Wachovia "Check Holds" is a scam! THey will take your money!!! Mount Airy North Carolina

Striderq, As I've said before, you and I can go back and forth until the cows come home....at least here in Texas. Both sides have been REPEATEDLY and FULLY explained. It took a while but I was finally able to get Jim to understand what's going on in this very complicated and slick process. Now look at his reaction.

As I've also said, I'M NOT THE ONE submitting all of these ROR reports against Wachovia, Ok? But it's odd out that you choose to single me out. That must mean the TRUTH is striking a nerve. Never mind. As I've said, nothing new to say about this practice. Here's a NEW question that you STILL have conveniently and subtily NOT ANSWERED on ANY thread. So I'll ask it once more.

The customers signed and agreed to the Wachovia Deposit Agreement. In this agreement, the Unavailable Funds Fee is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the ENTIRE AGREEMENT! Very simple question. This is why I said hold your horses on the 'it is legal' comment.

What's up with that?

No ripoff. Legal fee charged when available balance went into negative. Charged by some other banks, allowed by bank regulations. No ripoff.

Banks suck. They do nickle and dime you do death. I went to a credit union and I am MUCH happier.

You can't hit the account holder 2X when the Available Balance goes negative, and then AGAIN when the Posted Balance goes negative. I agree the OD should be charged when the Available Balance goes RED, but not the Posted Balance, when the Posted Balance has NO MEANING at all in the Wachovia world.

I also would like to know why an account holder - who has a positive AVAILABLE balance could get 4OD fees if there were Available, Non-Held funds if 4 debits clear during the day and only the last debit put the balance in the negative. That practice negates ALL of the arguments people make when they say, "don't spend money you don't have." The problem is Wachovia would seem to say to its customers, gee, you have money in your account, but we'll ding you anyway?" I cannot believe a bank would charge an OD fee for a transaction that had funds IN IT? I mean that is just wrong.

Striderq, I appreciate the fact you've been candid and helpful to people - believe me I speak with genuine sincerety in saying it. However, this situation is very troubling for me and, speaking for myself only, I would like to hear the answers to those questions. If this is not happening as I've suggested, then please clarify and correct what I've said. However, if this is happening as suggested - I would love to hear the rationale as to why someone could get dinged multiple times for the same OD. It's sort of like going on trial twice for the same crime and being sentenced to jail twice for the same crime..... and all done without a kiss....

Correction for Striderq. Yes there is a ripoff here. The ripoff is being charged Unavailable Funds Fees for transactions made BEFORE either the Available or Posted balance went negative. Everyone is perfectly clear on that no matter how you continue to sugar coat it with a general statment.

Your general statement - When your posted or available balance goes into negative, there will be fees. Wow! What a SHOCKING revelation! Yes this is a true GENERAL and GENERIC statement. With ALL other banks, you're charged ONE fee for each transaction MADE after the POSTED or Available balances go negative. NO OTHER banks go BACK IN TIME and charge an ADDITIONAL FEE for other transactions ALREADY MADE. This is what you're CLEVERLY trying to conceal with your GENERAL, GENERIC, and MISLEADING statement.

And with the revelation that this new Unavailable Funds Fee is ABSENT in the ENTIRE Deposit Agreement which customers signed and agreed to, let's hold that thought on the 'illegal' comment, okay? Thanks. But in no way do I profess to be a legal expert. Far from it.

I can see where you're trying to go with the WAMU comment. You're late. I've already heard similiar comments like yours from Bank of America supporters, long ago. I would be perfectly willing to provide my $.02 on any WAMU threads. The problem though - there aren't any regarding THIS ISSUE. The truth is there aren't any reports of this issue for ANY OTHER banks besides Wachovia.

When the legendary Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, his reply - 'Because that's where the money is'.

The same is true for me with respect to bank complaints and posts.

My sincere apologies for the very poor humor. ;-)

Correction for Striderq. Yes there is a ripoff here. The ripoff is being charged Unavailable Funds Fees for transactions made BEFORE either the Available or Posted balance went negative. Everyone is perfectly clear on that no matter how you continue to sugar coat it with a general statment.

