Wells Fargo I Guess the "Bank Bailout" Now Requires Posting Bail to Access Your Own Money San Francisco California

CITIGROUP, JP MORGAN CHASE, & others, are still carrying all the 'TOXIC ASSETS' on their books!

In addition, just because you deposit a check, it does not mean you can just go and spend the money. As a responsible consumer, you should wait until the check clears and the funds are available before writing other checks. If WF reversed your fees it may have been because you were a customer in good standing and not necessarily because it was their error. It clearly sounds like it was not the bank's error.

Robert from Irvine you're absolutely right. That is exactly how Regulation CC works.

Wells Fargo is completely within it's rights to place a hold on his check. Ray, make sure to tell your friends and family the entire story and how you had a recent NSF before this happened. Somehow I think that will not be part of your telling. If someone gave me a check and they had recently bounced a check they gave me, i might be a little weary myself... wouldn't you?  

I'm appalled that a journalist would write such a disparaging letter to their bank without doing any research on the subject of banking regulations, more specifically Regulation CC. A quick Google search took me to the Federal Reserve website that explains this Regulation in detail. I wonder if he treats all of his articles the same way.

Ray, since you work for a multi-million dollar company, I'm sure they offer Direct Deposit. Having this free service will ensure holds are never placed on future checks. Have you done any research on that service? probably not...

All banks are the same - the only difference is the signage. Since Reg CC governs funds availability, your next bank will do the same thing to you, and the next one will, and the next one too. See if you can get these amounts wired to you; it may accelerate the availability substantially.

That this will happen at your new bank if you show a history of writing checks before funds are available.

It probably wasn't your fault that the $2,000 check bounced, but you did write checks against those funds before they were available in your account. That is your fault. I'd be surprised if a bank did not place a hold on your deposits after something like that.

By the way, a hold from the 13th of July to the 28th of July is eleven business days. Regulation CC permits holds of up to eleven business days for a number of reasons such as deposits over $5,000 and repeatedly overdrawn accounts. You refer to this hold as borderline illegal. How can that be when the hold is precisely within the legal limit?

Since you are a journalist perhaps you should do some actual research first. There is something known as the "Expedited Funds Availabilty" or "Regulation CC" that is the Federal Guidelines banks follow in making funds available in accounts.

The way they released the funds in your case was not random but appears to be in line with the regulation. You had what looks to be considered a "Large Deposit" on what was probably a Non-Local Bank(not out of the same Federal Reserve Branch as your bank).

They made the First $100 available - Correct
They will make the next $4900 available on the 20th(5th Business Day) - Correct
They will make the remaining available on the 28th(11th Business Day) - Correct

It sounds as if the reason they started to implement this is because by your own admission you had another check returned for NSF. Whether or not that was your fault it put your account into a higher risk. I am only explaining the regulation not to say if it is right or wrong. But since this Regulation is a Federal, it is very likely that any other bank where this same situation ocurred, would have resulted in the same hold being placed.

(I sent the following missive today via snail mail to Wells Fargo's corporate offices and via email to its Wells Fargo -- Wachovia Blog at http://blog.wellsfargo.com/wachovia)

Dear WF:

I just wanted to share with you my befuddlement and anger at a situation with Wells Fargo that is going to cause me to close my accounts with you. I've been a loyal customer for more than a decade but have been forced to take my business elsewhere for reasons that remain both troubling and infuriating.

On July 13, I deposited into my account a check for $7,500.00 that was written to me by Crown Media Holdings, Inc., a multibillion-dollar company that owns Hallmark Cards, the Hallmark Channel and many other entertainment subsidiaries. It is an amount I have received from them monthly since March '09, as I am a monthly contracted employee of theirs. There has never been -- nor would there ever be -- a problem with any of their checks. And indeed, each month through June, my check payment sailed straight on through and funds were available the day following deposit at one of your ATMs.

So imagine my shock when I discover that not only are the funds from the $7,500.00 check not going to be available the following day; they wouldn't be available in full until July 28, or more than two weeks later! All except for $100 credited immediately, of course.

Why the sudden arbitrary hold? Suddenly, you have a "policy" wherein any check over $5,000 deposited to an ATM carries an automatic hold. Not only that, but no doubt this was automatically triggered by the fact I had submitted several checks the previous week that were paid despite insufficient funds in the account -- a leading "risk factor."

Here is why the "risk factor" doesn't apply: the checks were written against funds I had assumed would be there based on a check written to me -- by a private individual, NOT Crown Holdings -- that bounced. A check for $2,000.00. I obviously didn't know that check would be returned due to insufficient funds. And indeed, this clearly was factored in to the decision by Wells to waive the overdraft fees based on the paid/insufficient funds checks, a tacit acknowledgement that the overdrafts were due not to irresponsibility but indeed circumstances beyond my control.

And yet, suddenly you guys penalize me for this non-offense by putting an arbitrary, unreasonable and seemingly illegal hold on a check from a party whose funds I have deposited without issue every month four times previously. I ask: Does this make a lot of sense to you? It surely doesn't to me.

So I called and appealed the decision to TWO different supervisors at Wells Fargo, only to be assured I was out of luck. Sorry, buddy, you're our Loser of the Month!!!!

Now I don't know about you, but I have to pay bills. Every week. On time, The people whom I pay them to aren't real understanding about being told they'd just have to wait two extra weeks because Wells Fargo was holding my money hostage. And make no mistake, that is PRECISELY what you are doing. You are earning interest off of my hard-earned funds while they sit in limbo and remain unavailable to me. This is entirely unacceptable and triggered my consumer fraud reactor.

