US Bank Criminal, Abusive, Uncooperative, Unavailable, Internet, Washington

is now available at this site.

*Just type in 646259 and it appears as 'Consumer Comment #71' at Ripoff Report #646259.

************************* BIG-SHOT IN A YACHT ALERT *********************

*It was reported that a 'big-shot' was recently spotted in a yacht somewhere near West Palm Beach, Florida. Anyone can 'Google' this- FASTEST YACHT IN THE WORLD, and watch the video on the web, right?

What's that old saying about if you resort to cursing you know you lost the debate?

Okay, reality. I worked 5 years in a call center for a major bank. I dealt with this problem day in and day out. Let's see what ways an overdraft can happen.

1) Intentional: Customer has $20 in account but has an "emergency" (real or imagined). Customer uses "shadow credit line" to make purchase/ATM withdrawal to cover emergency. No rip off as customer aware before hand what would happen.

2) Fraud: Customer has card number or card stolen. Card then used to make fraudulent purchases. Ripoff by the thieves as banks wll usually return all money if card was usedas credit and all but $50 if card was used as debit. No bank ripoff. Customer responsible for timely notification of transactions.

3) No records, overspending: "The bank kept authorizing even after negative balance." Again used "shadow credit line", no longer applicable UNLESS cutomer authorizes in writing.

4) No records, tips: Customer went to restaurant,salon or other business where they tipped. Card authorization would be for purchase amount but not usually reflect the tip. Customer would not subtract tip amount from their register (if they kept one)and then respend the money already spent.

5)No records, no hold: Four businesses don't generate a hold when transaction conducted unless card used as debit. Businesses are gas staion, hotels/motels, airline tickets and vehicle rentals. Again customer would see large balance available and "forget" transaction not included. Then respend money already spent. Again not using their register.

6) No records, check/AD: Customer writes check or authorizes automatic debit but doesn't keep register. Sees large available balance and respends money already spent.Most ODs occur this way.

7) Combination of these ways.

If you look at the OD fee reports here on ROR, you'll see most of them come from #7. Comments such as "On Monday when they posted, they put the check first", 'I used my card over the weekend but they paid the check first" or "I had enough for all my card purchases but just not for the check". So in the majority of cases, the OP is complaining of the check posting before debit card purchases causing OD fees. But in the vast majority of cases the check or automated debit was done chronologically before the card transactions. When you pay with a check (except Walmart or other merchants who immediately turn it electronic) it usually takes 2 - 5 days to be presented to your bank and posted to your account. During that time the money for the check/AD will still show as available as the bank doesn't know it's been authorized. Then when the check/AD was presented for pocessing, it usually posted first or fairly quickly as it would be for a higher amount than the card purchases. However, if the posting was done chronologically,most if notall times the check/AD would still post first as it was transacted before the card purchases. It just took longer to get to the bank because it started out paper and then had to be converted to electronic whereas the card transactions start as electronic. But the check/AD would still chronologically go before any card transactions done after.

So again, do you want to continue to champion a method that will continue to cause more ODs or did you want do change and support low-to-high posting?

This is reality. Just because you didn't mention it or don't want to deal with it doesn't change the facts. If you truly support chronological posting you have to support the check/AD done last Monday posting before the card purchases made last Friday whichwill cause the customer more overdrafts than the low-to-high posting would. So are you really sure you want the "evil banks to continue screwing the little people"? I thought that's what you whole reasonhere was for, was to help the little people. And yet the people like Robert, Stacey, Edgeman and others posting about keeping a register seem to care more about them they you do. Keeping an accurate register will eliminate all ODs where your methods will just reduce the number.

Granted, this petty nonsense is getting old, but I responded to someone else, then to you I am the law.

I sometimes feel like I need a drink after reading all this nonsense.

Just quit your whining and pay the 10 bucks a month, it is like 35 cents a day if that. Or find another bank. Unfortunately for YOU the banks got caught scamming. If they did not conduct these scams the banks would not have been forced to change and perhaps whatever free SERVICES you feel you were "entitled" too, would still be free.

