOTHING to do with ACH or checks. No one I have ever seen post a complaint here has done and jail time for an NSF so stop being ridiculous.

The gas pump has been debunked..if you are opted out of overdraft protection..the banks will not allow a customer to swipe at the pump if the balance is below a certain amount. The banks have though of this....they are a little smarter then you. They would not allow opt out and not consider a gas pump.

Now if someone is opted out of OD protection...they still have the same personal responsibility as anyone else when writing a check..unless policy changes are made that have to do with ACH or checks. So why do you have an issue with this? Do you just enjoy attacking me and customers..you seem to have some kind of an ax to grind..and I do not understand it. You have anger management issues or something.

Take a bow, Ronny G. I'm sure the deadbeat overdrafters will line up to give you a big sloppy kiss after they assume each and every consequence of your glorious new "policy". My account, on the other hand, was and is still FREE thanks to the fees these deadbeats continue to pay.

Are you delusional??? This is not "my" policy..it is the BANKS...they are choosing to do this on their own..not just because I agree with it..but millions of complaining customers...law suits..and pressure from congress. So why are you hold me soley responsible? Opting out of OD protection is a CHOICE..no one is forcing you or anyone else to opt out. But I can state one thing I do know for sure...there will be a  lot less overdraft fees taken in by the bank...and what they do to make up for it is another story..as you will soon enough find out if you have not already noticed.

So..any issues you have in the future..such as if you lose free checking or your interest rates suck..make sure to thank the bank and the government for the changes..and stop blaming everyone else. It seems to me if the banks were left on their own like they should have been,,the failures should have been gone by now. I never hear see you call the banks deadbeats...but everyone else you have no problem..just grow up already...although you do sound to me like an angry grumpy bitter old man.

Ronny G wrote:

'Next possible scenario: A customer CHOOSES to opt out of courtesy OD protection when the bank offers it. The customer is at the convenience store buying a soda, and pack of gum, a beef stick, and a box of condoms. He goes to swipe the card and it is declined...Either this customer (if they have an ounce of intelligence), will think.."oh, I had better check my balance or register..I thought I had money in there"..or..will be angry at the bank.'

No, what this customer will think is:

"WHOA! I was charged an overdraft fee ANYWAY because I was guilty of initiating checking account activity sans available funds. Hence, my NSF fee!"

You see, boys and girls (you too, Ronny), "opting out" of overdraft PROTECTION doesn't mean you are not guilty of NSF activity. It just means that the bank will not cover for your deadbeat behavior, per your request.

Oh, and make sure you realize that repeated activity of this sort leaves you vulnerable to Chexsystems reporting, account closure, criminal charges (in the case of pay-at-the-pump, check, and ACH transactions) and an ultimate life without a checking account for FIVE YEARS.

Take a bow, Ronny G. I'm sure the deadbeat overdrafters will line up to give you a big sloppy kiss after they assume each and every consequence of your glorious new "policy". My account, on the other hand, was and is still FREE thanks to the fees these deadbeats continue to pay.

Kidding aside..I am pretty hard on the banks. I think they have been a bit unfair and hard on many customers during a really bad recession.

Now..all banks are going to charge overdraft fees..that is a given. You can either search around for one that charges lower fees...or link your checking account to your savings account. With one of my current banks (Chase) if I enroll in to their transfer protection service..I would be charged 12 dollars if I overdraft. If I keep a balance over 10,000 dollars..they will cover all overdrafts free of charge. Now many people do not  have $10,000..and some don't even have a savings account...so this is not always an option.

You are going to have to be very careful with your account to prevent fees. As I have stated..if you want a little free insurance in case you keep a low balance and use your debit card for everything...ask the bank if you can opt out of overdraft protection altogether. If they refuse..look for a bank that will allow you to.

There are changes coming soon. For example by early next year..Chase will no longer force you into courtesy overdraft protection..and will no longer re-sequence or manipulate your transactions, and limit the amount of fees they can charge per day to less then it is now...a more fair policy if you ask me. There are lawsuits pending as well..and congress is working on legislation to make things even more fair for the consumer...but either way...you need to take every precaution to prevent an overdraft..especially if the bank is going to allow..without warning...your card to be used after your balance reaches zero. I watch my account to the penny. I have 4 registers..and a program I use to manage my bills. Even with that..I have had merchant holds and a rent a car place cause me to overdraft..as well as a defective ATM..so sometimes no matter what we do...if we keep a low balance and use the card...we are subject to potential overdrafts...it happens as we can see..no escaping that fact. I was fortunate to be able to recover all fees...and you were not..the banks are really tight right now and show very little forgiveness..."courtesy" they call it...uhhhhhhh...okay. They make you fight hard.

