Downto0

Why does bank charge a returned item fee?

Recommended Posts

This is the problem. To remit payment you would have to beg, borrow or sell blood (before the bank gets it, of course) because you know the bank is going to hit you hard for a little thing.

At some point, your relatives will start turning you down and you can only give so much blood before you turn white as a sheet. And, you still don't have a job.

The point, which you totally missed btw, is that you shouldn't remit payment if you don't have the funds. Doing so will incur fees. How many times do you have to learn the same lesson? The problem is not your bank. The problem is your inability to stop spending payment requests to your bank even though you don't have any remaining funds on deposit.

So, what kind of magic pencil do you guys have that will make my ledger balance?

You stil don't get it. Look for a job first.. Magic pencil second.

Chester P. Dexter "gets it". You don't.

In fact, in my attempts to settle my current overdraft problem, my friendly banker informed me that no one was authorized to reverse overdrafts except for a few select few - and no one with this authority worked at the bank I do business with.

Well, if they were to rebate your fees for each occurrence, then that would make a mockery of the process, would it not? Why charge fees at all if they're just going to give them back?

As far as I know, fee refunds come out of the owning branch's budget and retention of bank fees is that branch manager's responsibility. My understanding is that in some cases and on certain accounts [those who are high risk of chargeoff], service centers or other branches are prohibited from servicing the accounts at the owning branch's request. As such, you should probably visit your owning branch. It might not do you any good, but at least you'll be talking to someone who has the ability to do something. [Note: your owning branch is typically the branch where your account was opened and may not necessarily be the branch where you do most of your business.]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally don't have a problem with bank fees, because they can easily be avoided by good record keeping.

However...

My biggest problem is with debit cards (either using a PIN or as a visa/mastercard logo) and POS transactions. In my opinion, the bank should deny the transaction and NOT charge the overdraft fee. To alow the transaction to go through and the customer to become overdrawn, and thus charging the fee, is simply gouging the customer. It costs no more to allow that transaction go through than it does to deny it. If a bank allows a customer to become overdrawn by allowing the POS transaction, then it's the banks fault. Or at least just as much the banks fault as the customer.

I think at minimum, at the time the account is opened, the banks should be required to give the customer the choice of either allowing POS transactions to occur and charging a fee if overdrawn, or denying the transaction and not charging the fee. The customer can then make an informed choice, and if they choose to allow it and get hit with fees, then at that point they have no one to blame but themselves.

I haven't paid an overdraft fee in something like 10 years, so it's not as if I have a personal axe to grind. I've got no problems with banks making money, and I have no problems with people who don't pay attention getting dinged for mistakes. But there is just something wrong with a bank LETTING an account be overdrawn with POS transactions and then charging the customer for it.

But, that's just one girl's opinion.

Edited by debtfreein18
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I would add would be that the account holder should be given a choice at the POS.

One of the lawsuits taking place right now says this:

There's no disclosure when you go to your ATM machine or when you go to Starbucks. Most people assume that it's not going to accept your card if there's no money in the bank," he said. "It would be a very simple matter just for them to say, 'Hey, you don't have enough money in this account. We'll charge you $35 if you still want to do this anyway.'"

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202442013034&rss=SFB

Don't you guys think that the solution is appropriate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I generally don't have a problem with bank fees, because they can easily be avoided by good record keeping.

........ But there is just something wrong with a bank LETTING an account be overdrawn with POS transactions and then charging the customer for it.

But, that's just one girl's opinion.

Bingo.

Believe me. They make plenty of money. Because of Fractional Reserve Banking, banks can loan out $10 for every dollar they have in deposit. In effect, printing money out of thin air. It's one of the main symptoms that has us in the economic situation we're in now.

So they have $1 in deposit paying maybe 2% to the owner of that money. They can now loan out $10 and make a lot more interest on money that didn't even exist before that dollar was deposited.

As you can see, they don't need all these fees to make money. It's just money-grubbing greed.

Unjust enrichment.

