CHASE Manager at Chase "we clear debits/checks by the LARGEST amount first, not in order in which the charges hit the bank! That $4 coffee at SBux & $6 at Chic-fil-a just cost you $70 in overdrafts! Overdrafts, erroneous fees!!!! atlanta, Georgia

Julianna, I had a similar experience with Chase.  Instead of declining new transactions, they just honor them and hit you with an overdraft fee.  I refuse to pay any fees incurred as a result of their dishonest practices.  If they want to volunteer to cover unsecured transactions with their money, fine, but they had better not expect their customers to pay them a usurious fee for the "privilege!"  I am no longer a customer.

Chase is probably not going to change their practices.  This seems to be their MO and there are a LOT of unhappy former customers.  Just do everyone you know a favor and tell them not to bank there.  That $70+ somebody saves in overdraft fees could pay for a really nice Christmas gift for you :)

Edward explained it very well. I too did not want to mention about WAMU because I have been conducting a little "investigation"..or "experiment" you might say..but now the cat is out of the bag. A wamu right near my house has just became a "Chase" branch. I went in and opened a "free" checking account with $30.00.  Now bear in mind...ALL the employees in that bank...manager level and down..were recently WAMU employees..and really only know WAMU policies. The T&C documents are also WAMU policy I assume..because NO WHERE in ANY documentation they gave me..and they gave me plenty..does it mention re-sequencing. So I asked the banker who was signing me up if they re-sequence transactions from highest to lowest..he didn't even seem to understand the question. So I asked 2 different tellers..they looked at me like I was crazy..they never heard of such a thing. Next I asked the bank Manager..who said and I quote "no, we do not re-sequence anything..all transactions will process in the order as they are received". I do not use the account much..I was just waiting to see what happens. Well now I am starting to read reports that WAMU customers are complaining that all of a sudden..without their knowledge or consent..that WAMU since joining with Chase..has been re-sequencing transactions from highest to lowest..and they have been charged fees for transactions that did have funds available..and cleared. Now I know some of the bank defenders have such a hard time understanding how someone can complain about an overdraft "fee"..and always ask "how is this the banks fault?" As well the bank defenders seem to have no understanding that the posters know and accept the fact that they overdrafted..and in good faith make a deposit and are willing to pay the FEE for the LEGITIMATE overdraft as per their agreement with the bank. Not too hard to understand..is it? AND...simply telling a poster that reports here "it's your fault for overdrafting etc"..does not a bit of good..and does not take away one tiny bit of the fact that they FEEL a RIPOFF occurred..as the definition of a RIP OFF is... "A ripoff (or rip-off ) is a bad deal. Usually it refers to
an incident in which a person pays too much for something. A ripoff is
distinguished from a scam in that a scam involves wrongdoing such as fraud ; a ripoff, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder . I am really sick of typing this over and over and over..maybe some defenders can get it through their thick skulls..THE COMPLAINT IS NOT ABOUT BLAMING THE BANK FOR AN OVERDRAFT FEE !!!! The complaints are regarding the fact that when an overdraft does occur..that due to the manipulations done by the bank ..they were charged EXCESSIVE FEES for transactions that DID HAVE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION..and if not for the re-sequencing IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE TRANSACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED OVERDRAFTS...BECAUSE OVERDRAFT FEES APPLY TO TRANSACTIONS THAT DO NOT HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE..hence IF THE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE and processed CLEAR, THERE IS NO WAY BUT BY TIME MANIPULATION that can POSSIBLY result in those transactions being considered an overdraft. As well..many customer do not understand why transactions were continued to be allowed to go through once the account balance reached zero.in other words they never requested to be enrolled in any type of overdraft protection...the bank gets away with it by calling it a "courtesy" and many banks made the service mandatory for every single one of it's customers..but really...how can they call it "protection"..which when combined with the term "courtesy" would inply they care about us and our money..when think about it...what if the debit card was stolen..how long would it be allowed to be used past zero balance before the customer was notified that there is suspicious activity?..or that the bank would consider to deny a transaction for a freaking cup of coffee that could be costing an unware customer $35.00....come on now..you all can't believe the bank is that stupid..would you now? Or believe the bank thinks the customer wanted by INTENT to pay 35 dollars for a soda?? Lets get real people. And THIS is why the banks themselves are starting to voluntarily change policies..because the scam has been EXPOSED...too many complaints, too many lawsuits...congress is on the war path..and the gravy train is coming to end end..over 38.5 BILLION this year in fees...I think they did alright. Yes..overdraft fees can and will still occur..but our money will be safer..and the fees will be fair and within reason. Now if a customer CHOOSES to opt out of courtesy OD protection..any transactions at a point of sale...or an ATM , where according to the FDIC report most ODs happen... transactions will simply be declined..saving the customer a potential bundle in fees...and truly protecting our money (especially those who keep a low balance) against most types of theft and merchant holds and trickery, or any means that can cause an overdraft..to prevent the card from continuing being approved when there are no funds left.. Once re-sequencing is dealt with (B of A for example will be stopping this practice soon) and the banks stop this unfair tactic used primarily to fleece low income and low balance customers..THEN perhaps overdraft protection will be a possible consideration for those most at risk for overdrafting. Should I type this again slowly so some of you can understand?????????

