Wachovia Bank Of NC WELLS FARGO Ripping off in overdraft fees by placing the larger sum first when small sum had already cleared my account Internet, Virginia

I will respond to your response....

"So basically your viewpoint is that all the banks are evil and ripping off the customers and absolutely nothing is going to change your mind. Okay, I can deal with that. Kind of makes our conversation one sided but then again I'm used to that."

Change my mind about what? There has been plenty of one-sidedness from most bank defenders who simply can not see..or chose not to see what the banks have been up to..and place ALL the blame on the customers.

 "As you stated many times, the reason you feel like you do is that you failed to keep an accurate register and caused yourself overdraft fees or per your viewpoint the evil bank knew the future, purposely held transactions until they could put the transactions through thereby ripping you off."

Huh?? When did I EVER state that I failed to keep an accurate register? The only issue I have is that the banks are using policies designed to protect large check payments against debit card users..and that the policies have proven to not only cause fees for transactions that had the funds at the time of the transactions..but has caused compounding of the fees as well. I have never advocated irresponsibility, nor stated the bank has no right to charge a fee in the event of a legitimate overdraft.

But of course the bank defenders only hear and read what they want to, they don't take the damage the banks policies are doing into consideration..it's ALWAYS all the customers fault in their eyes..and NOTHING ever seems to change that.

 "So guess there is no reason to discuss things with you as you are convinced that you are right. However, if account holders follow your advice they are still leaving themselves open to causing overdrafts where as by keeping the register they can eliminate all overdrafts except those very few caused by a mistake (be it by bank, merchant or themselves)."

Once again..can you kindly show an example of where I ever stated an account holder should not use a register? In all actuality, my argument or case should not be against the small handful of condescending bank defenders that cowardly insult and belittle victims in this site..my argument is simply to encourage a few reasonable and fair policy changes that can better, or actually protect all checking account customers money.

Now in a perfect world where everyone was perfect..or was able to track every penny they spent and never was subjected to excessive deposit clearing times..or merchant holds..or manipulated bank statements, I would agree that an accurate register is the ONLY defense..but since this is not now the case..and the banks are clearly aware of this...why not a few simple common sense, ethical and fair policy changes? What is so wrong with that and why are the bank defenders so antagonistic?

..But..the banks themselves have stated why they re-sequence our transactions...so large transactions such as a mortgage payment will not be returned.

Now has my 'buddy" Edward has so eloquently stated time and time again..which is fact...the banks are covering transactions that are large AND small..so what real benefit is re-sequencing to everyday debit card users?  None really. But it certainly has proven to be a financial benefit to the banks, which is why all the hoopla.

Courtesy overdraft protection. Courtesy? protection? More like poppycock. Does anyone really believe the bank extended any courtesy or protection by extorting $35.00 for a cup of coffee..and then possibly compounded fees when combining this sham with re-sequencing? Or manipulating statements to where even with a register can cause potential overdrafts due to excessive deposit clearing times or unauthorized/unknown merchant holds that a gas station or bar/restaurant may do on occasion?

The purposed changes that the lawsuits deal with are to protect ALL customers..as regardless of how perfect someone thinks they are..can also fall victim to these tactics..as these "policies" or tactics apply to ALL checking account customers..including those that don't actually ever use checks..but use the debit card for every day small purchases. Agreed all customers should be careful not to overspend, but is applying policies to protect large check payments really necessary to be used AGAINST debit card users for the SOLE intent of racking up fees?..to the point where it has become the new profit center for these banks?

There is nothing unreasonable about the proposed changes..and they are very fair to all checking account customers..and the bank..so why is anyone against it unless they themselves were profiting off these fees?

can be 'Googled'.

My comment here is just one of a general nature relevant to my own experience.

I must say this issue with banks re-sequencing checks, debit card purchases, etc at posting time is quite overwhelming and frankly puzzling to me.

In the years I have had my accounts with Wachovia (now part of Wells Fargo as most people already know), I have only rarely had a check bounce.  On the few occasions when one DID post with insufficient funds in my account, I discovered in each instance (after going back in my check register a few months), I had made a mathematical error at some point.  (I am also one of the people who does not maintain a high account balance, being retired early on disability).

The amount of the errors weren't much...less than $1.00.  It just did not present a problem until several months later when I had to write a check which reduced my balance to near zero.  In each instance, however, the bank went ahead and paid the check, but I was (and rightfully so) charged an overdraft fee.