They get away with it because they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an article where Wachovia settled because the judge wasn't buying their story:

Last year, Wachovia confidentially settled a nearly identical suit in federal court in Atlanta brought by Casey and Emily White. The deal was hatched after U.S. District Judge Beverly B. Martin refused to dismiss the case, ruling that nothing in the bank's deposit agreement statements "expressly gives Wachovia the right to manipulate transactions, delay posting indefinitely, and maximize overdraft fees in the ways the complaint alleges."

In her order, Martin also noted that she was "not prepared to hold" that Wachovia's policy of posting larger charges before smaller charges, even when they were received later, "constitutes a good faith exercise" of the bank's discretion

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429119415

You'll notice that balancing the account was not an issue. Well, actually, it was. The bank was deceptively manipulating the balance in order to confuse the account holder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But of course, some here would have you believe that such practices are exceptions rather than normal conduct. Yeah right. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing is routinely violated by these banks in so many, many ways!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree that you should be given the option to accept or decline at an ATM or POS machine if you do not have enough money in your account to cover the charge. Many banks thought it would be nice to cover the charge at the machine thereby allowing the customer to avoid the embarrassment of having their charge declined in public for all to see. However, the wanted to charge for that service. Now we see that the banks were mistaken and I am sure sooner or later, it will be the case where the charge can be denied.

As for law, I think that you believe that all law is written in stone and is passed by the legislature only. That is not true in the USA. Our system is similar to the common law system in England where even if the legislature passes laws and they are signed by the head of the state where the law is effected, the courts still have a say on whether it is law or not. Even if it is not written in statute, there could be a court case somewhere that states that banks have the right to charge an NSF fee anytime you try to submit a request for payment on your account that is more than what you have in the account. The check in this system is that if the court decision goes too far in the eyes of the legislature, they can pass a bill to either narrow the decision or make in moot.

If you think you have cause of action against the banks charging the fee, then go see a lawyer who will either take the case if they think they can win it or tell you exactly why you would lose. Most of us are not attorneys on this board and do not have the time to look up some archaic case law that you tell you exactly what you want to know. Either you look it up yourself, or you pay a lawyer to do so. Simple as that. I do know that there are statutes in many states that allow merchants to civilly and criminally charge persons who pass bad checks. I cannot right away, find anything on bank NSF charges. However, just because I cannot find that it does exist does not mean that it does not exist.

Finally, yes, people make mistakes or fall on hard times. Most banks are willing to forgive the occasional mistake (and if yours does not consider switching). As far as falling on hard times, you make sure the 4 walls are covered first and if you do not have the money to pay the rest of the bills then you do not write a check to pay a bill that will bounce. Yes, the credit card bank will charge a fee about equal to a bounced check but they will charge both fees once the check bounces anyways. Besides, the credit card was issued knowing that you had a probability of defaulting. Your checking account was created without the probability of default.

Finally, if you are willing to use the ATM card or a debit card at POS machines, the onus is still up to you to know that you have the money in your checking account to cover the cheeseburger or the triple latte, regardless of whether the bank is willing to deny the charge or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's an article where Wachovia settled because the judge wasn't buying their story:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429119415

You'll notice that balancing the account was not an issue. Well, actually, it was. The bank was deceptively manipulating the balance in order to confuse the account holder.

The "delay posting indefinately" part of the agreement is expressly illegal. Federal law dictates when banks must post deposits and the only way a bank can "not post" a deposit is if they can prove (and the onus is on them to prove it) that the check will not be paid. The law for posting deposits is such:

1) The first $100 must be available immedately

2) If the check is drawn on a bank that is in the same Fed Reserve Bank area as your bank, the rest of the check must be posted after 3 business days

3) Checks drawn from outside the banks Fed Reserve Bank must be posted after 7 business days.