Were this really simply about a concern as to whether the $7,500.00 check would be honored or not, you would make the funds available to me in their entirety on the day it clears. Instead, you are doling it out in the most befuddling, random manner imaginable: $100 immediately (so generous), $4,900.00 on July 20 and $2,500.00 on July 28. What exactly are you saying? That two-thirds of my check will clear one week and the last third eight days later? Huh?

The word for this is, if you'll pardon the expression, bull.

And the upshot is you're forcing me to bolt as a good, longtime customer for the competition. I hope it's worth it to you. I'll be pulling my money as soon as it clears, assuming it's sometime this century (clearly no guarantee when dealing with you guys). I'll also be dedicating a disproportionate amount of my free time -- say, oh, 15-18% -- to disparaging Wells Fargo as an institution, urging friends and acquaintances not to do business with you, and possibly even launching an attack Website spelling it all out. How does www.wellsfargoripspeopleoff.com sound? Works for me. And the URL is even available! Right on. I'm also a journalist and plan to submit an op/ed piece to several newspapers and Websites about this experience.

If that sounds like a threat, well then good. It is. You have only yourselves to blame for driving a great and loyal customer into the arms of your rivals.

In the meantime, enjoy all the interest you'll be making off of my imprisoned money. You all ought to be ashamed. But seeing how the bank bailout has played out, clearly shame isn't part of this equation -- is it?

Ray (last name withheld)
Studio City, CA

(I sent the following missive today via snail mail to Wells Fargo's corporate offices and via email to its Wells Fargo -- Wachovia Blog at http://blog.wellsfargo.com/wachovia)

Dear WF:

I just wanted to share with you my befuddlement and anger at a situation with Wells Fargo that is going to cause me to close my accounts with you. I've been a loyal customer for more than a decade but have been forced to take my business elsewhere for reasons that remain both troubling and infuriating.

On July 13, I deposited into my checking account a check for $7,500.00 that was written to me by Crown Media Holdings, Inc., a multibillion-dollar company that owns Hallmark Cards, the Hallmark Channel and many other entertainment subsidiaries. It is an amount I have received from them monthly since March '09, as I am a monthly contracted employee of theirs. There has never been -- nor would there ever be -- a problem with any of their checks. And indeed, each month through June, my check payment sailed straight on through and funds were available the day following deposit at one of your ATMs.

So imagine my shock when I discover that not only are the funds from the $7,500.00 check not going to be available the following day; they wouldn't be available in full until July 28, or more than two weeks later! All except for $100 credited immediately, of course.

Why the sudden arbitrary hold? Suddenly, you have a "policy" wherein any check over $5,000 deposited to an ATM carries an automatic hold. Not only that, but no doubt this was automatically triggered by the fact I had submitted several checks the previous week that were paid despite insufficient funds in the account -- a leading "risk factor."

Here is why the "risk factor" doesn't apply: The checks were written against funds I had assumed would be there based on a check written to me -- by a private individual, NOT Crown Holdings -- that bounced. A check for $2,000.00. I obviously didn't know that check would be returned due to insufficient funds. And indeed, this clearly was factored in to the decision by Wells to waive the overdraft fees based on the paid/insufficient funds checks, a tacit acknowledgement that the overdrafts were due not to any irresponsibility but circumstances beyond my control.

And yet, suddenly you guys penalize me for this non-offense by putting an arbitrary, unreasonable and possibly outright illegal hold on a check from a party whose funds I have deposited without issue every month four times previously. I ask: Does this make a lot of sense to you? It surely doesn't to me.

So I called and appealed the decision to TWO different supervisors at Wells Fargo, only to be assured I was out of luck. Sorry, buddy, you're our Loser of the Month!!!!

Now I don't know about you, but I have to pay bills. Every week. On time, The people whom I pay them to aren't real understanding about being told they'd just have to wait two extra weeks because Wells Fargo was holding my money hostage. And make no mistake, that is PRECISELY what you are doing. You are earning interest off of my hard-earned funds while they sit in limbo and remain unavailable to me. This is entirely unacceptable and triggered my consumer fraud reactor.

Were this really simply about a concern as to whether the $7,500.00 check would be honored or not, you would make the funds available to me in their entirety on the day it clears. Instead, you are doling it out in the most befuddling, random manner imaginable: $100 immediately (so generous), $4,900.00 on July 20, $2,500.00 on July 28. So what is it that you're saying? That two-thirds of my check will clear one week and the last third eight days later? Huh?

The word for this is, if you'll pardon the expression, bullshit.

And the upshot is you're forcing me to bolt as a good, longtime customer for the competition. I hope it's worth it to you. I'll be pulling my money as soon as it clears, assuming it's sometime this century (clearly no guarantee when dealing with you guys). I'll also be dedicating a disproportionate amount of my free time -- say, oh, 15-18% -- to disparaging Wells Fargo as an institution, urging friends and acquaintances not to do business with you, and possibly even launching an attack Website spelling it all out. How does www.wellsfargoripspeopleoff.com sound? Works for me. And the URL is even available! Right on. I'm also a journalist and plan to submit an op/ed piece to several newspapers and Websites about this experience.

If that sounds rather like a threat, then good. It should. You have only yourselves to blame for driving a great and loyal customer into the arms of your rivals.

In the meantime, enjoy all the interest you'll be making off of my imprisoned cash. You all ought to be ashamed. But seeing how the bank bailout has played out, clearly shame isn't part of this equation -- is it?

Raphael