Chase - JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Did not make funds available to me from my check deposit until 11 calender days (8 working days) Internet

RonnyG says: "The way I see it, is that most of these customers would have much preferred to go without the coffee if they were aware it would cost them $35.00 a cup, PLUS whatever compounding the bank would do by re-sequencing the times and orders of debit card transactions.

If they maintained an accurate check register, they WOULD be aware that the coffee would overdraft them. Thanks for making an intelligent statement for "our" side (the bank defenders). And have you noticed that most of the complaints on ROR involve people who have done this continuously? I don't recall any reports from a person who made a single mistake (i.e., overdrafted just once). But I could be wrong.

"If you actually READ reports posted here, and not just type ingnorance with bias and prejudice..."

Whos getting hostile now? There wasnt anything in Mia's post that was either ignorant or biased. Everyone has gotten way off the topic of the OP, whose complaint was that the bank held her deposited check longer than she expected. If you verify a deposit is available before you use the funds, theres no problem.

It's obvious that you need to have the last word so I'll let you. You can keep repeating the same rhetoric about the evil banks and their "illegal, unethical" policies, but little will change until people take responsibility for their own finances.

I re-read your post, and you got my intent all wrong.

You seem to think I was AGAINST the bank sending an email asking customers if they want to opt into OD protection.

One of the main changes I have been wanting the banks to do, is EXACTLY that, to give the customers the CHOICE, rather then automatically enroll them which is what they have been doing.

What my gripe was, is not that the email is offering the customer the choice to enroll, but that their is implication that it is a bad thing if they chose NOT to enroll.

What the banks should have stated,,is the TRUTH,,which would look more like this..."Due to increasing customer complaints, lawsuits and law changes going into effect by the end of this fiscal quarter, we are now REQUIRED by LAW, to request if you would like to be enrolled in overdraft protection on your debit card. If you choose not to enroll, the debit card will be declined at a point of sale or ATM transaction should the funds in your account be insufficient, and NO fees will be applied. If you choose to enroll, the card will most likely be approved even if the funds in your account are insufficient, and you will be charged a fee accordingly if we choose we cover the transaction".

Now don't get me wrong, I am not complaining that the banks are finally going to do the right thing in this respect, I just feel that if they do not spell out the implications clear enough, that they will just end up back in court again.

I understand the banks "new" profit center has been the collection of these fees, so of course they are going to encourage any way shape or form they can get it, but being that the fraud has been exposed, and the American people have stood up and took note, that they would use a little more caution and wisdom in the "strategies" they are going to use in the future to fleece victims (aka) customers.

You kind of missed the point here however. This is not the same thing as "floating" a check. It is black and white. Either the customer CHOOSES to be opted into overdraft protection and the DEBIT card may be approved even if the account can not cover it, OR, the customer can CHOOSE not to be opted in, and the debit card will be DECLINED any and EVERY time it is swiped at a point of sale OR ATM withdrawal if the account is not sufficient.

and "OIL POEM" are available at the BANK OF AMERICA page of this site. They appear in the Updates section.

Thanks Rony G.  Your opinions are fair.

Jck Chaperman is a bank employee, so he will try to defend banks.  First of all he (#18) is giving ridiculous arguments that the interest rate is .1% or less than 1%.  I ask him which bank lends money at .1% interest rate.  For banks the return is 20 to 25% which they charge on credit cards.  Second thing is that they create "Float" which serves as the required reserve money for banks.  Third thing is that as per Basil II agreement, banks need to have 8% as capital for lending amounts which means if they kept hold of my $3000 for 11 days, they could lend 12.5*3000 = $37500 for 11 days at interest of 25% per year = $37500*25/100*11/365 =$282 that banks could earn.  Additionally they had the option of earning overdraft charges from me if I spent money without checking my account in the hope that bank would have made me money available by now.  Chase bank did charge 5 overdrafts (5*$35 = 175)over that period, but then returned that money after 45 days.  This $175 was clearly the capital base of the bank.  Since JPMChase bank has many customers (Millions, in my estimate about 50 million consumers), it keeps holding money for a certain portion of customers like it did to me, thus always rolling over billions of dollars of free money. Thus small theft from 50 million consumers will make billions in profits and revenues.  JP Morgan Chase made over 100 billion dollars in revenue in 2009 (see their 2009 financial statement).  Some of this revenue was earned illegally and was undeserved. 

