Capital One Bank Capital One allows you to use your debit card with no available funds, then slaps you with a charge for doing it! Internet

First of all let me clarify some things.

I paid my AAA bill using my DEBIT card one time because if I
mailed a check, it would have arrived late and I didnt want to pay a late fee.
AAA kept this information on file and without my permission used it for the
next payment. After this posting, AAA admitted the mistake and took my
information out of their computer system and THAT is why it came out without
me knowing. I am not an idiot. I know how much money I have and I am not in the
habit of spending more than I earn nor spending more than what is in my
account. If I cant pay cash, I dont buy it! A well-kept register wasnt the
issue, storing of payment information and then using it again without
authorization WAS!

I do know what a debit card is and I also know how the
system works and unless you TELL the bank that you do not want purchases to go
through if there are no funds available, your account is automatically set up
that way..end.. of.. story! I did read my TOS and nowhere does it mention
this little fun fact. After speaking to the branch manager, he told me that everybody
knows this already and that is just what they do unless they are told
otherwise.

I like how you try to tear my issue down into shreds so it
will fit in that small box of a mind you have. How do you think banks can
afford to give you a free checking account? Fees! Thats how! They set up
your account to hit you with overdraft fees, minimum balance fees, service fees
if you dont use your debit card 5 times a month or have a direct deposit at
least once a month and the list goes on and on. Another responder already
touched on this subject with the millions and millions banks make just off of
overdraft fees alone! And youre basically trying to say that I was hit because
I didnt keep a REGISTER! How do you know what I keep and what I dont keep? You
asked someone if they saw my agreement with my bank, well I ask you.. have YOU
been in my pocketbook? No I didnt think so.

Youre just another keyboard quarterback, ready to shoot
from the hip with nothing but a toy gun and a bad attitude.

So my last message to you is simply this:

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting

"That statement was made due to all the responses that ARE
directed at me..so in that case..it was about me..as well this entire
issue with what many of us feel the banks are getting away with is
about me..and anyone else who feels the same..

When somebody posts, it's not necessarily an attempt to wear you down. For example, in this thread you made assumptions that are not backed up by the available facts. Simply asking you about your assumptions is not an attempt to wear you down.

This isn't about YOU. As stated previously, you're not the first person here with misguided aspirations of a class-action lawsuit and you won't be the last. You're simply the one that is here now. When you're gone, we will respond to the person who takes your place, and so on and so on..."

Well I am still here..and looks like the banks are starting to make some changes..I guess the lawsuits and legislators are taking their toll on the banks..and this is only the beginning.

"And speaking of "crusades"..what exactly is yours? Are you a bank employee or a victim or a lawyer or a moderator?

A bank employee? I have never worked for a bank, have no aspirations to work for one and don't foresee myself ever applying to work for one. Frankly, I doubt that they would hire me even if I wanted to work for one.

A victim? Well, I did receive two overdraft charges when I was nineteen years old. Being young, I couldn't afford to pay out that kind of money on a regular basis and decided not to pay overdraft fees again. That's not to say that I haven't received overdraft fees. During the 2008 Memorial Day weekend, someone used my account information to pay their T-Mobile bill. The bank was quickly able to determine that was fraud and it wasn't too hard to track down the person who did it (they had the account number after all) and the O/D fees were reversed. I was also double charged for a $1,253 transaction but those fees were also reversed.

A lawyer? No, I'm a student working towards an MBA.

A moderator? Yes, but not for this site."

You still didn't answer the prime question..which is "what is your crusade?"  And nice to know the bank reversed your fees when the overdrafts were of no fault of your own. Seems the banks don't do that anymore...they just encourage overdrafting..cover any transactions without any concern for our money..and then pile on fees and leave us holding the bag..and that too will change soon.

It's good that you "decided" not to overdraft anymore..and it seems the banks are finally taking steps to limit their part in the cause of OD and the additional fees brought on by "tactics".

"I don't understand your reasoning for debating and your "futile" rebuttals against me. Or are you just hoping to wear me down and move on to the next? Perhaps you can clarify?

Your world ends with you, Ronny. That means that your perspective can be as open or as narrow-minded as you want it to be. If you cannot understand why I would wish to see people pay fewer overdraft fees to the bank or promote personal responsibility, then you are not open-minded enough and nothing I write will make you understand."

