U.S. Bank FEES, FEES, FEES!!! Beware, US Bank will charge you a fee to walk in the front door if they can get away with it. Los Angeles, California

Ever see those fat, unemployed slobs at Walmart that can't get their 500 pound butts out of their welfare provided motorized scooters to pick up a bulk package of Twinkies? You know how they always smell like total **** and their kids are running around like monkeys with ADD? Well, that's the type of person that overdrafts their account. 

Merry Christmas.

..or still arguing posts from back in July..lets have at it I am the scum.... I mean "law"..

I have NO IDEA at all what you are talking about. Have you ever seen me type on this website that banks will no longer be able to charge overdraft fees? If you have..then I give you this point. But since I HAVE NEVER EVER not ONE SINGLE TIME on this website stated banks would no longer be able to charge overdraft fees..I personally have no idea what you are even discussing...so care to tell us???

As far as your bold statement that I have somehow been proved to be a lair..care to submit any documentation? I await this until I am 600 years old.

Until then...Happy Holidays to you!

You know what you can get me for Christmas this year, Ronny? ... A concrete promise that you will not produce any children, because God knows, there's plenty of dumb people on the planet already.

Since you're a fan of "picking apart" people's ROR's, let's review your last response to me.

You said, "I have no idea how on this green EARTH "I am the Law" is under the impression that banks can no longer charge overdraft fees.."

Read again, Boy Wonder. I said, "if banks weren't allowed to charges fees as they have in the past...." This meansthere is now going to be control on their dollar amount andhow often they can be charged; NOT that they won't exist. If I thought they were disappearing, I would've simply said, "Since banks can't charge OD fees anymore..."

You said, "...a simple "change" that only requires the bank to simply "DISCLOSE" that the customer choose to..or not to opt into overdraft protection with the DEBIT CARD..seems to be the reason that all of a sudden..NO MORE reports are coming onto this site regarding any bank rip offs due to undisclosed enrollment into overdraft protection with the debit card."

Ronny, Ronny. Ronny...... Read these reports, man. Do someresearch foryourself.People are STILL overdrafting on debit cards.I'll post ONE MORE report (it's a 5/3 one). I think I've done more than enoughwork for you(and besides, you always seem to find some reason why they're not good enough.)Check out 645741. In fact, YOU posted a comment on this one. Now, go ahead and try to find something unacceptable about it.

Ronny, quit defending the neglient people of the world. Don't associate yourself with these dullards. After all, you've already been proven to be a liar; don't make people think you're stupid as well.

Happy Holidays!

Quoted from "I am the Law"...

You "I Am The Law" fans will remember a few months back that I warned everyone that if the banks couldn't charge overdraft fees as they have in the past, that they'd soon somehow pass the liability onto good customers."

Well I can not tell by the overwhelming responses how much of a "fan base" I Am The Law has..but I can say this...

I have no idea how on this green EARTH "I am the Law" is under the impression that banks can no longer charge overdraft fees...this is something manufactured in his own mind...but I can say this...a simple "change" that only requires the bank to simply "DISCLOSE" that the customer choose to..or not to opt into overdraft protection with the DEBIT CARD..seems to be the reason that all of a sudden..NO MORE reports are coming onto this site regarding any bank rip offs due to undisclosed enrollment into overdraft protection with the debit card...unless in the rare oddball case, the customer did not understand (much like "I am the Law"), the difference between a DEBIT CARD transaction, and writing a check/ACH transaction.

as you mentioned in your comment?

Thank you, in advance, for your timely response.

Karl,

I didn't say I approve of the government spending money it doesn't have either.

right now, correct?

Your report isn't very specific, but I think we can all agree that overdraft fees are  high. But, if you overdrew your account, why are you surprised that they're charging a fee? Seems like common sense at this point in history.

the site mentioned in one of the consumer comments above, with the pictures of the people who control the U.S. economy, is not available anymore. 

Ronny G,

When a merchant credits money back on your debit card (for returns), THE TRANSACTION DOESN'T "TAKE PLACE WITHIN SECONDS"! At best, it would update later that night with the merchant's financial feeds. However, most merchants only do this every few days or maybe just weekly.

God forbid someone actually check to see that the credit took place before they go out and spend, spend, spend...

Overdrafters, it's not difficult to save yourselves.

last week.

The banks are a business...and the way they make a profit..is from lending, and fees.

If you overdraft the account or bounce a check, you get a fee. Every bank charges a fee if they cover an overdraft, that is a given.

Overlooking all the other comments and banter I can note that this report does not state if any manipulations by the bank caused any additional fees. If this bank has done this...they will no doubt be repaying something back for it in the future. But no specifics are given in the report.

If the OP however does not like a fee for bouncing a check or overdrawing then the correct advice is do not bounce checks or overdraw the account. If you do choose to overdraft and bounce checks and feel this banks fees are too high, by all means close the account and use a bank that charges less for these kinds of fees.

All banks only care about money, I guess that is why they are called a "bank". However if they get too greedy and use deception and fraud they eventually get caught and have to change and/or pay for their irresponsibility.

If a customer gets caught overdrafting and bouncing checks, then they as well need to change and/or pay for their irresponsibility.

Although since the recent regulatory changes there have been substantially less bank overdraft related fee complaints lodged here, nothing can or should stop the bank from charging fees for overdrafts and bounced checks. As long as all the terms were properly disclosed and the fees are charged for legitimate ODs and NSF/returned items, then to just lodge a complaint about how high the fee is won't really help anything. I am sure the amount that the bank charges per legitimate overdraft and bounced check is clearly disclosed.

And even though I personally feel the banks are using less then ethical tactics to encourage customers to opt into OD coverage on the debit card..which essentially is encouraging overdrafting...banking customers can no longer be forced or automatically opted into OD protection with the debit card. So if any consumers overdraft with a debit card, I would need to ask why they are opted into any overdraft protection at all? If you don't like fees for overdrafting, why on earth would anyone sign up for a "service" that allows it when you could have the transaction declined if the funds are unavailable and not have to pay a red cent in fees?

Yes banks charge fees for services provided. Like any other business in America. What's so objectionable about that?  Banks are not non-profit organizations.  Grow up and grow a pair.

I thought jeanski was concerned about interest rates going up...but actually jeanski is worried about the rates going down which I would imagine there is not much room for that on your accounts as is.

Invest your money more wisely if you want to earn on interest these days. As I stated before..if customers were all perfect..the banks would still need to find a way to profit. It used to be by "fair" lending.

I would not sleep too well at night knowing I was earning another .001% on my savings account due to the bank ripping off ANYONE, young, old, rich, poor, responsible, irresponsible, black, white, religious, spiritual etc...the point of this site is to expose rip offs...not to post regarding the worry about how much we can profit off honest human error and unethical bank tactics...

What kind of a world do we really want to live in? The banks can charge all the fees they want..it is their right..as long as it is done in a fail, ethical and properly disclosed manner. Once they cross that line, thankfully it will be exposed and dealt with.

so anyone can read it, okay?

I am convinced.

The banks have done nothing wrong. Oh, they may have conned and scammed and bamboozled and deceived and victimized, and hustled and schemed, and flim flamed and swindled and manipulated, and promoted using online banking, and re-sequenced the times of debit card transactions, and auto enrolled customers into OD coverage with the debit card, and not allowed anyone to opt out, and allow merchants to conduct unknown authorization holds for any amount for any length of time, and thusly been able to charge many overdraft fees for one legitimate overdraft..or one overdraft that was not the fault of the consumer..and they were fleeced due solely to the fact that they are less fortunate...or any degree of failure to disclose...

After all..how DARE anyone know the banks could not be trusted. Everyone who was scammed by the banks tactics owes Jeanski an apology. The nerve of the American consumers to be irresponsible and potentially cause Jeanskis interests rates to go up. That is truly appalling. I can't believe the "few" of you can cause the interest rates of the "many" like Jeanskis interest rates to increase..why I should stick my head in a gas oven. My heart bleeds borscht.

Why how DARE these irresponsible "few" CHOOSE to spend 35 dollars for a cup of coffee...(well actually 35 dollars of it goes DIRECTLY to the bank for covering the buck fifty), out of SPITE, so Jeanskis interest rates can go up...those bastards!!!

It is all well and good..screw the American citizens..as long as it does not produce any negative effects on Jeanskis interest rates...we can let it slide.

I apologize to anyone I have ever offended by taking sides with the less fortunate..I had NO idea Jeanskis interest rates could be negatively affected. If I had known that, I would have never replied on this site.

and the bankers are trying to do everything in their power to sustain them, in my opinion.