That's why I am looking for a class action lawyer so that I file a few billion dollar cases on behalf of around 50 million JPMC consumers.

Point 1) Fact: Electronic funds can be safely transferred in ONE day..yes, current technology and Federal rules allow this.

Point 2) The "explanations" given by some here imply it is arbitrary how long the banks can hold a check. But it doesn't answer why the check in question was not cleared in a reasonable amount of time.

Point 3) The OP stated and I quote "None of the six conditions applied to me.  I have never been overdrawn and the check was official check, the amount was less than $5000, hence as per EFAA banks must make the whole money available within 5 working days.  The check was drawn on BNY Mellon with which JPMC has direct clearing arrangement on daily basis, hence the check would have cleared within one working day.  JPMC uses electronic clearing, so in no way will it take 8 business days to clear the check.
The check was from a Court Trustee and the money was mailed as part of settlement, hence its authenticity could not be doubted."

Point 4) I am a fairly new customer to Chase and hardly ever use the account. A few days ago I deposited two out of state personal third party checks. They cleared in ONE day.

Why did this posters check take so long? The question has NOT been answered correctly. Just a bunch of hogwash bank defending excuses.

The question here is using the information left by the OP assuming it is factual, WHY   DID   THE   BANK   HOLD   THIS   CHECK   FOR   SO   LONG? 

There, I typed it slowly, and in caps. If anyone answers "because they can" which is basically the answers that have been given, I call foul and debatable until a reasonable answer is posted.

Sadly, the situation you are referring to is standard for the entire banking industry. I work for a medium sized bank that deals with military members, and I speak with our customers every day concerning this issue.

If you take a moment to review your bank's depository agreement, you will find something like this:

<The availability periods described in this section are Bank's general availability policies and state the maximum availability periods that may apply. In some instances, you may receive faster availability of your funds based on such factors as credit worthiness, the length and extent of your relationship with Bank and its affiliates, transaction and experience history, and such other factors as Bank, in its sole discretion, deems relevant.>

Also, if you review the wikipedia link for "Expedited Funds Availability Act", you will notice a list of "exceptions". These exceptions are the basis for the above paragraph. No Bank trusts you. If you initiate a transfer from Bank A to Bank B, even if you authorize the transaction from Bank B's website or by one of their tellers, there is no notification of funds until they actually arrive.

Yes, the standard turnaround time is 3 days. But it is the "standard", and no entity enforces it. And, in some cases, the Bank may want to hold funds for a longer period to ensure that there is no "chargeback", where the Bank who sent the funds turns around and requests the funds be returned.  This is usually for suspicion of fraud, that the money being transferred might have been "kited" by a transfer from another bank.
This means Bank "A" transfers funds to Bank "B", which honors the transfer and makes the funds available even though the funds have not actually "arrived". Then the thief transfers the funds to Bank "C" before Bank "B" realizes that the transfer is bad (NSF) and reverses it.

The answer, if you haven't realized, is that the banks have a blanket exception given to them by law to state that they don't trust the funds, and they don't trust you. And because they don't trust you, you are not getting the funds a moment sooner then they want to give them to you. Don't like the bank's policy? Change Banks, and tell them why. Get a supervisor and make sure they understand. Then move everything. Do it over and over and over. But don't expect the NEXT Bank to trust you right off the get-go, unless you move EVERYTHING to them. Checking, Savings, Money Markets, Mortgages, Loans. The more you have, the less reason they have to not trust you.

Not happy with that answer? Here is a workaround. Have Bank "A" who sent the funds call Bank "B" and tell Bank "B" the funds have been cleared and sent to Bank "B".

Simple!

Oh, one last thing. With interest rates at .1% on checking accounts, and .6% to .85% on savings accounts; no bank is making ANY money holding onto your deposit. The administrative costs far outweigh any income made by holding your deposit. That is why every "Too Big To Fail" Bank is charging every possible fee they can, because "interest" doesn't pay the bills.