If you are opted out of OD protection..it would not matter anymore what the online statement says...what the bank says..any bank screw ups...what your register says..or what Mr. Potato head says...opting out means the card will be declined at any point of sale..or any ATM if the balance can't cover it...and then guess what???? No more OD fees for you.

While their systems were updating, which is still ongoing, I was charged incorrectly for overdraft fees. They removed it as a "courtesy". Their systems report different balances in the morning because the systems isn't updated, rather than stating "the system is down", it provides incorrect information. I even had deposits reported as debits, this happened twice and had to be manually corrected.

After making a deposit to cover my minimal negative balance, I was still charged for overdraft fees, $35 each. I had about 5 small charges, I was charged $300 in one day, and the funds were there. They refused to make the adjustment because they already applied a "courtesy" refersal when their systems were wrong.

Any suggestions on a legit bank?

Don't eat out...don't get coffee..a TV or a cell phone.

Just live in a cave like Bin Ladin and you will never have to worry about overdraft fees again...BRILLIANT !!

Or..you can still live like a human. Just be aware of not going over your balance (duh) and consider opting out of overdraft protection in case of error, fraud, bank manipulation, mistake with your book keeping , theft etc...you will never have to worry about a fee again at a point of sale or an ATM..it's like having a little extra insurance to protect your account and money, and hedge your bets that the bank will fleece you dry..imagine that?

If you leave it just to the bank..of course they will allow that transaction to go through...again and again after it is over limit...why??  Because Starbucks makes $1.85 on a cup of coffee that Karen says you can't have...but if your card is allowed to process transactions after the account balance reaches zero...well need we say how much the bank makes on it.

WARNING! - TD BANK INCLUDES YOUR OVERDRAFT CREDIT LINE IN YOUR "AVAILABLE BALANCE" ON ATM SLIPS!

Even though your credit line is subject to an overdraft fee of $5 to $35 and a 14% interest charge. THEY DO NOT TELL YOU THIS! They do not tell you that your "Available Balance" includes the amount of your overdraft credit limit (usually $500) and if you withdraw any of that amount (from an ATM machine or bank) you will be charged an overdraft charge and 14% interest!

They do not tell you that the difference between your "Available Balance" and your "Current Balance" is the amount of your overdraft limit (usually $500) and if you withdraw that amount (from an ATM machine or bank) you will be charged 14% interest!

INVESTIGATION! - If you have inadvertently withdrawn money from your overdraft credit line, and were charged an overdraft fee and interest, go to http://e-squire.net/tdbankwarning.html for more information and to complete a questionnaire about your situation.

And you'll never get hit with overdraft fees, no matter what the bank changes or does to "cash in" on customers.  Stop overspending.  Keep a check register.  Stop using the debit card.  Live within your means.  Stop eating out.  You don't NEED that Starbucks drink, that plasma TV, or that fancy cell phone.  As long as the people are ignorant & careless as to how they spend their money, the banks will keep making money of off you.   We're all grown ups here, so let's take some personal responsibility. 

I don't really know how this issue became a debate between you and I about who is more at fault for these reports. The issue is actually between the customers bank..and the customer. You telling them it is all their fault has changed nothing...me telling them how the banks deceptions is what is causing all the additional fees on top of any legitimate overdrafts, has not changed anything.

But this "battle" between you and I has turned into a pissing contest..

Regardless of what you post..and how I respond..you don't seem to understand my implications..which is when I feel a customer shares blame...I mention it...If I feel the customer shares ALL blame..I most likely do not even respond.

As far as what I consider "a very very long time"....is for as long as any bank has ever zinged a SINGLE customer by manipulation....mainly mandatory un requested courtesy OD protection combined with unnecessary or un requested re-sequencing.

Okay...I will post what I believe will happen when the changes go fully into effect and compare it to the current policies which lead to current complaints as witnessed on this site....maybe, just maybe this will put and end to this debate..

A customer is offered to enroll in courtesy OD protection..and accepts. No re-sequencing will ever occur because it is now legislated the banks can not do this anymore.

The customer intentionally overdrafts on a single transaction..whatever the reason..his car broke down..whatever..and is charged a fee. Most customers that intentionally overdraft..expect a fee..but only for that intentional overdraft..for whatever reason..so common sense dictates they would not complain....They were able to utilized the short term "loan" so to speak..and the bank collected their fee as disclosed and agreed to in the terms...win/win.

Now lets assume this same customer and circumstance occur, but  this time the customer decides to lodge a complaint here. What would they possibly complain about???

"oh I used the overdraft service and the bank charged me accordingly..I am so mad at the bank"  Comon Robert..if this person really complained here with this situation...they would be rightfully chewed to pieces and have no credibility what-so-ever.

Next possible scenario:

A customer CHOOSES to opt out of courtesy OD protection when the bank offers it.