I NEVER stated I was against fees, only UNJUST fees. A fee for a service is fair. Scamming customers is not. If you really do not understand what I have been talking about...read up a little on the LAWSUITS, and THEN if you choose to argue with me and pick fights with me, at least you may be able to stand your ground a little.

A copy of the Court's order can be found here.<---- THIS.

The same charges are currently in progress against most of the banks that pulled the same scams and got caught. The current lawsuits are being consolidated in a Federal Court in Florida. The link I posted is to the Court's Order from the recent Lawsuit in California in which Wells Fargo lost. For someone who uses the name "I am the Law", you really should learn a little about law and business ethics.

Ronny, I hope you were drunk or something when you posted your last ROR.

You were jumping from subject to subject and ranting like a maniac. ("Weakness"? What was that all about?)

I literally have no idea what you were trying to say there, but from the little bit I could pick out, you said that "nothing is free forever". So, you like paying for things that should be free? And, if you don't think anything should be free, why are you so opposed to overdraft fees?

Jeez, dude, switch to decaf.

...but..let's review the REALITY>>>>>>

is to the tune of- "Turkey In The Straw". 

Not gonna win this one Ronny.

You asked about OVERDRAFT and BANK reform. This means more than debit card transactions, nimrod. So the reports I pasted were 100% releveant.

Frankly, I shouldn't have even wasted my time. You'd find any excuse in the world not to "accept" them. That's ok. No skin off my teeth.

Good luck with that negative account!

On his Dec 13th post, Ronny stated that WF "can NO LONGER re-sequence DEBIT card transactions as THEY see fit...but actually have to abide by the LAWS of PHYSICS, logic and REASON...and post transactions in a CHRONOLOGICAL basis". So Ronny says that WF now "have" to post chronologically. No, this isn't quite true. That is one of two options. So yes you did embellish by saying that was the way it would "have" to be. Or if you prefer, you conveniently ignored the part of the truth you didn't like. 

Now as far as posting "chronologically", are you really sure you want that. The way the overdrafts usually happened was this:

1) Customer would write a check or authorize an automated debit.

2) Customer would (usually on Friday) see large available balance as check/AD hadn't come through yet.

3) Customer would use debit card over weekend.

4) Bank would receive check/AD and debit card transactions for processing on Monday. If bank does a strictly chronological order posting, the check/AD would go first as it was authorized/occurred first. Then the debit card transactions would go. Since debit card transactions have to be paid once authorized this could lead to overdrafts.

5) So are you really still a fan and supporter of chronological posting or do you want to change and support low-to-high? But again wouldn't all of this wouldn't matter if the customer kept an accurate register and not spend money they didn't have available? If you keep an accurate register and don't overspend, it doesn't matter how the bank posts.

Side note: in the decision the judge stated that 4% of the customers paid 40% of the fees. So now, since the vast minority didn't keep or didn't know how to keep a register, almost everyone has to pay a monthly service fee. Thank you progressives that think things have to be "fair". I believe that fair is the people that commit the infractions pay for them and the people that don't commit infractions don't have to pay. But those days are gone now. And unless you can keep a really high balance in your account, the many have to pay for the actions of the few.

I am quite calm and relaxed.

Now I am glad you were able to find 3 reports to post here as "evidence" of the "flood" you claimed is pouring into this site regarding debit card overdrafts since the regulation changes it seems everyone but you is aware we are discussing..which has ONLY to do with the DEBIT CARD. I hope it did not expel too much energy for you to do so. Let's review your "tons" of reports...oops, I mean "3", and see if these reports give you any merit...

First..report 658750

If you notice, I had responded to this report myself. I do not know how you can determine what this report is talking about...so THIS is what you submit as evidence? Did I ever once state that any bank reform or regulation changes or lawsuits were going to prevent any nut case from posting here? Do you have a problem with the definition of "legitimate?".. apparently so...

Next...report # 670025...

