Compass Bank Legalized Extortion Hoover Alabama

someone claims they will not be posting further but then just can't seem to shut up? The bottom line is that the person who wrote you that check agreed to the bank policies. If you don't want to pay the charge, cash the check at your own bank!

Not wrong, not an employee of any bank ever, and a check is not legal tender until it is cashed - it is a negotiable instrument. It's the reason why a bank doesn't have to give you the face value of the check in legal tender; they can give it to you for an amount of the check, less the fee, and they give you the right to accept that offer, or not. You chose not to; that is your right. However, it is not a rip off now, nor will it be in the future, for a bank to charge a non-customer a fee for cashing a negotiable instrument that is subject to be fraudulent, bad (for a whole host of reasons), or otherwise not convertible to legal tender at face value. Accordingly, the bank had no legal obligation to cash the check you presented for the full face value based on common and Federal laws. Your bank does it for you as a convenience for (1) customer service reasons, and (2) the ability to have recourse against you should the check be bad.

It's not a matter of being right or wrong; it's something for you to consider when your complaints to the government fall on deaf ears. No one is ready to change hundreds of years of law regarding the convertibility of a negotiable instrument to legal tender.

Thanks for continuing to show I am right Jim & keep up the good work at the teller window!!!

But you do make my point. If someone is actually stupid enough to get a $100 hold placed on their account for a $5 purchase, it STILL isn't the fault of the bank because a debit card is a debit card and they all work the same way. If your debit card was at BofA, or Wachovia, or any of the other banks, the same thing would still happen. It's the fault of the account holder because that person has no idea how to use a debit card and they used the card in such a way that put a hold on the account. There was a fool who once posted here that his "bank" put an $800 hold on the account when he made a reservation at a hotel and used the debit card like a credit card. They aren't the same and aren't close to being the same.

Insofar as the other issue, you're also wrong. If an outstanding check shows up that day that makes your check bounce, the bank won't know about that fact until that evening. Banking systems aren't completely real-time when it comes to clearing all debits ad credits. In such a situation, when your check was presented, the account is in reality overdrawn by that check. Banks in reality lost a lot of money thruogh little services like this and it's the reason that for the last 30 yeats or so, most banks charge non-customers a fee for something like this. They will still lose money on this service, but they at least mitigate some of this loss through the little fee they charge you.

The odd thing here is that you HAD the choice to take your check and go to your bank and cash the check there. The bank even told you there would be a charge to do this, and you still CHOSE to go through with the transaction. I have always held that people often do this sort of silliness to themselves - allowing a bank to take what belongs to them. Again, you proved that point.

Try not to be so compelling to my point of view next time.

Jim says:
"With this game, people can now overdraft their accounts without the actual account balance going into the negative. It doesn't mean the banks are greedy - it means that the bank has now taken away the game account holders used to play against the bank in order to avoid the fees."

I say:
Untrue on many levels. In fact, because of debit/check cards banks are now able to charge even more overdraft fees because a merchant can put a $100 hold on funds for a $5 transaction. So now a consumer can incur hefty bounce fees when in fact their account never even saw a true negative balance.

Jim says:
"In the end, you want to make this into the big, bad bank taking money away from the poor little person. The argument makes no sense to the average person with any sense of intelligence; it is an emotional argument that has no basis in fact. In your situation, the bank is well within its right to charge you a fee because it has no way of determining whether the check you presented to them is good - even if the maker of the check banks with that institution; it's not as if someone can just go into the account and determine whether the account holder has money; there is no way the bank can know what outstanding checks there may be out there that were written by the account holder."

I say:
OMG are you serious? The average intelligent person would know that there is less NSF fund risk to the bank if a person presents a check directly to the bank in real time as the bank can check the available funds in the account being drawn at that exact moment. This takes away the "float". Not to mention that if the account holder does not have the funds they will get hit with an overdraft fee & be responsible for the check being covered regardles of how the check is presented & cashed (be it by me in person or my bank days later). How did banks ever get by without these check cashing fees for their first 200 or so years of existence?

Jim says:
"...your argument is not compelling in the least."

I say:
uberditto to you regarding your statements.

tt, the problem has everything to do with account holders - plain and simple. When banks pushed people into electronic transactions, it became evident that people thought this meant that they (the account holders) didn't have to keep track of their spending any longer - since they have no checks, they have no registers anymore to keep track of such things. The switchover to electronic transactions does not absolve people of the responsibility of keeping track of their spending and their account balances; if people kept the same practices as they used to do, then this would not be the issue it is today. The account holder then relies on a system that was never meant to provide the account holder with their real account balance...and there you have the problem as it stands today.

The fee issue is really nothing more than recognizing the fact that banks rely on the available balance, rather than the real account balance because (again) of the electronic transactions. Debit card transactions are recognized as immediate cash transactions - meaning once you use that card, the money is gone pending confirmation from the merchant - unlike a check, when the money is gone only when the cash is checked by the same merchant. This benefits the merchant because the merchant now incurs lower losses due to bad checks. It also eliminates the float game people used to play in order to avoid fees. With this game, people can now overdraft their accounts without the actual account balance going into the negative. It doesn't mean the banks are greedy - it means that the bank has now taken away the game account holders used to play against the bank in order to avoid the fees.