I am a self-proclaimed "bank defender" and have decided to jump in. I find myself reflecting on what Ronny G just posted and thinking (getting way off topic) that the whole banking issue is just another example of how this country is quickly going to hell in a handbasket. The actions of a few (the overdrafters) are, once again, going to demand changes that affect the many.  Why does a privately owned bank have to change their rules because people are irresponsible? If you don't like the rules, don't bank there! If banks don't make a profit off overdraft fees, they'll have to lower the interest I make on my accounts (which is small to begin with).

This used to be a country where the majority ruled - the very essence of a democracy. Now, the vocal minority have made life so unpleasant that THEY rule. I'm thinking of prayer in the schools as one example. Recent surveys indicate that the majority of our country WANTS prayer in the schools - but God forbid we offend the minority. Children are being passed up into the next grade level despite not meeting standards because it might be detrimental to their self esteem to hold them back. We can no longer smoke in our local pubs because the non-smokers are offended. I have to allow my students to write in Ebonics because to enforce Standard American English on them would be offensive to their "culture" - and I teach at the college level!!!

When does it stop?  Hold onto your hats people. If you find "press 1 for English" to be offensive you're in the minority. Pretty soon we won't be learning Spanish, we'll be learning Arabic.... once again, pandering to the minority because the majority refuse to stand up and say, "Enough".

Wow - that felt good! But I fear my getting off topic will put me in the same category as Karl so I'll stop now :-)

A statement made by Edgeman several posts back and I quote...

"The difference now is that those customers who have chosen to manage their finances responsibly will now be reamed just like the ones who couldn't be bothered to track their spending."

Regardless, it is still the banks that are conducting said reamings...correct?

Now you and others we have referred to as "bank defenders"..or as some of you prefer "advocates of responsibility" have on many occasions left comments stating the bank did nothing wrong..or it's all the customers fault because if they did not overdraft in the first place, there would have been no fees.

Many would claim they were just trying to help the customer by "educating" them...or were administering some kind of "tough love" when being rude and condescending to many who complained here that the bank ripped them off.

Well regardless of the changes being due to the consumer complaints, the Feds stepping in, the banks making changes on their own, or lawsuits...the end will still be the same as if all the bank defenders and "advocates of responsibility" replies and advice actually worked...it would result in the banks losing this profit center.

Even if your general and biased assumption that anyone who was ever ripped off by overdraft fees was only because they did not bother to keep track of their spending, apparently still did not make it right the way the bank was handling it. The rip off was exposed. People were angry, and DEMANDED change.

Years and years ago when banks first started coming into peoples daily lives...there was a time when the people were angry..they realized the banks were lending using THEIR gold for a profit..and not giving them a cut..So the people revolted against the banks..many threatening to withdraw all their gold, and changes were made to be more fair to the customers.

Now we do it a different way....oh we may not use pitchforks like they did in the days of yor...but I am sure the banking industry is feeling the same sting when the pitchfork "point" of the US legal system comes after them.

Unfortunately..the only real solution we have. I don't like it, but if the banks will not behave, abide by proper laws, ethics and values on their own..then they need a good pitchforking one way or the other. Irresponsible spenders will always have financial problems..BUT,as long as the bank does not rip off anyone unjustly..then the irresponsible will have no way to lodge a legitimate complaint or commence a class action lawsuit.

Just something to ponder..it is clear to me, clear as day.

You seem to be missing the point as well.

I AGREE Chase and many banks will do everything in their power to encourage overdrafting...which is why I even mentioned the scare tactics they are using so more people fall sucker and opt into OD coverage.

This is why it is wise NOT to opt in. For the very reason that the BANK will use tactics and manipulations to encourage overdrafting. If everyone in the world was perfect...and no one made mistakes...and every merchant was honest...and authorization holds required customer knowledge and consent, and the banks were forthright...then OD protection would not even be needed in the first place....which ironically..who really needs this "protection" anyhow...but the BANK????

So the MAIN reason to not sign up for this protection....is not to encourage irresponsibility or to be careless with spending and managing the account..that part is not too difficult..well it shouldn't be for most peoples average spending..but in reality...to PROTECT customers from the BANK itself.

So what I am saying in a nutshell...is the only thing opting into overdraft protection does..is protect the bank..not the consumer. It protects the bank by making sure their tactics, honest customer mistakes, or any means possible to cause an overdraft..will keep them bathed in profits from this. One way or the other, this profit center will end for the bank...which is already in progress. We now need to be on guard for what they pull next. I am sure this site will expose it and we can go from there.

I really can not make this any clearer.

in order to ensure that some of their customers, mainly the ones living from paycheck to paycheck, continue to overdraft?

All banks or anything these days is going to have pages and pages and thousands of words...most that no one but a contract lawyer can understand.

But I am not lying..you can do this yourself. Go to Chase and open a checking account. The paper you sign is ONE page..LARGE writing..that asks if you would like overdraft protection on the debit card...or not.

If this had always been the case, I can't see how there would have been all the complaints and customer expense.

Some may opt in and pay the price. But at least the fact that Chase no longer re-sequences debit card transactions...and allows a business day to cover an overdraft...I can't really see any legitimate complaints either way. But sure a few will happen, it is a bank. But ALL of this info..was on ONE easy to read page where you sign. That is ALL I really expected to happen to help ease this problem. I feel it was good for me and friends I have recommended do the same. Nancy Reagan said "just say no"..well with an OD opt-in contract..."just sign no", and you have one less thing to worry about in this hectic enough world of avoiding cons and rip offs..

...Robert...and I admit I do not know much about you personally, and you do not know much about me personally..we can only "assume" from what we witness posted here.

Allow me to even better explain my points...

What you are doing..is WAY WAY WAY over thinking this. Heck sometimes just for me to respond to a forum online requests I agree to thousands of words in their terms.

Now whatever is the "hot issue now", is what the point of our hundreds of rebuttals and debates have been specifically regarding the last couple of years. If the banks are doing something to rob people, do you really feel a reason not to change anything is because it may or may not add some more words to their terms or legal mumbo jumbo? Don't bother me in the least.

The only words that really matter..are the ones left out..or the ones that can cost consumers money deceptively. The banks have a great advantage here because they have direct access to our money..our checking accounts, our savings accounts, right to offset, direct deposits..hence it is VERY important for anything that can cost a consumer HUNDREDS and maybe even thousands of dollars..be CLEARLY disclosed, and no deceptive tactics used.

Whatever the "next" hot issue will be, well I already see signs. But regardless we can only take things on a case by case basis and deal with it from there. The banks are EXPERTS at finding loopholes, and finding ways to exploit regulations and customers to raise revenue via fees. The issue was a biggie Robert..40 BILLION in 09 alone for fees?? Mostly due to small debit card POS transactions and small ATM cash withdrawals? This was more then just a few irresponsible account holders being frivolous Robert..this was ..well no other way to put it..customers who were victimized by the banks tactics.

For some reason you do not like I use the term victim. But it is not a "mentality", it is the best definition of what these customers were. Now just because I agree that someone was victimized by a bank, does not mean I expect they do not manage their finances...it just means that I do not hold the customer fully responsible for the situation. We both have left responses explaining to be more careful not to overdraft and measures to take..I have been accused of telling posters not to use a register which is bullshit, because I never have said that..and as much as I have requested..no bank defender or opposition to me has ever pasted where I stated this...

we just have a fundamental difference in opinion about who is responsible for the fee..and for allowing the debit card to be overdrawn in the first place. The bank told us this was to protect a mortgage payment...we told the bank which did they think was the mortgage payment....the hot dog or the coffee? We told the bank we did NOT want transactions approved if the account can not cover it...the banks told us "too bad". We told the banks we do not want the online statement manipulated, the banks told us to depend on it to manage the account.

The BS goes on and on..and it is exposed, and is being dealt with. It hurt a lot of struggling people during an economic crisis..and the bank had no justification to do this..other then pure, evil, unadulterated GREED. You know this Robert.

Now...regarding the scare tactics they are currently adopting to promote opt in. I feel it is very VERY wrong..and is going to end up getting the banks into a lot of trouble again. The banks have made the change to disclose and no longer automatically enroll, or deny opt out because they were FORCED to. But then you read about BofA saying things like "we made these changes because of customer complaints"..and other complete BS..

The problem is this. No one "needs" overdraft protection on a debit card. That is what a credit card is for. If it is just a matter of "avoiding embarrassment" or an "emergency"..well a truly responsible customer still has no need for this service.