The customer is at the convenience store buying a soda, and pack of gum, a beef stick, and a box of condoms. He goes to swipe the card and it is declined...Either this customer (if they have an ounce of intelligence), will think.."oh, I had better check my balance or register..I thought I had money in there"..or..will be angry at the bank.

So lets assume the customer comes here to lodge a ripoff complaint..which would sound something like this...

" I hate Bank of Afghanistan...I CHOSE to opt out of overdraft protection..and the bank had the NERVE to decline my debit card when my balance reached zero...this is such a rip off..I am going to leave this bank and go to another"

Do you see how silly this sounds? So if the changes are going to suddenly fill ROR with complaints like this....Robert you have my word..I will be right there with you defending the banks and ridiculing the fools.

There is no one here who is going to change yours or others people attitude on the "evil banks".  I think you really...really...really want to tell these account holders that they are actually the ones at fault.  But you got yourself tied into the "banks are evil" mentality and can't or won't dig your way out. 

Yes....we agree 150,000%..that it would not matter if the banks manipulated and re-ordered our transactions sideways, backwards and upside down...if mandatory courtesy overdraft protection was not FORCED on customers that do not wish to enroll in this service.

- It's amazing you got the manipulation almost word for word but just seemed to replace "never spending more than they have available" with "making OD protection forced".  Interesting how IF the user actually didn't spend more than they have available OD protection wouldn't even be needed.  Note that I have NEVER said that they should not be able to opt-out(or be required to opt-in).  Just that unless people change their attitude and fix their "root" issues that is not going to change anything.

As a matter of fact..once the changes are put into effect...I won't have to be here nearly as much. We can both find new hobbies..well at least I know I won't have to be here..maybe just an occasional looksy.

- No I think we will both be here.  Us "bank defenders" trying to explain how the poster got into their predicament(because they still will) and how to avoid it in the future, with the addition of them being able to opt-out of the OD protection.  Then you telling them that even though the banks made all of these changes because they could see the future they are still the "evil" ones.  You probably will also try and placate them letting them know that the first set of changes was only the beginning and it is only a matter of time before you take the banks down.  But that is what is so great, people can see both sides and decide for themselves which sounds more logical.

Bottom line..it has been "your" way for a very long time

My way????? Okay I'll just put that in the WTH category.  If my way is to promote PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in managing MY money then yep I guess it has been my way and I am very proud of it.  If your way is to give these account holders gold-stars for posting their story to say how the bank was really the "evil" one, and for them not to worry the banks are going to pay for what they have done then I hope you can be proud of that.  As I said I wonder which one actually would help a person end up with less OD fees in the future.

But I thought one of your main contentions is that these policies are a new way to get the customers to pay all of these fees without telling them of the changes.  So since you like to post definitions now, what is your definition of "a very long time".

Be extra careful now..make protecting your money a 2nd job.

"Who would ever think that managing YOUR own money would be YOUR responsibility..that is really a profound statement.  As when you trim away all of the "banks are evil" that is what is left.  But if you don't want to manage your own money, go hire an accountant as that is actually their job and they would love to charge you a few hundred dollars a month to do this for you. "

Been here with you 50 times Robert. I never try to imply in most cases that the customer bears no personal responsibility. But in a case where a bank changes policy without the customers consent or knowledge..and this causes additional fees whether the customer overdrafted with intent or not..is a new low..and constitutes a ripoff in every sense of the word. Deception comes to mind as well..but that is commonly done by many banks these days..we will get to that soon.

"The banks have regulations and rules.  They do not FORCE you to overdraft.  No bank has ever held a gun to someones head forcing them to write a check, or forcing them to swipe their debit card.  No matter how they post transactions if you never spend more money than you have AVAILABLE it does not matter how the banks process transactions.  So if you have done everything in your control to make sure that this does not happen the chances of you actually over drafting is extremely small.  As there are always going to be bank or merchant errors out of your control, but that is another issue and as has been shown is very rare compared to people just needing to manage their account.  And is definitely not a reason why you should not manage your account."

Been here a zillion times with you regarding this as well..and so has Edward.

Yes....we agree 150,000%..that it would not matter if the banks manipulated and re-ordered our transactions sideways, backwards and upside down...if mandatory courtesy overdraft protection was not FORCED on customers that do not wish to enroll in this service.

And I would like to know why it bothers you so much if a customer wishes to opt out? And why it bothers you so much if the banks do not manipulate our transactions anymore?..because since they will cover the overdrafts regardless..what is the difference?...see our point? And if the customer chooses to opt out..it also serves no purpose...see our point? Now if a customer does have overdraft protection...and an overdraft occurs for any reason..it seems the only purpose..or at least by reading these reports...the only RESULT has been....that's right...you guessed it..excessive fees.

