My son has a checking account at a bank and has had NSF fees charged to his account over the past few months. After reviewing his statements, I noticed that the fees applied when he used the ATM to withdraw funds. A few of those times, the account was already overdrawn, he used the ATM, he got his money, and then was charged a fee. I called the bank and questioned this .... was told you can use the ATM and receive cash even if the account's overdrawn because they feel it's a "service" in case the customer needs the funds in an emergency. I then asked how much can the account overdraw in these instances. They couldn't give me specifics. I asked what criteria is used to determine when an ATM withdrawal will be allowed to overdraw and the disclosure just states "we may allow...." Of course, this fee income is great for the bank. Why would any bank allow a cash withdrawal when the cash is not there? And, is the bank within reg doing this, and if they do, shouldn't that be disclosed?
I don't really know the banks specific policy, but we have had customers that use an ATM when funds are there the day they use the machine, but then later that day or the next day checks come in and bring the account negative then the ATM comes in when that machines owner runs their work and draws it further negative which causes another fee. My bank allows up to a specified amount depending on the account type, to go overdrawn, but there is a charge for each draw from the account whether it be by check or ATM.
It sounds like his bank has some kind of overdraft priveledge program. Inquire as to what type of disclosures were either 1) Given at account opening; or 2) Were mailed to him once he qualified for the OD program. A lot of mailed disclosures go unopened, in our banking experience. This can cause troubles for the customer, as well as for the bank.
Another problem may be that the bank's ATM is not "online". It may not update deposits and/or debits for 1-3 business days. Thus, the ATM thinks he has money.
The best way to protect yourself against unwanted fees, is to simply balance your account. That may sound elementary, but you would be suprised how many bank customers do not balance, and actually rely on their ability to withdraw money at the ATM as a balancing system. Not too smart, especially if its not online. The bank has to pay these withdrawals.
Just curious, but why would he attempt to withdraw money at the ATM when he was already overdrawn? Again, not to be anything but helpful, but that is basically asking for another fee.
Devil Queen
Compliance is my life
Registered: 12/04/02
Posts: 13604
And from a community bank's standpoint, I am sure the bank will help him reconcile his checkbook and show him how to do it, maybe for a fee, but may without a fee, it depends on the bank. However, it is a fee worth paying (unlike NSF fees) if he learns how to manage his checkbook.
_________________________ Hey, where are we going and why I am in this handbasket?
Oh, if we could just get our kids to do what they're supposed to do!!! And, that's what I had told him. But, evidently, he used the ATM one day when he truly had funds, but of course when checks came in the ATM transaction actually overdrew (is that a word?) the account. BUT, there were actual instances where he didn't know he was already overdrawn, for whatever reason, and went to the ATM, requested $40.00, received it, even though there was no money in the account. That's the part I don't get. And, he doesn't have any kind of OD protection tied to the account. They asked him if he wanted it when it was opened, but he declined. It just seems like this is a fee generator for the bank at the customer's expense. NSF fees when charged legitimately, OK, but giving money at the ATM when the account is already overdrawn???
I totally see your point and understand your frustration.
I am responsible for reviewing NSF checks/accts daily. Our bank is not online. If your son banked with us, he could write a check, that depletes his funds today, but it won't show up at the ATM for 1-3 days after it clears the bank. The ATM, (the bank), has no way of knowing there is a negative balance if he goes to the ATM during those 1-3 days. Believe me, the bank would not allow for the ATM withdrawal if it could stop it, but we can't, again, since we're not online. Nothing upsets me more than those customer's who have figured this out and withdraw cash, even though he/she knows the account is overdrawn. We can't stop it and unfortunately don't even know its happened until the ATM withdrawal hits the NSF list.
I hope this makes sense. Ultimately, the bank is not giving him funds just to make a fee, if they could prevent the ATM withdrawal on a negative balance, they would, (assuming there are no assigned OD priveledges or protection). At least that is my case.
When I spoke to a bank rep about allowing ATM withdrawals when an account is already overdrawn, and was told that they allow this to happen in case of "emergency" for the customer. But, could not tell me the criteria used to determine when they allow it, the dollar amount they allow to withdraw and the total OD amount they would allow.
I don't know if there is truly an answer to this ..... maybe the rep I spoke to is giving me incorrect info. But I appreciate all the input from everyone
At a bank I used to work with we had two types of OD limits. One was an account link, which drew funds from either a savings account or a credit line that covered the checks and withdrawals which would ordinarily overdraw a checking account. There was no fee for this service.
The other OD protection that kicked in was an internal OD limit which is established by the bank. The limit is set after a review of average balances, deposits, time with the bank, etc. We NEVER shared the amount of this with a customer as it was a curtesy to our good customers and not a line we wanted them to use. Standard OD charges applied but instead of a returned check, the item was paid, thus avoiding another NSF fee from a merchant.
Abuse of the internal OD limit would result in decreasing that set amount.
Your son may have a similar circumstance. His use of the internal limit though is going to result in it's going away. He really needs to get a handle on his account so this doesn't happen to him in the future.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Once again...OUTSTANDING Woo Hoo
Your post is very interesting. My son opened a savings account with a financial institution and received an ATM card and withdrew more funds than were available in account. He was charged a NSF fee as well as "per day" fee. Then, in his stupidity, he attempted to make another withdrawl on overdrawn account through ATM and succeeded! Additional charges. Total charges $120.00 I was told by branch manager that the bank allowed customers to overdraw $200.00 as a "service" to the customer. My reply was to laugh and state that this was a fee incoming producing tactic. Yes, I did review the disclosures, however, do not recall if automatic overdraft privilege was stated in disclosures. My son was wrong -- no doubt about it. The bank was wrong also, but then again, there's the fee income produced.....
We would never have told your client the $200 figure, and never added this to a savings account so I can't help out much. I will say though that the overdraft coverage was a courtesy to our clients who did not abuse their accounts, not a fee product. I have had many a client make a mistake and not note a monthly fee, atm fees, etc. and overdraw their account just a few dollars. The protection saved them from the embarrassment of having to go from merchant to merchant and pay both NSF fees as well as the bank's OD fee. They gladly paid the OD fee as it was much cheaper than the bank sending the item back.
The OD fee was lower than the NSF fee by the way. While it is income to the bank, they also take the risk of covering an overdrawn account. They take additional risk when the situation is abused as you state your son did when attempting to make another withdrawal KNOWING that he was overdrawing the account. I personally would have closed his account if he crossed my desk with a complaint.
Clients who have been with a bank for many years often see the fee waived due to their value to the bank. A one time issue with a client who has a significant relationship with the bank, and does not abuse the account is more often forgiven than not. Clients who purposely abuse the situation do not see this happen.