So the banks have been busted for opting people in automatically and are in court for all the fees it caused. Instead of learning a lesson..they rather just scare people into it..since they can no longer force it, or enroll without due disclosure. I see it leading to more lawsuits. But since the customer can now choose and is given an easy to read comprehensive contract...things will improve (and have) regarding complaints for OD fees on the debit card. I am simply exposing what the banks are doing, and hopefully others will heed my advice and not be intimidated into signing up for this horrible "service" that ends up costing way more then it is worth. Those who have a nice balance do not have to worry either way..but those that live on the edge and paycheck to paycheck..as many have to these days, are giving the bank carte blanche to push them over the edge if they sign up for OD coverage with the debit card.

Look...people who are irresponsible are not going to change over what you or I tell them on a forum or complaint website...they are going to agree or disagree. I am only focusing on VICTIMS...people who made honest mistakes, or were subject to unknown authorization holds or charges (as I personally have been), and to make sure they do not opt into a service that can only hurt them if they keep a low balance.

As I have stated many times before here, that a by product of the law change is that it will help some who are irresponsible..not much we can do about that. But if it helps ANY honest people from being wiped out due to a small mistake or shady merchant...and prevents the banks from using tactics that encourage and permit overdrafting by those who are not as "enlightened" as you or I...then I can only come to the conclusion that this is a good thing for all involved..except maybe the banks. The substantial decrease of these types of complaints lodged on this website recently is proof enough for me that something is starting to work.

Or perhaps just because you were not victim to this..that anyone else who was is because they can't manage a bank account?

- I've told you my history.  The difference is that I LEARNED and didn't let other people talk me into the "victim" mentality that would just keep me making the same mistakes.  But anyways....

..but you are dooming yourself to an awfully bad place if you do not come to your senses and show a bit of compassion for your fellow man.

-  I do have compasion, if you knew what I do and what other activities I am involved in you would be very surprised..but no it is none of your business.  I think that the fees are very high, in fact I think $1 is too much to pay.  But I also KNOW that the fees are easily avoidable with minimal effort.   I noticed that you didn't seem to disagree that people don't spend enough time on their account.

Rembember the old saying..Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, TEACH a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.  So you don't like the way I "teach"..fair enough, but I am not here for Ronny from Hollywood.  If it gets one person to think that perhaps they may need to take a little more control over their situation then that is a good thing.  People may get upset at what I am telling them, because that is human nature that people do not like being told that they are wrong.  But if they sat back and look at what is said, it is impossible for them to disagree that doing proper account management is the BEST way to avoid overdraft fees.

...are not due to all of a sudden in the last few years, banking customers made some kind of conscious effort to mismanage their finances,

No..I don't think that anyone would "consciously" do that.  But just about every where you go, all you hear about is people being a "victim" of one thing or another.  That is eventually going to rub off on people and thus they then become a "victim".

There is no need for Of war and Peace sized documents to sign up for a freaking checking account. It was quite easy for me with Chase. One page...large simple verbiage...do I CHOOSE to be opted into overdraft coverage on my debit card...or not?

- Yes that is my point..there should be no "need" for it.  But you are taking about ONE aspect of the account, because that is the hot issue NOW.  What about the next "hot" issue?  Will there be another one page document?  Just because no one here knows what that issue would be does not mean that the banks don't have entire divisions of people looking at the next way to charge a fee.

By the way just out of curiosity, I went on-line and copied the terms off the basic Chase account into my favorite word processing program.  For the standard account terms and conditions there were 28,800 words.  Oh and what about the one page of large print for the new regulations?  Well the "fine" print behind that one page, in the "Adendem" for just the new regulations, was only a little light reading of just over 26,700 words.

Yes Chase and many other of the pitiful banks are doing everything they can to get customers to opt in,,,,but....as long as they at LEAST give a choice ..this is a good first step. As far as proper disclosure..this still may be a future issue as they are using scare tactics to encourage customers to opt in.

- Is that any different than Insurance companies using "scare" tacticts into having people think they need certain types of insurance?  Is that any different than a Tire company showing that if you don't use their tires you may not be as safe?  I could probably come up with another dozen or so companies that use "scare" tacticts in one way or another.  I'm not saying that it is right or wrong.  But banks are a business and there is no denying(you hear what I am saying) that the Overdraft fees were a big cost center for the banks.  So of course they are going to try to keep you in their overdraft protection.  But guess what it comes back to that one little thing.  Even if someone opts-in they will NEVER be charged a fee for it if they don't overdraft.  So if someone manages their account and does not go beyond their available balance the chances of them overdrafting are about zero..even if they do opt in.

Here..I can simplify my point...

Yes, I agree people should take the time and effort to manage their finances...as everyone would agree, no real profound advice here..common sense and a given..

However, the difference between managing our finances now vs how it used to be..is we need to do this to protect ourselves from the BANK. Why should that be? Why should anyone fear their bank? In the past people only had to fear bouncing a check..and in the worst case float a check.

These days the real fear is not bouncing a check but being charged 300 bucks by the bank for an honest mistake or an unknown merchant hold or charge. So that is all the customers fault Robert?

You can tell us with any integrity Robert...that when you first signed up with your bank..that by the terms booklet you understood that your debit card was subject to automatic OD protection and the banks were going to use manipulations to turn one legitimate overdraft into nine fees? Or perhaps just because you were not victim to this..that anyone else who was is because they can't manage a bank account?

If this is the case..why offer overdraft protection on the debit card at all? Seems as even some notorious bank defenders have noticed..the banks are currently promoting opting in so customers can "avoid embarrassment"..or "for an emergency"..or using warnings on statements, letters, emails and deposit receipts such as

"Avoid having your debit card declined..call the bank or click here for more info"...

Noticed this yet Robert?? Or has everyone but you? Or my personal favorite which I have in the past copied and pasted directly from bank websites..."Use online banking as a great way to manage your account". We all know how that one worked out. So if some customers are guilty of anything..it seems quite a few are simply guilty of trusting the EVIL banks. That is the real common mistake that I notice most customers made from these reports. You on the other hand see poor account managers. These customers are bank victims point blank.

...oh great defender of banks and the official lead "victim kicker of ROR?? Wait ...this needs to be capitalized....VICTIM....yes, I imply this term is accurate...VICTIM of bank policies and tactics...as there is no way to sugar coat what many banks have done.

Now yes, I agree that all bank customers or anyone for that matter, "manage" their finances. But there are many who were not brought up...trained, instructed or WARNED that the bank is the ENEMY...no Robert..many of us were told the bank is a safe place to deposit and SAVE our money.

Most of the "problems" we have...are not due to all of a sudden in the last few years, banking customers made some kind of conscious effort to mismanage their finances, or find ways to spend the banks money..NO.Robert,,,quite the contrary, the BANKS have been scandalously seeking ways to rob their customers blind. The sad part is really, that the BANKS realized the easiest (and most vulnerable) percentage to ROB blind...were those less fortunate.

This has been EXPOSED, and is apparently being dealt with...as WRONG is WRONG....no matter how you slice it..or who you try to blame.

Now perhaps it is always easy to "armchair referee" other peoples lives..and assume just because someone was suckered in by a bank they've trusted tactics is watching TV instead of watching the bank statements..which not so coincidentally is more fictitious then most TV shows....or to expect every single person in the USA to not make a mistake or be subjected to shady merchants...is somehow a reason to release the bank from any responsibility or wrong doing..but this is not the case. You do on "occasion" behave as others have stated...like some kind or corporate KISS a*s...and do not want anyone who is victim to a corporate ripoff..to have even the simple basic right or pleasure, to lodge a public complaint with any integrity. I hope no harm or foul in your life..but you are dooming yourself to an awfully bad place if you do not come to your senses and show a bit of compassion for your fellow man.

Neither myself, the victims, the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, nor the judge presiding the case care what YOU feel was properly disclosed. VERY few people would expect a bank they have trusted was manipulating times of transactions for the sole purpose of compounding fees...that is the bottom line...and whatever the banks have tried to use as a defense ...has and will continue to FAIL. It was NOT properly disclosed and unless you can provide documentation for the MILLIONS of customers who were not aware the debit card was subject to forced overdraft coverage and other tactics to pillage them....then you are best off not implying wrongdoing of customers or disparaging anyone you do not personally know.