Your general statement - When your posted or available balance goes into negative, there will be fees. Wow! What a SHOCKING revelation! Yes this is a true GENERAL and GENERIC statement. With ALL other banks, you're charged ONE fee for each transaction MADE after the POSTED or Available balances go negative. NO OTHER banks go BACK IN TIME and charge an ADDITIONAL FEE for other transactions ALREADY MADE. This is what you're CLEVERLY trying to conceal with your GENERAL, GENERIC, and MISLEADING statement.

And with the revelation that this new Unavailable Funds Fee is ABSENT in the ENTIRE Deposit Agreement which customers signed and agreed to, let's hold that thought on the 'illegal' comment, okay? Thanks. But in no way do I profess to be a legal expert. Far from it.

I can see where you're trying to go with the WAMU comment. You're late. I've already heard similiar comments like yours from Bank of America supporters, long ago. I would be perfectly willing to provide my $.02 on any WAMU threads. The problem though - there aren't any regarding THIS ISSUE. The truth is there aren't any reports of this issue for ANY OTHER banks besides Wachovia.

When the legendary Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, his reply - 'Because that's where the money is'.

The same is true for me with respect to bank complaints and posts.

My sincere apologies for the very poor humor. ;-)

Correction for Striderq. Yes there is a ripoff here. The ripoff is being charged Unavailable Funds Fees for transactions made BEFORE either the Available or Posted balance went negative. Everyone is perfectly clear on that no matter how you continue to sugar coat it with a general statment.

Your general statement - When your posted or available balance goes into negative, there will be fees. Wow! What a SHOCKING revelation! Yes this is a true GENERAL and GENERIC statement. With ALL other banks, you're charged ONE fee for each transaction MADE after the POSTED or Available balances go negative. NO OTHER banks go BACK IN TIME and charge an ADDITIONAL FEE for other transactions ALREADY MADE. This is what you're CLEVERLY trying to conceal with your GENERAL, GENERIC, and MISLEADING statement.

And with the revelation that this new Unavailable Funds Fee is ABSENT in the ENTIRE Deposit Agreement which customers signed and agreed to, let's hold that thought on the 'illegal' comment, okay? Thanks. But in no way do I profess to be a legal expert. Far from it.

I can see where you're trying to go with the WAMU comment. You're late. I've already heard similiar comments like yours from Bank of America supporters, long ago. I would be perfectly willing to provide my $.02 on any WAMU threads. The problem though - there aren't any regarding THIS ISSUE. The truth is there aren't any reports of this issue for ANY OTHER banks besides Wachovia.

When the legendary Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, his reply - 'Because that's where the money is'.

The same is true for me with respect to bank complaints and posts.

My sincere apologies for the very poor humor. ;-)

Correction for Striderq. Yes there is a ripoff here. The ripoff is being charged Unavailable Funds Fees for transactions made BEFORE either the Available or Posted balance went negative. Everyone is perfectly clear on that no matter how you continue to sugar coat it with a general statment.

Your general statement - When your posted or available balance goes into negative, there will be fees. Wow! What a SHOCKING revelation! Yes this is a true GENERAL and GENERIC statement. With ALL other banks, you're charged ONE fee for each transaction MADE after the POSTED or Available balances go negative. NO OTHER banks go BACK IN TIME and charge an ADDITIONAL FEE for other transactions ALREADY MADE. This is what you're CLEVERLY trying to conceal with your GENERAL, GENERIC, and MISLEADING statement.

And with the revelation that this new Unavailable Funds Fee is ABSENT in the ENTIRE Deposit Agreement which customers signed and agreed to, let's hold that thought on the 'illegal' comment, okay? Thanks. But in no way do I profess to be a legal expert. Far from it.

I can see where you're trying to go with the WAMU comment. You're late. I've already heard similiar comments like yours from Bank of America supporters, long ago. I would be perfectly willing to provide my $.02 on any WAMU threads. The problem though - there aren't any regarding THIS ISSUE. The truth is there aren't any reports of this issue for ANY OTHER banks besides Wachovia.

When the legendary Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, his reply - 'Because that's where the money is'.

The same is true for me with respect to bank complaints and posts.