There is enough "pots calling kettles black" here to go around. I never mean to imply my world ends with me..but my motives here are to help..not insult and degrade..but I will fight fire with fire..and I will treat respect with respect.

Now whatever you think the banks are doing to promote personal responsibility I wish you would share..because the current tactics of fee-ing people into the poorhouse has done nothing but make the banks rich. Or wouldn't we be seeing a decline in the reports?

I tell you this..by next year..mark my words..if I am wrong I will come here and apologize and call myself a jackass...but you watch..the reports WILL decline..substantially.

"As long as it is done with integrity and respect and not condescending.

I believe that those questions were posed with integrity and respect and I don't see how they are condescending. Would you like to answer those questions now?"

Re ask the questions please..I lost track. if they are not facetious, sarcastic or belittling..I will answer with honesty and integrity.

"I shouldn't need to explain this as you seem to be reasonably
intelligent..but the example was only used to demonstrate my
point...which was that this gives a way to easier comprehend the amount
of money these fees represent...some defenders are making it seem that
hardly anyone overdrafts..so the "few" that do must be all at fault.
The dollar amount taken in clearly shows it had to be a large number of
customers that were paying these fees...unless it was just 38
billionaires each paying a billion dollars each??? Come on now..that
amount of money is staggering..and could have pulled Cali out of the
hole and left a nice surplus.

Of course those fees weren't paid by thirty-eight billionaires but they were paid by a clear minority of checking account users. We are all exposed to the same resequencing and deposit methods. The difference is that some of us choose to manage our finances so that we do not pay overdraft fees and others don't. If the people that are paying overdraft fees want to begin keeping their own money, then perhaps they should try the techniques practiced by those who don't pay the fees?"

We've been through this too many times..anyone interested in the facts and the truth..can read through all the reports and replies. But I will say it doesn't really matter much to the customers who were victims..or simply suffered financial loss due in full or partially to the tactics if the "majority" of other customer did not. If even ONE customer is taken advantage of and overcharged due to deception and manipulation..that is one too many. and the banks must be aware of this as it seems they are choosing a very 'convenient" time to make "voluntary" changes in policy now..wouldn't you agree?

"California's economic problems result from the politicians spending more than they take in while at the same time driving away high income producers. While both situations have roots in irresponsibility, they are not the same. People may not be able to control what their government does but they can choose to control what happens with their checking accounts."

They banks "overdrafted" (overextended).....California "overdrafted"(overextended)..same difference ...different circumstances.

The only difference when discussing a bank customer overdrafting (overextending) is they get charged fees and subject to tactics that maximize fees...the banks and california get bailed out by the people/congress.

"guess it is all
fair...a register surely might have helped the banks not get into the
hole they dug..you think??

Yes, but since when has it been in a politician's best interest not to spend money? This will continue to be the case so long as voters continue to reward failure."

Now on this point we are both on the same page.

"As a response to this..see the above response. However I think it is
apparent I used the word "few" being purely sarcastic in context...you
were able to tell...right?

Sometimes you write lucidly and sometimes you do not. I have no way of knowing what frame of mind you are in when you submit a particular post."

I'll give you a hint..when someone has pissed me off with nonsense..or has used insult instead of logic...I may not seem as lucid in my responses..but my "state of mind" is always the same. I can admit when I am wrong..if proven so..but my state of mind is to help with this issue the best way possible..not by belittling customers that have had financial loss.

"I don't fully understand this statement so I can't rebut it
with integrity..perhaps you can clarify? I think I defended all you
posted about me with honesty and integrity..and I can understand that
on both parts (mine and whomever I am debating with) can be taken out
of context or misinterpreted...but I in no way feel I am "resorting to
logical fallacies" or complaining about anything I am perceiving"..I
think I can state that with confidence unless reasonably convinced
otherwise...which I respectfully don't feel was the result of anything
in this post.

Let me make it simple for you. You make remarks about civility and treating others decently but you do not feel compelled to post under those same constraints. Wasn't it only a day or two that you referred to people who advocate strong financial management as sheer annoyances? Not only this, but you exaggerate the positions of those who disagree with you which is a logical fallacy whether you want to admit it or not. You want to have it both ways and that's simply hypocritical."