Sorry it's not the answer you're looking for. But this is the truth from the inside.

This is the reason why I chose to use our local small bank.  We live near a large city so I do have access to the larger banks but our community bank does not use most of the practices that the larger banks do.

When I deposit a check (I own my own business so my deposits come from my customers and are different every week), the funds are immediately available to me. I did have an account with 5th/3rd but it was insane that I had to wait days before my deposits were available to me.  

I realize that for some, having the convenience of a larger, national bank is a must but I thought I would put it out there.  Not all banks place days long holds on deposits.

With the speed of electronic clearing of checks, I find it really odd that the banks can't verify funds for 10 days.  I realize the banks claim it is for fraud prevention but in my opinion it is in their best interest.  They get the use of our money for free while they have our funds on hold.  Why should they change their practice if they will certainly not benefit from it?  The banks could care less about their customers unless of course, you have millions deposited.

 

I actually have been a Chase customer for 6-7 months and so far no problems. Where people need to be weary, is what Chase and other banks are going to do to make up for all the money they were fleecing due to previous policies.

Chase currently does not enroll all customers into overdraft protection, as all banks will not be able to starting July of this year, laws are going into effect. But the banks are being a bit tricky. I have already received 2 notices so far, one from a credit card account, and one from Chase regarding the checking account debit card. Now, what both fail to mention, is that the change is a law going into effect to better protect consumers from incurring overdrafts due to a mistake, fraud, whatever reason. However, I will copy and paste how it was put in the email...

First off..the subject heading stated.."Debit card change coming soon - please read"

The notice stated...

If you don't have Chase Debit Card Overdraft CoverageSM, beginning August 15, 2010, your everyday debit card purchases will not be approved if you don't have sufficient available funds*.

These purchases may be approved at Chase's discretion if you have Chase Debit Card Overdraft Coverage. Standard overdraft fees may apply.

"










What this implies when written as such, and I can't blame the bank for trying, is make it seem like this change (which is a law change going into effect they conveniently FAIL to mention), is a negative change, so now many consumers will think it is wise to get the "coverage" or no longer be "protected".  Educated consumers will not fall for this, but unfortunately many will, and may discover eventually it was a trick, and pay the price.

Now has far as when it was mentioned about transaction posting order, Chase has changed that as well, they do not re-sequence and manipulate the times and orders of debit card transactions anymore from highest to lowest, which was an unnecessary policy for debit card users, and only caused compounding of fees in the event of an overdraft, for whatever reason it occurred. So at least with Chase now, and most other major banks are soon to follow no doubt, at least if a customer falls for the overdraft protection ploy, without the re-sequencing, at least fees can only be applied to legitimate overdrafts, and they will not be charged fees for transactions that did actually have the funds available at the time of the transaction, hence eliminating foul play on the banks part, in the event.

Here is the info regarding these changes from Sept 09, Washington Post...

J.P. Morgan Chase announced even farther reaching changes, agreeing to many of the reforms sought by consumer advocates. Beginning in the first quarter of next year, the bank will ask debit card customers whether they would like to be able to overdraft. Those who decline will not be able to use their debit card to spend more than the amount remaining in their account. The company also said it will not charge overdraft fees if the account balance is in the red by less than $5 and that it will charge no more than three overdraft fees each day, down from a previous limit of six fees.

Well personally I believe that the bank at very least should take partial responsibility for this situation. It doesn't take a genius to realize an 11-day hold on a 3000 dollar check is unusual.

I strongly doubt Chase could even justify an 11 day hold on this check (which eventually cleared). Especially if there was a gap in time between Chase receiving the 3000$ from BNY and Chase making the 3000$ available to Alakh.

Does the amount justify a 11 day hold? Obviously not if falls below policy standards.

Was the account overdrawn frequently enough to justify a 11 day hold? I personally cannot see a reason as to why a bank could support that theory other than for financial gain. Any account that is active and frequently overdrawn implies there must be frequent deposits, or enough so that the bank considers the customer a worthy account holder and that their account should remain active.