Sounds like Wachovia was doing a no-no and was caught. As for manipulating transactions, even the judge agreed to not look into that. The real issue here is the posting issue and Wachovia obviously could not prove that the checks they were "holding" would not be paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally, if you are willing to use the ATM card or a debit card at POS machines, the onus is still up to you to know that you have the money in your checking account to cover the cheeseburger or the triple latte, regardless of whether the bank is willing to deny the charge or not.

Sounds like you did not read any of the articles which I posted. It's not about the consumer overdrafting their account. Forget this, will you? It's not the issue.

The issue is that the bank, in good faith, can set the system up to inform the consumer about the POS options of overdraft or no overdraft. But, they choose not to because they would not make as much money on the deal.

Edited by Downto0
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like you did not read any of the articles which I posted. It's not about the consumer overdrafting their account. Forget this, will you? It's not the issue.

The issue is that the bank, in good faith, can set the system up to inform the consumer about the POS options of overdraft or no overdraft. But, they choose not to because they would not make as much money on the deal.

The banks set up a system where they would cover the charge, and then charge you a convience charge for the loan. They felt that the customers would prefer that over being embarrassed at the POS point. Yes, they made a little money on it too but they were offering you a service.

Turns out, the customers did not really want that service or did not understand what the service meant. I am sure now that there is a backlash on it, the banks will implement the system where you are given a choice to deny the charge before you overdraft rather than charge you on it.

However, offering either service does not negate your responsibility to keep track of your account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the link to the video. People have to see that MONEY IS AN INSTRUMENT OF DEBT. Here is a novel idea- do away with interest. I wonder what our society would be like if people lived within their means and if there was no interest payments on monies advanced for credit. In lieu of interest, banks could charge a set flat rate as a percentage of the transaction. In the Muslim world this concept underlies sharia banking, but to my knowledge sharia hasn't been able to be fairly implemented for various reasons. The truth is that fractional reserve banking is inherently wrong because banks can loan money out THAT IS NOT EVEN IN THEIR POSSESSION, then if you default, THEY'LL SUE YOU FOR MONEY THEY NEVER HAD! That is nonsensical but true. And compound interest requires more money to be printed up by the FED, thereby increasing the money supply but reducing its value and inflating the cost of the necessities of life.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a novel idea- do away with interest. I wonder what our society would be like if people lived within their means and if there was no interest payments on monies advanced for credit.
Our civilization would take a giant step backward. You'd have pools of capital laying slack and providing no benefit to society while you have millions who could be productive or benefit from it but haven't the capital for it.

In the end, banks are conduits to link those with capital to those who need it. Interest is merely rent on their money. And banks HAVE TO sue for the money (even though I am reading someone actually claiming it is not "their money" despite the hole created on their balance sheet by a defaiult) a borrower doesn't pay back because the entity is still liable on the backend to the bondholders and shareholders who provided the capital in the first place. So losses are certainly real in every sense of the word.

Muslims have struggled with the backwards thinking of Sharia law. They end up doing an end run around the concept of a mortgage and pay "rent" for years until they pay enough that title is exchanged. It is the functional equivalent of a mortgage without the pro-borrower state protections afforded by claim of title. So the net result is that the Muslim borrower pays the equivalent of interest on a mortgage but with less legal protections.

Edited by jq26
Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially you are saying that charging interest=progress in society. In the US, some banks were offering sharia products like HSBC and certainly the way those loans were structured, all the fees they paid were pretty much like interest payments anyway. That doesn't mean that the concept of no interest isn't viable. It simply means that how the concept was implemented was faulty.

From what I gather, banks can loan out more money then they have on deposit. How does fractional reserve banking AND interest mean we are 'civilized'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
....

From what I gather, banks can loan out more money then they have on deposit. How does fractional reserve banking AND interest mean we are 'civilized'?

It doesn't. It means we are enslaved. We are enslaved to our fractional reserve system, the same way Communism was invented by western banking to enslave entire populations (Yes, they even admit it now)

....The truth is that fractional reserve banking is inherently wrong because banks can loan money out THAT IS NOT EVEN IN THEIR POSSESSION, then if you default, THEY'LL SUE YOU FOR MONEY THEY NEVER HAD! That is nonsensical but true. And compound interest requires more money to be printed up by the FED, thereby increasing the money supply but reducing its value and inflating the cost of the necessities of life.

