WOODFOREST BANK VIOLATE PRIVACY - MANY ERRORS - TREAT YOU LIKE YOU ARE A CRIMINAL TRYING TO ROB THEM Nationwide

We'd like to gather a few details.  Please send an email with your contact information to SocialMedia@woodforest.com.

In his post Robert put that he was not an employee. This was done because the vast majority of OPs will claim anyone posting something that contradicts their complaint is an employee of the company. Instead of looking at what he wrote, you want to concentrate on this aspect "He immediately responded. He disagrees with me. He must be an employee". This thought process of you know best, things must be the way you think the should be are the basis of this complaint.

And because I know you'll bring it up, NO I'm not an employee of Woodforest either. I am a customer and have not been affected by the policies you claim exist, but in your opinion that doesn't count for anything.

I haven't read all of "Robert's" replies to my truthful complaint. Robert is clearly an employee of Woodforest Bank who is overwhelmingly hostile.

But obviously, the only purpose of his first response, which is the only one of "Robert's" replies that I read, was to attack me, to make many obvious false statements , and to try to show the public that my truthful complaint is wrong.

He voluntarily denied being employed by Woodforest Bank which is obviously a lie. Why would a random person immediately file a rebuttal to my complaint, attack me, and make false statements to distract from my truthful complaint?

"Robert's" comments prove the hostility of Woodforest Bank employees.

My complaint stated that they treat customers like they are criminals trying to rob Woodforest Bank.

"Robert's" replies prove this bank's hositility for customers.

I also noticed recently that a store that accepts checks has a sign posted saying that they don't accept Woodforest Bank checks. So it seems that even retail merchants have problems with Woodforest Bank.

Okay we get it, you are more interested in "Word Games" than actually learning how to bank.  Where regardless of what anyone says you will either deny it or play your "games" to try and make yourself sound "smart" with a smirk on your face.  Well people like you are a "Dime a Dozen".  While you will throw just about everything you can to misdirect and deny it, in the end will eventually end up with "Egg on your Face".   So have your fun now...it gives us a good laugh.

By the way if you have all of this experience with banks why are you still with them and haven't gone to another bank?

After all from your own words. "I have never signed a check that I deposited, I have never written my name on a check I deposited, and I have never written my account number on a check I deposited to Woodforest Bank or any other bank."

Or are you just playing more games and just "forgot" to mention that you went to another bank, perhaps you have 50 other accounts at 50 other banks.  Are you going to tell us that when you said "any" are you going to come back and tell us that you haven't banked anywhere else or haven't made any other deposits?

As for being an employee.  Well sorry you are wrong about that as well.  Any employee will identify themselves as one, and on that this is one of the few companies that actually does have an employee post.  Perhaps they will post on this one in a few days.   

First, our courts have ruled individuals have no 4th amendment right to privacy online, and no expectation of such privacy can even be inferred so that argument doesn't fly.  Banks have the right to register your IP address when you log in, and you agreed to all of this when you signed up for online banking.  If you opt to use another device to access your account, the bank automatically assumes you are not the person accessing your account until you either verify certain personal information, or provide a cell phone number where the bank will text you a code to input.  Many banks do this, especially business banks, as a safety feature for their account holder.  When I was selecting banks to do business with, most of the banks I came across prior to opting to bank with one of them - all had this feature.  Ask anyone who has ever had their account hacked using a basic username and password login??  This minor inconvenience generally lasts about 3 minutes.

Robert is also correct when he talks about the lack of an endorsment on a check to be deposited.  It isn't simply a banking requirement, it is a legal requirement.  The bank cannot legally take possession of your check without your endorsement on the back of it.  I could go into all of the holder in due course rules, but it's an eye-roller...  The fact the instructions do not include endorsing the back of the check, is pretty irrelevant, because of the legal requirement.  Should they include that in the instructions??  McDonalds got sued for not indicating coffee was hot enough to burn you if you spill it on yourself...??  It's pretty much the same thing.  Unfortunately, we don't teach basic personal finance courses anymore in schools, so what we used to consider as common sense...isn't any longer.

