Downto0

Why does bank charge a returned item fee?

Recommended Posts

LOL, good question. I abhor ignorant intransigence and every once in a while I have a hard time ignoring it. The worst part is that it's all falling on deaf ears.
Even worse, the relentless attack on capitalism encapsulated within this thread is growing. People seem to want the wonderful upside of capitalism without the inherent downsides. I think it is just the case of the grass always being greener on the other side. Every rule to "fix" perceived inequalities seems to create a whole set of new ones, and so on. It is a fool's game.

I just don't get the mentality. I'm the last person to be PRO-BANK. Remember me squawking about the incredible stupidity of TARP? Banks that lend imprudently should be shuttered. The shareholdfers of those banks should be wiped out entirely with preferred shareholders and bondholders fighting over scraps. That's what they get for loose lending. And borrowers who can't pay it back should also be held accountable. Both were complicit- at least more complicit than hardworking taxpayers who are taking it on the chin to subsidize both of them currently.

But trying to control banks and claim that interest in unconscionable and should be eliminated as enslavement? How about just not borrowing then? No one is trying to force anyone to borrow. And no one should prevent anyone from doing so either. As stated before, responsible lending is what creates efficiency and growth. Much of the wealth is held by those who have no means to make it productive. Many corporations, individuals etc. NEED the money to make money. Making it illegal for the two of them to meet and mutually agree is mind-numbingly stupid. Setting aside the horrific policy of that rule, who are these people that think they even have the right?

Edited by jq26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even worse, the relentless attack on capitalism encapsulated within this thread is growing. People seem to want the wonderful upside of capitalism without the inherent downsides. I think it is just the case of the grass always being greener on the other side. Every rule to "fix" perceived inequalities seems to create a whole set of new ones, and so on. It is a fool's game.

The thing is, we haven't had true capitalism in a long time; we've been working under corporate fascism.

That seems to be what people don't understand.

Now the original point of this thread was to argue the merits of one bank fee. That's all well and good.

But that's like taking a medicine that only controls sneezing when you have a cold. It's only one symptom. You have to treat the cold. You need the nighttime sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, stuffy head, fever, so you can rest medicine called "banking reform", starting with the Fed.

Then fees here and there for doing business become a lot more tolerable.

Edited by pcmech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even worse, the relentless attack on capitalism encapsulated within this thread is growing.

It sounds kind of like paranoid conspiracy-theory ranting.

I say that only because my best friend calls me up to rant now and then; I don't know if it's exactly the same topic. She's buying five years' worth of food and specially preserved seeds; something like that. Her doctor has already said she needs medication but no - he's just one in the growing list of people who are wrong, clueless, unenlightened.

I haven't heard her say much about banks per se, but she believes it's great to be in debt at this point in time. She believe the dollar will be issued in a five-for-one split later this year; I admit I didn't absorb the details. She even spoke of mortgaging her house to buy gold but I think her husband put the brakes on that idea. The last thing she said before I hastily hung up the other day was something about the Bilderbergers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling for a complete restructuring of our banking system does not mean that capitalism is evil nor has anyone on this board said that. How does living under an oligarchy mean that we are living under free market capitalism? It doesn't. Keep deluding yourself.

And again, how does compound interest mean that we are civilized? Notions of risk management have been brought up here in the discussion, but banks can minimize their risks by not lending to people who haven't a prayer of paying back the loan. Banks can minimize their risks by reducing or eliminating the interest rate they charge on their products so that people can pay them back and in a reasonable time.

Some have said that if a person doesn't like their bank, they ought to find another one. But most of the policies and procedures of these banks are similar in scope so there is no real variation. My credit union acts like a bank in how they treat their customers. Again, keep deluding yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely, even you can see that you've been incredibly stupid.

Okay, the inflamatory comments are unnecessary and are telling signs which show that you guys are frustrated and lashing out irresponsibly.

I have shown you support for my argument via multi-lawsuits against the banks for the same issues as I have. It seems that you are suggesting that I don't have a snow ball's chance in Florida of any claim against the bank when there are thousands of people who already have the same or similar claims being actively litigated as we speak.

You have not deterred me, and you won't deter me unless you come up with some commonsensible facts.

Chester P. Dexter

How do you even have the energy for this, BWS?

This must be a rhetorical question. He wouldn't be posting if he wasn't enjoying himself.

Anyway, I do manage to read the unproductive responses just in case there is a tid bit of worthwhile information...and there usually is...but wouldn't it be a lot better if you guys, once you saw I wasn't buying your theory, just move on?

When you talk about beating one's head against the wall, I don't think you guys are the ones to call the kettle black.

I'm going to continue my research and will be back if I find something worthwhile. Until then, don't expect me to bite into anything you guys are serving if it has an offensive odor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, the inflamatory comments are unnecessary and are telling signs which show that you guys are frustrated and lashing out irresponsibly.

