Bank Of America Bank of America STEALS Money AGAIN From the Consumer West Hempstead New York

I asked if they could stop transfers if my account hits zero (they have a habit of hitting me with BS charges and then my checkbook is off due to no fault of my own which can build up more charges). They flat out told me this is a service they don't offer because their customers would rather pay the fee than be "embarrassed" getting declined in a store *cough BS cough*

I asked if they could stop transfers if my account hits zero (they have a habit of hitting me with BS charges and then my checkbook is off due to no fault of my own which can build up more charges). They flat out told me this is a service they don't offer because their customers would rather pay the fee than be "embarrassed" getting declined in a store *cough BS cough*

I asked if they could stop transfers if my account hits zero (they have a habit of hitting me with BS charges and then my checkbook is off due to no fault of my own which can build up more charges). They flat out told me this is a service they don't offer because their customers would rather pay the fee than be "embarrassed" getting declined in a store *cough BS cough*

Bank of America does not have the right to assume that the consumer wants the overdraft facility. It depends on individual choice whether to choose overdraft facility or not. And it is BoA's duty to convey this information clearly to the customer when they open the account. If BoA hides this fact from the customer(and they do it), it is not the customers fault that it was ignored.
And it is not natural that by default overdraft facility is ON. Why not put it like, if someone wants the facility let them call up BoA and choose this facility. That seems more fair.

Edrward, if the proposal actually worked, it would save the consumer a lot in fees from OD. The problem I see if you run the process to ground is the likelihood the ATM would come up with no warning and it would not be the fault of the bank; picture a mid-day transaction going through with another Debit Card (or even a late uncleared check now clearing) transaction that would hit the bank AFTER the ATM transaction. In essence, the withdrawl would have triggered the message IF the check cleared earlier or the Debit Card transaction posted earlier. In the end, it still becomes the duty of the account holder to keep track of the balance.

I see your point - I just have my doubts as to whether it's workable....

Great point Jim. And an excellent example you provided. I'm sure many of us have found ourselves in that situation of the example you gave, and I'm sure many of us have angrily walked out, exactly as you stated, with those exact feelings about the Merchant and the customer, exactly as you described. I was quite amused by your point.

I think you have GIVEN Robert another arguing point for his side, but I don't think that's what Rober was talking about. Maybe I didn't explain my point clearly earlier and I think I now see the point that Robert was trying to make. At foreign ATMs you're asked to accept a fee for using the foregin ATM. Well, mentioned in the Feds proposal is the idea of doing the same for POS on a PER TRANSACTION basis. For EACH swipe, the customer would be informed they're about to overdraft their account with that transaction. And they will be asked whether they accept the fee this transaction will cause. I guess this would require system and/or equipment changes by the Merchants for the per transaction acceptance. Robert can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was his point, and yes I agree this would create a heavy cost burden.

But by contrast, what I've been referring to all along is a ONE TIME opt-in or opt-out by the customer when the bank account is opened. That's it. The bank will ask the customer, from NOW ON for ALL of your POS transactions do you always want your card ALLOWED, overdrawing your account, or do you always want your card DENIED, preventing overdrafts. It's a ONE TIME setup, and from then on, the bank APPROVES or DENIES the card accordingly. This requires no system changes or increased cost by the Merchants. And this eliminates any complaints from any customers because it will be each customer who CONTROLLED how their account was configured. Yet again, that's the MAIN point of the OP here.

Such a real time POS system does NOT exist Edward, and it isn't going to exist any time soon.

I'm a computer consultant. In other ROR rebuttals I've explained in more detail why it won't exist-cost prohibitive.

NO SYSTEM for POS transactions is REAL TIME-NONE, NADA, NEIN. The ACH is NOT set up for such an undertaking. Remember, these transactions have to be RECONSILED. Further, the banks (and businesses) are NOT tied to the ACH at all times-it simply cannot be done.

You are mistaken. Such a system would require ALL POS transactions to be on similar or the SAME transaction system. In other words, the government would have to DICTATE what system is used (can you say MONOPOLY.) Currently, our government does not have that authority.

Such as system would be impractical -IMMENSE in size and scope. The cost to small businesses would be staggering.

It isn't going to happen any time soon. The ATM notification is Ok, the banks can certainly do this, but the POS notifications isn't going anywhere-it's a poison pill.