No...I really only want it one way..which would be civility..but I am not perfect and know this..I know I can be harsh and sarcastic at times...but I see the truth..and that is really what counts. And using the term "sheer annoyances" knowing me was not directed at anyone personally..nor someone who came here to report a rip off..is already upset..and suffered a loss..only to be kicked around by know it alls that really do not understand..or refuse to understand the post..and really don't care about anything but making sure the customer will believe they hold ALL the blame..and the bank is perfect. That is proving as self evident not to be the case as the banks begin one after the other..to change their policies to the fair way we always were asking for..nothing unreasonable at all.

That statement was made due to all the responses that ARE directed at me..so in that case..it was about me..as well this entire issue with what many of us feel the banks are getting away with is about me..and anyone else who feels the same..
When somebody posts, it's not necessarily an attempt to wear you down. For example, in this thread you made assumptions that are not backed up by the available facts. Simply asking you about your assumptions is not an attempt to wear you down.
This isn't about YOU. As stated previously, you're not the first person here with misguided aspirations of a class-action lawsuit and you won't be the last. You're simply the one that is here now. When you're gone, we will respond to the person who takes your place, and so on and so on...

And speaking of "crusades"..what exactly is yours? Are you a bank employee or a victim or a lawyer or a moderator?
A bank employee? I have never worked for a bank, have no aspirations to work for one and don't foresee myself ever applying to work for one. Frankly, I doubt that they would hire me even if I wanted to work for one.
A victim? Well, I did receive two overdraft charges when I was nineteen years old. Being young, I couldn't afford to pay out that kind of money on a regular basis and decided not to pay overdraft fees again. That's not to say that I haven't received overdraft fees. During the 2008 Memorial Day weekend, someone used my account information to pay their T-Mobile bill. The bank was quickly able to determine that was fraud and it wasn't too hard to track down the person who did it (they had the account number after all) and the O/D fees were reversed. I was also double charged for a $1,253 transaction but those fees were also reversed.
A lawyer? No, I'm a student working towards an MBA.
A moderator? Yes, but not for this site.

I don't understand your reasoning for debating and your "futile" rebuttals against me. Or are you just hoping to wear me down and move on to the next? Perhaps you can clarify?
Your world ends with you, Ronny. That means that your perspective can be as open or as narrow-minded as you want it to be. If you cannot understand why I would wish to see people pay fewer overdraft fees to the bank or promote personal responsibility, then you are not open-minded enough and nothing I write will make you understand.

As long as it is done with integrity and respect and not condescending.
I believe that those questions were posed with integrity and respect and I don't see how they are condescending. Would you like to answer those questions now?

I shouldn't need to explain this as you seem to be reasonably intelligent..but the example was only used to demonstrate my point...which was that this gives a way to easier comprehend the amount of money these fees represent...some defenders are making it seem that hardly anyone overdrafts..so the "few" that do must be all at fault. The dollar amount taken in clearly shows it had to be a large number of customers that were paying these fees...unless it was just 38 billionaires each paying a billion dollars each??? Come on now..that amount of money is staggering..and could have pulled Cali out of the hole and left a nice surplus.
Of course those fees weren't paid by thirty-eight billionaires but they were paid by a clear minority of checking account users. We are all exposed to the same resequencing and deposit methods. The difference is that some of us choose to manage our finances so that we do not pay overdraft fees and others don't. If the people that are paying overdraft fees want to begin keeping their own money, then perhaps they should try the techniques practiced by those who don't pay the fees?
California's economic problems result from the politicians spending more than they take in while at the same time driving away high income producers. While both situations have roots in irresponsibility, they are not the same. People may not be able to control what their government does but they can choose to control what happens with their checking accounts.

guess it is all fair...a register surely might have helped the banks not get into the hole they dug..you think??
Yes, but since when has it been in a politician's best interest not to spend money? This will continue to be the case so long as voters continue to reward failure.

As a response to this..see the above response. However I think it is apparent I used the word "few" being purely sarcastic in context...you were able to tell...right?
Sometimes you write lucidly and sometimes you do not. I have no way of knowing what frame of mind you are in when you submit a particular post.

I don't fully understand this statement so I can't rebut it with integrity..perhaps you can clarify? I think I defended all you posted about me with honesty and integrity..and I can understand that on both parts (mine and whomever I am debating with) can be taken out of context or misinterpreted...but I in no way feel I am "resorting to logical fallacies" or complaining about anything I am perceiving"..I think I can state that with confidence unless reasonably convinced otherwise...which I respectfully don't feel was the result of anything in this post.
Let me make it simple for you. You make remarks about civility and treating others decently but you do not feel compelled to post under those same constraints. Wasn't it only a day or two that you referred to people who advocate strong financial management as sheer annoyances? Not only this, but you exaggerate the positions of those who disagree with you which is a logical fallacy whether you want to admit it or not. You want to have it both ways and that's simply hypocritical.