Was the account opened within 30 days of the deposit? Unless the policy has recently changed, What I've always understood was that there was a 7 day hold policy imposed on these accounts. Wamu/Chase and US Bank are the only banks I've banked with, so I'm rather confident on this policy unless it's changed.

Those are all questions which if even addressed accurately still generate doubt in Chase on my personal behalf.

Now I must be as fair as possible and try to view this situation globally.

First thing first, You deposited a 3000$ Check into an ATM on Saturday.

While I have not actually seen the ATM in which you conducted this transaction with, I must tell you that at my local Chase the policies are clearly written on the ATM in bold white letters over a bright green background. It clearly states something very close to the following, "Cash deposits will be made immediately available" and that "All deposits will be processed the following business day".

Be sure to understand that some policies and regulations apply ONLY to ATM transactions, and be sure to know as many of them as possible.

Your check was processed Monday, January,4, 2010.

It is also my understanding that Chase does not process deposits on weekends, and that all deposits and transactions will post most expensive to least expensive as that given day, on the following business day. (So If I make a 5$ cash deposit at an ATM on Sunday Jan 3, 2010, it will post Monday Jan 4, 2010 as 5$ Credit Jan 3, 2010.)

Seems as though you were a victim of circumstance, but I don't believe that Chase broke any laws, and they're not legally obligated to pay you anything, but how they treated you was indeed unfair.

I want to agree that they should pay you a 35$ fee when your deposit is delayed but unfortunately a late payment on credit line and a hold on a check are simple of different nature, In one situation you are penalized for a late payment that you were notified, in advance, of the due date, and the other is a fluctuating time frame. It would be very nice though!

I also strongly suggest that you never deposit 3000$ at an ATM. I hope nothing like this happens to you again, or to anybody else for that matter.

Jeanski,

I hope I have not misjudged you, although my personal opinion of you means nothing on a website forum, we have gotten "into" it before, but overall I think you are fair and reasonable.

My biggest issue here is more the way in which some I refer to as "bank defenders" respond, not so much to dispute the information they give is always 100% invalid, because often the advice is sound, but the hostility negates it. Sometimes they completely miss the point of a post. Not everyone is looking for a free ride or trying to get out of personal responsibility, they are just reporting what they believe was unreasonable or unfair and unethical treatment, and therefore have grounds to post a complaint here, a consumer advocates website designed as a place to lodge complaints for consumers. Some I see on this site are ridiculous such as being ripped off by a psychic or a hooker, yes we see it all here, but I see many legitimate complaints that are responded to in a hostile, belittling manner and it only provokes anger, it helps no one in the end.

As far a spewing laws etc...it still does not mean it was fair or ethical or right, and it does not mean we as a free people and consumers should sit idle and take it when we can often have changes made, and a public complaint is certainly a good starting point. Surely excessive check holds have inconvenienced many consumers, and possibly caused financial hardship and fees, so if there is a technology available that can expedite this process safely and much more efficiently, and the banks can legally use these means, why would the banks resist using it for the customers benefit, if not for theirs? It is certainly not unreasonable.

 Alakh n singh,

you don't have to defend yourself to me, perhaps however you misunderstood my post, which was defending you. The law which states in a nutshell..."including checks greater than $5,000, checks deposited into accounts of new customers, and checks that a bank suspects may not be paid."

Now to your defense, the check was not greater then $5,000 given, and it certainly was not suspect being issued by a court trustee, given. So unless you were a new customer, I can't see why the bank was allowed to hold this check for that long of a time period. So I am in complete agreement with you and feel your complaint is a legitimate one.


Robert,

"First Ronny I am not going to get into a debate over the "ethics" of posting sources."

Good, you shouldn't. It is way off topic and irrelevant if the info posted was accurate regarding the point. I am not saying anyone shouldn't post a source, but a debate on this website is FAR from a professional article. If I or anyone fails to post a source or not and someone wants to research it, I stated how, it is simple. If they request someone post a source and they do, I see no issue at all. It is just another bank defender diversion, nothing more. If my credibility is in question, surely it would have nothing to do with me quoting a source that is accurate, but I simply failed to post the source, it just means I didn't post the source, nothing more, nothing less. I didn't make a profit off the source or take credit for it (which is why it is in quotes), so ethically and legally I did nothing wrong or with bad intent. I simply posted publicly available info on an internet forum that is free for anyone to use, or not.