Such a real time POS system does NOT exist Edward, and it isn't going to exist any time soon.

I'm a computer consultant. In other ROR rebuttals I've explained in more detail why it won't exist-cost prohibitive.

NO SYSTEM for POS transactions is REAL TIME-NONE, NADA, NEIN. The ACH is NOT set up for such an undertaking. Remember, these transactions have to be RECONSILED. Further, the banks (and businesses) are NOT tied to the ACH at all times-it simply cannot be done.

You are mistaken. Such a system would require ALL POS transactions to be on similar or the SAME transaction system. In other words, the government would have to DICTATE what system is used (can you say MONOPOLY.) Currently, our government does not have that authority.

Such as system would be impractical -IMMENSE in size and scope. The cost to small businesses would be staggering.

It isn't going to happen any time soon. The ATM notification is Ok, the banks can certainly do this, but the POS notifications isn't going anywhere-it's a poison pill.

Such a real time POS system does NOT exist Edward, and it isn't going to exist any time soon.

I'm a computer consultant. In other ROR rebuttals I've explained in more detail why it won't exist-cost prohibitive.

NO SYSTEM for POS transactions is REAL TIME-NONE, NADA, NEIN. The ACH is NOT set up for such an undertaking. Remember, these transactions have to be RECONSILED. Further, the banks (and businesses) are NOT tied to the ACH at all times-it simply cannot be done.

You are mistaken. Such a system would require ALL POS transactions to be on similar or the SAME transaction system. In other words, the government would have to DICTATE what system is used (can you say MONOPOLY.) Currently, our government does not have that authority.

Such as system would be impractical -IMMENSE in size and scope. The cost to small businesses would be staggering.

It isn't going to happen any time soon. The ATM notification is Ok, the banks can certainly do this, but the POS notifications isn't going anywhere-it's a poison pill.

Such a real time POS system does NOT exist Edward, and it isn't going to exist any time soon.

I'm a computer consultant. In other ROR rebuttals I've explained in more detail why it won't exist-cost prohibitive.

NO SYSTEM for POS transactions is REAL TIME-NONE, NADA, NEIN. The ACH is NOT set up for such an undertaking. Remember, these transactions have to be RECONSILED. Further, the banks (and businesses) are NOT tied to the ACH at all times-it simply cannot be done.

You are mistaken. Such a system would require ALL POS transactions to be on similar or the SAME transaction system. In other words, the government would have to DICTATE what system is used (can you say MONOPOLY.) Currently, our government does not have that authority.

Such as system would be impractical -IMMENSE in size and scope. The cost to small businesses would be staggering.

It isn't going to happen any time soon. The ATM notification is Ok, the banks can certainly do this, but the POS notifications isn't going anywhere-it's a poison pill.

Robert has a great point. In the past when cards were denied, people were all up in arms wondering why in the world their card was denied? They think its the bank that made the mistake, not the human who failed to put money in the account. I would then expect to see an ROR on the stupid bank who cut their card off, and that's Unamerican....blah, blah, blah..... I tell you that situation is far worse than what we have today; the difference is that it costs people money when they can't manage their finances, as opposed to the past, where customers who received a major embarassment for having a card denied stand there telling the merchant it isn't their fault - IT MUST BE A BANK ERROR. Notice that no matter what you do or how you handle this from a card perspective, it's ALWAYS the bank's fault, isn't it? Catch 21, don't you think?

Meanwhile, back in the old world of cutting people off, and depending on the merchant, there are several people waiting in line ready to pay for the items they want. They continue to wait and wait and wait until they're frustrated having to wait for IDIOT customer who doesn't have the money in their account and the customer WITH MONEY leaves without merchandise, and blaming the MERCHANT for the failure of efficient customer service - and thinking about the STUPID customer who couldn't manage their account...... The merchant is not only out the sale from the deadbeat customer, the merchant is also out the money from the customer who does pay and has money.

Think about it. Point of Sale transactions have been around forever. Much longer than courtesy overdraft packages. In the old days, once your bank balance reached zero, your card was DENIED at the point of sale. This was true for everyone before overdraft protection came along. So I'm having a hard time understanding your point where this can't be done.