Finally, no one who responds here works for a bank.

You obviously work for Woodforest Bank.

Does it really matter if other banks use the 2-step security process?

My complaint stated, "no other bank that I know of has".

I didn't say that no other bank has this 2-step security process.

Why are you so eager to file an immediate rebuttal to include false statements accusing me of being incorrect? I did not say that no other bank has the 2-step security process. I said no other bank that "I know of".

You are wrong about the check "endorsement" issue too.

I didn't say that I didn't "endorse" the check. I said that the bank rejected the check and gave no reason for the rejection.

They later fabricated reasons for rejecting it. One reason they made up was that they rejected it because I did not "sign" it.  I did endorse the check. But I did not sign it. Obviously, you don't know the difference between "endorsement" and "sign".

Commercial banks and commercial bank accounts never ever ever require a person to sign a deposited item. There are many reasons for that. So you are absolutely wrong in your assertions.

But according to my written agreement with the bank, I am not required to sign it. My written agreement with the bank states, 5. ENDORSEMENT. Before you scan any item, you shall endorse all items with your name and the legend "for deposit only to woodforest account #__________"

But I have never signed a check that I deposited, I have never written my name on a check I deposited, and I have never written my account number on a check I deposited to Woodforest Bank or any other bank. So after the mobile deposit was rejected and no reason was given, Woodforest made up more than one reason why it was rejected.

In addition, when you make a mobile deposit, the computer system automatically marks the deposit item with the account holder name and account number. 

You must work for Woodforest Bank because this is the same kind of ignorance that I get from Woodforest Bank.

When I opened the account, the employee didn't even know what a "US person" is. I had to explain it to him.

And your rebuttal contains a multitude of ramblings that have nothing to do with my account. You state that maybe I had "insufficient funds (just like they said)". But as my complaint states, I never had insufficient funds. And my complaint clearly explains what Woodforest Bank told me directly in writing as to why they blocked my bill payment. They tracked my IP address and assumed that because they believed that I was not physically present at the location reflected by the IP address that my account had been compromised, that someone unknown logged into my bank account and used the online bill pay to send a check.

Why would you waste your time writing such an illogical, fictional rambling if you didn't work for Woodforest Bank?

Just goes to show you what kind of ridiculousness comes out of this bank's employees.

First there are many banks that are using what is known as "two factor" or "token" identification. Especially if it detects a computer that you have not logged on before.

In fact one of my banks actually sent me an authentication token that displays a new random 6 digit number every 60 seconds.  If I try to use that number 90 seconds later it is expired and invalid. I also have other banks that will send you an authentication code through text/email or even phone to a number they have on file.

But based on your last statement it seems as if you may not have the most experience with accounts and there may be more to these situations than you are saying. Perhaps the authentication failed on your part, perhaps the auto payments were "randomly" stopped because you had insufficent funds(just like they said). Perhaps it is one of a hundred different possibilities.

Now what is the last statement you made? It was that your check was rejected because you didn't sign it, but you stated that nothing said specifically to sign it. Unfortunatly, this is one of those "you should have known" things as it is universal with every bank and every method of depositing a check.  As it is required to "endorse" a check before you deposit it. Could it slip through if you don't..yes. But if they validate it and it is not signed they will reject it. The reason is again...stop me if you heard this before..SECURITY.

As it is confirmation that the person who the check is written to, is the one who intended to deposit it in the specific account. The account number on the back is really another protection..FOR YOU, but not usually required.

In the end there is something in your usage or pattern that is causing these issues, and you of course can change banks. But if they are really things about your inexperience (such as not signing the check) you may end up having the same issues.

Oh and no I do not work for this bank, and would have said the same thing regardless of the bank you posted.