As far as a lawsuit, I can not say personally if the OP would win in this case, but they can certainly put one together and try. I feel this poster has some valid points, and the bank has some explaining to do. If there are any facts left out in the report however, it would be nice if the OP let us know, but so far there are plenty of facts debate worthy on both sides. Maybe a court is needed to decide as sometimes there is no other option but to exercise the right to sue, or at least to investigate.

Robert (Irvine) makes some valid points in his post. I don't believe the OP would fare well in a class action suit since she can't show any specific damages (at least, not that I can tell from the original post).  However, if you continue reading what the OP said, she seems more concerned with the floating of funds in which the banks make money. I went back and re-read the laws (and I'm not a lawyer so I may have misinterpreted) but I don't see anything that prohibits the banks from doing this. They are, after all, a business and want to make money. As long as they don't hold the deposits longer than legally allowed, I don't see the problem. Is it fair to the consumer to hold their funds that long? Probably not, but posting here won't change that. And (as my parents so often told me growing up), "Life isn't always fair".

Talk to the federal agencies, FDIC, your congressman, etc. THAT'S how we'll effect a change that benefits us.

BTW.... this post reminded me of two times when I deposited large checks. The first time was when I sold me house. The settlement check was drawn on a local bank, by a reputable lawyer well known in our very small town. Everyone also knew me. They held the check for 10 days, despite my evidence from the issuing bank that the check cleared within one day! The second time as two weeks ago. Large check drawn on Chase, who would verify the account, but not the availability of funds. Much larger town, the bank doesn't know me from Adam, and I live paycheck to paycheck so my balance is always low. The check was available within two working days (joy joy). Each of these checks was over $10,000. You just never know how the bank will respond. BTW - the first bank was my local credit union, the second a large, national bank.

First Ronny I am not going to get into a debate over the "ethics" of posting sources.

Because if you think it is not really necessary, and if someone was "really interested" in doing research they would do it themselves.  There is nothing I am going to be able to say that would show you why that is wrong.  Although if you really do think that it is okay, the next(first time) you write a professional article go ahead and leave any sources you use out, and see how much credibility it has.

Now back to the OP.  IF you are saying that there was absolutly no reason they should have held the check longer then yes you can go after them.  However, did you ever ask them why they were still holding it.  Or did you just let it go to see when they would finally release it.  Because it may have been a mistake(yes banks make mistakes), and just informing them of that could have had it released sooner.  If you did this and they gave you a reason, is there any way that reason could be considered valid.

Don't be so sure that you can put together a "Billion Dollar Case".  If you look at the Civil Liability section of the regulation, you will find that the damages are quite limited.  In the case of a "Class Action", the maximum allowed is the LESSER of $500,000 or 1% of the Net worth.  So at most it would be $500,000.  You will also notice that there is no minimum, so each member could end up with as little as $1.  Yes you can claim "actual damages", but you are going to have a hard(if not impossible) time saying that the interest(if any) they are getting from this is an actual damage YOU or any member of the class incurred.

You may actually have better success going after them on a personal level to try and get up to $1000 and any actual damages you incurred.

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title12/12-3.0.1.1.10.2.8.12.html

229.21 Civil liability.

(a) Civil liability. A bank that fails to comply with any requirement imposed under subpart B, and in connection therewith, subpart A, of this part or any provision of state law that supersedes any provision of subpart B, and in connection therewith, subpart A, with respect to any person is liable to that person in an amount equal to the sum of

(1) Any actual damage sustained by that person as a result of the failure;

(2) Such additional amount as the court may allow, except that

(i) In the case of an individual action, liability under this paragraph shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000; and

(ii) In the case of a class action

(A) No minimum recovery shall be applicable to each member of the class; and

(B) The total recovery under this paragraph in any class action or series of class actions arising out of the same failure to comply by the same depositary bank shall not be more than the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the net worth of the bank involved; and

(3) In the case of a successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court.