I have shown you support for my argument via multi-lawsuits against the banks for the same issues as I have. It seems that you are suggesting that I don't have a snow ball's chance in Florida of any claim against the bank when there are thousands of people who already have the same or similar claims being actively litigated as we speak.

You have not deterred me, and you won't deter me unless you come up with some commonsensible facts.

Chester P. Dexter

This must be a rhetorical question. He wouldn't be posting if he wasn't enjoying himself.

Anyway, I do manage to read the unproductive responses just in case there is a tid bit of worthwhile information...and there usually is...but wouldn't it be a lot better if you guys, once you saw I wasn't buying your theory, just move on?

When you talk about beating one's head against the wall, I don't think you guys are the ones to call the kettle black.

I'm going to continue my research and will be back if I find something worthwhile. Until then, don't expect me to bite into anything you guys are serving if it has an offensive odor.

You can lead a horse to water.... I gave you the best, unbiased advice that I possibly could have.

PS

I'm sorry that you're having a hard time meeting your basic needs. I'm empathetic. I tried to help. I'm not going to sugarcoat anything. It sounds like your life sucks. If you don't learn some accountability, things might never get better for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS

I'm sorry that you're having a hard time meeting your basic needs. I'm empathetic. I tried to help. I'm not going to sugarcoat anything. It sounds like your life sucks. If you don't learn some accountability, things might never get better for you.

And there you have it, enough saidxangelx:)++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that you're having a hard time meeting your basic needs. I'm empathetic. I tried to help. I'm not going to sugarcoat anything. It sounds like your life sucks. If you don't learn some accountability, things might never get better for you.

Okay, so I'll bite.

This is a perfect example why you guys so miss the point. If you're really sorry why jab me with a condescending statement like this?

My life ain't that bad. I have one problem with the bank where I think I have a valid claim. I'm not throwing myself off a cliff just yet. Give me a break and bring some common sense back into this thread.

Edited by Downto0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, the inflamatory comments are unnecessary and are telling signs which show that you guys are frustrated and lashing out irresponsibly.

I have shown you support for my argument via multi-lawsuits against the banks for the same issues as I have. It seems that you are suggesting that I don't have a snow ball's chance in Florida of any claim against the bank when there are thousands of people who already have the same or similar claims being actively litigated as we speak.

You have not deterred me, and you won't deter me unless you come up with some commonsensible facts.

Chester P. Dexter

This must be a rhetorical question. He wouldn't be posting if he wasn't enjoying himself.

Anyway, I do manage to read the unproductive responses just in case there is a tid bit of worthwhile information...and there usually is...but wouldn't it be a lot better if you guys, once you saw I wasn't buying your theory, just move on?

When you talk about beating one's head against the wall, I don't think you guys are the ones to call the kettle black.

I'm going to continue my research and will be back if I find something worthwhile. Until then, don't expect me to bite into anything you guys are serving if it has an offensive odor.

:lies:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I'll bite.

This is a perfect example why you guys so miss the point. If you're really sorry why jab me with a condescending statement like this?

My life ain't that bad. I have one problem with the bank where I think I have a valid claim. I'm not throwing myself off a cliff just yet. Give me a break and bring some common sense back into this thread.

If you think you have a valid claim, then go see a lawyer. Don't come on the internet. I myself do not think you have a valid claim. Just because something is unethical does not necessarily make it illegal.

Only a lawyer can tell you for sure if you have a valid claim or not and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I'll bite.

This is a perfect example why you guys so miss the point. If you're really sorry why jab me with a condescending statement like this?

My life ain't that bad. I have one problem with the bank where I think I have a valid claim. I'm not throwing myself off a cliff just yet. Give me a break and bring some common sense back into this thread.

I think you need to be accountable to yourself, otherwise things will likely never get better for you. If you find that condescending, then, again, it's something you need to work on.

Bring back common sense?! I've said things, such as: if you get a job, you'll be able to afford food and that there is no such thing as a magic pencil 8-)... I've also told you to learn more about the products you are using, specifically check cards, to study deposit availability rules and to build a personal banking relationship. Those are all practical solutions deeply routed in nothing but common sense!

With respect, you need to send that common sense dictum to rikkivs and pcmech. What type of "commonsensible facts" you are trying to find? Broad money supply is the work of the devil, interest is used to enslave people, bank fees are unconscionable and banks [by extension bankers] are inherently evil?! You won't hear those things from me because (a.) I don't believe the world was better 200 years ago [in fact, it was a lot worse] AND(b.) I'm not a tin-foil hat wearing nutjob.

If you want to reopen this dialogue, I'll humor you one last time.

To recap:

(1.) You submitted requests for payment to your bank for your AOL and electricity bills.