AAA was supposed to debit 5 days later (after we got paid) so  yes we KNEW it was coming, just not so soon.

Second of all upon my investigation, Capital One pays all your higher charges first to guarantee your smaller debits bounce allowing them to collect more fees. The banks that took bailout money are expected to earn 38 billion dollars this year  on overdraft charges alone... did Capital One ASK me if I wanted over draft protection? No! Yet they included it so these things would happen..Now Chase and BOA to get around regulation are asking their customers if they want this service, but not Capital One.

I'm not an idiot and I do keep my book balanced, I am just unhappy with what happened and wanted to see if it happened to anyone else.    

If a reply is directed at me..I will respond...

"I know some of you are trying to wear me down... But it won't work."

Get over yourself. This has nothing to do with YOU. You're not the first user here on a futile crusade against the banks and you certainly won't be the last. You're simply the one who is here at the moment.

Response: That statement was made due to all the responses that ARE directed at me..so in that case..it was about me..as well this entire issue with what many of us feel the banks are getting away with is about me..and anyone else who feels the same..

And speaking of "crusades"..what exactly is yours? Are you a bank employee or a victim or a lawyer or a moderator? I don't understand your reasoning for debating and your "futile" rebuttals against me. Or are you just hoping to wear me down and move on to the next? Perhaps you can clarify?

 

I simply asked you questions based on your unsubstantiated conclusions. That isn't a problem, is it?

As long as it is done with integrity and respect and not condescending..I have no problem with it at all. If not...I will respond with equal treatment. If I have failed at treating you equally at any point..I do apologize.

"Just a little trivia based on statistics.. I live in California..the state is essentially bankrupt..run by tax and spend morons..failing like the banks were. The amount the state is short by (and this is a huge state with huge population)..is LESS then what the bank took in from overdraft fees in 2009. Impressive job I must say..the bonuses will be huge..will they not? "

California's budget problems are due to (as you suggest) spending more than they have. The banks were failing due to government regulations. You're talking apples and oranges here. The two points have nothing to do with each other.

I shouldn't need to explain this as you seem to be reasonably intelligent..but the example was only used to demonstrate my point...which was that this gives a way to easier comprehend the amount of money these fees represent...some defenders are making it seem that hardly anyone overdrafts..so the "few" that do must be all at fault. The dollar amount taken in clearly shows it had to be a large number of customers that were paying these fees...unless it was just 38 billionaires each paying a billion dollars each??? Come on now..that amount of money is staggering..and could have pulled Cali out of the hole and left a nice surplus.

Yes I am fully aware that California's FAILURES and the banks FAILURES are for different reasons..and I never implied the were not...but they both were nonetheless FAILURES and the result of irresponsible financial management..I guess a fair comparison would be exactly what the banks and bank defenders are accusing bank customers of doing. Yet they needed our tax dollars to bail many of them out...guess it is all fair...a register surely might have helped the banks not get into the hole they dug..you think??

"The banks took in fees over 38 billion. Yeah a few people can't keep a register..that's the whole problem..yeah I buy that."

A few people? Those are your words. However, if you compare the people who pay overdraft fees to the people who choose not to, you'll find that the fee payers are far fewer in number.

As a response to this..see the above response. However I think it is apparent I used the word "few" being purely sarcastic in context...you were able to tell...right?

You wrote this to Robert:

"And, I thank you for responding with respect..that adds validity and displays a genuine comment or rebuttal."

That would almost be believable if you hadn't posted this earlier:

"Oh wait, I forgot if anyone
makes a mistake or an oversight they are irresponsible felons..and
careless with their money and have wild parties in other peoples
mansions"

How does my earlier posting discredit me thanking Robert for his respectful response. Me making a sarcastic remark about how the banks get away with making errors or oversights with full forgiveness as opposed to how many customers are treated if the shoe is on the other foot had no way with intent meant to insult Robert. And I think the point was well made. And me mentioning what the banker did with the stockholders foreclosed property is true....and we all should be concerned..and angry this is what is going on while the customers are fearing their meager paychecks could be fee'd into oblivion due to an error or oversight with their balance and/or register..that is all I meant to imply...sorry YOU took it wrong..I hope Robert had no issue in this case.