If the only problem with the banks were that some were complaining the fees were too high..that is another story...but the issue is Robert...and you know it...that customers were charged fees UNJUSTLY for transactions that had the funds available at the time of the transaction according to their register,,and according to the time of the transaction.which the banks re-sequenced and manipulated for the SOLE purpose of accumulating and charging additional excessive fees...and this is part of the REAL problem, and for some reason as much as you HATE to admit it...is what the lawsuits are addressing, and rightfully so.

Look, if some people expect the bank to manage their accounts...then yes..they may get what is coming to them. But when the bank promotes that online banking is a great way to manage the account..then uses manipulations and deception to encourage overdrafting for the sole purpose of fleecing customers...I would think in all fairness, this should be reported, exposed, looked into...and as well..whatever actions it takes to prevent this..be it a combination of consumer awareness , regulatatory changes, lawsuits..whatever...it is better then doing nothing..or worse..criticizing and trying to take away the validity of those who have been victim..for no personal gain other then some kind of sinister pleasure derived from making others who are already hurting, hurt more...

Sorry. but there is really no better or more accurate way to describe this reality..

There is no need for Of war and Peace sized documents to sign up for a freaking checking account. It was quite easy for me with Chase. One page...large simple verbiage...do I CHOOSE to be opted into overdraft coverage on my debit card...or not?

Yes Chase and many other of the pitiful banks are doing everything they can to get customers to opt in,,,,but....as long as they at LEAST give a choice ..this is a good first step. As far as proper disclosure..this still may be a future issue as they are using scare tactics to encourage customers to opt in.

And I think you know d**n well..they are coming after the so called "responsible" customers next..as well as your savings account. And you know what??? I will be here to defend you when you lodge your complaints. Just make sure you blame the actual source and not the less fortunate.

Robert, you are wrong and are missing the point. People make mistakes and do not try to put themselves in trouble. What is happening to middle class and poor Americans is well documented and this is an evil system. It is a pedatory system devised to make all middle class poor serfs. IN DEBT WE TRUST is another resource. To earn the right to an opinion research is necessary.

You use the term "manage" like having a bank account should be a f****** job. It should not have to be a job.

- Why not?  Isn't it their money.  If people would treat it more as a job perhaps they wouldn't get in to all of the problems they have.  But then again with the work ethic of some in this country that may explain the problem as well.

Now it does not have to be a full-time job, or even a part-time job.  Time is NOT an excuse.  The sad thing is that if you ask people if they spend more time managing their account or deciding what to watch on TV.  I would bet that a majority of the people who have problems would say trying to figure out what to watch on TV.

We only ask for honest disclosure.

- Here is the problem with that it everything WAS disclosed.  Whether or not you agree with it is another matter.  But IF people read what was actually in the terms they would see how banks process transactions, they would see how Debit Cards are handled, and most importantly they would understand the fees involoved.  Banks are more than willing to explain it to you if you don't understand. 

Unfortunatly "reform" is just going to lead to more disclosures.  If people didn't read them before you honestly think they are going to read them now.  All this reform did was move one of the sections to a higher presence.  Giving them the option to opt-in or not.  Well what about the next complaint?   Not sure what that will be, but let's say there is another thing that another reform says that an account holder has to opt-in to.   Just how many of these things is someone going to approve.  I am not saying this is going to happen overnight, but in time don't be surprised to have the discloures the size of War and Peace and have to have someone spend more time signing documents to open an account than they did to purchase a house. 

I on the other hand know for a fact..that honest good hard working Americans can and do make mistakes. And are willing to pay for their mistakes and "man up"....

- Yes and a vast majority of the "mistake" they made was that they didn't manage their accounts.  Then all of they are willing to "man up" because they are being hit with tons of fees and would gladly take one or two.  But there were just as many reports..even now..where they get hit with a single fee and still complain because the fee was too high.

In short the people who don't manage their account got exactly what they wanted.  The bank to take more responsibility in managing THEIR money, by being mommy and daddy telling them when they are out of money and can't spend anymore.  Unfortunatly the people who did manage their account now are going to get hit with more fees.

Kinda missed you around here..you are quite a competitive adversary.

Glad you are back..lets break down your reply....

"Somebody actually thinks that the banks are shaping up and we are moving in the right direction?! Oh my friend, believe me when I tell you that the banks have only just begun! The difference now is that those customers who have chosen to manage their finances responsibly will now be reamed just like the ones who couldn't be bothered to track their spending."

Oh I actually agree with you to an extent here...the banks have only just begun. But now as I have stated probably as far back as 2 years ago..they are coming after savings account holders....and so called "responsible" customers.

You use the term "manage" like having a bank account should be a f**king job. It should not have to be a job. We only ask for honest disclosure. If we want a line of credit...then we will sign up for a line of credit. If we simply want access to OUR money via a debit card...then we do not expect that the BANK continue to fund our debit card if the account is depleted...then no one should get hurt...right???

You see Edgeman..much like the knuckle dragging neanderthal who is our beloved "I am the law" believes...that anyone who  is subject to an overdraft fee..is some kind of irresponsible drug addicted criminal...and deserves what the bank dishes out.

I on the other hand know for a fact..that honest good hard working Americans can and do make mistakes. And are willing to pay for their mistakes and "man up"....but will not take getting ripped off by unethical tactics and policies.

Whatever the banks are "dreaming up" is all well and good. All "we" ever asked, is do not exploit honest hard working Americans mistakes (which the BIGGEST mistake was trusting what the banks promoted....ie: the safety and convenience of online banking, direct deposit, auto bill pay etc..well you know..all the things that lower income and lower balance customers would most likely want and depend on..like college students, veterans, the poor (yes, some people are actually poor and do not choose to be..imagine that a*****e)...., the sick, the handicapped, the very young, the very old....well I do not know how else to put it...but...easy targets???..victims???

Another financial meltdown you say?? Well if the current meltdown ever stops..then we can say "another". It will continue for as long as we the people allow greed to be considered ahead of compassion. Oh yes...I said it..the "C" word. But I can not apologize because I have compassion for victims of wall street greed and corruption, I can only say if ALL of us continue to bicker amongst ourselves over fundamentalism and party lines..and not realize we are ALL going to pay the price in the end..then this really is all for nothing and might as well drink the cool aid.

Somebody actually thinks that the banks are shaping up and we are moving in the right direction?! Oh my friend, believe me when I tell you that the banks have only just begun! The difference now is that those customers who have chosen to manage their finances responsibly will now be reamed just like the ones who couldn't be bothered to track their spending.

I strongly suggest that everybody read every single piece of paper that your banks send you. The banks are dreaming up all kinds of new fees for checking, savings accounts and credit cards not to mention other fun tidbits like how they will calculate interest.

Oh, and the government is still encouraging and subsidizing the banks to engage in risky investments. We're well on the way to another financial meltdown.

This thread amply demonstrates that the banking regulation problem is far from over. I have experienced the nasty practices that happen to the middle class and the poor as a result of deregulation. We are moving in the right direction yet the game is out of the box. Anyone interested I suggest watching the documentary MAXED OUT to see how banks targeted people that are poor and students to overspend. That is where they gain these best profits. Again, do not believe me, instead use YOUR critical thinking and watch the film and research the issue. I also suggest THE CORPORATION to see what is behind the banks. Then to understand how the banks are changing the world SPEAKING FREELY: JOHN PERKINS, and THE END OF POVERTY? This will allow you to see the web that we are all stuck in at this time. We have been targeted and told to spend lavishly since it is good for our economy. If you want it you DESERVE IT remember that one? The credo of deregulation and greed.  

I re-read I am the laws last response over..and I realized...he has NO Clue what we are discussing and/or debating.

We are debating debit card OD fees in regards to opting out..he is debating (as Robert stated) being opt in..and bank reform

He thinks we are defending deadbeats, but we are simply debating certain bank policies and tactics that can and do rip off honest customers, at least some of us have noticed. Sure some changes may protect a deadbeat..but that is not the purpose of the changes..no one would want a change that protects only deadbeats. And why would a deadbeat choose to opt out anyhow? This would not allow a deadbeat to spend the banks money.

This is not the first time I am the law has claimed "winning" a debate or being "right" when nothing he was talking about was being debated, or had to do with the actual topic.

There is no point to debating or discussing something with a person who does not even have a clue what the topic of the debate is.

So I admit I was WRONG....for requesting that I am the law admit he was wrong...because he really does not know he is debating a different topic, so he can not know he is wrong.

Good night.

..for SO many reasons.

Number 1..when have to EVER seen me use the term "bank reform"? I only refer to the current regulation change that PREVENTS banks from automatically enrolling every checking account customer into standard overdraft coverage regarding the DEBIT CARD.