My sincere apologies for the very poor humor. ;-)

Yes Edward, the money is gone when the hold is created. When the customer then spends that money through checks, auto debits or DBC usage there are going to be fees accessed.
Yes Edward, here at Wachovia when your posted balance or your available balence goes into the negative there are going to be fees accessed.
No rip off, nothing illegal, just customers overspending their accounts. Irritating & inconvenient, but 100% caused by the customer and avoidable by not overspending their accounts.
PS WaMu is jealous you're spending so much time on Wachovia posts.

Yes Edward, the money is gone when the hold is created. When the customer then spends that money through checks, auto debits or DBC usage there are going to be fees accessed.
Yes Edward, here at Wachovia when your posted balance or your available balence goes into the negative there are going to be fees accessed.
No rip off, nothing illegal, just customers overspending their accounts. Irritating & inconvenient, but 100% caused by the customer and avoidable by not overspending their accounts.
PS WaMu is jealous you're spending so much time on Wachovia posts.

Yes Edward, the money is gone when the hold is created. When the customer then spends that money through checks, auto debits or DBC usage there are going to be fees accessed.
Yes Edward, here at Wachovia when your posted balance or your available balence goes into the negative there are going to be fees accessed.
No rip off, nothing illegal, just customers overspending their accounts. Irritating & inconvenient, but 100% caused by the customer and avoidable by not overspending their accounts.
PS WaMu is jealous you're spending so much time on Wachovia posts.

I can't add anything to what has been said but know that you are not alone.

If nothing else starting off with a new bank that has a "clean slate" will be much more pleasant than continuing to do business with a bank you can't trust.

Best of luck.

In your post you said - 'When you swipe the card, the money is gone - PERIOD'. You are exactly right. And you and many others have made this same comment OVER and OVER again.

So by following your lead, here's a different way of showing what happened to Tressie:

Date.....Item.....Amt....Posted Bal.... Available balance
12-17....Prv Bal..$00....$100............$100
12-19....Check...$30....$ 70.............$ 70
12-19....Check...$25....$ 45.............$ 45
12-19....HOLD....$10....$ 45.............$ 35 (This money is gone - PERIOD)
12-19....HOLD....$02....$ 45.............$ 33 (This money is gone - PERIOD)
12-20....HOLD....$20....$ 45.............$ 13 (This money is gone - PERIOD)
12-20....HOLD....$20....$ 45............($ 7)

Now, when the customer makes the final transaction, it indeeds overdraws the account. No problem. The customer accepts the OVERDRAFT FEE for this ONE transaction that overdrew the account.

But Wachovia goes BACK IN TIME and charges the BRAND NEW - Unavailable Funds Fee for the three previous transactions.

WAIT A MINUTE! I thought the money for the three previous transactions was already GONE - PERIOD! This means that money is HISTORY and ACCOUNTED FOR and both balances were POSITIVE after this money was GONE - PERIOD!

So what are the additional fees for? Huh?

Yes indeed Tressie and other Wachovia customers did sign and agree to Wachovia's Terms and Conditions. Guess what! In this document they signed and agreed to, NOWHERE does it mention the new Unavailable Funds Fee and how it will be assessed! NOWHERE!

I would like to say that I knew that some of you would have snotty comments. I also knew that those of you who have been scammed would agree with me.

The problem is this. there is a problem with the system. Why is it fair that the merchant can put a "hold" on my money. but the bank won't pay it. I almost always use my pin, thinking that the funds would be taken off of my account that night.

The crazy thing. it was, but it wasn't. I HAD THE MONEY IN THERE TO COVER THE FIRST TWO TRANSACTIONS! I WAS ONLY SHORT ON THE THIRD BY .45 CENTS. I agree that I should have had a fee on the third one. because I was short. But I don't understand why if I had the funds to cover them, why didn't the bank pay it?

If they are going to allow merchants to put a "hold" on my available funds, why not pay it that night? But they didn't. The waited until the following Monday. and charged me two more fees. Any way you look at it, there should have only been ONE fee.

What I want for "Mike" to understand is that I had the funds in there! I was scammed once again!! And I know many people who have had this same problem. It's not just me.

Maybe we will be lucky enough to have a new Mrs. President, who understands that banks, as well as mortgage companies, are taking advantage of people. She says that "The People" should join together and stand up for ourselves. She is the one to help make this happen.