I do review my account activity and balances on-line every day...and on occasion a few times each day.  I do know when making check card purchases, for example, on-line, and check my account immediately afterwards, I will see the amount of the purchase listed as a "hold."   (Any "holds" are not usually shown on the account activity page, but can be viewed after clicking on the "holds" link).  ATM withdrawals are always shown immediately on my account activity page as "processing", and the amount of the withdrawal will be reflected in the "available balance" displayed. 

The available balance shown reflects any "hold" amount.  For example, if my available balance prior to the on-line check card purchase was say $100, and the purchase amount (placed as a hold) is $50, then the available balance will be shown as $50.  According to Wachovia, a merchant is supposed to submit documentation to the bank within 3 days in order for the purchase amount to actually be posted to my account.

Additionally, Wachovia has said if the aforementioned documentation is not submitted to the bank in 3 days time, the "hold" is removed and the amount of the hold is re-credited to my available balance.

I do agree with other ROR posters that it is absolutely essential for anyone using a checking account, check/debit card, etc to maintain an accurate check register & balance your account(s) each statement period.  Given all the problems that occur these days with identity theft, fraudulent billing, etc, I myself make a regular habit of checking my accounts every day...and as mentioned earlier...on some occasions...several times in a day.

I do hope those ROR posters experiencing the serious problems I've read here will be able to obtain a satisfactory resolution at some point.

CONSTANT PURSUIT TO FINANCIALLY INJURE THE INNOCENT PEOPLE LIVING HERE & ALL OVER THE WORLD, I believe that the banks will continue in their current practices of targeting as many of their customers as possible in order to prevent another financial meltdown of our economy, wouldn't you NOW agree?

To Meagan that works for the Ripoff Banks...There is no justification for these overdraft fees.  

CONSTANT PURSUIT TO FINANCIALLY INJURE THE INNOCENT PEOPLE LIVING HERE & ALL OVER THE WORLD, I believe that we'll continue seeing innocent Americans being targeted by the banks, who are the ones that are controlling most of our government, wouldn't you agree?

when you make a purchase, we set the funds aside for the merchant..then the merchant sends us a receipt. then we post the transaction. if your purchase made on the 4th gets us their receipt before the purchase on the 3rd, we pay it first. hate to break it to you, but its done by computer..a wachovia employee doesnt sit there and say, oh lets put this through first so he gets 3 nsf instead of one! besides, what makes you think wachovia wants a customer that cant keep a positive balance in the first place? you think your hurting us by SAVING us money that we shell out to pay for your over authorizations, whether its one or 3? of course we charge a fee, this is not a LOAN, we do not HAVE to pay your purchases if the money is not available..you should not try to over authorize at all, whether it only be one time or more! a "checking account" is NOT a line of credit..therefore, any attempt to treat it as such SHOULD be assessed a fee! a fee, that i might add, was outlined to you in the packet you received upon opening your account..which i will assume you did not read, because if you thought 35.00 was such a rip-off, you should closed your account imemdiatly, and certainly should not have attempted to spend more than available, regardless as to how they post!

let me put this plain and simple..when you make a purchase somewhere, we set the money aside for that merchant. the merchant has a certain time frame to provide us their receipt to validate the purchase. WHICHEVER MERCHANT GIVES US THE RECEIPT FIRST GETS POSTED FIRST. and there are reasons for that. Lets say that you go and make a purchase of a shirt. You return the shirt the next day. When the merchant does not send us a receipt because you returned it, we put the money back in your account. Which is alot faster than if we just paid them, then it takes 7-30 days for it to show back on your account, because the returns go back through VISA, then get credited to wachovia..

So you go and get gas, and you pay at the pump..which means that the card is authorized BEFORE you pump..and since neither your debit card or the gas pump is psychic, all their machine does is checks to make sure that the card is active, and does not actually place any money aside. 

The next day, you go to the atm and check your balance. And you see, alright i have an extra 25.00 to spend(because the gas station did not send us the receipt yet) and you go and buy ice cream for 7.00 and pizza for 10.00. 

Then at 5pm, you go to the atm again, see you have 102.00 and decide to take out 100.00 for spending cash.., and you still have 2.00 in the bank. alright!...Since you put your pin # in at the atm and received cash, we do not NEED a receipt to validate that purchase. So the atm transaction, even thought the last one done, posts right away, at the time you did it.

Then between midnight and 7:30 am, when we do the rest of our updating, the 25.00 gas station purchase that you forgot about posts..

Now you only have 2.00 because you forgot about that and spent it again!! so with 2.00 left, the 5.00 for your ice cream goes through..

Now your -3.00..thats one 35.00 fee..

Then the 10.00 comes through..-13.00!! And 70.00 worth of fees!

