Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #190941

Complaint Review: First Convenience Bank - Killeen Texas

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Livingston Texas
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • First Convenience Bank P O Box 937 Killeen, Texas U.S.A.
  • Phone: 254-634-2161
  • Web:
  • Category: Banks

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

My account was closed because I deposit a $4500 check that didn't clear. I latter found out that I was part of a big check and money order scam in Nacadoches Texas. I informed the bank that the check was not mine but my partime employer and they did not believe me. They told me that they have the right to close my account at any given time. I feel it was a rip off because even though I did not have access to my funds they took the $5 fee out of my account.I was told that there is nothing I could to to keep it open. That's a little unfair. I open the account 11-3-2005 and this is the first incident I had. I even told them that I thought the check was real and if they knew it was not why they let me deposit it. Who would deposit a check if they knew it would not clear no one.They do have stupid charges. I was charge $1.50 for my mastercard a month and that overdraft is a joke too. Its just another way to charge you more money. Maybe it's a blessing they closed it. I know one thing I'll never do business with them again. I was a victim and they treated me like a criminal.

Patrice
Livingston, Texas
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/10/2006 05:18 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/first-convenience-bank/killeen-texas-76540/first-convenience-bank-ripoff-killeen-texas-190941. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
7Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#7 UPDATE EX-employee responds

touche

AUTHOR: Exemployee18 - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Friday, August 22, 2008

I should not have named RegCC in my response because yes you are correct that the regulation was put in place to protect the financial institutions not the consumer, but it is the institutions who should be protecting the consumer. In this case customers who have had a hard time financially need trusted financial institutions to protect them from such fraudulent practices. The bank should have caught this. You know being an ex employee that most counterfeit checks are easily detectable. I mean come on. The hard ones to catch are the personal checks that come back as NSF because most banks stopped verifying funds.

Just because you are an ex employee does not mean that you have take the banks side. I will always take the consumers side when it comes to catching fraudulent checks. Mainly because that is what a knowledgable and customer service focused employee should do. You take the Feds laws and I will use them to protect consumers rights.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 UPDATE EX-employee responds

it's not about who's fault it is but....

AUTHOR: Sweet1 - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, August 20, 2008

You have a certain amount of responsibility to make sure that what you are depositing is not fraudulent. Why were you getting a 4500.00 check? Did you work for it? Exercise a little bit of common sense. People try to get by with things like this everyday and then play the victim card when they are caught. You are lucky that you had not spent the money, if you had you would have been struggling to pay it back or going to collections and having your credit ruined. As far as the other ex-employee that commented that it is the bank's fault, it most certainly is not. The bank did exactly what any other bank would do. The bank I work at now which is one of the 5 largest in the country would have done the same. The deposit would have been accepted with a REGCC hold, Corp Security would have been contacted immediately and the closing process started. REGCC is not to protect the consumer from losses. Holds are placed by banks to protect themselves from losses. REGCC was put in place to regulate how long a financial institution is able to delay availability of funds to their clients because before REGCC banks were holding deposits in excess of 30 days. This was an unfair practice and the government stepped in and did the right thing. (Maybe you should read up on the subject before posting anymore ignorant responses.)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 UPDATE EX-employee responds

it's not about who's fault it is but....

AUTHOR: Sweet1 - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, August 20, 2008

You have a certain amount of responsibility to make sure that what you are depositing is not fraudulent. Why were you getting a 4500.00 check? Did you work for it? Exercise a little bit of common sense. People try to get by with things like this everyday and then play the victim card when they are caught. You are lucky that you had not spent the money, if you had you would have been struggling to pay it back or going to collections and having your credit ruined. As far as the other ex-employee that commented that it is the bank's fault, it most certainly is not. The bank did exactly what any other bank would do. The bank I work at now which is one of the 5 largest in the country would have done the same. The deposit would have been accepted with a REGCC hold, Corp Security would have been contacted immediately and the closing process started. REGCC is not to protect the consumer from losses. Holds are placed by banks to protect themselves from losses. REGCC was put in place to regulate how long a financial institution is able to delay availability of funds to their clients because before REGCC banks were holding deposits in excess of 30 days. This was an unfair practice and the government stepped in and did the right thing. (Maybe you should read up on the subject before posting anymore ignorant responses.)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 UPDATE EX-employee responds

it's not about who's fault it is but....

AUTHOR: Sweet1 - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, August 20, 2008

You have a certain amount of responsibility to make sure that what you are depositing is not fraudulent. Why were you getting a 4500.00 check? Did you work for it? Exercise a little bit of common sense. People try to get by with things like this everyday and then play the victim card when they are caught. You are lucky that you had not spent the money, if you had you would have been struggling to pay it back or going to collections and having your credit ruined. As far as the other ex-employee that commented that it is the bank's fault, it most certainly is not. The bank did exactly what any other bank would do. The bank I work at now which is one of the 5 largest in the country would have done the same. The deposit would have been accepted with a REGCC hold, Corp Security would have been contacted immediately and the closing process started. REGCC is not to protect the consumer from losses. Holds are placed by banks to protect themselves from losses. REGCC was put in place to regulate how long a financial institution is able to delay availability of funds to their clients because before REGCC banks were holding deposits in excess of 30 days. This was an unfair practice and the government stepped in and did the right thing. (Maybe you should read up on the subject before posting anymore ignorant responses.)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 UPDATE EX-employee responds

it's not about who's fault it is but....

AUTHOR: Sweet1 - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, August 20, 2008

You have a certain amount of responsibility to make sure that what you are depositing is not fraudulent. Why were you getting a 4500.00 check? Did you work for it? Exercise a little bit of common sense. People try to get by with things like this everyday and then play the victim card when they are caught. You are lucky that you had not spent the money, if you had you would have been struggling to pay it back or going to collections and having your credit ruined. As far as the other ex-employee that commented that it is the bank's fault, it most certainly is not. The bank did exactly what any other bank would do. The bank I work at now which is one of the 5 largest in the country would have done the same. The deposit would have been accepted with a REGCC hold, Corp Security would have been contacted immediately and the closing process started. REGCC is not to protect the consumer from losses. Holds are placed by banks to protect themselves from losses. REGCC was put in place to regulate how long a financial institution is able to delay availability of funds to their clients because before REGCC banks were holding deposits in excess of 30 days. This was an unfair practice and the government stepped in and did the right thing. (Maybe you should read up on the subject before posting anymore ignorant responses.)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 UPDATE EX-employee responds

yes it is the banks fault

AUTHOR: Exemployee18 - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, October 11, 2007

All banks have a regulation in place to protect the customer it is called RegCC. The bank should have placed a hold on the check. Typical for an employee to say not their fault. I apologize I was ever related to this institution for a comment like that.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

Common scam. Not the banks fault.

AUTHOR: Robert - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, May 11, 2006

Those that are commiting fraud don't usually admit to it so of course the bank didn't believe you.

Hopefully you did not draw against the 4500 dollars. If you have then you will also be responsible to pay back those funds to the bank (regardless of who you received the fake check from).

Since you only had the account for 6 months, it seems logical that they would close it to protect themselves from further fraudulent activity. Since you are the owner of the account they have no one else to go after.

Good luck. I do hope you get your finances straightened out.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now