I hope your son took this as a lesson on how to manage his account verses holding the bank as the evil guy. He made a mistake and compounded it further by abusing the situation. I'm hopeful he won't do it again. You may not realize it, but overdrafts and NSF’s have their own risk to the bank. While you indicate we charge the fees purely to capture your hard earned money, you are mistaken. I have closed many an account in my day that generated SIGNIFICANT funds for the bank in NSF and OD fees. These clients are a risk. We don’t want them any more than the merchants want their checks.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Once again...OUTSTANDING Woo Hoo
I understand the risks associated with covering an overdrawn account. I also understand and appreciate the consideration given to established accounts. What I found hard to believe was the fact the bank gave a "new" account this privilege. The bank did not tell my son about the automatic overdraft privilege. I asked about it. Yes the account was closed, by us not the bank..... He paid the fees and away he went. Whether or not he learned a lesson, I don't know..... Again, my son was wrong and the bank was most certainly entitled to fees collected. I just found it interesting to read someone else' similar story. Thanks
The od's we allowed within the limit we set internally were never discussed with clients either because they were not set in stone. Each morning I would review my portfolio of overdrafts and choose to pay or not pay items. Even if a new client had an automatic amount allowed, I would override that and choose not to pay if I felt it was unwise.
Unfortunately sometimes computer systems between cash machines and banks are not always 100% talking to each other Once he took the overdraft amount out, it might have been a day or so before it hit. Obviously since he'd taken the money it was a done deal. In the form of a check, I would have had the option of returning the item or paying but on savings, we just have to pay if the systems chose to give him the cash.
I hate to see kids who rely on these little overdrafts on a regular basis (and they do). You'd be amazed how many young adults will overdraw their account by a buck or two, knowing it will probably be paid but they'll have a $20 charge added on. They’re shocked when we don’t pay, and happy when we do, but end up with so much money in od charges it just feels wrong to us to allow them to continue to operate an account in this manner. It’s not good for them or us. Many times these are checks for pizza or similar items that could wait the few days until they get paid, but they don’t. For that reason I hoped your son took a lesson away with him . When he took that second withdrawal it reminded me of so many new account holders that are young. (gad I sound old now!) I just hate them to get off on the wrong foot in their banking history. It does follow them further than they realize.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Once again...OUTSTANDING Woo Hoo
Ken_Pegasus
Power Poster
Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 6815
Loc: Another trip around the sun
Anonymous X 2, Your comments and concerns are more timely than you might realize. The bank regulatory agencies are preparing to offer guidance on overdraft protection programs that would "shape" the banks' future approach to the service. Click on this link if you want to read the proposal. You have as much right to comment on it as the largest bank in the U.S. and you can file your comment by e-mail.
These guidelines do not criticize daily fees. Nor do they criticize the idea that a consumer should be able to overdraw an account via an ATM withdrawal. So, you have something to add, now it's just a matter of doing a little more work and stating your concerns in a venue that might do some good. Unlike many consumers, although you take exception to the banks' practices, you still acknowledge that your sons are responsible for their actions. That indicates that you are a competent critic of the banks' practices and that approach will get you heard...
_________________________
Have a state law question? Scroll down on the Main Index and find your state's forum.
If a bank's ATM is not online, then I can understand the ability to withdraw cash on an overdrawn account.
However, there are banks that allow customers to overdraw their accounts at an ATM and by use of a Check Card. This allowance is not a form of "overdraft protection," it truly is a way for the bank to make more in fee income. For example, Wells Fargo used to decline any Check Card transaction if available balance would not cover the transaction. However, awhile back they put a message on monthly statements saying that they will now either decline it or approve it and overdraw the account. They called this a "customer courtesy," but I don't buy that one ... it's a way to make more in NSF/overdraft fee income. Banks make money through fees, and with most banks 40% to 60% of their revenues are fee-based. However, allowing customers to purposely overdraw their accounts just to collect more in NSF/overdraft fees is really, in my opinion, contributing to the problem.
However, having said all that, it is still the CUSTOMER'S responsibility to monitor their accounts. I majored in accounting in college, and I can tell you that I watch my money VERY closely. There are some things all customers can do to make sure their accounts are in tip-tip shape:
(1) Log into your account everyday just to make sure there are no unexpected "surprises" awaiting you. This will allow you to catch problems early and hopefully rectify them quickly.
(2) DON'T EVER SPEND MONEY ACCORDING TO THE BALANCE THE BANK HAS FOR YOU. This is a very common mistake, probably more common than most realize. There are transactions that the bank doesn't know about until they post (checks, ACH debits, etc.), and your online and/or ATM balance will not reflect these transactions right away. ALWAYS remember to write all transactions down in your check register and ONLY spend the money that your check register says you have. It might be a good idea to invest $30 to $50 on personal finance software (Quicken, Microsoft Money, etc.).
(3) ALWAYS OPEN, INSPECT, AND BALANCE YOUR STATEMENT AS SOON AS YOU RECEIVE IT. I have heard many stories of people who didn't notice an unauthorized monthly withdrawal on their account for several, maybe many, months. If you always balance your statement when you receive it (and log into your account frequently), you will catch such withdrawals before they become a major problem. I read a letter on a consumer website once in which the letter-writer complained that the Personal Banker opened the wrong account and he was being charged monthly fees when he thought he had a free account ... he opened the account in 2001 but didn't notice the fees until 2004!
(4) Even if you are VERY careful with your money, always ask about establishing an overdraft protection program. Even though I watch my money very closely, I always have overdraft protection from my savings account, just in case there are unauthorized transactions or I simply make a mistake.
Whew ... I knew I was long-winded, but this is ridiculous.
_________________________
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
Thanks for the info, Ken, which I'll look into. I have personally experienced at least two situations where disclosure information given to me didn't match actual bank practice and just needed some add'l insight. But, I have to say that since my son has had this issue come up, he's been much better at managing his account. I'm not sure if it's because of the experience or because of my threats ....... I'm a joint owner on the account (for convenience) and told him my name's coming off if he doesn't straighten up!!
What I have found is that some bank enroll you in a bounce protection that you don't have to apply for. They say it's for emergencies, or to stop embarrassments. However it robs the consumer of his choice in payment. Maybe he had cash to purchse that $10 hammer. With this type of banking practice that hammer just cost him close to $40. Read my research at www.debbiehagan.com
Chiquita Banana
Platinum Poster
Registered: 06/11/02
Posts: 867
Loc: The banana bin
Quote: However it robs the consumer of his choice in payment.
Sorry. But the consumer made the choice when he purchased something that he didn't have money for.