What I would like to see "re-formed"..is every bank do what Chase has recently did, and what the lawsuits are going to address..which is to cease the re-sequencing of DEBIT card transactions...you know..the manipulations and post real time. I also hope they delve into the banks promoting of customers to use online banking as a great way to manage the account, but the lawyers may not even have to as the "register defense" is not going to cut it anyhow.

Now the examples you gave were BUNK, so I had no problem debunking them. Even Robert  agreed with me to a "point" on a few, and whatever he did not agree with that I stated, I replied and explained..Sorry, but I am not wrong, and neither is Edward. You simply LOST this one and can not man up...hmmm..I recall another post where your "evil twin" did not man up either....and "his" final response after I TOASTED you....umm...oops I mean "him"....  "whatever". Now THAT is a reason to LOL. But not for laugh out loud...for loser of losers.

Now as far as what you copied from the banks website....what does that prove?????????? Either way...as long as the customer was not forced or automatically enrolled in OD coverage....and now that the banks MUST by law offer the choice....if the customer CHOOSES to not enroll into OD protection...any hold, charge, authorization etc CAN NOT CAUSE AN OVERDRAFT FEE....why you may ask??

...because the TRANSACTION WILL BE DECLINED if the account can not cover it. Now tell us oh great one...HOW can the bank charge an overdraft fee if they do not cover an overdraft? They can not and they don't.

Now before you AGAIN put your BIG FAT foot in your mouth....we ALL know that this does not apply to a check or ACH transactions. This whole discussion that Edward and I have been dealing with..is only regarding DEBIT CARD TRANSACTIONS. Do you understand yet?

Oh wait...you do not want to understand...it is easier for you to "give up"..right?...quitting coward. Why not for ONCE in your life..admit you were wrong and we can all be friends again. I have admitted when I was wrong on this site...I have admitted to putting my foot in my mouth several times...since I can not edit replies..I post back corrections if I catch a mistake I made. You know I am the law..people make mistakes..it happens. I can only imagine you were raised that if you made a mistake you were abused, beaten or maybe shamed..and this may explain why you are this way..

But it might do good for you....try it....go on...just try...come to this site and just type in "I ADMIT I WAS WRONG"...It will make you a better person and we all have room for improvement.

Don't be a sissy girl...try being a man for once in your life.

The direct deposit "technically" was not made the same "business day"...well at least according to the way Chase policy states..it must be in by 6PM. I do know the direct deposit is released by her employer well before 10PM since some employees who use a credit union have availability to their paychecks early Thursday morning.

So, if we can assume the possibility that there were no fees due to her covering the account the same business day...I can only assume the bank realizes that they should not have approved the DEBIT CARD transaction if it would cause an overdraft.

Now I know Robert mentioned earlier that most online/electronic transactions are considered ACH...but where do you draw the line?

In other words for example, many times when I sign up for an electronic bill pay..it gives me the choice to use either my checking account number OR my debit card number. So even though the debit card is funded by my checking account..surely there is some difference or why would they not just ask for my checking account number, or ask for both numbers?

See how this is a gray area? Kind of like when you swipe the card and it asks "debit or credit"...well what is it...a Debit card or a credit card?....a debit card or a check/ACH? How does the consumer really know in every case?

I just reviewed my room mates account. It seems the insurance payment posted on the 29th...her direct deposit posted on the 30th..but actually comes in on the 29th at 10PM. So technically, the account was covered the same business day.

Now I do not know how their current polices work since back when I was with wackoffonya....they were not involved with Wells so there are most likely changes I am unaware of, as well as the employees..which may be for the better.

I do know that if you make a deposit to cover an OD on the same businees day at Chase, you avoid a fee. Either way, if this payment which was done over the phone using the DEBIT card and NOT the checking account per say did not have the funds, the transaction should have been declined. Apparently the BANK knows this, but judging by the notices she was sent,,their "system" is not fully in place to deal with the changes other then sending out OD notices with $0.00 has the fee charge..instead of the usual $35.00 or so.

I also note she only went over by $2.38 This is because as far as I can make out on the statement, she was double billed by a merchant. It would have been much easier to figure this out had Wachovia/Wells cease playing slot machine with the transactions....but nonetheless, we now know what happened and can deal with the merchant accordingly. She is a UCLA law student living week to week, she can not afford a bank fleecing rip off at this time.

Strange thing is...the overdraft for the insurance payment is in brackets, which implies an negative balance. But yet...there is still no fee and this is going back to the 29th of July.

All I can say, is thank goodness for the current regulation changes, thank goodness for the American citizens that did not take this sitting down and spoke out..and thank goodness my room mate took my advice a while ago and told the bank she does NOT want any overdraft coverage on the DEBIT card...she has a credit card to use for CREDIT if she does not want to dip into the account.

Edward/Ronny,

You two yo-yo's asked me for examples on how you can overdraft using a bank card even after "bank reform". I gave you seven. What a shocker that that wouldn't be good enough for you.  

Instead of retyping everything and telling you how wrong you are, or copying and pasting things like this from USB's website...

"When we receive an electronic notice that a U.S. Bank Check Card (non-PIN) transaction has been authorized against your account, we will place a hold on your account for that amount. Some merchants (e.g., hotels, gas stations, car rental agencies) estimate the anticipated purchase for authorization. As a result, the amount held against your account may be less or greater than the final transaction amount presented."

...I think I'm just going to quit.

This is no longer an intelligent debate about people taking responsibility for their finances; it's degraded into an "alpha male " type of argument. Frankly, it's getting a little old. No matter how many times you're proven wrong, you'll just pretend like you don't understand or flat out lie about what other people are trying to tell you. I have a toddler at home that plays this same game. Well, I'm not playing anymore. Go ahead and think what you want about the banks; it's no skin off my teeth. I'll just be here enjoying heading into my second decade of no overdraft fees.

I tried to help you. Oh well... Some people just won't admit when they're wrong. Don't worry ladies, I won't bother you anymore. Apparently, you're pretty delicate.

Okay, I will explain to Robert the information I left in my last response...

"- Okay perhaps I missed it, so please fill us "ignorant" people in and show us where in the new regulations how things such as Pay-at-the-Pump are handled. "

Perhaps you did not understand what I posted. I clearly explained that the Gub'ment has taken it into consideration since they have determined this is a flaw in the system. They are also aware that some will fall through the cracks.

However, a possible gas pump overdraft scenario is not enough reason to warrant keeping in place the policies the banks were using that cost honest consumers billions.

And I ask as well...anyone..show me a single report where someone who was opted out of OD protection has lodged a complaint regarding a gas pump.

I have posted quotes in other related reports that the gas pump issue is being "investigated"  since it is a possibility for there to be an issue, and in these quotes it states it is being looked into. I do not feel like digging up the info now, but if you insist, I will. Or you can advanced search through some older bank rip off reports and it will be there somewhere.

You may be correct regarding the PIN vs credit..I use a PIN, my debit card (as much as the banks seem to treat it as such in a sense) is NOT a credit card. Perhaps part of the solution is to deny using a debit card as a credit card at the pump?...you may have suggested a possible solution Robert.

"- Please inform us where you go this bit of information that the tip requires a second authorization and the possibility of being declined?  Because I don't know about you but the resturants I go to only authorize the amount of the bill.  If I place a tip on there they don't run it through again right there, but when the finalize the books that night they put actual amount under the original authrorization."

How I found this out...was actually on my own. I used my paypal card once and that instantly sends the transactions to my online statement. Unlike the bank they don't have reason to hide or decieve since they never authorize a transaction that can overdraft the account. I had forgot to write in a tip..my bad. I would have went back and left one...but I could see on the statement that they entered in their own tip amount, but the account did not have it available. They tried a few time and it was declined each and every time.

Another time I used my bank card and as soon as they took the card they swiped an authorization hold for 50 dollars. Unknown to me until I checked my online statement, the 50 dollar hold stayed on the account for almost a WEEK. I went there in person and complained..and then it was removed. I have a feeling they were trying to scam the 50 but I can not prove it. I am just glad I caught it and glad I am not opted into OD protection so this could not have caused overdrafts down the road.

Now granted many restaurants do it the way you stated, I agree. But regardless..and why I am the Laws point was invalid....in other words...WRONG, is because if the account can not cover the tip..regardless of when they try to enter it, the transaction will be declined if you are opted out of OD protection. A tip is not an ACH payment. Now this may suck for waiters and waitresses who may get stiffed do to a customer error..but at least this also protects the consumer from any disgruntled or dishonest (or even mistaken) employee that enters in the wrong amount.