I don't understand the problem.  If you know you have $100. in your account, and debits out for $100. Don't  spend $1. until you deposit the extra dollar. 

Can you imagine how fast banks would fail if they covered every bounced check for everyone who said OOPS?  You admit you forgot about a $40.00 debit so you were bounced there. Then went debiting your Starbucks and such. 

How is this a banks fault?

YOU CONTINUE WEARING IN YOUR LIFE, HUH?

To Edgeman, by the same token, something else that's irrefutable. There's no need for banks to re-sequence transactions from largest to smallest, when everything will be paid, and nothing returned anyway, thanks to all of the mandatory OD protection and Courtesy Overdraft being forced and shoved down the customer's throat.

On many of these re-sequencing ROR reports, many are quick to jump on with the same comments about not bothering to complain or look for alternatives because all banks are the same, and they all re-sequence transactions. In the past I routinely countered this false claim. To remain unbiased, I tried not to name names, until I was forced to do so, because many claimed I was simply blowing smoke. Thus, I revealed that WAMU was one of those few banks that did not re-sequence transactions, and there were a few others. Now here's your confirmation with this report. With WAMU, this customer's transactions were always processed in the order they occurred. How was WAMU able to do this? How could WAMU keep up with checks the customer had written? How was WAMU able to do this when some merchants wait longer than others to submit their batches? I digress.

After Chase bought WAMU, this customer's transactions are now re-sequenced in order of largest to smallest. This of course is new to them, because it never happened at WAMU, even up to the day WAMU closed its doors. Oh, but wait. It has now been announced by Chase that starting next year, they too will revert to posting transactions in the order they're received or the order they occur. What? How will Chase be able to do this? How will Chase be able to keep up with checks the customer has written? How will Chase be able to do this when some merchants wait longer than others to submit their batches? I digress.....again.

Oh yeah, since all banks are 'supposedly the same', and they all copy each other, I guess it's a matter of time before the others follow Chase's lead. But how will these other banks be able to do this? How will these other banks be able to .........

And Kathie made a point that you have yet to refute - The processing order doesn't matter so long as one stays within their available balance. The vast majority of people with checking accounts do this and as a result they don't pay overdraft fees despite being exposed to the same processing techniques as the people who do pay overdraft fees. No worries about the space-time continuum, it continues to flow as it always has.

Things haven't changed as much as you may think. Customers are still going to have to be extremely careful when managing their finances. Banks are still processing from highest to lowest. Customers can still be assessed copious overdraft fees. I also think that in time you'll find that people who do not wish to manage their finances will have a hard time even getting a checking account. That's probably for the best, if they are unwilling to keep track of their money then a checking account is not the right tool for them to use.