(b) Class action awards. In determining the amount of any award in any class action, the court shall consider, among other relevant factors

(1) The amount of any damages awarded;

(2) The frequency and persistence of failures of compliance;

(3) The resources of the bank;

(4) The number of persons adversely affected; and

(5) The extent to which the failure of compliance was intentional.

Rony G.
I am saying that the check was for $3000.00 less that 5000, hence as per Regulation CC, banks don't have discretion to hold for more than 5 working days.  So your argument of bank's discretion does not apply to my case and that's what I have been arguing and looking for a Class Action lawyer to fix JPMC theft of interest and creation of 'Float'.  By the way I have worked in banks for 20 years in USA and abroad, so know very well what banks do and what they should not do and why they are doing such illegal practices (thefts) without fear of being caught! 

My only purpose of putting this rip off report is to get the attention of a Class Action lawyer with whom I can build a billion dollar case.   I will tell lawyer the economics of how the small interest savings amounts to billion dollars of profits within a year that banks in general and JPMC in particular is gouging from innocent consumers and the executives receiving bonuses amounting to $20 millions per person a year, and the lawyer will tell me about the court proceedings about how to file law suits.  Together we will win the case for sure.  I have all the evidences to prove when money must have been into my account, but LPMC did not make that money available to me because it is creating 'Float" and also accounting frauds.  If I don't find a lawyer, I will file the law suit myself some day.

I can assume your last paragraph was directed at my response...

"Oh and as for posting reports from other sources, it is generally a good idea to post the source.  If for no other reason that to give credit where credit is due and to allow people to do their own research.  Although keep in mind it is now 2010, the "source"(at least in part) of the report listed is from 2006 about the "Check 21" law that took effect in 2004 and Regulation CC which took effect in 1987.  So much for "recent" changes they talk about."

The source was part from the FDIC website and a Boston Tribune article and it is several years old which is why it said "recent changes", and you are correct that I should have posted the source but it's really not necessary. It was very easy to verify as that is how I found the source..I just googled and there it was. For future reference you can copy and paste any quote or part thereof into a search engine, and the source and/or information regarding it will be verified in seconds. I am sure anyone who actually cares enough to do their own research, would have the foresight to figure out how the internet works.

But it is accurate information nonetheless even being a few years old, so what's the difference as long as it is still current law, and is regarding the topic at hand?

...defending yourself here. You are not on trial and it won't convince those who are challenging you, trust me I know.

Now some of the bank defenders (I do not believe any are actual bank employees) will shove laws and regulations and anything they can at you telling what is legal, "blah blah and the bank did no wrong blah blah, so go away" etc.

However, this is the reality. Banks CAN and DO have the technology to clear checks within ONE day. They generally don't. Why they don't is up for debate, but I have my doubts it has anything to do with fraud protection for their customers or any regulations in many cases.

Now regarding regulation CC..and I quote

"Most deposited checks clear within a day or two, but 19-year-old Federal Reserve Board Regulation CC gives banks the discretion to put much longer holds on certain types of higher-risk checks, including checks greater than $5,000, checks deposited into accounts of new customers, and checks that a bank suspects may not be paid."


Clearly as stated, the regulation gives the bank the "discretion" to place excessive holds, it does not force them to by law...so the defense falls flat that the banks "have to" place excessive holds..because it is simply not true, fail, debunked.

None of the six conditions applied to me.  I have never been overdrawn and the check was official check, the amount was less than $5000, hence as per EFAA banks must make the whole money available within 5 working days.  The check was drawn on BNY Mellon with which JPMC has direct clearing arrangement on daily basis, hence the check would have cleared within one working day.  JPMC uses electronic clearing, so in no way will it take 8 business days to clear the check.
The check was from a Court Trustee and the money was mailed as part of settlement, hence its authenticity could not be doubted.
Another interesting example of Float by JPMC.  IRS electronically transferred my Federal Tax Refund of 2340 on 3rd February 2010 to JPMD and $2000 to Digital Credit Union, but JPMC did not make that money available to me until 5th February (two business days), while Digital Credit Union made that $2000 available to me on 3rd February itself.  So what to defenders of JPMC have to say on this. 