Now as a bonus....even if the account can cover a wrong amount entered by an employee, the customer would not know even if they use a register correctly. So being opted out protects them as well...FROM THE BANK. Because if they were not aware the restaurant entered the wrong amount, the bank would allow the card to be used accruing OD fees until the cows come home. Being opted out can help prevent this type of incident. I live in LA..not all merchants and businesses and employees are honest. We already know the bank is not honest so why give them any opportunity to exploit us?


On topic...there is something out of the ordinary going on with my room mate and Wachovia/Wells. She is opted out of OD protection..but something seemed to OD the account. No fees showed up...but it took a week or so for the online statement to "stabilize"..since unlike Chase this bank STILL does not post real time, and they still re-sequence and manipulate..even when opted out...odd. Anyhow...it seems she went over a few bucks on an insurance payment done with the debit card.

I called the bank for her and asked if there would be a fee for this. They said yes. We are both okay with that since she messed up. I said to her that if they only charge the one fee for the insurance, that is fine..but if a boatload of fees start pouring in...we will fight this to the death since in all fairness, the insurance payment should have been declined if the account could not cover it...the bank covered it.

So far..we got in the mail 4 post cards. They show NINE overdrafts....but $0.00 in fees. So far not even a fee for the actual overdraft.

What this tells me..is that if she had been opted into OD protection (and I KNOW how this bank worked, they were brutal), that she would have been subject to $310.00 in OD fees...due to ONE legitimate overdraft...an honest mistake would have cleaned her out...And NOT because she is a deadbeat or irresponsible or a criminal...no...because the BANK manipulated it this way...and this is what these banks were doing..and why they are in court, and why the changes are taking place. It really was criminal and unconscionable.

In all of his previous posts, I am the law has repeated the theme that the new banking reform and policy changes will do NOTHING to change or improve things for overdrafters. Well, let's use simple math for a moment.

If you're an habitual overdrafter, in the past if you swiped your card seven times or ten times with each swipe overdrafting your account, you were hit with SEVEN fees or TEN fees, stipulating they all posted on the same day. US Bank, like numerous other banks have CHANGED their policies to only charge a maximum of THREE fees per day, regardless of how many transactions overdraw the account. Simple math dictates three fees will hurt the customer far less that ten fees. Three is less than Ten, any day of the week.  $99 is far less than $330, any day of the week.

Don't look now, but coming soon to a US Bank branch near you, another policy change, effective August 15th. For overdrafts caused by transactions under $20, the resulting fee will only be $10 instead of $33.  Simple math dictates this smaller fee for transactions under $20 will hurt the customer far less. $10 is less than $33 any day of the week.

And thanks to Ronny G for clarifying my earlier post. I did mean to say that reports for fees solely related to Debit Cards have almost vanished. I understand that ROR's for all other banking issues will continue for things like poor customer service, check cashing fees, ATM fees, etc... I'm strictly focusing on Debit Card overdraft fees, because as the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton put it "That's where the money is".

Will overdraft fees continue to be paid? Of course. Myself and Ronny G have never argued that overdrafters should get by scot-free. But the new policy changes indicate the punishment will be far less outrageous and closer to fair instead of a Ripoff.

there, okay?

The key that I am seeing is that it appears that I am the law is assuming that the person has "opted-in" to Overdraft Protection, while Ronny is assuming that the person has "opted-out".  Which in most of the cases they would then both be right, from their perspectives. 

However, there are still some statements that Ronny has made that he needs to let us know where he is getting his "information".

1. If you do not think gas pump swipes were taken into consideration by the Feds and the banks...you may be even more ignorant then I thought

- Okay perhaps I missed it, so please fill us "ignorant" people in and show us where in the new regulations how things such as Pay-at-the-Pump are handled. 

But note that there are differences in how a pump is "authorized".  If you use a Pay-At-The-Pump as a PIN Based transaction then they will generally authorize a set amount(usually $50-$75).   If you do not have that much it will be declined.  I have also noticed that these will post the real amount pretty quickly, usually by the next business day.

But if you use it as a "Debit Card" transaction they treat that as a Credit Card and only authorize $1.  So as long as you have $1 it will approved.  Here quite often it can be anywhere from 1-3 days to post.  This is more dependent on the Station and not the bank.  For example there is one gas station I go to and regardless of the bank it takes constantly 3 days to post, but at another station with the same bank it is usually a constant 1 day.

2. It will be approved. Now if Danny d**k the waiter decides to SCAM negligent NICK by writing in a tip amount...Nick is protected..as..since negligent Nick was WISE enough to not opt into overdraft protection..the tip charge will be declined...

- Please inform us where you go this bit of information that the tip requires a second authorization and the possibility of being declined?  Because I don't know about you but the resturants I go to only authorize the amount of the bill.  If I place a tip on there they don't run it through again right there, but when the finalize the books that night they put actual amount under the original authrorization.

Now onto I Am The Law..

Either way, the check was gonna bounce and subject her to fees.

- I'd have to agree with Ronny on this one to a point.  Checks have always been subject to NSF fees, the new regulations don't change that.  In fact it probably has made the banks less likely to pay a check that would cause an account to overdraft.  However, for $500 it is very likely that the bank will return the check NSF instead of paying it.  Whether or not the user has opted-in or opted-out of Overdraft Protection.

4. & 5

If the account holder does not have OD Protection AND the authorization was on-line and not in a batch mode.  Then yes both of these transactions are supposed to be declined at the Point of Sale.

6.

This is the same as 3 in that it is an ACH transaction and treated under the same regulations as a check.  Oh and most payments on-oline go through as an ACH transaction and not as a debit card transaction.

..yes, it seems you have actually gone out of your way to PROVE that you simply enjoy demeaning those who got SHAFTED by the bank. I do not know why you have decided to take on this role..but lets break down your replies..and use it to "exploit" your ignorance, much as the banks have been doing the past several years to exploit regulations and honest customer errors...

Okay..apparently you feel I am "playing" the victim. And yes I agree the word "victim" is powerful. But according to any conventional dictionary definition...the term "victim" as applied to this case, will be defined as..."one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent", I got this one from Stacy's dictionary of choice (remember her?)

Now in typical bank defender fashion...you bring up the gas pump..which Edward and myself have COUNTLESS times...explained. But..I will explain it to you AGAIN..since you can not seem to comprehend that we are aware of the potential. Bottom line is this...there is a flaw in the "system", and it is being looked into. What happens in my personal experience....is when I swipe a card at the pump (and ALL my accounts are NOT opted into ANY kind of OD coverage), the authorization hold is not one dollar...but 50 or 75 dollars depending on the merchant. Now since my vehicle at the current gas prices would not ever be able to take 50 or 75 dollars in gas, I am pretty safe form overdrafting at the pump.

Not to say in some cases it may be possible for someone to overdraft with a debit card even if opted out...but I highly doubt that will make it to this site..the bank will either not charge a fee...reverse part of the charges...or the customer will simply have to pay the SINGLE fee. You see....there were NEVER any complaints that were valid..that had anything to do with being charged the overdraft fee as stated in the terms for a LEGITIMATE overdraft..the complaints were regarding being opted into OD coverage without due disclosure or choice, re-sequencing transactions in order to charge overdraft fees when the funds were AVAILABLE at the time of the transaction(s) according the the BANKS statements..AND the customers register....and top that off with the flawed deceptive online banking scheme.

Now as I have done in the past quite a few times....lets go though your silly statements...and easily debunk them one by one...ahh..like the good old days..thank you for this...


1. Opie Overdrafter has $10 in his account. He goes to the gas station and gets $11 in gas. The debit card authorization pends for $1, but when the gas station comes to the bank for their money, their receipt shows Opie got $11 in gas. OVERDRAFT!

This was already mentioned. The GOVERNMENT..yes the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is aware there is a problem with this system. I have stated how my bank deals with it..and how others may. If you do not think gas pump swipes were taken into consideration by the Feds and the banks...you may be even more ignorant then I thought, which is hard to believe. Over the years (like back when Edward and I would be here all the time being the voices of reason), several bank defenders would state that they we were wrong that the regulations would change..and they always brought up the gas pump. But nevertheless, the regulations have changed regardless of the "gas pump theory"...and this is a detriment to the bank, and the bank defenders. If the only thing you got is a gas pump...well then lets watch the rip off reports and see what happens. Or..can you post any report numbers where there were any overdraft issues due to pumping in too much gas? I have not read about any...anywhere for that matter. And I have been opted out of OD protection for years as well as many others. Where are all these complaints "Opie"?????