Quote: Maybe he had cash to purchse that $10 hammer.
Then, perhaps he should have used the cash?
Quote: With this type of banking practice that hammer just cost him close to $40.
Either the bank pays his check and charges the fee OR returns it, charges the fee, and the merchant charges the fee as well. So, $40 vs. $75. The majority of overdrafts that occur are due to the choices that consumers make. Some are legitimate mistakes and should be treated differently than those consumers that have a blatant disregard. I've worked the overdrafts at my institution for the last 5 1/2 years and day after day, month after month it is the same repeat offenders that consistently overdraw their account. It's not trying to beat pay day, it's just spending money that they don't have.
_________________________
The artist formerly known as 'Swedish Chef'
wyogirl
Gold Star
Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 331
Loc: Laramie, WY. USA
I gotta tell ya, I don't get it. How is your freedom of choice taken away because the bank paid your bad check, or honored your debit card use? Our bank doesn't have bounce protection. I handle the NSFs personally and daily. I take great pride in helping who I can, when I can, with minimal losses to the bank. I am downright offended by your ignorance. If Joe Blow has three checks trying to clear, one obviously much larger, with no available funds, I'm going to do what I can for Joe by making sure his house payment or rent payment clears before a check to Safeway. Especially if he is a good customer.
Now Joe's a pretty smart guy, so he doesn't write too many bad checks, or use his debit card when he doesn't have money. He makes his own choice. "Hmmmmm, should I write a check when there's not enough money in my account to cover it?" He will probably CHOOSE not to write the check.
Quote: However it robs the consumer of his choice in payment.
Sorry. But the consumer made the choice when he purchased something that he didn't have money for.
Quote: Maybe he had cash to purchse that $10 hammer.
Then, perhaps he should have used the cash?
Quote: With this type of banking practice that hammer just cost him close to $40.
Either the bank pays his check and charges the fee OR returns it, charges the fee, and the merchant charges the fee as well. So, $40 vs. $75. The majority of overdrafts that occur are due to the choices that consumers make. Some are legitimate mistakes and should be treated differently than those consumers that have a blatant disregard. I've worked the overdrafts at my institution for the last 5 1/2 years and day after day, month after month it is the same repeat offenders that consistently overdraw their account. It's not trying to beat pay day, it's just spending money that they don't have.
Let's say: Customer may not have had a clue his account was low. Consumer was under impression his paycheck had cleared, there was no indication that it had not,since his Debit card was not declined and it always was declined in years prior when his paycheck had not cleared. He had been customer for 10 years. During that time, if he had made a deposit that had not cleared, if he tried to use his debit card it would decline, then he would use his emergency cash.
Customer was not spending money he did not have. He always kept emergency cash with him. He went to purchase hammer, he had made his deposit on Thursday, and was purchasing hammer on Saturday. He pulled out Debit card, and it was not declined. Logical for customer to assume his check had cleared. (What consumer was unaware of, was that at some time bank had enrolled him is some kind of bounce protection, he had not applied for overdraft protection. So it is not "ignorant" for customer to feel his check had cleared)
Now had he known that his check had not cleared or this bounce protection was in place, he would have used the cash he had for his hammer. (this I suppose is where he would have lost his choice of payment method). He buys several other things over the weekend, working on some home improvments.
On Thursday the following week, customer gets a letter saying his account had been charged $30 for hammer transaction, $30 for wood transaction, and $6 for overdrawing his account on Saturday and $6 for overdrawing his account on Sunday and another $6 for Monday. Check finally cleared on Monday night. His bank is not even open on Saturday or Sunday. So even if he knew it was overdrawn, he could not have corrected it.
I wonder what the data is on Fees charged to customer accounts on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Mondays? Lordy, that is 4 out of seven day.
By the time the customer gets his letter, saying his account had been charged but none of the items were returned. He had been operating for 6 days with his balance off by $78.
Good thing he didn't decide to make his house payment early, or he may have been getting various charges all week long and not knowing it until the notices came. This could have added up fast.
I don't think it's fair to say the customer was spending money he did not have, nor was he trying to float or kite anything. As far as he knew, it was his payceck paying for his items all weekend. He didn't know the bank was loaning him this money until his check cleared.
But you are right, many do spend money they do not have. But in the case above, this in not a true.
Quote: I gotta tell ya, I don't get it. How is your freedom of choice taken away because the bank paid your bad check, or honored your debit card use? Our bank doesn't have bounce protection. I handle the NSFs personally and daily. I take great pride in helping who I can, when I can, with minimal losses to the bank. I am downright offended by your ignorance. If Joe Blow has three checks trying to clear, one obviously much larger, with no available funds, I'm going to do what I can for Joe by making sure his house payment or rent payment clears before a check to Safeway. Especially if he is a good customer.
Now Joe's a pretty smart guy, so he doesn't write too many bad checks, or use his debit card when he doesn't have money. He makes his own choice. "Hmmmmm, should I write a check when there's not enough money in my account to cover it?" He will probably CHOOSE not to write the check.
You must be the person to ask this question: since you personally handle the NSF's how do you decide who you are going to "help" and how much you can help them. What factors do you look at? Do you know the ones you "help"? Are they relatives? Are the ones you don't help, ex-inlaws? What do you consider as "help"? I hope this doesn't come off sounding rude, just legit questions. Thanks
Quote: I gotta tell ya, I don't get it. How is your freedom of choice taken away because the bank paid your bad check, or honored your debit card use? Our bank doesn't have bounce protection. I handle the NSFs personally and daily. I take great pride in helping who I can, when I can, with minimal losses to the bank. I am downright offended by your ignorance. If Joe Blow has three checks trying to clear, one obviously much larger, with no available funds, I'm going to do what I can for Joe by making sure his house payment or rent payment clears before a check to Safeway. Especially if he is a good customer.
Now Joe's a pretty smart guy, so he doesn't write too many bad checks, or use his debit card when he doesn't have money. He makes his own choice. "Hmmmmm, should I write a check when there's not enough money in my account to cover it?" He will probably CHOOSE not to write the check.
You must be the person to ask this question: since you personally handle the NSF's how do you decide who you are going to "help" and how much you can help them. What factors do you look at? Do you know the ones you "help"? Are they relatives? Are the ones you don't help, ex-inlaws? What do you consider as "help"? I hope this doesn't come off sounding rude, just legit questions. Thanks
The NSF returns desk is black and white to the clerk doing it...if the funds are there (a deposit was made since the check was presented), a check is paid. If the customer has overdraft/bounce protection and is sufficient to cover the check in question, it is paid. If the customer is overdrawn beyond the protection offered, the check is returned. In our bank, checks appear in check number order (hopefully, the order in which they were written) on each day. They post, clear and are returned in that order each day.