If only more people understood what you were saying, we would be much better off. The founding fathers understood it (well most of them anyway, Alexander Hamilton had a hard time keeping his pro-banker attitudes to himself, arguing that a national debt was a GOOD thing...sheesh)

Oh yeah. I think Andrew Jackson was the only president to completely pay off the national debt, after he "killed" the bank of course. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for folks who don't understand our "Federal Reserve" system, which is neither federal and doesn't have any reserves.

The treasury prints a dollar. It is shipped to the federal reserve which then loans it back to us, at interest.

????????????????????

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Do you see why the federal reserve act was passed in 1913 during Christmas vacation when most congressmen had gone home for the holidays and signed by a "chosen" president who later admitted that he sold his entire country out? The banksters had pulled the biggest bank heist in history.

All we have to do is nationalize the fed. Make it a REAL federal branch. Then we don't pay interest on OUR OWN MONEY.

Poof. National debt gone.

There's a huge movement gathering steam right now to do that, but I'm afraid it will never come to fruition unless more people wake up to this.

Imagine a day when our 12 trillion dollar national debt is gone. That would be a HUGE boon to our economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After all, debt is just man made anyway. We have the power to change the structure of our banking system! What I find so interesting is that Alex Jones and paleo conservatives, all the way to The Nation of Islam extremists have all put out information about the banking system, and the evils of fractional reserve banking. With such a diverse group of people saying the same exact thing, there must be some truth to it! After all, those groups seldom agree on anything!

If our debt magically disappeared, it would force us to move to ACTUAL PRODUCTION again; production of things of VALUE. America was a great nation in the last century for a time because of our innovations in technology, music and style. We are a nation with potential, but have unknowingly and unwillingly become enslaved by an unjust financial system. This is why the affirmative defense of unjust enrichment in a credit card suit has always appealed to me... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially you are saying that charging interest=progress in society. In the US, some banks were offering sharia products like HSBC and certainly the way those loans were structured, all the fees they paid were pretty much like interest payments anyway. That doesn't mean that the concept of no interest isn't viable. It simply means that how the concept was implemented was faulty.

Aren't you the one who accused me of using a tired argument from Introductory Philosophy class?! Compound interest is the Eighth Wonder of the World. Those that undertand interest earn it, those that don't pay it.

Imagine a day when our 12 trillion dollar national debt is gone.

$12 Trillion? That's so last month! Try $14 Trillion... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/senate-lifts-federal-debt-ceiling-trillion/

Just for folks who don't understand our "Federal Reserve" system, which is neither federal and doesn't have any reserves.

The treasury prints a dollar. It is shipped to the federal reserve which then loans it back to us, at interest.

????????????????????

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Do you see why the federal reserve act was passed in 1913 during Christmas vacation when most congressmen had gone home for the holidays and signed by a "chosen" president who later admitted that he sold his entire country out? The banksters had pulled the biggest bank heist in history.

All we have to do is nationalize the fed. Make it a REAL federal branch. Then we don't pay interest on OUR OWN MONEY.

Poof. National debt gone.

There's a huge movement gathering steam right now to do that, but I'm afraid it will never come to fruition unless more people wake up to this.

I think you have come to the right result but for the wrong reasons...

Link to post
Share on other sites

is structurally flawed. BWS you haven't really addressed fractional reserve banking and its structural flaws. If I could have $1100 in my savings account and loan out $100000 at interest, I'd be defending my way of life too! But at some point, I'd feel guilty about the people I'm cheating.

The question I'm curious about is how could we ever pay off our national debt, given current conditions?

And banter aside, you are knowledgeable about how banking works so your viewpoints are appreciated. It will give debtors insight into the fact that people think differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

$12 Trillion? That's so last month! Try $14 Trillion... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/senate-lifts-federal-debt-ceiling-trillion/

...