You want to be able to resort to logical fallacies but you also want to complain about perceived slights against you. Do you not see the double standards that you use

I don't fully understand this statement so I can't rebut it with integrity..perhaps you can clarify? I think I defended all you posted about me with honesty and integrity..and I can understand that on both parts (mine and whomever I am debating with) can be taken out of context or misinterpreted...but I in no way feel I am "resorting to logical fallacies" or complaining about anything I am perceiving"..I think I can state that with confidence unless reasonably convinced otherwise...which I respectfully don't feel was the result of anything in this post.

Ok. I don't much care for idiots who b***h and say "You should have balanced your register dumbass" or anything of that flavor or tone.

Most people DO keep track of their finances, not all of us are irresponsible assholes trying to rob the banks of their money.

That being said, banks do tend to rearrange debits to the point where they get maximum fees, and this is totally unfair. It's especially frustrating when these fees occur when you've been ripped off. Filing a claim doesn't do jack s**t, if the banks are the ones who rip you off, they don't give a d**n.

A good bank will decline a debit card if there are insufficient funds. End of discussion.
A fair bank will charge ONE overdraft fee, per transaction, processing the SMALLEST TRANSACTIONS FIRST!
A bad bank does neither, and doesn't give two figs.

Also, most banks DO posit their accounts in a way which offers "Overdraft Protection", when they're not protecting you, they're doing you more harm than good.

Ronny wrote...

"I know some of you are trying to wear me down... But it won't work."

Get over yourself. This has nothing to do with YOU. You're not the first user here on a futile crusade against the banks and you certainly won't be the last. You're simply the one who is here at the moment.

I simply asked you questions based on your unsubstantiated conclusions. That isn't a problem, is it?

"Just a little trivia based on statistics.. I live in California..the state is essentially bankrupt..run by tax and spend morons..failing like the banks were. The amount the state is short by (and this is a huge state with huge population)..is LESS then what the bank took in from overdraft fees in 2009. Impressive job I must say..the bonuses will be huge..will they not? "

California's budget problems are due to (as you suggest) spending more than they have. The banks were failing due to government regulations. You're talking apples and oranges here. The two points have nothing to do with each other.

"The banks took in fees over 38 billion. Yeah a few people can't keep a register..that's the whole problem..yeah I buy that."

A few people? Those are your words. However, if you compare the people who pay overdraft fees to the people who choose not to, you'll find that the fee payers are far fewer in number.

You wrote this to Robert:

"And, I thank you for responding with respect..that adds validity and displays a genuine comment or rebuttal."

That would almost be believable if you hadn't posted this earlier:

"Oh wait, I forgot if anyone
makes a mistake or an oversight they are irresponsible felons..and
careless with their money and have wild parties in other peoples
mansions"

You want to be able to resort to logical fallacies but you also want to complain about perceived slights against you. Do you not see the double standards that you use?

 

And, I thank you for responding with respect..that adds validity and displays a genuine comment or rebuttal.

With that said..I will try to as briefly as I can..respond you your statements..

I do not feel "cornered"..but I do feel like at times others are trying to discredit me personally or my advice by using generic "bank" defenses...or manipulating the meaning of my statements (kinda of like the bank, ironically)..or outright misunderstanding..or simply not comprehending..yes it gets old and tiresome..but I have a lot of energy, I am quite mentally and physically fit.

I will conceded there are reports I find that seem questionable..and if you see me respond to those..I never assume or jump to conclusions..I always ask the poster for more details..and I will not rebut them, blame them OR the bank unless I have enough information. I agree some posters are at fault..and I will stick to my guns that some are victims..and I do believe many of the banks tactics constitute a ripoff...I feel this 100% without wavering.

You stated....

"Someone who INTENTIONALLY overdrafts their account is not a victim"

Why not?? If the bank is providing a service..and calling this service "overdraft PROTECTION"  and in writing specifies the fee for this "service"..does it not imply overdrafts are going to occur? Does this make a person who overdrafts a criminal?