_________________________
"Droplets of Yes and No in an ocean of Maybe."--Faith No More
I don't think it's fair to say the customer was spending money he did not have, nor was he trying to float or kite anything. As far as he knew, it was his payceck paying for his items all weekend. He didn't know the bank was loaning him this money until his check cleared.
Is it no longer the customer's responsibility to keep a record of what is in his account? I'm taken aback at the general feeling that a bank customer need not take any responsibility for his/her own actions. The bottom line is tha tif you write a check, there should be money in your account at the time that it is written, not at the time that you expect the check to clear. If you decide to do without the services of a bank, you will be dealing with cash only and won't have that option anyway. I'm struggling with how this is held against banks and how customers can claim 0 liability. As a customer, if I make a mistake and a check is paid with a fee, I'm happy that the bank helped me out rather than return the check, still charge me the fee, and cause a fee at the merchant side. If you are writing a check with no intention of it being paid, then you're riding the line to check fraud and that's my department. Intentionally writing bad checks is check fraud and is prosecutable as such, just ask your local District Attorney's Bogus Check division.
_________________________
"Droplets of Yes and No in an ocean of Maybe."--Faith No More
Rie A
Gold Star
Registered: 03/03/04
Posts: 466
Loc: Maryland
[Quote]Customer was not spending money he did not have. He always kept emergency cash with him. He went to purchase hammer, he had made his deposit on Thursday, and was purchasing hammer on Saturday. [Quote]
What if the customer was not just buying a hammer, but gas, was on empty and did not have any "emergency cash" on hand? Would they feel the same way about the practice of allowing emergency transactions?
_________________________
God made the world in only 7 days... but he didn't have any paperwork.
wyogirl
Gold Star
Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 331
Loc: Laramie, WY. USA
You got it.
Let's use Joe as our example. First I look at Joe's relationship. Then I look at how long Joe has banked with us. I take into account NSF activity, including number of NSFs, length of time overdrawn and, based on deposit history, will he be able to come out of the deficit.
I will then look at the checks trying to clear. Lets say there are three checks trying to clear. One is very big, and looks like a rent payment. The other two are small. Since I am a small bank, I can call Joe. I tell him I can pay both small checks, but not the big one, or I can pay the big one, not the two smalls. I'll then ask him when his next deposit will be. If it's in a few days, I'll pay it all. 9 times out of 10, customers want me to pay their mortgage or rent payment and return the other two. I honestly can't remember a customer who didn't want me to pay their rent.
If I can't get in touch with Joe, well, I know Joe pretty well and his habits, I will pay the rent check first.
Sounds time consuming and it is. As we grow, I may not be able to continue this way. For now however, my customers love what I do for them and really, really, appreciate the call.
Good old fashioned customer service. As far as ex-in laws, relatives and whatever else you stated, I've been married twenty one years to the same guy, so no ex's involved, lol. Just kidding. Seriously, if it were a close case, as you describe, I would do it the same way, or seek the assistance of another officer. Small town, believe me, I see a lot of friends on the ODs. I just have to be fair and partial to everyone, which is easy. Same rules apply to everyone.
Anyway, you can see, (hopefully), the level of customer service that I give on a daily basis. That's why I was so offended by someone who obviously does not know what I go through every morning. Ignorance is simply not knowing, and hopefully, through this forum and other research this person does, they will not remain ingnorant.
Chiquita Banana
Platinum Poster
Registered: 06/11/02
Posts: 867
Loc: The banana bin
Quote: Is it no longer the customer's responsibility to keep a record of what is in his account? I'm taken aback at the general feeling that a bank customer need not take any responsibility for his/her own actions.
Exactly! I kinda quit reading when she said, 'the customer didn't know his balance was low'. That's not the banks responsibility. ESPECIALLY in today's day in age...The guy could utilize telephone banking and internet banking. I mean, I look at my account online during the weekends to make sure I've got money before I spend money. Even if I didn't work in a bank, I'd do the same thing.
As far as paying checks go...I do the returns/pays and the threshhold for all retail accounts are at a certain point. If they had a Personal Money Reserve account, it would have automatically 'kicked in' (same if they had a savings attached to it). So, by being on the list means they've already exhausted that avenue. It's a dollar threshhold but not set in stone either. As I've said (and another poster said) you're more apt to pay the rent checks versus some other type of item. But we can only do so much. It comes down to a customers responsibility. Bottomline.
_________________________
The artist formerly known as 'Swedish Chef'
Chiquita Banana
Platinum Poster
Registered: 06/11/02
Posts: 867
Loc: The banana bin
Quote: If I can't get in touch with Joe, well, I know Joe pretty well and his habits, I will pay the rent check first.
Are we at the same bank? I guess it's just the benefits for being at a small institution. (We have a long running joke around here that if I know the customer by name-they're probably OD alot)
There's a lot of pride to be had by some of us that really look at a customers habits. I know some of my NSF customers so well that I know when they get paid, how much, where they write their checks to, what their handwriting is...etc. etc.
Unfortunately, I can't call everyone. Which is why it helps knowing how much pay they usually receive. KNOW your customer, right?
But, again, bottomline it's the customers responsibility for their actions.
_________________________
The artist formerly known as 'Swedish Chef'
wyogirl
Gold Star
Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 331
Loc: Laramie, WY. USA
I'm with you Amy. I just about fell out of my seat when a customer told me that hey, his debit card worked, he must have money. OMG-people actually balance their account with debit card use. Talk about the height of irresponsibility. I have no sympathy. In fact, maybe I'll return his rent check and cover those two small checks to the local bar. He'll get kicked out of his home, but by God he'll have beer! Oh, and I saved him $20. (totally kidding of course )
Quote: [Quote]Customer was not spending money he did not have. He always kept emergency cash with him. He went to purchase hammer, he had made his deposit on Thursday, and was purchasing hammer on Saturday. [Quote]
What if the customer was not just buying a hammer, but gas, was on empty and did not have any "emergency cash" on hand? Would they feel the same way about the practice of allowing emergency transactions?
I guess that would depend how far from home he is...
I don't guess I have gotten my point across. How was the guy to know his check had not cleared? It is not so much about checks or keeping his checkbook balanced. It's about "how does he know?" He knows nothing about computers and doesn't even own one.
I know that some banks will let you take up to $100 after the cut off time. Say you deposit late on Friday, then they will let you use up to $100 without FEES. That is perfectly fair, and the right thing to do.
Chiquita Banana
Platinum Poster
Registered: 06/11/02
Posts: 867
Loc: The banana bin
Quote: How was the guy to know his check had not cleared?