Nothing to do with the topic. The report is about bouncing checks..the topic is DEBIT CARD overdrafting and relating to the regulations and lawsuits regarding DEBIT CARD transactions. Are you even aware of the actual topic I was debating and rebutting and reporting for years on this stupid website??.... or just typing out your a*s? I am finding it hard to believe that you even are on the same planet, much less the same topic.

NEXT!!!

..report # 667523..

This report has to do with it seems..closing account fees, bankruptcy, a BUSINESS overdraft, and right of offset... nothing to do with the topic at hand, recent regulation changes, lawsuits, debit card unjust overdraft complaints..or ANYTHING I am, was, is, did, or ever debated on this website..

Flood indeed... You have presented a total of NOTHING to back up anything. If you are going to attempt to debate me or anyone for that matter, at least be on the same topic, or reasonably close.

And no..I see no evidence that I was "badgering" Striderq...he asked me a question, and I answered him to the best of my ability, and presented evidence that actually had to do with the topic..and provided sound articulate reasoning.. Unlike YOU, he understands what we are discussing here. Which is why if he decides to respond to anything I posted, it will not be with nonsense. That apparently is your job. "Nonsense" of course being the more "PC" term to imply.... bullshit.

Striderq...

I should clarify, yes the lawsuit is the Gutierrez, Walker & Smith vs Wells Fargo in August 2010. But it should also be made clear that this was not a "settlement", but a loss of a law suit against the bank for violations.

I don't feel I was "once again" embellishing anything slightly but I would agree it would be more accurate to state the Judge ordered the bank to stop re-sequencing high to low rather then imply the specific way they ordered to sequence transactions. I do feel it is more fair to the bank and the customers if they post chronologically, but if they decide to post low to high all the better for the customers. Since all banks can no longer force or automatically enroll customers in OD protection with the debit card..it really makes no difference to me personally, since now if anyone overdrafts with the debit card they had to have chosen freely to have the "protection", and hence must take responsibility. I would have a hard time defending any customers in that case.

 However, when responding to the ludicrous fictitious statements that "I am the Law" is directing at me....well I think you can see it really does not matter if I left that info out. This is COMEDY or entertainment, not a debate when you get down to it.

As far as this only applying to California account holders I never stated otherwise but it should be clear that I am aware of this, and it is true.

The current class action lawsuits that have been consolidated in a Miami Federal Court against many banks that were using these practices in many states should take care of the rest in due time. Unless the banks think it is worth all the lawsuits to continue the practices, or they are just begging for more regulations to be thrust on them?

First response is to "Mr. flooded", " I am the Law"...who I actually missed around here since the regulation changes...it has been a virtual GHOST TOWN as far as ANY complaints or debate regarding bank customers who where not aware the bank was FORCING and AUTOMATICALLY enrolling them in overdraft "protection" regarding DEBIT CARD use...and using the LACK of disclosure to COMPOUND fees UNJUSTLY...up to TEN TIMES...using re-sequencing, commingling, "secret" shadow lines and lack of disclosure...not to mention breach of contract, misrepresentation, unfairness, and LACK of "good faith"..which HAS rendered, and will CONTINUE to render ANY and all "terms and agreements" any customer signed to on a deceptive bank "contract"...as NULL and VOID in the eyes of the law and court, and even worse for the banks..will be used as EVIDENCE against them to convict.

Now how am I lazy? I was not the one stating there are still floods of reports regarding overdraft fees here..YOU were...so get off your FAT a*s (well actually you could still sit on your fat a*s to document these claims), and copy and paste some EVIDENCE. I am not the one who "disappeared" for a while after the regulation changes went into effect and no more complaints came in...YOU were. Nice to see you back again in usual form...if BULLSHIT is considered a form.

As far as any "I overdrafted and got a fee reports"...have you EVER ONCE seen me here or anywhere defend anyone who lodged a complaint like that? UHHHHHH...no...why you may ask...because if anyone was to lodge a "complaint" that they overdrafted and got a fee..I would DEFEND the bank you moron.