But i did the gas station purchase a day ago before i took money out of the atm!! and when i checked my balance, it said i had that money to buy that ice cream and pizza!!

yeah.. I'm going to bet your scenario was a little like that?

And lo and behold..what it still comes down to..is if you had your transactions written down, no matter how they get posted, you would have known you did not have the extra money to make those extra purchases, wouldn't you?

And as for the fees, which i agree are a bit high, were outlined thouroughly in the packet you received upon opening an account with Wachovia, and if you did not agree to them, you had the choice to close the account, which obviously you didn't, so don't be complaining about those either!

hire an attorney, okay?

Well, your story is not new.  I have a business account and low and behold everything that you are saying is exactly how it happened to me and as I have read throughout the internet..exactly how it is happening all over for many, many of their customers.

Hello everyone. This is Ronnie's buddy from Dallas, according to Robert.

Now that I've enlightened Robert as to when THE MAJORIY of OTHER banks started Re-Sequencing transactions, a few years ago, now let's review their reason.

Does anyone remember the stories about that phantom banking survey, used by the banks as a defense? They claimed their surveys revealed this MAJORITY of customers preferred the posting order of largest amount to smallest amount, to ensure the important items like mortgages were never returned.

Picking up on the theme used by Robert, Striderq, and all bank defenders, this MAJORITY of customers never have issues with overdrafts, right? Use whatever percentage you want. It could be 90%, 95%, or 99%. The point is if these MAJORITY of customers never have problems with overdrafts, to them it shouldn't matter if the posting order is largest to smallest, smallest to largest, upside down or SIDEWAYS! But the banks are telling us this MAJORITY of customers is VOCAL, LOUD, and EMPHATIC about their preference of largest to smallest posting order. Why would they be all up in arms about it when they never have any issues with overdrafts?

I don't think people who live in Alaska are emphatic about their homes having tornado insurance.  And I don't think the people who live in Arizona are emphatic about their homes having flood insurance.

This should help answer Ronnie's question about the REAL REASON banks choose to implement this ripoff.

"Now if the banks had a reason to re-sequence transactions OTHER then for the sole purpose of pillaging debit card users, I would like to hear this reason so I can verily debunk it, as it will be done so in the lawsuits.."

So basically your viewpoint is that all the banks are evil and ripping off the customers and absolutely nothing is going to change your mind. Okay, I can deal with that. Kind of makes our conversation one sided but then again I'm used to that. As you stated many times, the reason you feel like you do is that you failed to keep an accurate register and caused yourself overdraft fees or per your viewpoint the evil bank knew the future, purposely held transactions until they could put the transactions through thereby ripping you off. So guess there is no reason to discuss things with you as you are convinced that you are right. However, if account holders follow your advice they are still leaving themselves open to causing overdrafts where as by keeping the register they can eliminate all overdrafts except those very few caused by a mistake (be it by bank, merchant or themselves).

"- Then perhaps you should talk to your buddy from Dallas as that is the main point that he is making.  That this is some new huge conspiracy the banks have come up with."

The point all of us that concur what the banks are "doing", is using old policies in a "new" way. Which in other words translates to the bank using these policies under the "guise" that it is some kind of "courtesy" and "protection"..when in fact it has essentially become the "new" profit center for the failing, irresponsible BANKS. A profit center which by deception and manipulation, is unfairly targeting those who for many reasons may have incurred overdrafts by compounding fees which in all fairness is in a nutshell charging fees for transactions that had the funds at the time of the transaction...as well as policies where in all fairness the transactions should have been DECLINED if the funds were TRULY unavailable. Robert, you are not an idiot..you know what has been going on.


"You say MILLIONS and on the surface that sounds like a lot.  But even the report you have mentioned before says that only 10% of the people are causing a majority of the fees.  That means 90% of the people GET IT.  So lets for conversations sake say that 10% is 10 MILLION peole.  Okay it is only 10 Million because there are 100 Million account holders.  So do we start legislating for the exception?  I guess you are in favor of putting devices in cars to make sure that everyone stops at a stop sign. I guess you are also in favor of requiring places of employment to do daily wake up calls for people that are habitually late.  Because after all they are the "few" who just don't realize that it is good to stop at stop signs or the need to be on-time.  And yes those comparisons were sarcastic and you do not need to go off on some strange defense of why you believe that is different than overdraft fees."

Pure unadulterated rhetoric. As far as I am concerned, if this happened to only ONE customer..it is one too many and should be looked into. And yes..MILLIONS and MILLIONS on the surface sounds like a lot..and it is. Why else would the Fed be having to step in?..and why all the complaints and hoopla?..and why the banks themselves are changing policies?...and why the endless abyss of lawsuits?