What does that have to do with the price of peas in China?
He writes the check and debits his register for it. It doesn't matter WHEN it comes through. He should consider it gone.
It's that, "Well, this check hasn't come through yet so I can use my debit card NOW" philosophy that people have that just blows my mind. If you write a check, consider it gone. Period.
And just because he doesn't have a computer or knows how to operate one is moot because 99.9% of banks have had some type of automated telephone banking for YEARS.
Sorry, it doesn't fly with me at all.
_________________________
The artist formerly known as 'Swedish Chef'
Dan Persfull
Compliance is my life
Registered: 08/28/02
Posts: 16057
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Quote: On Thursday the following week, customer gets a letter saying his account had been charged $30 for hammer transaction, $30 for wood transaction, and $6 for overdrawing his account on Saturday and $6 for overdrawing his account on Sunday and another $6 for Monday. Check finally cleared on Monday night. His bank is not even open on Saturday or Sunday. So even if he knew it was overdrawn, he could not have corrected it.
This doesn't sound right to me.
If he would read his account disclosures, in all probability he gets next business day availability. From reading your post the check was apparently deposited after the cut off time on Thursday, therefore going on Friday's business which means it was not available until Monday - the next business day for the bank.
If he wrote checks or used his debit card on Friday, Saturday or Sunday those transactions would not have hit his account until Monday at the very earliest, the next business day for the Bank (the same day his deposit hit).
I don't think all the facts are being presented - I'm not saying you aren't presenting all the facts as related to you by your friend - but I still don't think all the facts of what happened are present.
_________________________
The opinions expressed are mine and they are not to be taken as legal advice.
I don't guess I have gotten my point across. How was the guy to know his check had not cleared? It is not so much about checks or keeping his checkbook balanced. It's about "how does he know?"
How does he know? He needs to be aware of what his bank's funds availability policy is. Do they give next day availability? Same day availability? Hold all local checks for 2 business days? If they hold the funds for any amount of time that is longer than their policy states, then they must give him a notice telling him that. That is how he would know whether or not his paycheck was available.
Most people don't find out about the bank allowing these "emergency" transactions until after they've used this "service" and have been charged a fee. My bank recently instituted this practice and it hasn't been going very well...
Quote: Most people don't find out about the bank allowing these "emergency" transactions until after they've used this "service" and have been charged a fee. My bank recently instituted this practice and it hasn't been going very well...
Translation--"Most don't know about this "service" until they've written a BAD check (either irresponsibly or intentionally)...."
_________________________
"Droplets of Yes and No in an ocean of Maybe."--Faith No More
No, actually, most of these people are used to having their ATM or purchase transactions declined if there is not enough in their account to cover the transaction. All of a sudden, the transaction gets approved without there being enough in their account (and they've never been notified that their bank would start allowing this). This just seems a little deceitful on the part of the bank, no matter how you look at it...
BB, I do see your point, but the bottom line is that customers no longer feel that they need to take care of their own finances or even track their own spending anymore. And, in many cases, if this wasn't made available, someone out there would complain like crazy because it's Saturday and they're stuck without gas to get home. I'd venture to say that this service helps 10 times more people than it "hurts" and there is virutally no service out there that doesn't have at least part of the people upset about how it operates. You've got to go with what you feel will benefit the majority of your customers, otherwise, no advancements would ever have been made.
_________________________
"Droplets of Yes and No in an ocean of Maybe."--Faith No More
Let's use Joe as our example. First I look at Joe's relationship. Then I look at how long Joe has banked with us. I take into account NSF activity, including number of NSFs, length of time overdrawn and, based on deposit history, will he be able to come out of the deficit.
I will then look at the checks trying to clear. Lets say there are three checks trying to clear. One is very big, and looks like a rent payment. The other two are small. Since I am a small bank, I can call Joe. I tell him I can pay both small checks, but not the big one, or I can pay the big one, not the two smalls. I'll then ask him when his next deposit will be. If it's in a few days, I'll pay it all. 9 times out of 10, customers want me to pay their mortgage or rent payment and return the other two. I honestly can't remember a customer who didn't want me to pay their rent.
If I can't get in touch with Joe, well, I know Joe pretty well and his habits, I will pay the rent check first.
Sounds time consuming and it is. As we grow, I may not be able to continue this way. For now however, my customers love what I do for them and really, really, appreciate the call.
Good old fashioned customer service. As far as ex-in laws, relatives and whatever else you stated, I've been married twenty one years to the same guy, so no ex's involved, lol. Just kidding. Seriously, if it were a close case, as you describe, I would do it the same way, or seek the assistance of another officer. Small town, believe me, I see a lot of friends on the ODs. I just have to be fair and partial to everyone, which is easy. Same rules apply to everyone.
Anyway, you can see, (hopefully), the level of customer service that I give on a daily basis. That's why I was so offended by someone who obviously does not know what I go through every morning. Ignorance is simply not knowing, and hopefully, through this forum and other research this person does, they will not remain ingnorant.
Thanks and I hope I helped, Wyogirl
Thanks for explaining. PEOPLE DON'T KNOW. That's the real bottom line of the problem. Bank customers don't have a clue, and that causes a lot of problems for everyone.
Quote: I'm with you Amy. I just about fell out of my seat when a customer told me that hey, his debit card worked, he must have money. OMG-people actually balance their account with debit card use. Talk about the height of irresponsibility. I have no sympathy. In fact, maybe I'll return his rent check and cover those two small checks to the local bar. He'll get kicked out of his home, but by God he'll have beer! Oh, and I saved him $20. (totally kidding of course )
Wyogirl
I can't believe you just posted that. When a bank has always declined your ATM if your deposit was on hold or had not cleared for some reason, why the in the world would he automatically know his ATM was going to clear and be charged a fee $30 for clearing! He wrote down every little transaction in his register. Had it been declined purchasing that beer, he would have known it had not cleared yet and better yet, he would not be fined $30 for not knowing.
Chiquita Banana
Platinum Poster
Registered: 06/11/02
Posts: 867
Loc: The banana bin
Quote: He wrote down every little transaction in his register.
If he wrote down everything then he would have known that he would have been overdrawn....and he shouldn't have attempted to use his card. If he made a mistake in his checkbook and didn't know that he was going to be overdrawn, at least he was able to complete his purchase without being embarrassed while in line. Bottomline...he still is responsible for his balances and purchases. Even if he screwed up.
_________________________
The artist formerly known as 'Swedish Chef'
So I take it that these NSF's fees that customers are supposed to know they are getting by osmosis, are really Embarrassent Saving Fee's?