(2.) Your bank, the drawing bank, processed these requests and ran them through pay/no pay decisioning. Your bank did not honor the requests for payment due to your risk profile and your lack of funds. The bank returned the payments to the collecting bank NSF. Your statement was noted accordingly.

(3.) Your bank subsequently charged you NSF Fees for each of the returned payments.

(a.) It now seems likely that you were confused about deposit posting availability at the ATM which is one of the most hyper-regulated aspects of retail banking.

(b.) It also now seems likely that these initial NSF Fees caused a cascade of other bank fees when several check card transactions with delayed posting all hit your account after the NSF Fees.

(c.) This likely took up the entire balance of your ATM deposit, which had become available on the subsequent business day. In essence, you feel like you made a deposit to pay for nothing but bank fees, maybe?

(d.) I'll throw out a guess that your bank account is currently in the red and you don't want to make another deposit. If this is the case, please know you are going to get Continuous Overdraft Fees on a daily basis until you bring it positive. After 15-60 days, your account will charge off and you'll get a Chex Systems listing. I recommend avoiding this at all costs.

(4.) Nevermind that these types of fees have been charged for years without complaint or that they were contractually agreed upon when you opened your account, you think this is illegal and you want to sue.

(5.) However, you don't quite know why you want to sue or what basis your lawsuit might have. So, you posed your query here.

(a.) First you wanted to sue because they didn't provide a service to you because the payments were returned unpaid.

(b.) When you realized this wasn't viable, you wanted to sue because the fees they charged were too high and more than covered their costs.

(c.) When this didn't work, you wanted to sue because the bank "manipulated" your register.

(d.) When this didn't work, you wanted to sue because the bank may have changed the order of the posted debits.

(e.) When this didn't work, you wanted to sue because the bank didn't make your deposit available on time.

(f.) Now that this won't work, you are trolling for more "commonsensical facts"

(6.) After some probing questions, the only things you know for sure are (a.) hell or highwater, you want to sue AND (b.) you believe the man is out to steal your money.

(7.) After the first few posts, you showed a near complete ignorance of how banking products work in practice. [i tried to educate you, but to no avail.] The only thing you want to hear is how you can sue.

(8.) In a misguided attempt to show you aren't ignorant, you next posted several unrelated lawsuits showing you don't really understand what is happening with your account. You did this in the hopes that some sort of legal precedent would stick to the wall and that you might have a valid complaint. If what the banks were doing was illegal or unconscionable, then wouldn't it have stopped by now after all those lawsuits you cited?! [Hint: it's not illegal.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Bring back common sense?! I've said things, such as: if you get a job, you'll be able to afford food and that there is no such thing as a magic pencil 8-)... I've also told you to learn more about the products you are using, specifically check cards, to study deposit availability rules and to build a personal banking relationship. Those are all practical solutions deeply routed in nothing but common sense!

With respect, you need to send that common sense dictum to rikkivs and pcmech. ...] AND(b.) I'm not a tin-foil hat wearing nutjob.

A few posts back, you stooped to name-calling, which basically states that you could no longer attack the message, so you were now going to attack the messenger. You conceded defeat when you did that.

Just because you don't understand history and how we are repeating it doesn't give you the right to attack someone for their viewpoints. That shows that YOU are the nutjob. I tried to keep this conversation civil, and I don't want to stoop to your level.

Show me that you are better than this and argue the merits of something without name calling. All it does is make YOU look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few posts back, you stooped to name-calling, which basically states that you could no longer attack the message, so you were now going to attack the messenger. You conceded defeat when you did that.

"Calling names" is subjective, and even so, it isn't something that can't be done in conjunction with simply telling the truth. It doesn't mean anything is conceded, and everyone knows that, too.

In this case, though, I don't think he was trying to insult or to compliment - I think he was just stating what seems obvious to most of the account-holding bank customers in this country. If we're all wrong, then... oh well, good luck overturning bank practices and procedures if/when a judge agrees with you. It's your right to take it to a court.

Edited by Chester P. Dexter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, though, I don't think he was trying to insult or to compliment - I think he was just stating ....

Well if he comes back states something to this effect, then I'll apologize.

But look at what he said here:

With respect, you need to send that common sense dictum to rikkivs and pcmech. What type of "commonsensible facts" you are trying to find? Broad money supply is the work of the devil, interest is used to enslave people, bank fees are unconscionable and banks [by extension bankers] are inherently evil?! You won't hear those things from me because (a.) I don't believe the world was better 200 years ago [in fact, it was a lot worse] AND(b.) I'm not a tin-foil hat wearing nutjob.

It's obvious that he thinks we're "nutjobs" because we see the bigger picture. If he disagrees, then he should just say so without insults.

Like I said, if he comes back and says that he didn't mean that toward me, I will certainly apologize.

I just want to have a good argument without resorting to underhanded comments.