You indicate that businesses such as yours would simply stop accepting bank cards because to create such a system would be cost prohibitive. How so? Sure there will be cost involved. But for the banks, not for the Merchants. I don't see where there's anything the merchants have to do differently. Your procedure is still the same. Just keep on swiping the card for the customer and wait for the ANSWER back from the bank. The DIFFERENCE is on the other end. Does THE BANK approve the card if the customer has OPTED IN to courtesy overdraft or does THE BANK deny the card if the customer has OPTED OUT of courtesy overdraft.

And based on the answer to that question, the bank will either APPROVE or DENY the transaction and give you, the merchant, the answer, same as before, same as now. No changes involved at all from the merchant's perspective. Please enlighten me, if I'm missing something here.

""Or you can OPT OUT of courtesy overdraft if you don't want to pay ANY fees. Then when your card is denied at the point of sale and you get embarrassed, no one to blame but yourself, since YOU opted out. A perfect solution where all sides when, except the banks who lose out on fee income, which is of course the TRUE objective.""

A system that would be real time and always correct for point of sale transactions does NOT exist. To create such a system is cost prohibitive. I've explained this in a previous rebuttal-this POS OPT OUT is not gonna fly.

Businesses, such as mine would simply STOP accepting bank cards.

Stile, I can see you haven't changed one bit. Very keen, professional and observant, as in the past. You are right. The repitition does indeed get a bit boring at times. But unlike you, I do choose to contribute more often because I want to be sure that when someone, mainly the bank supporters, spews out baseless insults over and over again, I'm going to call them out on it over and over again when the customer has a valid gripe.

I realize how it makes me look at times, participating in the redundancy. But I feel it's worth it so these bank supporters get a taste of their own medicine when they're the ones who have been made to the look the fool. Maybe it will cause them to think twice the next time before they post baseless, insulting garbage. Unlike yourself, where you also emphasize consumer responsibility but you don't always immediately jump to the wrong conclusions and you maintain an open mind until ALL facts are known.

As I've stated on several other posts, with changes to Regulation AA, the Federal Reserve has offered the perfect solution to the dilemma you mention in your previous post. If banks started to excercise complete control over customer accounts and blatantly start denying transactions at zero balances, the complaints would start from the other side. The solution? Give EACH customer their own choice. You can OPT IN to courtesy overdraft if you don't ever want your card denied. Then when the fees start rolling in, no one to blame but yourself, since YOU opted in. Or you can OPT OUT of courtesy overdraft if you don't want to pay ANY fees. Then when your card is denied at the point of sale and you get embarrassed, no one to blame but yourself, since YOU opted out. A perfect solution where all sides when, except the banks who lose out on fee income, which is of course the TRUE objective.

The bank OPTED IN the customer by default. It seems logical that you would have to REQUEST something instead of it being done for you and without your knowledge and consent. You know, kind of like 'slamming' with telephone service, which is illegal by the way. This is the way it works with everything else......except courtesy overdraft. Hmmm....Fee Income......Ok. Now I see why. That's the ripoff here.

I agree, it's been a while since I last posted. Simply put, when I first showed up there were some interesting and indeed controversial entries being posted which I really enjoyed taking part in. Since then, it seems that increasingly complaints have focused around overdraft fees alone, which ends up being the same conversation over and over again. It becomes boring after a while to watch a person make the same complaint that the last 12 people made, and then see the same 12 responses get posted.

With regards to your statements about the bank allowing the customer to spend more money than they have, you need to keep in mind that the bank doesn't choose to exercise absolute control over your account. If they did, there would be complaints about the draconian nature of the bank, rather than the relatively laissez faire attitude of most banks. So, when you make a purchase and the bank sees that you're about to overdraw, they have to assume that you know this and that you'll come in to make a deposit to avoid fees, or that you know that a direct deposit is coming in that evening. They allow you to play the intra-day float, though the inter-day float is increasingly disappearing.

Suffice to say that when you make a purchase and the merchant authorizes your account, the bank has no way of knowing which of those authorizations will be presented for payment, and if so when. So, the bank chooses to adopt a liberal stance when it comes to your account management. Rather than managing your account for you, it trusts you to manage it yourself.

Stile, I have always respected your past posts and wondered about your scarcity these days, because I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and information you bring about the Visa credit card system and the how the financial processes work in general. However, I think there's more at work here than just simply Visa authorizations.

