First Tennessee Bank They Charged Me $35 Five Times For 5 $1 Transaction When They were suppose to decline my card after i had brought a form in to the bank agreeing for them not to pay an overdraft,the lady i talk to sai Powell, Tennessee

That THIS particular report is focusing more on blaming the forms sent out, then the actual fees..I stated and I quote..."

"But this has little to do with the complaints regarding OD coverage with the debit card. This complaint clearly states there are 5- 35 dollar fees resulting from overdrafting by just a few dollars"

I was speaking about OD debit card fees in GENERAL, not just specifically regarding this posters report. But I used as an example from THIS report, that the author was charged 5-35 dollar fees for overdrafting by just a few dollars. Yes, that concerns me a bit, sorry Robert.

Now you state...

"
The only way they would have "known" it wasn't there was if they were managing their account.  But because they figured that it would just be declined, they obviously were no longer managing their account, relying on the bank to tell them when they were out of money.   According to them it was all because they sent this form that they did this.  Had the poster used common sense and continue to monitor their account they wouldn't have had the ovedraft fees because by their own admission they "thought" that the bank would decline it."

Actually, I agree with you to a point. The intent of the law changes is not supposed to be to encourage customers to be reckless or careless with that account, as due to these law changes, no one stands to win. True the customers will avoid a fee if they make a mistake, but as well..the bank stands to make no fee..it is simply a by product of the banks being forced to act ethically, that it will also help some customers who are careless. But to say this poster does not have common sense may be a bit harsh, as it would seem common to many people that if it they receive a letter stating it is impossible to overdraft with the debit card, that the customer would believe this is the case, regardless of what was the cause. The customers mistake was not realizing the law did not go into effect so the bank is still allowed to screw her over if she makes a mistake, which she did..and then they did screw her over.

"So just like people who figure that on-line banking is a great way to "manage" their account means that they no longer have to keep a register. "

People "figure" this because this is what the bank tells them. Until they come into the bank red faced ready to choke the living s**t out of a manager, and the manager handles it by THEN handing the customer a register and telling them this is how to avoid the fees.

"Although I have yet to see one bank who says that on-line banking replaces a register or means they don't have to manage their account anymore. "

Bold statement Robert. SHOW us, by copy and pasting off any bank literature, ad, promotion etc whatever where the banks warn the customer that on line banking is NOT a way to manage the account, and a register is.

"There will be people, such as this poster, who thinks that the only reason the form was sent out was to "mess with them".  So eventually these same people could start coming up with claims and start throwing out phrases such as "Class Action Lawsuit".  Will it be this month or even this year..probably not, but at some point there will be someone who attempts a claim through the courts."

There is no basis for a class action suit because someone did not read the date when the law changes go into effect. This is not a typical complaint. HOWEVER, there are currently plenty of lawsuits in progress, and a large Federal one which is addressing the very issue caused by the banks tactics..need I take up a few more paragraphs to post all that again? If you need me to Robert, let me know, I have it all on file a click away.

"Now, while there is no excuse for a person to no longer manage their account once they sign this form.  IF the form or letter said that this was immediate and not effective on July 1st they could have a claim that the debits should have been stopped, so they should probably get the Overdraft fees refunded.  However, I would bet that if they read over the letter and/or form it was quite clear as to when it goes into effect."

Robert, we don't have to look for all kinds of oddball scenarios where people will find reason to complain. But what I see happening actually, is a possible lawsuit, or threats of lawsuits because some banks are going to do everything in their power and means to manipulate, persuade, coax, scam, encourage etc customers to opt into the standard overdraft coverage. And since the banks know G-D WELL that this is NOT in the best interests of most customers, it can by no means any way you slice it, turn out to be a good thing in the long run. Someone is gonna pay, and someone is not going to like paying. You know this Robert, I should not have to explain this to you.

And that my friend, is going to be the future wave of bank complaints, mark my words.

But this has little to do with the complaints regarding OD coverage with the debit card. This complaint clearly states there are 5- 35 dollar fees resulting from overdrafting by just a few dollars

- Focus Ronny..they do mention the overdraft fees but it was not their main point they were talking about or the main point I was responding to.  What was that main point?  That the bank only sent out this form to mess with people(fees). How do I know that was the main point?  Well it was the only part of the entire report in BOLD. Also right after that they stated that if the bank didn't send out the forms they would have known it(their money?) wasn't there.

The only way they would have "known" it wasn't there was if they were managing their account.  But because they figured that it would just be declined, they obviously were no longer managing their account, relying on the bank to tell them when they were out of money.   According to them it was all because they sent this form that they did this.  Had the poster used common sense and continue to monitor their account they wouldn't have had the ovedraft fees because by their own admission they "thought" that the bank would decline it.