"The credit unions don't deduct money from the checking account when they send checks for bill payments. they deduct money only when the biller presents that check to them. "

Actually, they do, but maybe the laws are different in every state.  My credit union takes the funds out when they send the check to the vendor, not when the vendor presents it to them.  It works out better for me, and makes it easier to track what still needs to be paid versus what has been paid.

 

However, I do understand your frustration with the long hold time on a check, and I do agree the amount of time was excessive and more than enough to verify with the other bank that funds were available. 

Have you read Regulation CC?

Your check was deposited on January 2nd which is a Saturday, so that is treated as if you deposited it on January 4th.  No Bank or Credit Union processes or posts items on a weekend or Holiday.  There are several cases where a bank is allowed by Regulation CC to put an extended hold on a check.  This is determined by several factors.

Was the check "Local" or "Non-Local"?  That is was the check issued by banks using the same Fedreral Reserve Branch. 

Is your account a "new" account, that is opened less than 30 days?

Have you had recent overdrafts on your account?

Is there some reason why they may feel the check is no good, such as you have had other deposits returned, this check was post dated or stale(more than 6 months old). 

All of those can cause an extended hold to be placed.  There are also other cases that may cause an extended hold, but these are the most common.  Regardless of what people may "feel" about extended holds, these are FEDERAL regulations.  If you have a problem with it stop complaining about the bank and go after your Government officials.

As for BillPay, YOU requested the bank send a payment to a certain company on a certain date.  When you did this YOU authorized the bank to withdraw the funds on that date.  If you don't like them taking the funds out as soon as they send the funds then don't use the BillPay service.

Oh and as for posting reports from other sources, it is generally a good idea to post the source.  If for no other reason that to give credit where credit is due and to allow people to do their own research.  Although keep in mind it is now 2010, the "source"(at least in part) of the report listed is from 2006 about the "Check 21" law that took effect in 2004 and Regulation CC which took effect in 1987.  So much for "recent" changes they talk about.

From the Boston Globe article on Feburary 12th, 2006 titled "Your checks don't clear as quickly as you think".

http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2006/02/12/your_checks_dont_clear_as_quickly_as_you_think/?page=2

 

I read the Law.  A 7 day hold is considered appropriate under the following circumstances.

1. The account being deposited into has been open for less than 30 days.

2.Account has been overdrawn for six or more business days of the previous six months. (NSF Hold)

3.Account has been overdrawn for two or more business days in excess of $5000 in the previous six months. (NSF Hold)

4.The depository bank has reason to doubt the check is good. (The paying bank indicates the check will not clear, is suspected to be fraudulent, or is either postdated or staledated.)

5) The item being deposited is a legal copy of an item previously returned for NSF (an IRD).

6) Item is accepted for deposit during a power outage or computer failure. (Extremely Rare)

Do any of these apply to you at all?

Thank You

 

Actually, an 8-day hold (which is what the OP had) isnt all that unusual, nor is it illegal. Unfair? Sure, but the bank has the legal right to do it. Under the EFAA (Appendix A of Part 229, Regulation CC), the bank can hold the check up to 11 days. The OP didnt really give enough information about her relationship with this bank (does she have a lot of overdrafts? Does she maintain a very low balance?) nor does she tell us what type of check was deposited (personal check? cashiers check? local or non-local?) that might make this a little easier to figure out.

 

As for notifying the customer about the holds, the EFAA also states:

 

Title 12, Chapter 41, Section 4004:

d) Posting of notice

(1) Specific notice at manned teller stations

Each depository institution shall post, in a conspicuous place in each location where deposits are accepted by individuals employed by such depository institution, a specific notice which describes the time periods applicable to the availability of funds deposited in a consumer account.

(2) General notice at automated teller machines

In the case of any automated teller machine at which any funds are received for deposit in an account at any depository institution, the Board shall prescribe, by regulations, that the owner or operator of such automated teller machine shall post or provide a general notice that funds deposited in such machine may not be immediately available for withdrawal.