HOWEVER, if someone lodges a compliant stating they do not know how ONE legit overdraft fee cost them hundreds and hundreds of dollars..and when they call to ask the bank the bank plays "dumb"..yes..in that case i will defend the customer. However, those types of complaints have VANISHED..just like YOU did for a while. So what brought you back from the dead? I guess you figure you can come back here and kick a very dead horse back to life??

Yeah, it will add a little excitement here..but you can NEVER win in a debate..the PROOF is in the results...or COMPLETE LACK of complaints since the regulation changes.

Now..do you expect anyone to believe that these changes suddenly made all the "deadbeats" vanish???...or was there perhaps a tiny tiny teeny bit of factual TRUTH, to what I have been fighting with you about all along here? FAIL..

Now to answer Striderq...

I can quote this from ANY example of the courts order..

"The decision noted that the Federal Reserve has outlawed some of the practices detailed in the case, most notably debit card overdrafts permitted without customers agreeing to accept overdraft protection.

Judge Alsup ordered Wells Fargo to stop posting transactions in high-to-low order by Nov. 30 and to reverse overdraft fees charged to customers from Nov. 15, 2004, to June 30, 2008, as a result of the policy. A study cited in the decision by a Wells Fargo witness put the restitution at "close to $203 million."

I am not "embellishing" anything...but merely copying and pasting facts..

Which lawsuit re you referring to? Are you referring to Gutierrez, Walker & Smith vs Wells Fargo settled in August 2010? If so then you are (once again) slightly embellsihing things. You state that WF has to post chronologically. This isn't what the judge said. WF can choose one of two methods. Additionally this case only applies to California account holders.

From the website: http://www.bank-overdraft.com/pdf/20100810-wells-fargo-finding.pdf. The judges decision given on page 85 states that: "2. On or before the Effective Date, defendant Wells Fargo must, for all class members, either reinstate a low-to-high posting method or use a chronological posting method (or some combination of the two methods) for the posting of debit-card transactions for class members.26"

I realize that you're lazy Ronny, but I didn't think you were this lazy.

You want me to "prove" that bank reform didn't stop overdrafters from hanging themselves with fees? Ok, fine. In fact, I won't copy and paste a thing.....

You obviously have the internet and have the ability to get on ROR. Put down your Playgirl magazine for a moment and check the dates on recent ROR's. (Go to ROR's for different banks, too.) People are still posting "I overdrafted and got a fee" type reports like crazy, aren't they? Is that proof enough for you?

As for your dribble on other banks' activities, who cares? I can't even verify what you're saying about them is true anyway. Last time I checked, this section was for people posting topics about US Bank. Stick to the topic.

It would be helpful if the OP would specify exactly what the "rip off" was here, and exactly what type of account.

We are not mindreaders.

ALL banks have complaints against them, but MOST of them are in reference to overdraft fees by people who do not keep accurate checkbook registers.

..actually..it has been kind of BORING for quite some time here..other then ROZbert from Buffalo stalking me personally on any other UN-related reports.

I ask you..."I am the Law"...to present to all of us here on Rip Off report...the "FLOOD" of reports regarding any "overdraft schemes" the banks are currently in court regarding...or the recent Wells Fargo Lawsuit regarding fraudulent overdraft fees that the bank LOST...and not only has to pay back the V I C T I M S...but as well..can NO LONGER re-sequence DEBIT card transactions as THEY see fit...but actually have to abide by the LAWS of PHYSICS, logic and REASON...and post transactions in a CHRONOLOGICAL basis..as they ACTUALLY occur in the space/time continuum all of us as a resident of the universe as we know it, are forced to comply by.

Go ahead..post away..copy and paste..it is easy.

I do not know why you have been "waiting to say something to these negligent morons for a long time.."

Don't wait..just say it.

I think it would behoove your friend to file his/her own report. You're coming off as some sort of random lunatic.

Even after "bank reform", ROR is still flooded with reports of overdrafts and other fees that the customers brought on themselves....

I've been waiting to say something to these negligent morons for a long time....

TOLD YOU!

I told you before that "bank reform" would do nothing to stop the stupidity of the overdrafting populace.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHA! 

What did they do to you?