Doh!

Here's another figure for you that is also probably a little low.

That $14 trillion is just everyday accumulating interest on the debt. The debt ITSELF is, including all bonds and other obligations of our gov't, is closer to $86 Trillion. And that number is from a few years ago. I'd hate to see where it's at now. Imagine how long it'd take to pay that off. We don't have enough assets in this country to pay it off. We owe more than we are worth.

And don't get me started on the derivatives market, at over half a QUADRILLION dollars. 0_0

I hope that bubble doesn't burst.

The question I'm curious about is how could we ever pay off our national debt, given current conditions?

The simplest way would be to take the fed back, stop payment for a few months, they sell the debt to Midland, and we tear their a** up in court.

Poof. Debt gone. :p :P :p

Seriously though. Most of the debt is illegal under our constitution anyway, so we would tell the Rockefellers, Aldriches, Rothschild's, etc. to take a hike with their illegal and unjust enrichment and focus on paying off the entities that hold the bonds used to finance the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I'm curious about is how could we ever pay off our national debt, given current conditions?

Nobody has a crystal ball, so who knows?! [i don't see that how that's relevant to the technical operations side of retail banking and NSF charges that we've been discussing here.]

FWIW, it's my opinion that we will never pay off the national debt. However, I think it's also important to note that despite our $2T deficit and our falling stock market, restated job loss numbers from last year, rising unemployment, etc., people still look to the USD first whenever there is a flight to quality, as evidenced by the fact people are willing to hold USD even though our T-Bills are paying negative yields as of last week's auction. Also, we still have a AAA bond rating, despite the doom & gloom predictions of an article in yesterday's WSJ [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703427704575051544279868172.html]

One day, I think we will either inflate our way out of it and pay the price for years... few of our bonds are tied to inflation... although there are bond vigilantes who will make this difficult and they will eventually need to be auctioned off at significant yields in order to find a market. [Of course, we could also vote to close the Fed and print all the money we want... the government can always change the rules.]

If we can't do that, we will default and declare bankruptcy and pay the price for years, but our economy will likely recover. It sounds drastic I know, 20 years down the road, it might not seem that drastic. Will other countries ever buy our debt again? Maybe, maybe not. That's way beyond the scope of this discussion. I think we're likely to default. The question is when and how.

Either way, in those two scenarios, the country will suffer for years.

There is a third option that we wil reduce the debt over time either by cutting spending and/or raising taxes. It doesn't seem likely now, but you never know what might happen. It was only 8 years ago that we we ran a $1Trillion budget SURPLUS. I personally worry more about the rising deficit than I do about the aggregate debt.

Note: I'm not an Economist.

--------------------------------------------------------------

You haven't really addressed fractional reserve banking and its structural flaws. If I could have $1100 in my savings account and loan out $100000 at interest, I'd be defending my way of life too! But at some point, I'd feel guilty about the people I'm cheating.

The solution to that is to write better quality loans and never make a loan to anybody like the OP ever. That obviously doesn't work. Banks provide valuable services for those in their communities. Nobody is being cheated. Fees are not applied randomly, they are applied by design and with cause [to better manage risk].

Sure, there are structural flaws in our banking system which have been exposed. I personally would like to see much of Glass-Steagall re-enacted. Paul Volcker has this right and the so-called "Volcker Rule". This has little to do with retail banking; I don't mean to be blunt, but at this point I'm really not all that interested in discussing the esoteric and arcane details of capital ratios and FASB standards here on this board with people who sound like they just learned about them yesterday. Read a book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The banks set up a system where they would cover the charge, and then charge you a convience charge for the loan.

I think you mean it is a "convenience" to the bank. It would not be convenient for the customer to pay $40 for a $5 hamburger.

They felt that the customers would prefer that over being embarrassed at the POS point.

Going back to the $40 hamburger...I think most consumers would simply reach into their pocket for $5, pay the POS and go online when they got home to see what was wrong with their account. No embarrasment involved here - just the bank putting forth excuses for their money grabbing.