I won't go into a long rant here but I will quickly point out that customers hear this over and over again from the bank, don't spend more money than you have. But then when the balance gets down to zero and the custoemr swipes that card again, that SAME BANK says, you want to spend more money than you have, even though we told you not to? Ok. Go right ahead. Ignore everything we've told you over and over again. Go right ahead and spend more money than you have, we'll LET you do it. Hmmm. Seems kind of fishy if you ask me.

Regarding your example of how this overspending causes fees, there's just one problem with your example. You mentioned 'all those smaller items start coming in to post against a $5 balance resulting in a number of fees'. Yes that is true. But if you examine many of these reports, many consumers expect this and accept THESE fees. The problem you failed to mention is even BEFORE these final items come in, you're ALSO charged fees for the INITIAL items which post, basically resulting in DOUBLE FEES. Why? All because the bank ALLOWED the customer to spend more than they had even though the bank told the customer NOT to, so the customer logically assumed the bank wouldn't LET THEM do just that. At least not by DEFAULT, without the customer's consent (OPT IN).

That's the ripoff here and the basic point of the OP.

Stile, I have always respected your past posts and wondered about your scarcity these days, because I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and information you bring about the Visa credit card system and the how the financial processes work in general. However, I think there's more at work here than just simply Visa authorizations.

I won't go into a long rant here but I will quickly point out that customers hear this over and over again from the bank, don't spend more money than you have. But then when the balance gets down to zero and the custoemr swipes that card again, that SAME BANK says, you want to spend more money than you have, even though we told you not to? Ok. Go right ahead. Ignore everything we've told you over and over again. Go right ahead and spend more money than you have, we'll LET you do it. Hmmm. Seems kind of fishy if you ask me.

Regarding your example of how this overspending causes fees, there's just one problem with your example. You mentioned 'all those smaller items start coming in to post against a $5 balance resulting in a number of fees'. Yes that is true. But if you examine many of these reports, many consumers expect this and accept THESE fees. The problem you failed to mention is even BEFORE these final items come in, you're ALSO charged fees for the INITIAL items which post, basically resulting in DOUBLE FEES. Why? All because the bank ALLOWED the customer to spend more than they had even though the bank told the customer NOT to, so the customer logically assumed the bank wouldn't LET THEM do just that. At least not by DEFAULT, without the customer's consent (OPT IN).

That's the ripoff here and the basic point of the OP.

Stile, I have always respected your past posts and wondered about your scarcity these days, because I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and information you bring about the Visa credit card system and the how the financial processes work in general. However, I think there's more at work here than just simply Visa authorizations.

I won't go into a long rant here but I will quickly point out that customers hear this over and over again from the bank, don't spend more money than you have. But then when the balance gets down to zero and the custoemr swipes that card again, that SAME BANK says, you want to spend more money than you have, even though we told you not to? Ok. Go right ahead. Ignore everything we've told you over and over again. Go right ahead and spend more money than you have, we'll LET you do it. Hmmm. Seems kind of fishy if you ask me.

Regarding your example of how this overspending causes fees, there's just one problem with your example. You mentioned 'all those smaller items start coming in to post against a $5 balance resulting in a number of fees'. Yes that is true. But if you examine many of these reports, many consumers expect this and accept THESE fees. The problem you failed to mention is even BEFORE these final items come in, you're ALSO charged fees for the INITIAL items which post, basically resulting in DOUBLE FEES. Why? All because the bank ALLOWED the customer to spend more than they had even though the bank told the customer NOT to, so the customer logically assumed the bank wouldn't LET THEM do just that. At least not by DEFAULT, without the customer's consent (OPT IN).

That's the ripoff here and the basic point of the OP.

Stile, I have always respected your past posts and wondered about your scarcity these days, because I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and information you bring about the Visa credit card system and the how the financial processes work in general. However, I think there's more at work here than just simply Visa authorizations.

I won't go into a long rant here but I will quickly point out that customers hear this over and over again from the bank, don't spend more money than you have. But then when the balance gets down to zero and the custoemr swipes that card again, that SAME BANK says, you want to spend more money than you have, even though we told you not to? Ok. Go right ahead. Ignore everything we've told you over and over again. Go right ahead and spend more money than you have, we'll LET you do it. Hmmm. Seems kind of fishy if you ask me.