Now I agree..if a person intentionally overdrafts their account..they are not a victim of anything..IF they were only charged a fee for that overdraft..but this is often not the case..and the customer does not understand why..and whether you agree to this or not does not matter..as the VICTIM for whatever reason was not aware this happens..and it is not like the bank advertises this is what will happen if they use the "service" for any reason. THEN when they call the bank in tears as to why all the additional fees...the bank at times will not even explain it in a way that tells the whole truth..or the customer simply does not understand as after years and years with the same bank..or a young person with a first time account..had never experienced this. So what does the bank do next?? Tell them it is all their fault and they need to use a register...perhaps some do..and perhaps some have been using one..but regardless the bank did take all those fees..right? You honestly can say in your heart the bank shares no blame at all in these instances? I know I can not from what I can see..and it may take more to decide this then you or I.

"Someone who does not keep a register is not a victim."

Respectfully disagree..I can not agree this is always the case. If the bank is offering a service (well actually FORCING it on us)..and charges a fee for it..and does not explain the consequences until AFTER the damage is done..then they hold some responsibility, and this will be a major focal point in the cases.

As well...to say "a checking account is not a loan source" is questionable. Because if they are covering a check or debit card transaction when funds were not available..I do not know what else to call it..regardless if it is interest..a fee..or a fine..they loaned money to cover a transaction..and many times the customer was not even aware the bank would..once again until it was too late...their fault for not reading or understanding the banks terms? (assuming they didn't impose changes the customer was unaware of)..perhaps...but I don't think this completely gets the bank off the hook..they shared a part in causing the event, and charging for it.

Now if the bank had bounced a check that did not have the funds..or denied a debit card that did not have funds..then the customer is not a victim.. as there was no ripoff or misleading involved.

As far as your example with the carpool lane..I agree..but what if in addition to all the fines and costs associated, the court gave 10 more $350 dollar fines..and when the defendant protests..the judge states "well you shouldn't have drove in the carpool lane..you caused all this". So the analogy can work both ways..remember this is exactly how the (I won't call them victims to appease you) customers feel when this happens to them.

As far as your statement "I can also guarantee you that a lot of these people who don't keep a register or "forget" about withdraws that are coming out, spend more time each day trying to figure out what is on TV than they do looking at their account(s)."...I can agree..but you say "a lot" which means not all....now I don't think anyone deserves what some of these banks are pulling on them..but at the same time I understand there are circumstances and different situations where some of the blame is shared..or it falls on one or the other.

Now it doesn't matter to anyone who feels they were victimized by the banks to hear that the majority of account holders do not overdraft their account..not should they be owed any sympathy by anyone who has never overdrafted..but there is at times very condescending insulting and belittling comments and getting personal attacks when the person replying does not know all the facts..and does not even know if a register was used or not..or if it would have made a difference. I don't think the people who post here are all just ignorant and careless wild spending bank haters..nor am I presumptuous either way..I just feel they deserve respect as human beings..that can err or have oversight..and could have been a victim of some banks tactics and rude employees..or perhaps were totally at fault..either way..they will learn nothing from a mean spirited reply but to have even more anger instead of perhaps understanding their part in the event..and perhaps even come to terms with it.

"The people who live paycheck to paycheck, who freak out if that paycheck 2-3 days late.  If they have $3 in their account, they have a choice to go out and get a $6-$10 Fast Food meal or eat a $1 box of macaroni and cheese.  They have a choice of planning ahead, or not to where they may give themselves a small cushion.  Your other "case" is if someone needs a Tow and has no money.  Okay so let's say they don't have the account to begin with.  What would they do then?"

For the first part of this reply...if a person needs to eat or feed their family..sure they need to have a cushion and plan for it..or beg..but if the bank takes thier next 2 or 3 paychecks in fees because of their policies that the customer was unaware of..or something unforeseeable happens and the bank is unforgiving or tells them to "file a claim" instead of giving quick emergency assistance...I don't know how i feel about this..the example is a bit extreme...but it happens..we read here enough..I imagine it happens more that are not reporting here..sad either way.

As far as the "tow" example..if they had no account to begin with they would still be better off then if they did have an account..and intentionally overdrafted to get the tow believing it would only cost them 35.00 for the intentional emergency overdraft..and then be hit with 10 overdraft fees the next day they had no idea the bank would charge..that is my response and it holds.

To respond to your last paragraph..it does not matter that a debit card is not a right..and of course there are no laws that require a bank to give one. But that doesn't give the banks the right to abuse their customers..just like the customer should not abuse the card.