Kathie, Did you 'Google' this- INSIDE THE MELTDOWN, and watch it on the web yet? Did you 'Google' this- THE OBAMA DECEPTION, and watch that one yet? Did you 'Google' this one- AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM, and watch it?

The poster knows there was an overdraft...the poster does not need to be told not to overdraft..that is NOT what this report is about..did you even read it????

The poster understood there was going to be a $35.00 fee for the accidental overdraft as per the agreement she signed with WAMU. After all...they call it "courtesy overdraft protection..right??

What the complaint is about, and the crux of the "rip-off"..is that apparently when WAMU got involved with Chase..a policy change came into effect the poster was unaware of..I like to call it 'the re-sequencing SCAM".

How it works in a nutshell..and at the risk of oversimplifying..is that the bank can legally alter time itself..and hence be able to rob the customer. What they will do by re-ordering and manipulating the transactions is in effect take transactions that had the funds available at the time of the transaction and were cleared...and alter time to where they are considered an overdraft..and hence the excessive fees are applied. How can they charge an overdrat if funds were there?? Only by time manipulation..otherwise it would be IMPOSSIBLE to incur an overdraft when funds are there at the time and cleared.

Now many feel this is an unfair tactic used by many banks to fleece struggling customers who keep a low balance on their checking accounts..and generally do not have a savings account to transfer overdrafts from..so it really takes a financial toll on these customers..the banks sometimes will refund some or all of the fees..but typically will not..at least not without a fight.

The good news is due to so many complaints of how this is hurting customers during an economic crisis..and pressure from congress (there will be legislative changes happening by early next year)..and many many pending lawsuits..a few banks have started "VOLUNTARILY"  changing policies to better protect their customers money..which is what a bank should be doing in it's very nature.

Now the way the SCAM works is not regarding re-sequencing on it's own..but when re-sequencing is combined with mandatory courtesy overdraft protection...which is what brings on the 35 dollar cup of coffee and diapers. As well..the bank will not inform you when overdrafts are occurring..they "legally" get away with this by "enrolling" you in courtesy overdraft protection..which makes overdrafts "pre-authorized" in the eyes of the bank..way to go..so if someone steals my debit card they can have a field day even after my balance is below zero...wonderful "protection" would you not agree?

So what is happening now...and with many banks by next year..is you will be allowed to opt out of courtesy overdraft protection..which is the SAFEST and best way to actually "protect" your checking account..until re-sequencing scams are dealt with. I believe B of A is going to be the first to stop the tactics of re-sequencing..and others will follow suit..because the banks made over 38 BILLION dollar off these excessive fees with many were caused by deception and manipulation..not always intentional or accidental overdrafts in themselves..and after a 700 billion dollar bailout paid by the taxpayers because the banks were failing...you can understand why people are mad as hell.

I do not blame you for wanting to switch banks . I had nothing  but problems when Chase took over Wamu . I am with (((competitor's name redacted))) now and I would recommend them to you . I had no problems with (((redacted)))I got tired of Chase's BS and closed my account with them after I had no more pending transactions.

sorry, allowing you to give a competitors name would instigate others to just file against their competition, to only come back later to suggest their company, ..plus, if you post a competitors name more than likely they will show up on search engines as a Rip-off! - - your comments on this policy are welcome. CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report. In this case we removed an alleged competitors name

It should not matter how the debits are taken out - largest to smallest or smallest to largest IF you keep track of the money you are spending.

If you CHOOSE to use your debit card when you have no money in your account, you then CHOOSE to pay them $25 to $35 a pop.  Remember, you're are using THEIR money, not yours.

You shouldn't count on floating your debits or checks.  Once you've spent the money, consider it SPENT & GONE, even if it hasn't posted to your account.

If you can't play by the bank's rules, use cash.