So just like people who figure that on-line banking is a great way to "manage" their account means that they no longer have to keep a register.  Although I have yet to see one bank who says that on-line banking replaces a register or means they don't have to manage their account anymore.  There will be people, such as this poster, who thinks that the only reason the form was sent out was to "mess with them".  So eventually these same people could start coming up with claims and start throwing out phrases such as "Class Action Lawsuit".  Will it be this month or even this year..probably not, but at some point there will be someone who attempts a claim through the courts.

Now, while there is no excuse for a person to no longer manage their account once they sign this form.  IF the form or letter said that this was immediate and not effective on July 1st they could have a claim that the debits should have been stopped, so they should probably get the Overdraft fees refunded.  However, I would bet that if they read over the letter and/or form it was quite clear as to when it goes into effect.

Robert "aka" victim kicker de jour.

This report is SIMPLY a case of a bank checking account VICTIM that is suffering from tactics and policies that the LAW changes to prevent this very crime from occurring, were not put into effect at the time.

If she had been opted out as she assumed was the case, this report would not be here now for us to enjoy and freely comment regarding.

And I think in your own little way, you know this.

Now once again before I am wrongly attacked and accused of advocating irresponsibility let me state again for the record, for perhaps the hundredth time, that I believe it is the customers responsibility to keep track of their account and spending vs. deposits.

At the same time, I hold many banks equally responsible for encouraging overdrafts by..

1) Promoting how online banking is a great way to manage the account

2) Auto enrolling into OD coverage (a thing of the past now for most, for all soon)

3) Re sequencing small everyday debit card transactions and guising this as some kind of "courtesy" to protect mortgage payments.

4) There seems to be no law at this time preventing merchants from placing authorization holds for any specific amount or length of time and requiring the customers knowledge or consent.

Can you reasonably argue or defend any of this Robert? If so, there are a bunch of large banks who are currently defendants in Federal court that could use a reasonable defense. So far none is flying, so to speak.

As far as what Robert is babbling about with credit cards and autopays etc..those are ACH and always have and always will be subject to fees if the account can not cover it. However even my unsecured credit card institutions have recently emailed me that I am no longer enrolled in overdraft coverage. And this is good as I have no reason to overdraft unless it is human error or an unauthorized hold or charge...or fraud. I imagine if the banks can no longer fleece a percentage of their customers with fees due to error or fraud, that these customers have a better chance of covering their autopays...seem logical? I would think so.

But this has little to do with the complaints regarding OD coverage with the debit card. This complaint clearly states there are 5- 35 dollar fees resulting from overdrafting by just a few dollars..hmmm where have we heard this before????..Robert, what do you think caused this? Mortgage payments being covered by the bank? "Courtesy" perhaps? I agree the customer most likely made an error she never had before, so she was unaware of the wickedness the bank was going to thrust upon her in the event.

But in REALITY...YES.. I say this again...in REALITY, if not for auto enroll and re-sequencing, I highly doubt this customer would have been subjected to more fees then the ONE LEGITIMATE overdraft caused by simple honest human error, would have paid the fee, and been on her merry way. Or perhaps if even the original overdraft was a debit card POS or ATM transaction, there would have been no fee or fees at all.

Now whomever is going to lodge reports complaining that the bank did not cover an overdraft and hence did not charge charge a fee in the future, just wait until you see the fun I will have with them. I guess at that point I may be classified as a bank defender, imagine that?

How long will be be before we hear the cries of "Class Action Lawsuit" over these new "overdraft regulations".  Will the same people who blame the bank and not a person's irrresonsibility be the first people to claim that these new regulations are just another smokescreen to enable them to Ripoff customers with more fees?

In this case the OP received a notice to be able to Opt-Out of overdraft protection.  Now, keep in mind that the OP has NEVER overdrafted before so we can figure that either they got lucky or took responsibility over their account(s).  They made the decision to opt-out, which for some people is a very good idea.  Yet somehow it is the banks fault because they didn't know that it would take a few weeks to go into effect.  Where it is also the banks fault that they didn't think they had to monitor their account anymore?  I would just about guarantee you that there was NOTHING in that form that said anything about the bank taking over responsibility for managing their account. 

As has been said before.  NO amount of regulations, rules, or policies is going to take away a persons responsibility to manage THEIR money.  If a person does not manage their account they WILL overdraft, and/or start to have things such as automatic debits returned.  You thought an OD fee was bad, just wait until you have a Credit Card payment returned.  One or two of those and you will be begging the bank to go back to the way it was.