And NO..being a libertarian I am typically strongly against government intrusiveness and regulation, accept where we the people need them most..to protect us from enemy attack, and to prevent big corporations from gouging and financially pillaging the people. If the banks did the right things on their own, there would be no reason for intervention and lawsuits. No strange defense here but you are the one comparing traffic violations or someone who overslept to the banks policies..I just do not see enough similarity to comprehensively use those examples as analogies.

"You can continue to come here and call people "bank defenders" to try and defeat the advice that we provide.  Unfortunatly you and others are not doing them any good by telling them what they WANT to hear not what they NEED to hear.  You can mention court cases all day long, but even you know that the very few that have gone anywhere got each member of the "class" enough for about 2 overdraft fees.  You seem to leave that little bit out.  Of course the person who is already inclined to belieiving the banks are "evil" is going to see that as an open invitation to them being able to continue to do what they are doing and the courts will require the banks to give them all of their money back."

The "people" I call bank defenders..are those who no matter how you slice it..are defending the banks and have very little if any compassion for the victims.

As well, I have never tried to defeat the advice provided by said bank defenders. I simply expose the banks part in all this, and let the poster know they are not alone. And if you really read my responses, I usually do mention the lawsuits may not get them much back, albeit sometimes I do forget. I also never advised anyone to keep doing what they are doing and expect the courts to give them anything. What my point is by posting the information that I do is to give the victim the most possible actions that can be taken to stop the banks tactics. If any customer continues to overdraft once they are aware of how the banks operate and pillage them, I show no more compassion to them, nor as many bank defenders accuse me of..which is advocating irresponsibility, that is pure hogwash.

If you read the actual REPORT..the customer has posted trying to warn others that the bank is re-sequencing transactions. Many of us feel this should stop and transactions should be posted has they are received, which is the most sensible and ethical way..why does that bother you so much Robert?

"You can talk about legislation all day long.  And the government can legislate them down to the color of the rugs in each branch.  But if a person does not take personal responsibility for their money they will continue to overdraft.  So again telling them that all of this legisation is coming tells the person that is denying that they are wrong at all is going to do exactly what they are doing now."

Once again..I have to explain that this is NOT about preventing an overdraft..NOR is it against the bank charging a fee for an overdraft. It is about the damage being done IN THE EVENT OF AN OVERDRAFT caused by the banks manipulations..and the fact that mandatory overdraft protection is a JOKE when applied to everyday small debit card purchases. Is that not simple enough?????? Or do I have to state this every single time I post regarding the issue at hand?

Legislation and lawsuits were a last resort...trust me, I wish neither was necessary.

"So the time for these people to START to practice sound financial management and STOP blaming everyone else is now.  Because amazingly enough if people managed their account and didn't spend more than they had available the chances of them overdrafting is about zero. "

We have been down this road many times Robert...not just you and I but a few other bank defenders as well. Now I can not argue that sound financial management can help avoid overdrafting in most cases..that is a given..and as redundant as stating "if you never overdraft, you will not have a fee". But why not the banks change policies that contribute to overdrafting?..and contribute to multiplying fees which in effect are charging overdraft fees where there was actually NOT a legitimate overdraft. Do you enjoy the pain of others? Or do you believe what the banks are doing to customers is right? Do you honestly believe after reading the lawsuits that there are no grounds? Do you honestly believe legislation won't help?

If you answer "yes" to any of those questions..you should be knocked off the proverbial soapbox.

had 5,043,045 views.

To myself and many others..it does not matter when the banks decided to change posting order etc..what matters is bottom line..

- Then perhaps you should talk to your buddy from Dallas as that is the main point that he is making.  That this is some new huge conspiracy the banks have come up with.

which is many many MILLIONS of customers.  So it is not really accurate for the bank defenders to imply this only happened to a "few" irresponsible customers

You say MILLIONS and on the surface that sounds like a lot.  But even the report you have mentioned before says that only 10% of the people are causing a majority of the fees.  That means 90% of the people GET IT.  So lets for conversations sake say that 10% is 10 MILLION peole.  Okay it is only 10 Million because there are 100 Million account holders.  So do we start legislating for the exception?  I guess you are in favor of putting devices in cars to make sure that everyone stops at a stop sign. I guess you are also in favor of requiring places of employment to do daily wake up calls for people that are habitually late.  Because after all they are the "few" who just don't realize that it is good to stop at stop signs or the need to be on-time.  And yes those comparisons were sarcastic and you do not need to go off on some strange defense of why you believe that is different than overdraft fees.