But wait, it's too late. The account holder was not given the choice of overdraft / no overdraft. And, imagine if this were Christmas and the account holder was visiting a litany of stores?

Yes, they made a little money on it too but they were offering you a service.

Come on...a little money?

Turns out, the customers did not really want that service or did not understand what the service meant. I am sure now that there is a backlash on it, the banks will implement the system where you are given a choice to deny the charge before you overdraft rather than charge you on it.

However, offering either service does not negate your responsibility to keep track of your account.

You are right on issue in the first paragraph but lose focus on the last sentence.

Let me state plain and clear that the account holder is responsible for keeping tract of their account status but it is the ultimate responsibility of the bank to have a grasp of the situation when it decides to relieve the account holder of their money for any NSF. They have the most current information available to them whereas the account holder often does not - especially at the POS.

In my case, I generally make deposits at an ATM. My bank's system is set up to register the deposit at any time I make the deposit. It does not have a current balance and available balance - which would tell me if the bank actually credited the deposit to my account, or if there was a delay because the deposit was made after a certain cut-off time.

So, I made my last deposit shortly before 5 pm. The ATM gives me a ledger balance of whatever was in my account before the deposit - plus the deposit. When I checked my account the next morning I have 2 overdrafts on my account and the deposit is nowhere to be seen.

When I call the bank and ask them about the deposit, they tell me that they can't see it either. It's not even registered as "pending".

My bank, then, confuses the account holder into believing that they did make a deposit which did go on that day's business when they actually "lose" the deposit for a day or so - just long enough to cash in on overdrafts.

The agreement with the bank is irrelevant. Any court will look at performance.

I have other ATM receipts which show my deposits being credited to my account after the bank's 3 pm cut-off time. It does not matter that the agreement, which the bank did not require that I read, states that the cut-off time was 3 pm at the bank and ATM's. What matters is that the ATM registered the deposit as credited to my account regardless to the cut-off time.

By not displaying accurate information at the ATM and not requiring that the account holder read the agreement, the bank confuses the account holder into believing that they have more money in their account than they do.

If the account holder then chooses to go shopping, since the bank gave them "bounce protection" without asking, they will quickly dip into the protection and be assess a string of overdraft charges without even knowing that their shopping spree is costing them a small fortune in overdrafts.

A short note...I went back through your responses and see that we do actually agree on the issues. I still have a little trouble with convincing you that the consumer first initiating the NSF is not the issue.

Yes, if the consumer would not spend more than what they have then the incident would not even happen. I agree but this misses the point. It is the money grabbing that the bank does once the consumer shoots themselves in the foot because of the way the bank sets the consumer up.

Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel...if the fish weren't there in the first place, they wouldn't get shot.

The "delay posting indefinately" part of the agreement is expressly illegal. Federal law dictates when banks must post deposits and the only way a bank can "not post" a deposit is if they can prove (and the onus is on them to prove it) that the check will not be paid. The law for posting deposits is such:

1) The first $100 must be available immedately

2) If the check is drawn on a bank that is in the same Fed Reserve Bank area as your bank, the rest of the check must be posted after 3 business days

3) Checks drawn from outside the banks Fed Reserve Bank must be posted after 7 business days.

Can you give me a link to this "law"? If the bank would have given me the first $100 then overdrafts would not have occurred.

Edited by Downto0
Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me state plain and clear that the account holder is responsible for keeping tract of their account status but it is the ultimate responsibility of the bank to have a grasp of the situation when it decides to relieve the account holder of their money for any NSF. They have the most current information available to them whereas the account holder often does not - especially at the POS.

Beat your head against the wall all you want. The wall isn't going to yield and you're going to get sore. It is your "ultimate" responsibility to know your balance. If you keep a record of your transactions, you will know your balance. Additionally, the "most current" information that the bank has is often not correct. Since you obviously use a check card/debit card at the point of sale, I recommend you learn the difference between check card authorizations and settlements and how auths are made [or not made] and released. You are using products that you [clearly] do not understand.