Regarding your example of how this overspending causes fees, there's just one problem with your example. You mentioned 'all those smaller items start coming in to post against a $5 balance resulting in a number of fees'. Yes that is true. But if you examine many of these reports, many consumers expect this and accept THESE fees. The problem you failed to mention is even BEFORE these final items come in, you're ALSO charged fees for the INITIAL items which post, basically resulting in DOUBLE FEES. Why? All because the bank ALLOWED the customer to spend more than they had even though the bank told the customer NOT to, so the customer logically assumed the bank wouldn't LET THEM do just that. At least not by DEFAULT, without the customer's consent (OPT IN).

That's the ripoff here and the basic point of the OP.

This is the complaint you see all the time: Why does the bank continue to authorize transactions when the account is already overdrawn?

The simple answer is that it's because the account balance isn't overdrawn when you make the transaction due to the way that items post. If I have a $100 balance in my account today and I spend $65 at the grocery store and another $30 for a pair of shoes, the merchant doesn't receive those funds right away. They go into a pending status for up to 3 business days which prevents you from accessing those funds in the meantime. However, if the merchant doesn't collect the funds before those 3 days are up, then the funds are released to your account again so they can be used. So, if the grocery store doesn't collect it's $65 but the show store collects its $30, then on day 4 my balance will show as $70. If I'm not keeping a register, it's easy to go and spend a few dollars here and a few dollars there over the next few days thinking that my balance is $70, but then when the grocery store comes to collect the funds my balance goes back to the $5 it should be. Now all those smaller items start coming in to post against a $5 balance resulting in a number of fees.

Long story short, keep a register and don't spend money that you don't have.

And Charles, regarding the "credit cards for illegal immigrants" it's a misrepresentation of the story. BofA ran a pilot program where they were allowing customers to get a low balance fully secured credit card if they could provide 2 forms of identifying information other than a SSN. In fact, the Patriot Act requires that banks accept forms of ID other than an SSN, so this was perfectly legal. I appreciate that some illegal aliens may have been able to get cards under this program, but that wasn't the purpose of the program. If you have an issue with it, you should write your Congressman and ask that they amend or (preferably) repeal the Patriot Act.

Why do people defend this bank. Not only does this bank screw's legal people who live In the united states.

I heard sometime last year they give illegal immigrants credit cards. Bank of america screw's its own citizens of this country yet they give criminals credit cards with high credit limits.

That Is because bank of america are criminals themselves. It seems the illegal's are having It better then we are & that Is not right!.

Bank of america should close It's down for giving illegal criminals credit cards they are not entitle to! And employer's who employe illegal's should be fined million's.

It's amazing the government help's out illegal criminals but doesn't help the poor & homeless In the united states.

Why do people defend this bank. Not only does this bank screw's legal people who live In the united states.

I heard sometime last year they give illegal immigrants credit cards. Bank of america screw's its own citizens of this country yet they give criminals credit cards with high credit limits.

That Is because bank of america are criminals themselves. It seems the illegal's are having It better then we are & that Is not right!.

Bank of america should close It's down for giving illegal criminals credit cards they are not entitle to! And employer's who employe illegal's should be fined million's.

It's amazing the government help's out illegal criminals but doesn't help the poor & homeless In the united states.

Why do people defend this bank. Not only does this bank screw's legal people who live In the united states.

I heard sometime last year they give illegal immigrants credit cards. Bank of america screw's its own citizens of this country yet they give criminals credit cards with high credit limits.

That Is because bank of america are criminals themselves. It seems the illegal's are having It better then we are & that Is not right!.

Bank of america should close It's down for giving illegal criminals credit cards they are not entitle to! And employer's who employe illegal's should be fined million's.

It's amazing the government help's out illegal criminals but doesn't help the poor & homeless In the united states.

Why do people defend this bank. Not only does this bank screw's legal people who live In the united states.

I heard sometime last year they give illegal immigrants credit cards. Bank of america screw's its own citizens of this country yet they give criminals credit cards with high credit limits.

That Is because bank of america are criminals themselves. It seems the illegal's are having It better then we are & that Is not right!.

Bank of america should close It's down for giving illegal criminals credit cards they are not entitle to! And employer's who employe illegal's should be fined million's.

It's amazing the government help's out illegal criminals but doesn't help the poor & homeless In the united states.