 

 

It also states that this information has to be disclosed to the customer at the time they open the account.

 

RonnyG - I dont want to get into another discussion about bank defenders, etc. Im only clarifying the rules for the OP.

...is what is stated on the first few lines of this sites homepage..and I quote..."Ripoff Report is a worldwide consumer reporting Web site and publication, by consumers, for consumers, to file and document complaints about companies or individuals."

So anyone who is going to self designate themselves as some kind of moderator, should at least understand the premise of the site they wish to "pretend" moderate.

Now while Mia is articulate and makes good points with no nonsense until the insults and belittling, it does not mean this or any consumer does not have a right or reason to lodge a complaint here. Some of these banks policies should be changed to help ALL customers, especially during these trying times, and sometimes complaints lead to exposure/media attention, which leads to change/lawsuits'fed intervention etc. And without change, we would all be bowing to Kings and Queens in the USA, right?

Okay, small talk aside, many feel the banks are pulling a fast one with these excessive check clearing times. As a matter of fact, we read all the time here about the clearing times being excessive...except it seems, if the check is actually a fraud. Then for some "reason", the banks cash it fast, and the customer is left holding the bag for the bad check, and all fees associated. So while the bank pulls our chain telling us the purpose of these excessive clearing times is to "protect" us from fraud, in all actuality, they will place a hold on your paycheck which could be from the most well known company in the world...but then some Nigerian scam check...."here is your money sir, have a nice day". Oh, we are on to this game and it is complaint worthy no matter how arrogantly and presumptuously a bank defender replies here.

Is it illegal that they can hold these checks for so long? No. But is the reason they do it for the benefit of the customer as they will tell you? Now THAT is certinaly up for debate.

Here are some excerpts from reports and articles regarding these excessive check holds..make up your own minds.

"In today's world of electronics a check from anywhere can be cleared in one day. The law has been changed recently to allow banks to clear checks electronically without having to go through the federal deposit bank with the actual paper check. Some banks may still withhold funds for larger, out of town, checks for 10 days as they did years ago but they shouldn't. It isn't necessary any more.

Babcock, the Bedford mother who waited 12 regular days, said the long delays can create major headaches for consumers. ''When people make big deposits, it's usually because big things are happening in their lives," she said. ''They need access to their money."

Overall, checks aren't moving as fast as many consumers think. In late 2004, after passage of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, consumers were warned not to write a check if they didn't have enough money in their account because the two-to-three-day float that many consumers had come to rely on was going to disappear.

The new law made it easier for banks to convert checks into electronic images that can be processed in a fraction of the time and cost it takes to ship checks between financial institutions on planes, trucks, and trains.

But Greg McBride, a senior analyst at Bankrate.com, said ''Check 21" hasn't had much of an effect yet, with less than 1 percent of all checks being converted to electronic images. ''It's an expressway that very few banks are using at this point," he said."





"These are legal "holdups"


If you don't ask, they won't tell
The problem is, in most cases, the bank is not required to remind you when it plans to sit on your check a few days.

"A bank doesn't have to give you a notice that there is a hold every time you deposit a check," says Stephanie Martin, managing senior counsel for the Federal Reserve Board.

"Only when there is an extended hold that is an exception to a bank's routine policy do they have to tell you."

Are you sure you know banking very well?  Are you an employee of JP Morgan Chase or some other bank?  Do you know Expedited Funds Availability Act or did you read it before writing your comments?  Do you know what Float is?  If your answer is yes, please explain in your reply.  if you don't know or are a JPMC employee, then keep quite.  I know very well what I am saying and how banks are extracting interest free funds from consumers in the name of security or bill payment.  The credit unions don't deduct money from the checking account when they send checks for bill payments.  they deduct money only when the biller presents that check to them.  Your reply was exactly that of the Chase Customer Service Representative.  I am sure you too are a bank employee. 

The bank has the right to put a seven business day hold on deposits.  Granted it is a long time to wait but they do have that right.  If you don't keep that kind of balance or have had some problems with your account, (i.e. bounced checks, returned items, etc.) then the system will place the appropriate hold.  Sorry there is no violation or rip off.