You can continue to come here and call people "bank defenders" to try and defeat the advice that we provide.  Unfortunatly you and others are not doing them any good by telling them what they WANT to hear not what they NEED to hear.  You can mention court cases all day long, but even you know that the very few that have gone anywhere got each member of the "class" enough for about 2 overdraft fees.  You seem to leave that little bit out.  Of course the person who is already inclined to belieiving the banks are "evil" is going to see that as an open invitation to them being able to continue to do what they are doing and the courts will require the banks to give them all of their money back.

You can talk about legislation all day long.  And the government can legislate them down to the color of the rugs in each branch.  But if a person does not take personal responsibility for their money they will continue to overdraft.  So again telling them that all of this legisation is coming tells the person that is denying that they are wrong at all is going to do exactly what they are doing now.

So the time for these people to START to practice sound financial management and STOP blaming everyone else is now.  Because amazingly enough if people managed their account and didn't spend more than they had available the chances of them overdrafting is about zero. 

Okay time to step off my soapbox for today...

You make valid arguments...regarding CHECK usage. Now regardless of any lawsuits and policy changes..when it comes to writing checks we have the issue of the mail...and when the receiver of the check deposits it to take into account. That is and was always the case.

What is happening these days is as you yourself admit, is consumers who use a debit card many times a day for small transactions losing track.

The bulk of the complaints and lawsuits have to do with the issues arising due to the policies put in place to so call "protect" large check transactions. Now back in the days of yore when people did only write a few checks a month for rent/mortgage and bills it would not be apt to cause financial devastation if an accounting error occurred and re-sequencing combined with courtesy overdraft protection actually did good for the customer. Most people used cash for smaller everyday purchases and had a gas credit card separate from their checking account.

To myself and many others..it does not matter when the banks decided to change posting order etc..what matters is bottom line..that when the smoke clears it is discovered overdraft fees are being charged to transactions that had the funds available at the time of the transaction..hence the deception and RIPPOFF is exposed.

Sure it is easy to defend the bank by stating that the customer should not have overdrafted..and this is a fair statement...IF the only fees that were being charged..is to legitimate overdrafts. Any additional fee that was the direct result of bank deception and manipulation is the banks fault.

So while we can go back and forth as is often the case here with rhetoric and hypotheticals..the reality is that although it is true the majority of customers have not fallen victim to the policies and tactics..it is fair to say that many have. To the tune of approx. 40 Billion dollars in 09 alone according to the FDIC report..which is many many MILLIONS of customers. So it is not really accurate for the bank defenders to imply this only happened to a "few" irresponsible customers...and if the bank has violated any laws or acted in an unethical way, surely the courts will note this in the lawsuits.

Striderg stated...

"...As many poster say, if the account holder keeps an accurate register then there can be no overdraft. No matter the order the transactions are posted."

Yes, this is something many posters (aka "bank defenders") say and it is true... however since overdrafts can, do and WILL happen, re-sequencing can, will and does often cause ADDITIONAL excessive fees. Now if the banks had a reason to re-sequence transactions OTHER then for the sole purpose of pillaging debit card users, I would like to hear this reason so I can verily debunk it, as it will be done so in the lawsuits..


"Do mistakes happen? Yes, sometiomes by the bank, sometimes by the merchant and sometimes by the account holder. However, the vast majority of reports here on ROR are clearly because the account holder failed their responsibilty of keeping an accurate register. If you have $100 and spend $100 or less then it doesn't matter how or when you spent or how or when the transactions are posted, there's no overdraft. "

Glad we see eye to eye that mistakes happen. However this statement would hold weight IF this issue was regarding how to prevent an overdraft. As the VAST majority of the times I respond to similar posts here, I will say again this is about what the bank is doing IN THE EVENT OF AN OVERDRAFT..not about how to prevent it. Of course many customers could take better steps to prevent overdrafting..but ANY and EVERY bank could take steps as well to protect their customers account, and not resort to tactics and unnecessary policies put in place to rob the very customers that have bailed them out when they made "mistakes".


"But if the account holder doesn't keep a register and uses the online banking
or automated phone system "to get their balance" then they will probably overdraft."

This statement is true as well. But I sometimes wonder why depending on the bank statements is so unreliable.  I know the bank defenders use excuses such has check clearing and holding times..and merchant holds etc..but honestly now...when talking about average everyday debit card use..that is causing the VAST MAJORITY of complaints about fees on this site..could perhaps have been avoided as well if not for bank manipulations and tactics. Anyone who carefully observes the online statements..can see for themselves the bank manipulations which can easily cause an overdraft. Sure an accurate register is the best defense...but why to we need to "defend" ourselves in the first place? Is the bank now an enemy? The answer to that has become self evident the last few years.