I also am a customer of Bank of America and can attest first hand to a few of the ways they rip people off. The writer/reporter states that Bank Of America kept allowing charges against her banking account even though she had no money in the bank to cover the charges. As "Resty" put it, the writer should have kept on top of her account to avoid over-charges and the resulting penalty fees. I agree. However, as the writer states, Bank Of America should not have allowed any additional over-charges once the account had a negative balance - thus avoiding any further penalty fees. A part of the beauty of electronic banking is that the bank records of the account can be checked prior to approval and if there are insufficent funds to cover the purchase then the bank should refuse to allow the charge. Unfortunately this sort of thing is not unique to Bank Of America. I belive most banks do the same - but that still does not make it right. So yes, I too sympathize with the writer. She should learn from this experience and never do business with Bank Of America again - as I would (and do) suggest to everyone.

The biggest problem I see with Bank Of America is with what they do not tell you, and all of their many hidden charges and tricks. For just one instance, customers cannot pay their Bank Of America bill by telephone unless they are willing to pay a $15 convenience charge to do this. Why??? They charge you to take your money??? That isn't right no matter what. I cannot even find a way to pay them online any more. Bank Of America intentionally hides these things from you just so that you either have to pay the $15 convenience fee or pay their high dollar late fee because you can't get your payment to them in time. Do they really believe we're so stupid that we can't figure that out??? Oh, their most recent trick on me was to move my due date forward so that I was late in paying them and therefore, they charged me another late fee. I recently got so fed up with their tricks and deceit and drove 35 miles to their nearest facility just to pay them off (over $3,000) relating to my credit card account with them so that I could be through with them - at least on that account. I still have my home mortgage through them but once it's paid off I will never ever consider Bank Of America again for any type of financial service or anything else as far as that goes. I'd love to see them go belly up and eventually I believe all of their hidden charges, tricks and general chicken poop ways of doing business will catch up with them and they will fail. I just wish our countrys regulators and law makers would wake up and stop allowing Bank Of America and so many other businesses like them to continue ripping people off. It's too bad that we can't have a vote on the November ballot to allow or disallow them to remain in business. Until then, it's legal robery... Far gone are the days when your word meant something and a handshake sealed the deal.

Unfortunantly, not only are you responsible for the situation you are in - you are also incorrect about shutting off a debit card.

If your going to file reports, make sure to tell the truth.

With The Bad Reputation that Bank of America has Righteously Earned, here in Nevada, I feel your pain. Contact Secret Service, FBI, The Postal Inspectors and Download Form 3949A through Internal Revenue Service. Fill the form out, make a copy and send it to Internal Revenue Service Via Certified Mail and get a Return Reciept. Send all information to these agencies via Certified Mail. Once you do that File an online Complaint with Federal Trade Commission and keep them updated. It may take a few months, bu they will go through there records looking for other Customers like you, that they have taken unfair advantage of. Good Luck.

How did you overspend your accounts by $1000 and not know it?

I'm sure they probably forgot to tell you that if you start to write a check that you can't cover, that no one will rush out and stop you from writing it. A debit card is just a replacement for a check, and you should follow the same guidelines.

It's pretty clear from your post that you don't have any kind of track of what's in your account. Well, you can run your account that way if you choose, it's your right. But it costs a thousand dollars.

Any depositor can go into their bank pretty much anywhere and sit with a CSR and that person will give a tutorial in how to keep track of your balances correctly. Electronic banking adds great conveniences, but also brings with it additional responsibilities on the consumer side. If you are not willing to make the extra effort, you'd do yourself a favor to stick with writing checks and paying with cash. It's a thousand dollars cheaper.

Surely you had them arrested as they 'stole' from you right?

Here is where your troubles began...

"I ran out of funds in both checking accounts but when I was making purchases the bank kept 'APPROVING' those purchases..."

Why would you keep making purchases on an account that ran out of funds? You admitted that you overdrafted your account(s) and the overdraft fee was listed in the schedule that you were given when you opened your account.

NO one sho8ld have to tell you to keep an accurate record of what you deposit and what you spend.

There is no rip off here.How can you lay the blame on the bank because you're too irresponsible to take care of your own account? Whether you're 1cent over drawn or 100 dollars.....the fee is there. I dont understand how you can blame the bank.

You need to grow the hell up and keep a register of what you spend and deposit......then you need not to spend what you dont have and the ODF / NSF fees will be a thing of the past.