Now if the gov. does put in regulations to take away a card that is being abused,,so be it..that is fair. But if the terms and disclosures we are proposing congress to force into change as the banks policies..at least it would be a big help in cutting down the fees for those that do not understand the way re-sequencing works with overdrafting..and that overdraft protection of this type should not be mandatory..not only that..it should NOT be given to any customer until they are offered the choice to except it..and sign for it specifically. Now if this was the way it worked..and the banks did not re-sequence highest to lowest..then yes, I would agree for the most part that an overdraft at that point might constitute neglect and/or abuse..as well since the card will mostly be declined in the event..and if a single overdraft was to occur and the bank did not hold and manipulate anything for intent of maximizing fees..how can this be a bad thing for anyone? And is it that unreasonable? Would anyone but the bank not be okay with those reasonable changes in terms and disclosures? Sure the banks would not collect near as much fees..but this way if a customer manages to overdraft..the bank can charge a fee per LEGITIMATE overdraft...and that is fair and not a rip off.

wouldn't you NOW agree?

Ronnie, I don't think anyone is trying to wear you down, as sometimes you do appear to use some logic.  In fact I think that deep down you really want to agree that it is the Account Holder is the primary person responsible for the fees that they incur.  But you have gotten yourself into a corner and trying to find a way out.  As such you are trying to use this "victim" mentality.

Someone who INTENTIONALLY overdrafts their account is not a victim

Someone who does not keep a register is not a victim.

A Checking Account is not a loan source.  You can try and justify an "Intended" Overdraft anyway you want.  It does not take away the fact that the account holder did it to themselves.  If they want to take the responsibility of over drafting their account, they need to take the responsibility for fully understanding(not just what they think) the consequences are.  Since you also live in CA you are well aware of Carpool lanes on the freeway.  Using your logic a single person could go into the Carpool lane because they feel that if they got caught it would only be a $350 ticket.  But the consequences are that they also have to pay court fees, take time off of work, and their insurance could go up.  All of those are unintended consequences, but because they chose to take their action they have deal with them.  I can also guarantee you that a lot of these people who don't keep a register or "forget" about withdraws that are coming out, spend more time each day trying to figure out what is on TV than they do looking at their account(s).

Since a majority of account holders do not overdraft their account, you are not going to get a lot of sympathy from people who actually manage their accounts.  Which are also the same people who very often have to make tough choices in how to spend their money.  This is different than people who unintentionally overdraft(although it is still their fault because they didn't keep track of their money).  Most banks will refund some or all of the fees the first time, it is then up to the account holder to learn what they did, so that it does not happen again.  Which is what several people attempt to point out and show how to avoid these fees in the future.

The people who live paycheck to paycheck, who freak out if that paycheck 2-3 days late.  If they have $3 in their account, they have a choice to go out and get a $6-$10 Fast Food meal or eat a $1 box of macaroni and cheese.  They have a choice of planning ahead, or not to where they may give themselves a small cushion.  Your other "case" is if someone needs a Tow and has no money.  Okay so let's say they don't have the account to begin with.  What would they do then? 

A Debit Card is not a right, there is NO law that requires a bank to give an account holder a debit card.  If the government puts in regulations, the banks will counter by taking away debit cards from people who have shown they can not handle them.  Although in thinking about that it may not be a bad thing.   Just look at the so called "credit card reform".  The government put in very light legislation and several credit card companies thanked some account holders by either closing their account or raising their interest rate.  Both of which was totally allowed and legal.  You really think that banks are going to keep accounts open of people who constantly overdraft?  You really think they are not going to charge fees in other ways, to the point of putting the burden on everyone not just the people who overdraft.  How would that be "fair" to the account holders who never overdraft. 

But it won't work..it won't help the victims..and it won't convince the victims..they know the banks part..and if not I made it very clear.

Just a little trivia based on statistics..

I live in California..the state is essentially bankrupt..run by tax and spend morons..failing like the banks were.

The amount the state is short by (and this is a huge state with huge population)..is LESS then what the bank took in from overdraft fees in 2009. Impressive job I must say..the bonuses will be huge..will they not?


"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California, which is struggling to close a $24.3 billion budget gap"

The banks took in fees over 38 billion. Yeah a few people can't keep a register..that's the whole problem..yeah I buy that.

From your response to Jim:

     "since I think it quite unfair and misleading that the bank told them this is the reason they have to have the protection..yet did not inform them that it can cause many additional fees and wreak financial havoc on a paycheck to paycheck customer.."