I have banked many years with my current bank, not USB and have just recently had similar problems.  I overdrew my account, realized it and tranferred money from savings to the checking account, to the tune of over $500 to cover a less than $50 dollar purchase and overdraft fees, did all of this online before 2pm and still didn't have access to my money that evening, and got charged an additional fee that night before they added my online transfer transaction.  In years past I could transfer money anytime from checking to savings at anytime even if the bank was closed and have it in my checking account instantaneously.  Now I have to do the transaction before 3pm which I had done, and then wait till the next day for it to post.  Something seems fishy here.  Also the online account notifier is supposed to let me know if I go below a certain amount, which it did after it said that I had overdrawn my account and not after the two transaction the day before that had lowered my account below the amount that I had set.

I take offense to being treated by you that I am a dullard or an incompetent, because I might bounce a check.  This mostly happens when I get a tad short and purchase gas, and some how I don't have all the money that should be there in the account.  It never shows up that way on my account statement but my card says insufficient funds when there is ample funds for the $5 lunch purchase.  This is embarassing, having to borrow from a co-worker or my significant other when we are out together.  The other night, I took my 16 year old daughter out to supper at Panera Bread after finishing a summer college statistics course in which I got an A in the class, and we wanted to celebrate.  I had to call my significant other down to pay our bill, not only was I embarrassed at the eatery, but also because he had to bail us out, when it wasn't my fault at all, I had transferred money earlier in the day, all with money that the bank currently held, not a deposit or a paycheck but money I had in a separate account.  Insufficient Funds, was not the case but yet I had to suffer, and got a lame excuse from the bank.  It's my money I should be able to use it when I want to, and not have to jump thru hoops to get to it.

Years ago I had signed off on the debit card overdraft protection. Just saw it as cost prohibitive, regular overdraft fees I hardly ever saw and I use the card and rarely write checks so disenrolled after a banking snafu that wan't my error. Now I am considering re enrolling or changing banks so that I am not embarrassed like I was the other night.  Still don't want to pay the fees, especially when I have money in the bank already, don't want an overdraft loan account, just want them take money out of the saving account if there isn't enough in checking.  However they say that they cannot link the two accounts that way, however the credit union can and there are no fees when they do it.

-cclasby

Oh, I almost forgot. "Bank reform" doesn't do a darn thing against returned item fees, just overdraft fees. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Suffer!

"Otherwise tell us...oh great one of much wisdom....tell us how you can overdraft with a DEBIT card if the transition is declined if if will bring the account into the red?"

That Ronny G, up to his old tricks again; always playing the victim. For years, I thought that overdrafters were just negligent. Apparently, theyre stupid, too. Ronny G, do you honestly think with bank reform that moronic overdrafters will no longer bring hideous amounts of bank fees upon themselves? You cant be that nave. I still see countless RORs being filed every day by overdrafting dolts. Again.. SSDD. So, you wanted some examples of what I was talking about in my last response? Fine, Ive got plenty.

1. Opie Overdrafter has $10 in his account. He goes to the gas station and gets $11 in gas. The debit card authorization pends for $1, but when the gas station comes to the bank for their money, their receipt shows Opie got $11 in gas. OVERDRAFT!

2. Negligent Nick goes to Fridays for dinner. He had $10 in his account. He gets $9 in food. The waiter runs the card for $9. When Nick signs the receipt he adds on a $2 tip. Fridays collects $11 from his account when they turn in their transaction to the bank. OVERDRAFT!

3. Molly Moron has $100 in her account. She goes to the grocery store and buys $100 in groceries. However, Molly wrote a check to her landlord for $500 which clears two days after her grocery purchase. OVERDRAFT!

4. Low Balance Larry has $100 in his account. He gets a hotel room for $75 for one night. The hotel puts a $100 hold on his debit card until Larry checks out. In the meantime, Larry went to the shopping mall next door to the hotel and spent $10 on some clothes. OVERDRAFT!

5. Stew Pid has no money in his account. He returns some items to a store and spends the money hed get back as a credit without checking with the store on how long it takes for them to post his credit. OVERDRAFT!

6. Miss Ingmoney spends all the money in her account with her debit card, bringing her to a zero balance, but has an autodraft for her car insurance the next day. (I dont know why I used this example. I figure if overdrafters cant pay attention to their balance, they probably dont have auto insurance.) anyway OVERDRAFT!

Is that enough examples for you? If not, Ive got a book of them. I guess you two geniuses (you and Edward) didnt think about the fact that if your bank doesnt cover a transaction that you dont have funds to pay for, you will most likely get a fee from the party the payment was supposed to go to. So, did you avoid an overdraft fee? Yes. But now you have to pay a returned item fee to the merchant. What have you gained? Nothing. All youre doing is denying one party your money and giving it to another. Seems like simple logic to me.

So, go ahead, overdrafters and run amok with your debit cards thinking youve beat the system. As usual, Ill be here laughing at you when you end up knee deep in bank fees. Remember, even the president can't stop customer stupidity. Hahahaha!

P.S. For the zillionth time Ronny, RESEQUENCING TRANSCATIONS, POSTING CREDITS FIRST, THEN HIGHEST TO LOWEST DEBITS MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE IF YOU SLACK-JAWED DULLARDS WOULD KEEP A SUFFICIENT BALANCE! Quit trying to use this as an excuse. It doesnt work.

Edward is quite correct. The number of complaints regarding debit card overdraft fees has dwindled from several a day on this site..to practically ziltch.

I, like Edward have been bored also, so I have been having fun on other reports..I seem to have little use currently defending any victims of bank auto enroll and related tactics.

I think you notice this to I am the Law and just can't admit Edward, myself and a few others were right...but I do notice I do not see you here nearly as much lately. Or just do a search and check the dates...let us know how you can justifying saying the complaints regarding this topic have not dwindled compared to the last few YEARS where the reports were virtually non stop.

Even this report, which we agree is vague..mentions checks. Most of the reports were only regarding OD fee with the debit cards, complaints asking why the bank covered transaction when the customers did not want the protection..and how this tactic was compounding fees due to re-sequencing transactions. And the online statement the bank told them to depend on was a farce. (promising convenience and a great way to manage accounts..yeah right we saw how that worked out)

You told me that I would do what? USB and EVERY bank and financial institution is FORCED by regulation changes to cease auto enrolling in standard OD coverage..and must give comprehensive valid disclosure regarding enrollment (like I am sure they will do that..lol.

But this does not make go away the fact that for several YEARS now..the banks WERE auto enrolling , many without due disclosure. And THIS is why they are in court. They didn't volunteer to do the right thing, they were forced. But if you break the law/ and or violate ethics...just changing policies (forced by law or not) does not make the previous crimes go away. Nor does it do much to help any past victims of said crimes and tactics against hard working and otherwise financially struggling Americans during a horrible recession.

So I have not done or said anything that contradicts anything else I ever posted..I merely state the facts.

And, I guess you have not been reading up enough. Sure, a few may claim they didn't get a notice and that would be hard to believe. But the BIGGER issue is going to be..and MARK my words, the fact that the banks are using tactics..even scare tactics to do what you may ask???   To get them to sign up for standard overdraft protection. And why would the banks do this you may ask? They want to protect our mortgage payment??? You believe that?  I think not. They want to encourage customers to enroll since they can not by law do it automatically anymore. And since the fleecing of their own customers by these types of fees have been a huge profit center for the banks...this is why they WANT you and me to overdraft...


...when honesty you and I know d**n well if we made a mistake, we would rather have a transaction declined then pay 35-40 dollars per plus "manipulation" fees which many banks still do (Not Chase however, they stopped re-sequencing and transactions are posted real time).

If my card can not cover a burger for any reason, I will dig through my car for change or use another card, or whatever, I am not so worried about this causing me any problems..why? Because I do keep track of my spending...but like anyone else who keeps a low balance, a mistake or an authorization charge could potentially bring me over..I would NOT prefer the loan, and I believe many customers in the past did not want this loan forced upon them due to a mistake or a merchant hold...wouldn't you in all logic and fairness agree?