BB, you at least understand how this is not right when the customer is not made aware that the bank suddenly implements this. Everyone else on here seems to spend more time justifying these horrible fees. I can't believe that each one on here supports this behavior, but I guess this is "ask a banker".
I would rather be "embarrassed" once at the POS or ATM instead of on my hands and knees crawling though the bank pleading for my fees to be put back into my account. IMO, the banks should be embarrassed at stealing money from customers accounts without notifying them.
Where do you guys get off saying that it is NOT the bank's responsibility to inform me if I am spending money I do not have?? Now that is really out there. Exacty what is the bank's responsibility anyway?
This is from a non-banker's point of view (I have never worked for a bank) ...
I have never understood how people can rack up NSF fees and then blame the bank. Yes, NSF/Overdraft Fees are one of the biggest money makers for a bank; however, as a banker on another message board put it once, yes the bank loves fee income, but the bank cannot assess fees without "help" from the customer.
I have posted many times on other message boards that it is the customer's responsibility to write everything down in his/her check register. If you do that, you will NEVER have NSF/Overdraft Fees (unless it's a true bank error). I don't know how customers can expect to be able to spend money they don't have and expect the bank not to charge them for it. I watch my money like a hawk and I allow for EVERY transaction. For example, if I know that a monthly service fee will be assessed on the 15th, I subtract it from my register as soon as I know about, even if that's 2 weeks ahead of time; that way, I won't have any unpleasant surprises.
The bank holds your money for you; it's a service they are providing to you for which they deserve to be paid. It is the CUSTOMER'S responsibility to keep up with their money and what they do or do not have. Can you imagine what kind of mess a bank like Bank of America would have if they had to keep up with their customers' accounts in the way you think they should? It would be an impossible task with the 20 to 30 million customer accounts they have.
As far as not being notified of NSF fees, bank are required by law to provide the Deposit Account Agreement, as well as a schedule of any fees they may charge. I have NEVER opened an account at any bank that didn't give me all of the required disclosures. In fact, even if you already have an account at a bank and open an additional account, or convert one type of account to another, they are required to give you those disclosures all over again, and believe me, they do.
It is the customer's responsibility to read and understand all disclosures, procedures, and fees that may be charged. When I open an account and receive those disclosures, I read every word of every disclosure ... I may not have a lot of money, but I want to know how they will handle what money I do have.
I'm sorry, but this is NOT the bank's fault.
_________________________
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
ok, I've read all the posts and the bottom line to me appears to be misuse of a bank account and riding the "float".
If I put $100 into my account and I write $90 dollars worth of checks and have a $10 bank fee, then THE MONEY IS GONE! It doesn't matter when the check clears or the fee is taken. I don't have any money to get out of an ATM. Period.
I cannot believe people will say "but the check hasn't cleared yet. I still have money." No, you don't. You've spent the money. It's gone. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul because when Peter shows up to collect on his check, not only will he get paid but you're going to pay me to cover the check you just made bad by taking cash from the ATM!
Bonnie M
Power Poster
Registered: 06/01/01
Posts: 5117
Loc: Southern California
What's that joke about the customer who was told he had a zero balance?
"What do you mean I have no money? I still have checks!!!!"
True story - at a bank I worked at 20 years ago, we had a dear sweet old lady as a customer. Her check for her rent payment was about $50 short, but the bank paid it because they did not want her to be evicted for bouncing a rent check.
The Operations Officer called her on the phone to let her know she needed to bring in money to deposit to her account. The lady showed up and sat down at the officer's desk. He told her that she needed to deposit $60 in her account.
She took out her checkbook FROM THE ACCOUNT THAT WAS OVERDRAWN and proceeded to write a check for $60. She smiled sweetly and handed it to the Operations Officer and thanked him for being so nice about it.
Yeah - it took a few hours of explaining to her that money does not magically show up in an account just because you write a check.
_________________________ I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. These are simply my own opinions.
Quote: This is from a non-banker's point of view (I have never worked for a bank) ...
I have never understood how people can rack up NSF fees and then blame the bank. Yes, NSF/Overdraft Fees are one of the biggest money makers for a bank; however, as a banker on another message board put it once, yes the bank loves fee income, but the bank cannot assess fees without "help" from the customer.
I have posted many times on other message boards that it is the customer's responsibility to write everything down in his/her check register. If you do that, you will NEVER have NSF/Overdraft Fees (unless it's a true bank error). I don't know how customers can expect to be able to spend money they don't have and expect the bank not to charge them for it. I watch my money like a hawk and I allow for EVERY transaction. For example, if I know that a monthly service fee will be assessed on the 15th, I subtract it from my register as soon as I know about, even if that's 2 weeks ahead of time; that way, I won't have any unpleasant surprises.
The bank holds your money for you; it's a service they are providing to you for which they deserve to be paid. It is the CUSTOMER'S responsibility to keep up with their money and what they do or do not have. Can you imagine what kind of mess a bank like Bank of America would have if they had to keep up with their customers' accounts in the way you think they should? It would be an impossible task with the 20 to 30 million customer accounts they have.
As far as not being notified of NSF fees, bank are required by law to provide the Deposit Account Agreement, as well as a schedule of any fees they may charge. I have NEVER opened an account at any bank that didn't give me all of the required disclosures. In fact, even if you already have an account at a bank and open an additional account, or convert one type of account to another, they are required to give you those disclosures all over again, and believe me, they do.
It is the customer's responsibility to read and understand all disclosures, procedures, and fees that may be charged. When I open an account and receive those disclosures, I read every word of every disclosure ... I may not have a lot of money, but I want to know how they will handle what money I do have.
I'm sorry, but this is NOT the bank's fault.
Why do they call it a Signature Card? Makes it sound like it's just a card used to compare you signature to in case of forgery.
John Burnett
Compliance is my life
Registered: 10/27/00
Posts: 12642
Quote:
Why do they call it a Signature Card? Makes it sound like it's just a card used to compare you signature to in case of forgery.
The "signature card" used to serve only two purposes. As you suggest, its operational purpose was to provide a signature exemplar for comparison when paying checks. Its legal purpose was merely to create a contract based on some other document listing account terms and rules (in some banks, the rules were never printed in one place and might well have been made up along the way).
Today's signature card has evolved -- in many cases -- to include a full two-sided sheet of contract terms and conditions, along with signatures. The signatures -- and contract -- may only exist in electronic form.
OK, I just gotta say that NSF fees are usery and a crock, no matter how you slice it. My wife and I have been very careful lately, but we just went over on our checking this week by $24. Now, I'm not disputing the banks right to charge us an NSF fee. But they charged us FIVE TIMES. (We had three that were less than $5 and 2 that were about $10). ALL of these charges occured in ONE DAY (i.e. the overdrafted charges happened on the same day). Is there any legitimate reason a bank should be charging $160 in NSF fees for a $24 overdraft? This is not a case where one day, we went over, then the next day we went over again, etc.