How do you know this? Do you have a copy of their terms and conditions?

     "Now...as far as a register helping this poster in any way is beyond me."

Entering the automatic payment in their register would have helped. 

     "They were unaware of the AAA charge coming in..can happen right?"

Untrue. If they authorized AAA to debit their account then they were very aware of upcoming debit. The OP says that they weren't expecting the debit but does not provide any additional information as to when they expected the debit and why it would be on the date that they had in mind. Account holder error? I have no idea but they most definitely knew that they authorized AAA to debit their account.

     "Oh wait, I forgot if anyone makes a mistake or an oversight they are irresponsible felons..and careless with their money and have wild parties in other peoples mansions"

You were doing so well for a few days and now you resort to strawman arguments.

     "But anyhoo...these things happen, we see it all the time here..correct?...and apparently the poster was not even aware they had overdraft protection..and why would the bank want them to know?"

How do you know that they were unaware of overdraft protection? Have you seen the account agreement that they signed with the bank?

Jim stated near the end of his comment...

"Since unintended overdrafts are caused by people who don't keep a check register"

Granted..my reply used an an example an intended overdraft..I used that as an example because the bank was feeding them some kind of hogwash malarkey about "what if it was an emergency and you needed in the money even though there was none in your account?". My example somewhat debunked that cop out....since I think it quite unfair and misleading that the bank told them this is the reason they have to have the protection..yet did not inform them that it can cause many additional fees and wreak financial havoc on a paycheck to paycheck customer..but I guess that would be all the customers fault..right Jim? The bank did nothing wrong at all.

Now...as far as a register helping this poster in any way is beyond me. They were unaware of the AAA charge coming in..can happen right? Oh wait, I forgot if anyone makes a mistake or an oversight they are irresponsible felons..and careless with their money and have wild parties in other peoples mansions..oh wait, sorry.. I forgot the bank executives can only get away with that.

But anyhoo...these things happen, we see it all the time here..correct?...and apparently the poster was not even aware they had overdraft protection..and why would the bank want them to know?..because maybe they would find out that it is pure BS and designed to do nothing more the rip them off in the event they need it. But since the poster was unaware they even had this protection..how on Gods green earth would a register have helped? Keep in mind they we all know they had an oversight with the AAA payment..an oversight yes..but nothing a register would have helped. The true preventative would have been the bank declining the use of their debit (aka credit?)card when the funds were not there..wouldn't you agree?

WOW in Canada a Debit card allows you access to your chequing account or savings account. In the USA recently I found people call credit cards Debit cards. Anyway unless you set up overdraft protection in general you can't go over. It just comes back to the machine as insuficiant funds. Thus no purchase is possible.

To begin with, the case you refer to has nothing to do with what happened to you; the case is Closson vs. BofA and it referred to the bank's lack of providing adequate disclosure regarding fees.  In that case, the prosecution in court stipulated to the fact that the bank's policies were LEGAL - their problem was with the way in which fees were disclosed.  Before the decision was rendered, the bank settled and everyone in the class received $78.00.  This year, Wells Fargo decided not to settle (Gutierrez vs. Wells Fargo) and the bank won citing the fact that the class members did not exercise due diligence (keeping a check register) that would have prevented them from overdrafting.  Accordingly, a class action lawsuit would not help you.

Next, your statement, "it's a debit card NOT a credit card" is proof positive you don't know what a debit card is.  A debit card is just like an electronic check; it allows the account holder to pay for anything they wish - regardless of whether you have money in your account - or not.  Each time you use it, it's almost like writing a check, so when you do overdraft, you get hit hard.

Next, there's no way AAA could have debited your checking account without your knowledge.  In order for them to do so means they got your account information in some manner.  There's no way they could have hit your account unless you gave them that information.  So how exactly could it be unexpected?  Maybe you didn't know it was going to hit on the day you thought.  NEVER give your information to anyone unless you know 100% for certain when the money will be withdrawn.

Since you don't know what a debit card REALLY is, you should stop using it for everything except to pull money from an ATM.  People who live paycheck to paycheck or can't afford the hundreds in fees they're charged should not use a debit card.  Stick to checks and cash.  Since unintended overdrafts are caused by people who don't keep a check register, you would do yourself well by keeping a register as well.  There is a lesson here:  I suggest learning from it.  A lawsuit isn't it.