You also seem to have NO clue how choosing not to be enrolled in OD protection actually PROTECTS against overdraft fees. Otherwise tell us...oh great one of much wisdom....tell us how you can overdraft with a DEBIT card if the transition is declined if if will bring the account into the red? A merchant authorization hold can no longer go through if it overdrafts the account. If it does go through and the customer is unaware, the card will be declined at any point of sale or ATM withdrawal, giving the customer fair and ample time to figure out why the account is in danger...why can't you understand that this is a GOOD thing for every honest customer? For someone who wishes to overdraft or have transactions approved if the account can't cover it..more power to them..they simply check the "enroll me" box. However they now have to SIGN for it so how could they claim the bank forced them into the protection? The banks can not anymore.

Why it took the Feds to force this on the banks is beyond me..but I would imagine it had something to do with....uhhhh...perhaps All THE COMPLAINTS??? You think?

As far as other shenanigans the banks (including US Bank) have pulled in the past, I guess it is only a matter of time when we find out the verdict of the lawsuits...hey maybe all the "deadbeats" will get some of THEIR money back that the banks robbed from them.

...who stated...

"Don't spend more than what you have in the account and it won't make any difference what order the bank processes your transactions. The one to blame isn't the bank, it's the one you see in the mirror."

I would agree with this 100%..IF the banks did not promote customers to use the online statement as a great way to manage the account...and if you look at the online banking promotions of the banks that have the most complaints..and the banks currently defendants in a major class action lawsuit in Federal court, you will note they all promoted online banking this way.

I also would agree with you 100% if the banks had not been auto enrolling every single checking account customer into overdraft coverage with the DEBIT card, as if the debit card was not intended to be a credit card, why were the banks FORCING every customer (automatically and apparently not always properly disclosed) into a "service" that allowed overdrafts to occur in the first place. You know times are a bit different then the days when most people had their paychecks cashed at work, got paid weekly, did not have direct deposit, and only used checks a couple of times a month at most to pay rent, mortgage, car payment or other large purchases.

I would also agree with you 100% if there were no way possible that a consumer could overdraft (or as you say "spend more then they have in the account"), simply by keeping accurate track with a ledger/register or the banks statements..all of which are vulnerable. Now the reason the online statement is vulnerable is obvious to anyone who ever depended on it as the banks promoted..since it is proven to be inaccurate, undependable and manipulated... and a major cause of customers spending more then they have.

The reason a ledger or register is vulnerable, is because it seems merchants, restaurants, bars, gas stations etc can place authorization holds against the account, for any random amount they choose it seems, and can do this without the customers knowledge or consent. How this is legal I do not know..but as long as it is possible for this to happen (happened to me 3 times I know of), then it is possible to overdraft the account without actually spending more then you intended to. And those who keep low account balances (which is most of the US these days), are hit the hardest from this.

So in closing, I believe although you may have meant well in your reply, to be more accurate it should have read...

"If the bank did not manipulate the bank statements and times of transactions, an unknown merchant hold or charge, or honest human error would not matter..since only a fee for a legitimate overdraft would be applied, or the overdraft avoided in the first place had the bank not auto enrolled into the OD coverage service in the first place"

The banks need to look in the mirror,,but it would probably crack from shame.

Lets petition for someone to start a bank and only charge $10.00 for overdrafts.  If it goes national, millions of people would transfer over just with that perk!!

Edward,

You're saying that ROR has fewer overdraft complaints since your precious "bank reform" in took place? What are you smoking?

I've seen the same number of ROR's as I have in the past. It's literally the SSDD. (Same !@#$ , different day.)

I guess you and Ronny G don't realize it, but now the banks have TWICE the defense to not refund overdraft fees as they had before. Think about it. Customers sign off on the terms and conditions document when they first open up their account and then agree to those same overdraft policies AGAIN with this new "option" document that they've sent out. So basically, when idiot people overdraft their accounts, the bank can now easily say "Well, you agreed to our overdraft policy twice, so we're definitely not refunding your fees". 

I may be a merciless, hypocritical, bank employee, cheerleader, or defender, but as far as I'm concerned, any hope overdrafting morons had of getting some of those fees reversed is now totally out the window.

Guess I'm not the only one who noticed a pattern change in many of these recent ROR reports against banks? This one is a classic example. The only reason I'm posting to this report is out of boredom and slim pickings of other bank ROR's. My how times have changed.

The reason for this change? You guessed it. All of the bank OD policy changes implemented first part of this year for the majority of banks. GONE are most of the shady and devious OD fee Ripoff tactics. And consequently, GONE are all the detailed ROR's that used to flood in by the hour for the same handful of usual suspect banks.

Now we're left with these occasional and vague reports such as this. Why is this surprising? Realists, such as myself and Ronny G accurately predicted in the past, that if the Ripoff policies and procedures decreased, so would the number of LEGITIMATE reports.

Unless you're a merciless, hypocritical, bank employee, cheerleader, or defender, isn't this what anyone and everyone wanted?

A reduction in OD fees for all. Resulting in a mass reduction in ROR reports that use to detail the intricacies of how the old Ripoff Policies used to work. 

No, No, No, Ronny G! I told you that you'd do this!

Per your pined-for "bank reform", USB now gives the customer the choice on whether they want their account to pay for or deny transactions they don't have funds to cover. (Isn't that what you wanted, big man?) THE CUSTOMER CHOSE the option to let their account overdraft in a situation like this! This is 100% customer fault now! You can't argue it anymore. I got this communication from the bank myself so don't even try the "they didn't send this notice out to everyone" BS.

Careful what you wish for, right overdrafters?

Don't spend more than what you have in the account and it won't make any difference what order the bank processes your transactions. The one to blame isn't the bank, it's the one you see in the mirror.

However, it is clear what the complaint is..or anyone can check this site or the web for the massive amount of complaints regarding this banks fee issues.

I agree many customers were simply careless with the account, and caused an overdraft to occur which of course will cause a fee...but..

Did this bank auto enroll customers into OD protection on the debit card?

Did this bank ever re-sequence and alter the times of transaction from highest to lowest in order to maximize fees?

Did this bank ever encourage any customers to use online banking as a great way to manage the account....or fail to warn any customers that the online statements are flawed and unreliable?

Does this bank use any deceptive terms on the statements such as "available", or not post events such as unknown authorizations holds and charges in an accurate and timely fashion? (aka "real time" like some other banks and financial institutions do)

If yes can be answered to any or all of these questions, the bank may be in some trouble...oh wait..they are. Major class action lawsuit along with Bank of America, Wells Fargo/Wachovia, Chase and perhaps others..hmmm...a little ronny g sarcasm here? Current law changes will forbid them from auto enrolling any longer..but don't think they don't have other tricks up their sleeve.

I guess the poster could not remove this "tripe" from the website anyhow, since this site does not allow removal of posts. Oh well.

I'd agree to stay away from this bank..there are others with more consumer friendly polices..especially for debit card users who are forced to keep a low balance..or as suggested, a local credit union. They are generally on your side where as some of these large banks would rip the fillings out of your teeth if you make a mistake or become subjected to an unknown authorization hold.

Whoa! That's too much detail for me to take in! Stop! My brain is exploding from the titanic amount of information that you posted!

You guessed it: that's classic I Am The Law sarcasm there.

"US charges fees". Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. Listen, friend, if you plan on filing a ROR, you have to be a bit more specific than that. That, and you should quit lying. US Bank doesn't charge fees for everything they do. In fact, I've had an account with them for approximately ten years and I've never paid them a single dime. US Bank, does, however, charge negligent people such as yourself in the form of overdraft fees for not paying attention to their spending.

So, why don't you redeem yourself by actually telling us what happened or by removing this tripe from the website?

I would have to agree with everything posted here.  The "straw that broke the camel's back" in my case being the VERY liberal and possibly criminal application of overdraft fees.

Basically, it seems that U.S. Bank's "system" senses that you're going to be in an overdraft situation and does two things.  First, they make sure that your transactions post in order from largest to smallest, regardless of when they were actually made.  This ensures that they collect overdrafts on multiple transactions instead of putting the smaller, and more likely to clear, transactions through first.  Nothing like paying forty bucks for a cup of coffee (this had happened to me on more than one occasion and I have the receipts to prove that U.S. Bank engages in this practice).  The second thing I noticed was that transactions were posting indiscriminately.  For example, I'd check my account at 10pm one night, and the next day a new charge that was not a "pending transaction" would show up as having gone through the previous day, once again putting me over.  I remember leaving Chase for these same reasons, though it seems like U.S. Bank bent me over considerably more; U.S. Bank doesn't even give you a chance to transfer money or make a deposit that same day to cover any overdrafts...hell, even Chase and my current credit union do that.

And having since moved to a local credit union, I haven't incurred a single overdraft fee. 

RUN FAR AWAY FROM THESE CROOKS!