Now in a perfect world where overdrafts never happened..perhaps we would not be here now debating this..but apparently the banks are making changes..some have already....some will be soon...congress is putting pressure as well..so perhaps your rebuttals would be better served if you really care about this so much..to be with Congress and the banks..who have made the decision to change some of these policies..and give the customers reasonable choices and options on how to better protect their money for them.

Is that so hard to fathom?

"If the thought of "delaying deposits" follows other typical reports, it has more to do with Federal regulations and/or their mis-understanding of the funds availability policy.  As for the "accelerate debits", they again are probably spending the money before it is available in the hopes to "float" funds."

This ones a no-brainer...since the term available is used more deceptivly by the banks..the they way they use "courtesy" and "protection".... from the dictionary...where even a person of average intelligence can surely be misled..

available adj.

1. Present and ready for use; at hand; accessible: kept a fire extinguisher available at all times.
2. Capable of being gotten; obtainable:


"IF you spend more money than you have available on purpose by either thinking it is "ok" to overdraft just this one time, or by not keeping track of your account.  Then the bank(per the agreement) is allowed to charge the overdraft fees however based on the terms of how they post transactions.  Until the bank changes you have a choice.  Manage and keep control of your own account so that this does not happen, or hope that someone will come to your rescue and make all of these "evil" banks go away telling you that it will all be better soon.  I think logical people can figure out for themselves which one will keep the bank from getting anymore overdraft fees."

No news here. But does it change the fact that if a customer so CHOOSES not to participate in overdraft protection services..that they should have that right? After all..the Government regulations do not require the banks to force this on a customer..

As a matter of fact..once the changes are put into effect...I won't have to be here nearly as much. We can both find new hobbies..well at least I know I won't have to be here..maybe just an occasional looksy.

Oh by the way..you should go to the link the OP left at the end of the post. Personally I found it good reading...as Karl would say.... "anyone" can.

Bottom line..it has been "your" way for a very long time. Once the changes in policies kick in for most..if not all of the banks...we can discuss the results in a civil manor..and see which way worked better.

The original poster said in part.. "ensuring that you keep a sufficient balance in your account"

So your point is?  Why is a bank to be blamed if you spend more than you have in your account? 

Be extra careful now..make protecting your money a 2nd job.

Who would ever think that managing YOUR own money would be YOUR responsibility..that is really a profound statement.  As when you trim away all of the "banks are evil" that is what is left.  But if you don't want to manage your own money, go hire an accountant as that is actually their job and they would love to charge you a few hundred dollars a month to do this for you. 

The banks have regulations and rules.  They do not FORCE you to overdraft.  No bank has ever held a gun to someones head forcing them to write a check, or forcing them to swipe their debit card.  No matter how they post transactions if you never spend more money than you have AVAILABLE it does not matter how the banks process transactions.  So if you have done everything in your control to make sure that this does not happen the chances of you actually over drafting is extremely small.  As there are always going to be bank or merchant errors out of your control, but that is another issue and as has been shown is very rare compared to people just needing to manage their account.  And is definitely not a reason why you should not manage your account.

If the thought of "delaying deposits" follows other typical reports, it has more to do with Federal regulations and/or their mis-understanding of the funds availability policy.  As for the "accelerate debits", they again are probably spending the money before it is available in the hopes to "float" funds.

IF you spend more money than you have available on purpose by either thinking it is "ok" to overdraft just this one time, or by not keeping track of your account.  Then the bank(per the agreement) is allowed to charge the overdraft fees however based on the terms of how they post transactions.  Until the bank changes you have a choice.  Manage and keep control of your own account so that this does not happen, or hope that someone will come to your rescue and make all of these "evil" banks go away telling you that it will all be better soon.  I think logical people can figure out for themselves which one will keep the bank from getting anymore overdraft fees.

Be extra careful now..make protecting your money a 2nd job. Since you are aware now that policies have changed with your bank (this is also happening with WAMU customers once Chase became involved..and others)..you will have to share some blame if you get these fees again. It does not mean the bank is right..or that it is not a rip off..because it is in every sense of the word..but IF the bank can get away with this..they certainly will take all they can if YOU allow it.

Now..due to all the complaints...pressure from congress..and countless pending lawsuits...some banks have voluntarily stopped using some of these tactic..and are making policy changes..a wise move for them. Some of these changes with some of these banks already went into effect..so shop around..my be time for you to switch.

Some of these changes will be going into effect early next year..which is not too far off..but there will still be problems until then..probably even worse as they scratch and claw for every penny they can bilk while they still can.

As well...there will be legislation and lawsuits to follow..we will see what that does in the future..no one can predict..but judging by the fact that banks are starting to change policy on their own..is a good sign for us.