We went over FIVE TIMES in the span of EIGHT HOURS, so they decided to charge me 15% of my salary for the week in NSF fees. THIS IS SIMPLY WRONG and is FRAUDULENT IN THE EXTREME. If you're curious, the bank it M&T bank.
It's really sad, because when they were Allfirst, they used to only charge an NSF fee ONE TIME per overdraft (i.e. if you had 5 charges come through quickly like that, they charged you when you overdrew, not per transaction).
My wife and I are looking for a bank that doesn't charge fees on such as schedule, or we may seriously consider completely pulling out of the banking system and resort to the money under the matress system, just maintaining an account to cash our checks.
Anon, if everything is as you say it is, you should go in and visit the branch of your account and discuss it with them.
Overdraft/NSF fees are typically charged per check. The system isn't making a decision based on the check amount. While it may feel wrong to have a $20 fee on a $2 check, you need to understand they didn't institute the fee based on the check amount, but as stated in your account agreement, it was based on the check not clearing. No matter what the dollar amount, NSF/OD = $20.
If as you say, you are careful with your account and this was unusual activity for your family, I would sit with you and discuss this. I most likely would remove or reduce the fees, IF this wasn't a habit. We understand mistakes as much as anyone. But, if you are in the habit of writing checks despite the lack of funds on your account, I'd take that into consideration as well. I probably wouldn't reduce or remove the fees if I saw account history that indicated you were careless on a regular basis.
We have to be fair. We can't play with the fee amount based on the check amount and have a reasonable transaction processing program. You'd be screaming just as much if we charged you a nickle on the $2 check for the OD and $200 for the $3,000 check you wrote for a car if we charged in that fashion.
_________________________
Dawn Coursey VP/CRA Queen
CRA Rating is in...Once again...OUTSTANDING Woo Hoo
wyogirl
Gold Star
Registered: 11/07/01
Posts: 331
Loc: Laramie, WY. USA
Here I come with that small, community bank stuff again, but I can't resist. If someone writes a check that overdraws them up to $19.99, I will not charge them an NSF fee. I think, and so does my management, that a $20 fee on a less than $20 overdraft is unfair. Again, I am afforded that luxury because we are small. When we become a "big" bank, automation will have to rule the day and as Dawnie says, the computer doesn't look at amounts, there's either enough funds, or there are not (to the computer).
I'm out to retain customers, not tick them off. If I, the only community bank in my town, cannot respond to individual needs, outside of the bank's box, who can?
Hopefully I'm not offending any of my big bank cohorts, because we are growing and growing fast. We will be a "big" bank someday and I'll have to come to grips with losing some of that personal touch.
As a non-banker anon who uses BOL frequently and has lately been following this thread, I thought I'd try and weigh in with some 'middle-ground' perspective on the subject.
I think a lot of what's happening with consumer discontent with NSF fees is in fact a lack of education and less-than-optimal documentation (disclosures) for the consumer. As Dawnie mentioned in the 'Why use a bank' thread, most people believe having a checking account is not only the way to go, but is in fact necessary. What they typically don't understand is that their disclosures represent legal contracts with the bank, subject to the terms laid out in the disclosure. The problem? People haven't been trained to view opening a deposit account as a contract; that's something they encounter when getting a loan, not when giving an institution their money to hold onto and earn a spread on. You combine that with the fact at how easy it is to open an account online where reading the small print remains a problem, and how it's doubtful when opening an account in person at a branch the rep adequately lays out the 'do's and don'ts' of how to use their account, and I think you've got a major portion of the problem.
Obviously none of this addresses how we all believe common sense should come into play when balancing one's account, and that writing checks for money you don't have is fraudulent. But the common theme in these instances is that the consumer is more likely to be surprised b/c s/he didn't understand the consequences. Which really was my long-winded point.
The solution? I think a cultural change is happening as NSF/OD's are affecting more people, but I think financial institutions could be more pro-active in adequately informing the consumer of the consequences should they breach their account contract. Every working person in America has a high need for a checking account, and not all of them are as educated or informed as others. Is this the institution's problem? No, but it's just good customer service to help their customers understand their products better, and can also help eliminate cost for the company in having to deal w/irate customers down the road. Just my two cents.
Quote: As a non-banker anon who uses BOL frequently and has lately been following this thread, I thought I'd try and weigh in with some 'middle-ground' perspective on the subject.
I think a lot of what's happening with consumer discontent with NSF fees is in fact a lack of education and less-than-optimal documentation (disclosures) for the consumer. As Dawnie mentioned in the 'Why use a bank' thread, most people believe having a checking account is not only the way to go, but is in fact necessary. What they typically don't understand is that their disclosures represent legal contracts with the bank, subject to the terms laid out in the disclosure. The problem? People haven't been trained to view opening a deposit account as a contract; that's something they encounter when getting a loan, not when giving an institution their money to hold onto and earn a spread on. You combine that with the fact at how easy it is to open an account online where reading the small print remains a problem, and how it's doubtful when opening an account in person at a branch the rep adequately lays out the 'do's and don'ts' of how to use their account, and I think you've got a major portion of the problem.
Obviously none of this addresses how we all believe common sense should come into play when balancing one's account, and that writing checks for money you don't have is fraudulent. But the common theme in these instances is that the consumer is more likely to be surprised b/c s/he didn't understand the consequences. Which really was my long-winded point.
The solution? I think a cultural change is happening as NSF/OD's are affecting more people, but I think financial institutions could be more pro-active in adequately informing the consumer of the consequences should they breach their account contract. Every working person in America has a high need for a checking account, and not all of them are as educated or informed as others. Is this the institution's problem? No, but it's just good customer service to help their customers understand their products better, and can also help eliminate cost for the company in having to deal w/irate customers down the road. Just my two cents.
Everything you mentioned is right on target. Thanks for your input. Customers are not informed, banking has changed in recent years (not for the better I may add). Financial Institution could be more pro-active but it would be less profitable.
You did explain the general thoughts of Consumers and while I'm at it, why do you think this sudden surge in OD fees are affecting more Americans than ever before?
I was told today by a customer rep of Republic Bank that if you used your debit card for any POS purchase, it was NEVER be declined and if it OD'd your account, you would be charged an OD fee. My question is, is this true? I don't remember that being the case in the past.
A POS purchase can be declined. Try using the debit card linked to your OD account to buy gas sometime. As for the NSF fees, they can and will be charged for each transaction that results in a negative account balance. Once a transaction is approved at POS, it cannot be refused. But, the transaction does not have to be approved.