"A lot of people say that the abnks should post transactions in the order they occurred. That items bought with the debit card and on hold should post/be paid before any checks or automatic debits. Often timed though the checks or automatic debits were writtened/authorized by the account holders before they used their cards. Someone writes a check the first of the month to pay their rent. They then use their card on the 3rd 4th and 5th to buy items. When everything comes in on the 6th to get paid the check usually goes first because it's largest. Peopel say but the checkcard itmes were on hold, the bank should pay in the order things were purchased. Then in this example the check would still go first becasue it was done first. The holds can be seen but since the checks and automatis debits aren't seen until they post many people feel they they were authorized by the account holder after the card purchases. This is usually not they way the transactions were done."

Yes, this is sometimes the case. But there are many other situations as well that apply. Bottom line for myself is this. When a debit card is swiped..the transaction is either approved or declined....right? So it is safe to assume the bank knows about the transaction. If a dinosaur that still uses checks in a paperless world uses it at a merchant..the check is "read" and either approved or declined...right? So hence we can assume, the bank knows about that as well. So, it can also be concluded there is DECEPTION being used if the transactions are not reported on the banks statement in a timely fashion..whether a hold, pending or charged. But regardless, if the transactions were not re-sequenced or manipulated and an overdraft was to occur, at least the customer could use the statement to determine how an overdraft occurred..and only be charged fairly for the transaction(s) that actually overdrafted the account..not be charged fees for transactions that did have the funds available at the time if the transaction...why do I need to keep stating this obvious fact? Anyhow the courts will decide if this is legal in the end..not you or I..however I think anyone with an ounce of decency and ethics would at the very least admit this is an unfair and evil practice.

"Are there changes on the way? Yes. Many banks have or started or will soon start not charging overdraft fees if the amount overdraft is under $5. Some banks are going to limit the number of overdraft fees they will charge each day. These will be good things for the consumers. But guess what, the people who refuse to keep an accurate register will still complain because they will still get hit with overdraft fees. The only way to avoid the fees id to keep the register and not spend more than you have available."

True again. But you missed the BIG changes that are coming as well. No re-sequencing, and no forced mandatory courtesy overdraft protection. Re-sequencing combined with mandatory overdraft protection has been the MAIN cause of excessive fees over and above what was actually legitimate overdrafts. No once again in your reply, you are focusing on people who are complaining about legitimate overdraft fees..the issue in the lawsuits is not that the banks are wrong to charge a fee for an overdraft..the lawsuits and complaints are about the re-sequencing combined with courtesy overdraft protection. The fact that some banks (such as Chase) have decided to stop re-sequencing on their own..and BofA deciding to no longer enroll every single checking account customer into courtesy overdraft protection on their own is a first step. The fact that most banks are no forgiving small overdrafts and limiting the number of fees per day is also more consumer friendly agreed. But why did it have to come to this? All the complaints, lawsuits, pressure from congress...the banks were taking advantage of their customers..and the ones hurt most from these banking tactics during this recession were the most vulnerable..., the elderly, the very young, and the poor. Hope the bastards enjoy their bonuses this year. It came out many customers pockets.

What I stated in my previous post IS what my statement showed and it IS how the transactions posted. The bank was Bank of America. Ask any other BofA customer and they will acknowledge and confirm, as some have already done numerous times on numerous other threads in the past.

Until your rebuttal, I had forgotten just how much time had past, but I guess you can say it's been somewhere in the neighborhood of ten years now, give or take a year. You recall the infamous 1999 Nationsbank/BofA lawsuit and settlement? Some would argue this case is what opened the flood gates for the vast majority of banks to begin adopting this policy along with other new policies. The only issue is customers had to be notified in advance of the policy implementation.

Consider something Robert. If Resequencing was so common among the MAJORITY of banks 10 to 20 years ago, then why was the 1999 Nationsbank/BofA settlement such a landmark and groundbreaking case? If it was so common? What was all the fuss about?

Consider something else Robert. If the MAJORITY of banks posted using Resequencing more than 10 or 20 years ago, as your bank did, then why the sudden stampede of Ripoff Reports and other complaints only within the last 5 to 7 years? The answer is because it's only within the last 5 to 7 years that the MAJORITY of banks BEGAN this new posting order method along with other Ripoff policies, Robert.

Consider something else Robert. If the MAJORITY of banks posted using Resequencing more than 10 or 20 years ago, as your bank did, why have new catch phrases such as ''RESEQUENCING'' and other terms, only caught on recently. Back 10 to 20 years ago, ff you had asked any banking customer what they thought about Resequencing, you would have been looked at like you were from another planet, Robert.