Non-believers, beware! Just because you have not been burned yet, doesn't mean your day is not coming! You will get it, watch!!

And oh--When the "world" requires us to have checking accounts for paychecks, house payments, online purchases, etc., -we all must have a checking account with a debit card. So, why should the bank(s) get to take advantage of us, just because this is a fact?

***My mattress is for sleeping, not for hiding money!

Thanks again for listening.

If you don't keep enough money in your account for any eventuality/emergencies it's not the bank's fault.

Maybe you should keep your money under your mattress.

Edward, you wrote, 'Many responders falsely claim that a lot of reports like yours are from customers who are trying to get off scott free without paying ANYTHING. You indicated that YOU MADE A MISTAKE and you were willing to accept the ONE FEE that YOUR MISTAKE caused. So we've got that out of the way.'

What the customer was 'willing to accept' is beside the point and COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. In the real world, customers do not get to 'choose' their charges and fees. Those charges and fees are GIVEN TO THEM and assessed when appropriate. 'Holds' are not suspensions of transactions until posted - thereby allowing you to spend away until the transactions post. When you swipe the card, the money is gone - PERIOD. If only consumers could grasp that amazingly simple concept.

If you do not agree with the Terms and Conditions of a bank's accounts, you are 100% FREE to choose another bank. However, when you sign the paper stating that you agree to abide by Wachovia's Terms and Conditions, you have no complaint.

You said it right in your OP. In your own words, 'I use cash for everything that I can, for obvious reasons.' I concur - but with the following addendum: USE CASH FOR EVERYTHING. You obviously do not have the determination to use your account in a responsible manner. Pay with cash and money orders only. You will save yourself a pile of cash that would otherwise have been spent on overdraft fees.

No rip-off here...just another whiner with his personal cheerleader, Edward, once again trying to take the blame away from where it belongs (the OP) and placing it where it DOES NOT BELONG (The Bank).

I had to read this a few times to see if I could make sense out of it.

First, holds doesn't mean the same thing as cleared/posted. Every single debit/credit transaction that you do have a hold on it. The important thing when you can (I know w/Netflix you can't do this) is when you use your check card, type in your pin. The money is gone that night. I do this all the time, especially with gas stations for this very reason. Gas stations take as long as 3 days to upload all their transactions to the bank for clearing.

The check by phone thing, have you done before? I think that a check by phone would take 2 days (maybe one w/Check 21) to have the amount cleared. You don't indicate the exact day which items posted when. I am thinking the Netflix and your other charge posted first, then the check, hence the bounce. However, if your Netflix and other thing did not post, and the check did before those things did, it seems you would have had the funds for it and one of the two remaining charges would have bounced instead.

Is Wachovia a 2 PM deadline on ATM deposits as well? If so, that is ridiclous. Bank of America uses 8 PM (at least in the DC area where I live). It sounds like you keep a reigster though which is good, because most people that complain about banks don't, hence why they have issues.

Mike
Waldorf, MD

Tressie, I am terribly sorry to hear this happened to you. But join the club. From your report, you have already indicated that you realize you are not alone and you are correct. Your report covers all of the bases. It was worded perfectly.

Many responders falsely claim that a lot of reports like yours are from customers who are trying to get off scott free without paying ANYTHING. You indicated that YOU MADE A MISTAKE and you were willing to accept the ONE FEE that YOUR MISTAKE caused. So we've got that out of the way.

You begin by giving your 'checkbook balance' which confirms that you do indeed keep and balance a CHECK REGISTER. And after documenting all transactions, you knew you had overdrawn your account as shown by your CHECK REGISTER. So we've got that out of the way.

There is one thing your report didn't mention. The Deposit Agreement. No problem. Because the wording DOES NOT clearly state things will happen the way you have now discovered. So reading it wouldn't have helped anyway. You would have reached the same assumption and conclusion that you already have based on the wording and your understanding of that wording.

Finally, you indicate you are closing your account. That's your best move. Now, many responders will come back and say if you continue your spending your habits at your new bank you will still be charged fees. You see that's how they dance around the issue. They are partially correct. But at your new bank, based on the scenario you described, you would have only been charged ONE FEE, not THREE. And that's your whole complaint.

See. We've covered all of the basis. Great Report! And best of luck at your new bank!