_________________________
"Droplets of Yes and No in an ocean of Maybe."--Faith No More
Quote: A POS purchase can be declined. Try using the debit card linked to your OD account to buy gas sometime. As for the NSF fees, they can and will be charged for each transaction that results in a negative account balance. Once a transaction is approved at POS, it cannot be refused. But, the transaction does not have to be approved.
I was so sure that was an out right lie. Why would this guy tell me such a thing. I even said, you mean I could just go out shopping away and not be declined and he said, yes, but there would be a charge. I don't understand why he said such a thing.
I have read through all of these threads and couldn't help but chime in. REALITY CHECK: The number one reason to offer the bounce protection program is totally related to the increase in NSF/OD fees AND THEN for the "service" that would be provided to the customer knowing their check would be paid when an "inadvertent" overdraft occured. But in reality, if an overdraft is "inadvertent" those checks have almost always been paid anyway.
In order to make the program most profitable the order checks are paid must be larget to smallest. Next, the bank must decide to increase their risk exposure and pay items for customers they might not have before, including those who habitually overdraw their account. As long as they make a deposit within 30 days to cover it, they can start over again the next month. So, based on this, here are the facts of how the program really works: Joe thinks he has $60.00 in his account, but his wife forgot to tell him about the $30.00 she withdrew at the ATM. On the same day she uses the ATM, he buys a $32.00 hammer, buys $10.00 of gas and then writes 6 $3.00 checks for school party and PTA dues (silly - but work with me ) The bank charges a $25.00 fee per check paid or returned. All of the checks hit on the same day, and of course the ATM transaction has already cleared. The $32.00 item is paid since it is the largest causing all other items to be NSF. This would cost Joe $200.00 in fees but save him the embarassment of all those returned items. But wait, had the bank paid the items smallest to largest then only one check for $32.00 would have been NSF and Joe would have only been chgd $25 more. Or, even if they pay largest to smallest, the $32.00 item could have been returned and all of the other items would have paid. Joe would have been charged one $25.00 fee by the bank and a fee by the merchant (if they charged for items not yet ran through twice) So, is the bank really doing Joe a favor by paying ALL of the items and by deciding the largest check is the most important item to pay?
The bounce protection programs are only profitable because more items are paid rather than returned, not because customers are actually writing more bad checks. The more items paid plus the fee means a larger overdraft balance leading to more NSF fees for subsequent items that might have paid had only one of the larger items been returned.
For this, consumers have a right to complain!
And BTW IMO, those small community banks that are picking and choosing the order of pay by deciding which check is most important per customer is only asking for a problem of a different kind!
Quote: I have read through all of these threads and couldn't help but chime in. REALITY CHECK: The number one reason to offer the bounce protection program is totally related to the increase in NSF/OD fees AND THEN for the "service" that would be provided to the customer knowing their check would be paid when an "inadvertent" overdraft occured. But in reality, if an overdraft is "inadvertent" those checks have almost always been paid anyway.
In order to make the program most profitable the order checks are paid must be larget to smallest. Next, the bank must decide to increase their risk exposure and pay items for customers they might not have before, including those who habitually overdraw their account. As long as they make a deposit within 30 days to cover it, they can start over again the next month. So, based on this, here are the facts of how the program really works: Joe thinks he has $60.00 in his account, but his wife forgot to tell him about the $30.00 she withdrew at the ATM. On the same day she uses the ATM, he buys a $32.00 hammer, buys $10.00 of gas and then writes 6 $3.00 checks for school party and PTA dues (silly - but work with me ) The bank charges a $25.00 fee per check paid or returned. All of the checks hit on the same day, and of course the ATM transaction has already cleared. The $32.00 item is paid since it is the largest causing all other items to be NSF. This would cost Joe $200.00 in fees but save him the embarassment of all those returned items. But wait, had the bank paid the items smallest to largest then only one check for $32.00 would have been NSF and Joe would have only been chgd $25 more. Or, even if they pay largest to smallest, the $32.00 item could have been returned and all of the other items would have paid. Joe would have been charged one $25.00 fee by the bank and a fee by the merchant (if they charged for items not yet ran through twice) So, is the bank really doing Joe a favor by paying ALL of the items and by deciding the largest check is the most important item to pay?
The bounce protection programs are only profitable because more items are paid rather than returned, not because customers are actually writing more bad checks. The more items paid plus the fee means a larger overdraft balance leading to more NSF fees for subsequent items that might have paid had only one of the larger items been returned.
For this, consumers have a right to complain!
And BTW IMO, those small community banks that are picking and choosing the order of pay by deciding which check is most important per customer is only asking for a problem of a different kind!
I see you get it!!!! Yes!! Finally!! Now, could you contact me please. We need to speak. email me at luvin8racin@aol.com ASAP Thank you.
Quote: I was told today by a customer rep of Republic Bank that if you used your debit card for any POS purchase, it was NEVER be declined and if it OD'd your account, you would be charged an OD fee. My question is, is this true? I don't remember that being the case in the past.
This may have been mis-stated. The banker may have been trying to explain that once the debit transaction had been authorized, it would not be denied. Many times, the balance in an account is sufficient for a purchase at the time of authorization, but as checks come in, the balance may become insufficient by the time the merchant sends in their batch. The debit transaction would not be declined.
_________________________
You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy.~ Eric Hoffer
For the record, not all banks pay checks "Largest to smallest". My bank, for example, pays them in check number order. Sure, we still make money on fees, but we are paying checks, prsumably, in the order which the customer wrote them. In response to the above anon post, I will say that many banks do pay the larger checks first in order to ensure that rent, for example, is paid and not returned. I prefer check number order, myself. It seems the most logical and unassuming.
_________________________
"Droplets of Yes and No in an ocean of Maybe."--Faith No More
Quote: I was told today by a customer rep of Republic Bank that if you used your debit card for any POS purchase, it was NEVER be declined and if it OD'd your account, you would be charged an OD fee. My question is, is this true? I don't remember that being the case in the past.
This may have been mis-stated. The banker may have been trying to explain that once the debit transaction had been authorized, it would not be denied. Many times, the balance in an account is sufficient for a purchase at the time of authorization, but as checks come in, the balance may become insufficient by the time the merchant sends in their batch. The debit transaction would not be declined.
They is probably what the guy was trying to say. That is understandable. Evidently he didn't communicate it very well.
_________________________
What Choice is right for you?
Accounts
Article
Q&A
Podcast
Video
Blog
Discussions
PDF
Powerpoint
Reply
Quote
Quick Reply
Quick Quote
Previous Topic
Index