In the end, you want to make this into the big, bad bank taking money away from the poor little person. The argument makes no sense to the average person with any sense of intelligence; it is an emotional argument that has no basis in fact. In your situation, the bank is well within its right to charge you a fee because it has no way of determining whether the check you presented to them is good - even if the maker of the check banks with that institution; it's not as if someone can just go into the account and determine whether the account holder has money; there is no way the bank can know what outstanding checks there may be out there that were written by the account holder. The fee you got charged is a way for the bank to mitigate such risk, in addition to the customer service you're offered as a non-customer of the bank. If you wanted to avoid such a fee, you could always go to your own bank.

Best of luck to you - but your argument is not compelling in the least.

I have learned from my experience that it is fairly common practice now. I had not actually tried to cash a check at a bank in many many years. I had always just deposited them at my bank. Just because it is now "accepted" as common practice still doesn't make it right IMHO. Banks did not use to charge a fee to cash a check. When I write someone a check for $200 I want them to have $200 not $192.50. I pay my bank a monthly fee to house & administer my checking account at their financial institution. That monthly fee is paid to cover any expenses incurred on my account including but not limited to the cashing of any checks I might write. I consider it double dipping for the bank to charge me a monthly fee to process my checks & then to turn around & charge the recipient of one of my checks yet another fee to process it.

My main purpose in taking the time to write this Rip-Off Report was to express my general displeasure over the way all financial institutions are now overcharging us with new fees on top of fees on top of fees & sometimes a fee can even trigger a fee. They have been authorized by our Federal Government to rip us off in practically any manner they see fit & they will continue to do so until we all stand up & refuse to take it from them any more. As a matter of fact I believe the government is currently looking into some of the shadier financial practices being implemented against consumers right now.

I had no idea my post here would bring out a few snots who either A) Love to pay fees or B) Just wanna argue for the sake of arguing but ::sigh:: that is the internet for ya... but I am always open to sensible & intelligent discussion though :o)



p.s... has anyone noticed that years ago banks began pushing us away from paper checks & towards electronic transactions in the name of saving money yet when you add up all the before-unheard-of fees that have been accumulating since that time our overall banking costs have actually gone up?? Freebees are no longer free yet costly paper processing has been drastically reduced for banks. Just food for thought...

it is a pretty standard practice among banks. Similar to the fee for using the ATM of another bank with your debit card. A fee from the bank that owns the ATM and often times a fee from your bank too. If you don't want to pay the fee you don't have to, just deposit the check into your bank account.

You sheep keep paying the high fees. You sheep keep letting banks do whatever they want in the form of exorbitant interest rate hikes, credit line slashes for those who pay their bills on time, or fees on top of fees that generate more fees. You sheep keep paying that without standing up & trying to do something about it. Pretty soon there will be no difference between banks, credit card companies, payday loan companies, & loan sharks. You sheep just sit by & let it keep happening. The rest of us non-sheep might actually try to stand up to these companies & our Congress & let them know that it is not OK that they have been given free reign to do whatever they see fit to us. It "metters" (or as we say in Alabama, it "matters") to us non-sheep that financial institutions have been given the keys to the castle & it is time for us to take them back.


I an done addressing you sheep now except to give you one last baaaaa...

You did NOT HAVE TO CASH IT THERE. You could have cashed it at your own bank for free. You do not have to pay the fee. There is nothing illegal about it. Hence, no extortion. You still have not made your case about your lie.

Yea TT you are correct, John not only works for Compass Bank, but Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, as well as serveral companies. It's amazing how that between all of these jobs he has time to post here. Now, since you seem to think that other people are uneducated. Let me educate you with a few things. Let's start by looking up the definition of some of the words you were using.

Legal Tender:
(n) - A nations official monetary bills and coinage.

A personal check is NOT a form of currency, and so contrary to your belief it is NOT legal tender. If you wanted to know what a check is, it is a negotiable instrument.

Negotiable Instrument:
(n) - A transferable, signed document that promises to pay the bearer a sum of money at a future date or on demand.

So unlike a $20 bill the bank is not required to honor the check. Your mom is a customer but you are not. They are charging YOU the fee not your mom to cash the check. You have several choices, that include going to your own bank(where they won't charge you), paying the fee to this bank, or going to a check cashing place and paying their fee(which I can almost guarantee will be higher).

Also, you didn't say what your bank is. But don't be surprised if you go and ask them if they don't have this same fee. I have seen fees reported anywhere in the $3-$10 range. Oh and before you start thinking I work for a bank. I do not work for or have ever worked for any bank.

I will also say that this fee has not always been charged. But they also have not always had free checking which is almost standard now. A vast majority of people manage their accounts and never "pay a bank" a single dime for their checking account. So the banks have gone to charging people for services that they actually used. These include check-cashing or even for a customer to see a teller. If they really were doing extortion they could go back to the days where they charge everyone $8-$10+ per MONTH for the checking account and the banks would probably come out ahead for the small percentage of non-customers that cashed a check drawn on their bank.

The fee of $7.50 to cash the check which amounted to a 3.75% fee was the extortion (definition: an excessive or exorbitant charge). I could have cashed the check at my bank but I don't see how that has any bearing on the extortion or exorbitant charge & I in no way see how that fact makes or doesn't make it extortion but thanks for the trolling. So how long have you worked at Compass Bank?

You seemed to have left that part out.
It certainly can't be that they were the only place you had to cash it (which is the only way it could be extortion) since you did have other options.