'Google' this- THE OBAMA DECEPTION, and watch that documentary on the web, correct?

Years ago, most if not all banks posted items in the order they occurred, by sections of transaction type. Nightly posting consisted of all deposits posting first, followed by all ATM withdrawals in order of occurrence, followed by all CheckCard purchases in order of occurrence, followed by all written checks in numerical sequence by check number, followed by ACH transactions in order of date submitted, followed lastly by fees.

- That may have been what your statement showed, but that is NOT how they posted transactions.  Because they actually do group them from Highest to Lowest regardless of type(except for Debits and Credits which are obviously separate).  In fact my monthly statement still shows that same basic break-down, even though I know they post all transactions highest to lowest.  However, one of the more recent changes is that while just about every bank did Deposits before Debits, there are some banks that have switched to posting Debits before Deposits.  This is why it is important for you to know how your bank posts transactions.

As an example of how else your statement fails is the logic with the Check Numbers.  If someone got smart they would write several low dollar checks before the high dollar check to have the low dollar checks post first because they have a lower "number".   

While I can not say how long they have posted highest to lowest, rather than in the order received.  I do know that it has been for several years and perhaps a couple of decades(as that is as far as I go back).   One business I worked in always entered deposits highest to lowest, they basically explained that the banks prefer it that way because that is how they process transactions.  Because it gives them a consistent method of posting items. 

In the past if you had 3 checks come in on the same day there is no way to guarantee which one was written first(again..think about the person who writes checks out of order).  So as a standard they post highest to lowest.  Overdrafting is not new either, people overdrafted in the past.  But they were only writing 2-3 checks a week, where now they are doing 5-6 Debit Card ACH transactions a DAY.  Right there the same person just on the sheer number of transactions they are doing is of course going to have more overdraft fees.  A majority of the people overdrafting today(which is still a very small minority of account holders) would probably be the same ones who would have overdrafted their accounts in the past.

So if banks are changing there is nothing wrong with that.  But unless a person takes PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for THEIR money, there is no amount of regulation or policy changes that is going to keep a person from overdrafting their account.

Years ago, most if not all banks posted items in the order they occurred, by sections of transaction type.  Nightly posting consisted of all deposits posting first, followed by all ATM withdrawals in order of occurrence, followed by all CheckCard purchases in order of occurrence, followed by all written checks in numerical sequence by check number, followed by ACH transactions in order of date submitted, followed lastly by fees.

Then a few years ago, due to falling interest rates and other factors, the banks resorted to devious and unscrupulous methods to increase profits. That's when these magical posting methods and new fees (Unavailable Funds Fee) appeared. When anyone argued against transaction Resequencing, the response by banks and their defenders is to try and question or explain how difficult it would be to post in any other way. But as the employee Striderq stated, many banks will be revising their policies this year, going back to the way they used to do things. This coming only after tremendous pressure and backlash. Not the least of which is the banks having to be bailed out of their own financial irresponsibility by the very customers they exploit. Ironic, but funny.

So, they did it before, and now they're going to start doing it again. But the defense all along has been it's impossible for them to do it?

is available at the Bank of America page of this site.

As many poster say, if the account holder keeps an accurate register then there can be no overdraft. No matter the order the transactions are posted. Do mistakes happen? Yes, sometiomes by the bank, sometimes by the merchant and sometimes by the account holder. However, the vast majority of reports here on ROR are clearly because the account holder failed their responsibilty of keeping an accurate register. If you have $100 and spend $100 or less then it doesn't matter how or when you spent or how or when the transactions are posted, there's no overdraft. But if the account holder doesn't keep a register and uses the online banking or automated phone system "to get their balance" then they will probably overdraft. A lot of people say that the abnks should post transactions in the order they occurred. That items bought with the debit card and on hold should post/be paid before any checks or automatic debits. Often timed though the checks or automatic debits were writtened/authorized by the account holders before they used their cards. Someone writes a check the first of the month to pay their rent. They then use their card on the 3rd 4th and 5th to buy items. When everything comes in on the 6th to get paid the check usually goes first because it's largest. Peopel say but the checkcard itmes were on hold, the bank should pay in the order things were purchased. Then in this example the check would still go first becasue it was done first. The holds can be seen but since the checks and automatis debits aren't seen until they post many people feel they they were authorized by the account holder after the card purchases. This is usually not they way the transactions were done.