One easy example, many places of business use temporary holds that never equal the actual amount you purchased. When you purchase gasoline, a pre-auth of $1.00 is made then released. The actual purchase may be as much as $75.00. The bank won't know this amount until the transaction is presented for payment, thus this purchase will never show up until it posts, making your available balance look far greater than it really is, so you might be tempted to spend the money elsewhere and when the gasoline purchase is settled a few days later, you get hit with overdraft charges. Restaurant holds, T&E holds, many other SIC codes don't allow debit holds for longer than 24 hours. So, you could swipe your card a bunch of different times and the bank cannot keep track of this [by law and for your own protection at that] until the charges are presented for settlement several days later. In the interim, because you don't keep a register, nobody actually knows your real, current running balance. Not you, not the bank... Surely, even you can see that you've been incredibly stupid.

In my case, I generally make deposits at an ATM. My bank's system is set up to register the deposit at any time I make the deposit. It does not have a current balance and available balance - which would tell me if the bank actually credited the deposit to my account, or if there was a delay because the deposit was made after a certain cut-off time.

So, I made my last deposit shortly before 5 pm. The ATM gives me a ledger balance of whatever was in my account before the deposit - plus the deposit. When I checked my account the next morning I have 2 overdrafts on my account and the deposit is nowhere to be seen.

When I call the bank and ask them about the deposit, they tell me that they can't see it either. It's not even registered as "pending".

My bank, then, confuses the account holder into believing that they did make a deposit which did go on that day's business when they actually "lose" the deposit for a day or so - just long enough to cash in on overdrafts.

I have other ATM receipts which show my deposits being credited to my account after the bank's 3 pm cut-off time. It does not matter that the agreement, which the bank did not require that I read, states that the cut-off time was 3 pm at the bank and ATM's. What matters is that the ATM registered the deposit as credited to my account regardless to the cut-off time.

By not displaying accurate information at the ATM and not requiring that the account holder read the agreement, the bank confuses the account holder into believing that they have more money in their account than they do.

If the account holder then chooses to go shopping, since the bank gave them "bounce protection" without asking, they will quickly dip into the protection and be assess a string of overdraft charges without even knowing that their shopping spree is costing them a small fortune in overdrafts.

Can you give me a link to this "law"? If the bank would have given me the first $100 then overdrafts would not have occurred.

First, when you make deposits at an ATM, you are not entitled to the provisional credit of $100. Sorry. [Too many people made "empty envelope" deposits, thus the law was amended.] Additionally, the ATM cannot distinguish between your ledger balance and your available balance. [Even if there is a line item on your ATM receipt that says "available balance", your true available balance less any holds/floats is not listed on an ATM statement]

Second, there are business cut off times. If you make a deposit after cut off time, then it will not post until the next business day. It may not be available until the morning of the next business day. A deposit made after cutoff on Friday [or Saturday or anytime Monday before cutoff] will not be available for withdrawal until Tuesday morning AT THe EARLIEST. It will not be available to pay posted items until Tuesday night.

Third, this is extremely regulated by federal law. Federal Bank Regulation CC aka "Expedited Funds Availability Act" I presume you can find it without a link.

Fourth, my old bank had a great microsite set up to show you how funds would become available. [www.nationalcity.com/fundsavailability] You might benefit from understanding what is called "posting on available balance"

Fifth, and most important, as a recommendation, I think you should close your account at your current bank and open a new account somewhere else [anywhere else]. Start over. When you do, get to know your personal banker right from the start. Go into your bank once every few weeks and speak with him/her. Every time you make a deposit or withdrawal, say "hi" and ask questions. You have no banking relationship. You bank at the ATM and your sole contact with banking personnel seems to be to ask for handouts [err fee refunds]. For example, I moved across the country just 6 months ago and my new banker here knows me by name. It's part of their job description to know their customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.