Edited by pcmech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think you have a valid claim, then go see a lawyer. Don't come on the internet. I myself do not think you have a valid claim. Just because something is unethical does not necessarily make it illegal.

Yes, I think I have a claim, but I can't know until I research the facts. Should I pay a lawyer for researching? They probably don't know either but will happily charge me $200 per hour, or more, for their minimum-waged assistant to look it up for me.

The internet is exactly the place to go. It's relatively cheap, basically whatever your online service costs, and the world opens up to you. Why narrow my search to a lawyer?

I had hoped you guys would come up with some hard facts but most of what I am getting is opinions. I don't see anyone corroborating those opinions.

With respect, you need to send that common sense dictum to rikkivs and pcmech
.

From what has been posted in this thread, these two would be the lasts ones to receive a rebuke from me. This is just one of your manipulative, calculated attempts to draw them in simply because you enjoy what you are doing and want more of it.

Anyway, your assessmnet of my situation is about 50% correct. The best misinformation is mixed with good information. You are good at this. You give out informative, detailed opinions and then slip in incinerary comments which make any of the good information you previously gave suspect.

If you want to reopen this dialogue, I'll humor you one last time.

Actually, I thought I made it quite clear that I did not if the your comments would continue to digress.

And "calling names" is in the eye of the beholder.

But when the beholder says that something bothers them and the instigator continues to instigate then the instigator has crossed the line.

Look guys, we should quit because this thread is going nowhere. If you guys want to have the last word - have at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why argue in the first place? That's a lot of energy being wasted that could be spent on bettering one's financial position. One of those betterments would be keeping the bank accounts in the black at all times.

Then NSF fees would be moot points. No one has to have those fees - they can be totally avoided by careful and conservative account management. And that can be done even with the smallest amounts of money on deposit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then NSF fees would be moot points. No one has to have those fees - they can be totally avoided by careful and conservative account management. And that can be done even with the smallest amounts of money on deposit.

Another point missed.

Even if everybody could manage this feat, the banks would simply fumbling through all their accounts and figure out new ways to assess new charges.

The point is to put a little control on the beast, not to collaborate.

Edited by Downto0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point missed.

Even if everybody could manage this feat, the banks would simply fumbling through all their accounts and figure out new ways to assess new charges.

The point is to put a little control on the beast, not to collaborate.

Good point. Add to that the credit card legislation that was passed and the how the banks were finding all kinds of ways to weasel through that and jack up fees.

It comes to apoint where it's no longer a question of capitalism or a business simply providing a service and making a profit.

It becomes legalized theft. Unjust enrichment.

You know how the mob charges a ungodly sum to "protect" a business. It's the same mentality.

"We can, therefore we will." That should be the bank's motto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best way to control the beast in the case of those who can't add/subtract and keep the bottom-line number positive (is that really a "feat"?) is to not have a bank account.

Yes, it would be a feat if "everyone" kept their accounts in the black. Why wouldn't it?

And the issue is not about the account holder keeping an accurate balance. That's a given. The issue is about the bank having a feeding frenzy once the account holder does have a mishap. Or confusing the account holder at the POS or ATM to where they are encouraged to spend, spend, spend, while the bank's cash register goes ca ching, ca ching, ca ching.

It becomes legalized theft. Unjust enrichment.

I agree and until some of these lawsuits come to fruition it won't stop, or even slow down.

And that's my answer to you BWS - the reason these lawsuits haven't change the way the banks do business is because there has not been an opinion rendered as of yet, at least I haven't come across any.

There have been settlements but, as most of us know, the lawyers usually sell out their clients for the quick lucrative money while their clients usually end up with about $50 - $100 each.

This slap on the wrist encourages bad behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it would be a feat if "everyone" kept their accounts in the black. Why wouldn't it?

And the issue is not about the account holder keeping an accurate balance. That's a given. The issue is about the bank having a feeding frenzy once the account holder does have a mishap. Or confusing the account holder at the POS or ATM to where they are encouraged to spend, spend, spend, while the bank's cash register goes ca ching, ca ching, ca ching.

"And the issue is not about the account holder keeping an accurate balance. That's a given."

OK........IF you do the above. You will NEVER need to worry about :arrow:"The issue is about the bank having a feeding frenzy once the account holder does have a mishap."

"Or confusing the account holder at the POS or ATM to where they are encouraged to spend, spend, spend, while the bank's cash register goes ca ching, ca ching, ca ching."

If your banker twisted your arm at the POS or ATM, then I would agree they need to be held accountable.......but did they?

I liken this thread to someone trying to pull an oak stump out with a pinto, it just aint going to happen:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you guys what...when I win my lawsuit, I'll make sure you are given notice so that you can collect your $50 to $100.
I wish you the best of luck. If you win, please notify the CIC board. I pledge to collect the money and donate it to the charity of your choice. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.