Are there changes on the way? Yes. Many banks have or started or will soon start not charging overdraft fees if the amount overdraft is under $5. Some banks are going to limit the number of overdraft fees they will charge each day. These will be good things for the consumers. But guess what, the people who refuse to keep an accurate register will still complain because they will still get hit with overdraft fees. The only way to avoid the fees id to keep the register and not spend more than you have available.

is available at the BANK OF AMERICA page of this site.

But it could be in the works. Some banks (such as Chase) will not be re-sequencing and manipulating transactions soon. Others will surely follow as lawsuits, complaints, media attention and pressure from congress mount..and the economy is still crippled.

You see the "policy" (or tactic as some refer to it) of re-sequencing the times of your transactions like that were originally put in place to protect larger transactions paid by CHECK, such as a mortgage payment. However, this "policy" only serves these days to financially pillage debit card users who inadvertently overdraft..which works in tandem with the "courtesy overdraft protection service".

Now of course the best line of defense is not to overdraft in the first place, but since these things happen...MANY consumers do not feel it is right..and perhaps stretching the law, that policies designed for protecting large check usage is being applied to debit card users who are using the card in lieu of cash for every day smaller purchases. And to add insult to injury, the online statements (which the banks coincidentally encourage all their customers to sign up for..hmmm), ATM statement, and/or calling the bank for a statement is unreliable and part of the "trap" so to speak.

What can be done about it? Well other then the FACT that some banks are changing policies on their own, there are lawsuits in progress that deal with this very issue..or should I say "rip off". Recent press release from a law firm...

October 20, 2009 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

MIAMI--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--Marking a substantial step forward in litigation over the banking industrys abusive and excessive overdraft fee policies and practices, plaintiffs' counsel announced that bank customers have filed a series of nationwide class action lawsuits against Bank of America, Wachovia, U.S. Bank, JPMorgan Chase and Citibank. The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, where all federal lawsuits brought against the banking industry for abusive overdraft fees have been coordinated before the Honorable James Lawrence King.

"The collection of excessive overdraft fees, usually around $35 per transaction, impacts millions of Americans each year and has become a multibillion-dollar profit center for the banks," explained lead plaintiffs counsel Bruce S. Rogow. "In many instances, these overdraft fees cost customers hundreds of dollars in a matter of days, or even hours, when they may be overdrawn by only a few dollars. Charging a $35 overdraft fee when a college student uses her debit card to buy a cup of coffee is unconscionable."

How Bank "Overdraft Protection" Works and Why the Abusive Collection of Overdraft Fees is a National Concern

Today, when customers open checking accounts, banks provide debit cards for the withdrawal of cash from ATM machines and the purchase of goods and services. Many bank customers are not aware that as part of the process of obtaining the debit card, banks automatically enroll their customers in "overdraft protection." The overdraft protection kicks in if the customer spends more than he or she has in the account to cover the purchase, up to a limit of a few hundred dollars.

Banks could simply decline to honor customer ATM or point-of-sale transactions if the account lacks sufficient funds, or could warn customers that if they go through with the transaction an overdraft fee will be assessed. In fact, until a few years ago, most banks simply declined debit transactions that would overdraw an account.

"Banks do not record charges and purchases on ATM or debit cards in the order they actually occur," stated plaintiffs counsel Michael W. Sobol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. "Instead, banks reorder the charges and purchases so that the largest charge or purchase is the first one paid by the bank. This manipulative practice is intentionally designed, the complaints allege, to maximize overdraft fee revenue."

"If you buy your kids a $15 meal at McDonalds on your debit card and your account was overdrawn, that lunch actually cost you $50," added Mr. Sobol. "The bank wont decline the debit transaction, nor will the bank tell you that you have overdrawn your account and is about to turn your $15 lunch into a $50 expense."

In 2007, banks collected more than $17 billion in overdraft fees. That number nearly doubled in 2008, as more and more consumers struggled to maintain positive checking account balances. In 2009, banks are expected to bring in up to $40 billion in overdraft charges from nearly 50 million customers.

"While all bank customers have been affected, these overdraft fee policies disproportionately affect young people, the elderly and the poor, who are most likely to maintain low account balances," noted Mr. Rogow. "Moreover, these fees have the tendency to create a domino effect, resulting in even more fees."

Further Information for Bank Customers

Bank customers assessed overdraft fees who wish to learn more about this litigation should visit www.bank-overdraft.com where they can submit their complaint to plaintiffs counsel.
Contacts

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Michael W. Sobol, 415-956-1000
or
Bruce S. Rogow, 954-767-8909
Permalink: (http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20091020005332/en/fee/overdraft/lieff-cabraser)

 

How is this ANY banks fault if someone spends more they have in an account? 

You spent more than you had.  Don't spend more than you have and you wont bounce your bank account.