Bank of Hell rip off

**NikoSan999** · 12-18-2009, 04:14 PM

I know a young man about 20 who opened up an account with them. Couldn't talk him out of it. Still can't get him to cancel it.

Within 6 weeks they had him overdrawn by almost $100. Charged him $105 in overdraft fees. Showed me his account online. I printed it out and told him to go to the local and showed him what to point out. There was no way he could have been overdrawn. They had the debits BEFORE the deposit. He used debit card AFTER the deposit by a couple days. ( I'd love to have $1 for every time they did this to us for the business until I learned to take it in and say fix it ).

Their "new" policy of about 5-6 months is immediate deposit credited to be used. No way overdrawn. The woman took off all 3 $35 charges saying it was a "computer glitch". Yeah, right.

**Greebo** · 12-18-2009, 04:17 PM

I'm a bit confused - you do know that deposits - especially brand new account holder deposits - are not necessarily immediately available, right?

Only the first $100, by law, is required to be available, IIRC. MrsMcdowell?

**NikoSan999** · 12-18-2009, 04:21 PM

He had OVER a $100 available each "bounce". The debits did not reach $100 total. And they fixed it, remember, "computer glitch". NOT, ok, the problem here is it's not available.

**Greebo** · 12-18-2009, 04:28 PM

Huh. Weird.

**McD** · 12-18-2009, 04:31 PM

If a hold was placed on his deposit, it would still show up but in a 'pending' status through online banking. This ofen looks like the money is available but in reality it's not.

My guess would be that a hold was placed on the funds, but had been released by the time he printed out the transaction history. Again, that's just an assumption on my part--but I've seen it happen often from the other side of the banking desk.

And Greebo is correct, as a new account holder, funds he deposits do not have to be immediately available to him.

All consumers that uses a bank should educate themselves on RegCC.

An educated consumer doesn't pay out nearly as much in fees as someone who just blindly follows the bank's leads.

**Inkstain82** · 12-18-2009, 07:05 PM

Weird in the sense that it's weird there's not more outrage that banks continue to try to rig the system to trigger overdrafts, but otherwise not that surprising.

Yes, customers should be aware of the rules. But I don't understand why we accept their active attempts to trip people up.

**McD** · 12-18-2009, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Inkstain82

Weird in the sense that it's weird there's not more outrage that banks continue to try to rig the system to trigger overdrafts, but otherwise not that surprising.

Yes, customers should be aware of the rules. But I don't understand why we accept their active attempts to trip people up.

There is outrage. But it's from the customers who know and understand that the system is set up the way it is for the bank's benefit.

If an uninformed customer doesn't realize that the way a bank chooses to process their debits/credits can cause them more overdrafts, what would they have to be outraged about?

They don't know any better, which is precisely what the bank is 'banking' on. The bank isn't in it for the customer-->they're in it for them, they are a for-profit business, just like credit card companies, insurance companies, etc.

**Inkstain82** · 12-18-2009, 07:33 PM

When I go into a business, I have the basic assumption that while they are out to make money on the process, they are generally going to try to do so by providing a valuable good or service.

When a business intentionally sets up its service so that many of its customers will not be getting anything remotely of remotely comparable value to what they will end up paying, it crosses the line from legitimate business to illegitimate scam.

**McD** · 12-18-2009, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Inkstain82

When I go into a business, I have the basic assumption that while they are out to make money on the process, they are generally going to try to do so by providing a valuable good or service.

When a business intentionally sets up its service so that many of its customers will not be getting anything remotely of remotely comparable value to what they will end up paying, it crosses the line from legitimate business to illegitimate scam.

Ink, I hear and get what you are saying loud and clear. The thing is you and I both see the flaws in what they are doing as a way to benefit them while screwing the customer.

BUT, they know how to spin things to the uninformed customer that makes them seem SO nice and noble.

For example, the majority of banks pay the largest items coming through your account first, even if that means paying 1 item and returning 5 when returning the first item meant you would have had money to pay the 5 items. As a result, you would then get 5 nsf/overdraft fees. 5! You and I, as informed customers, realize that's pretty shifty.

But the bank have their staff trained well! Your personal banker or your teller or your manager will assure you that it's set up that way in YOUR best interest. After all, what if that had been your mortgage that came through? Wouldnt you want your mortgage paid before some random little checks here and there? But hey--sign up for this credit card and link it to your checking account and then we'll never return a check---a cash advance will just post to your card!

Informed customers see that for what it is--an awesome little way to rationalize them charging out the wazoo for od/nsf fees along with trying to sell them another bank product Uninformed customers think hey! This bank is trying to help me out--they want to make sure I don't bounce my mortgage check, etc!

You take the fact that the majority of bank customers, are as a whole, uninformed about the way banking works/is regulated (I know I was until I worked at a bank), and combine that with the fact that the the bigwigs of the banking industries are in bed with congressman/lobbyman and it ultimately results in the shaft for a lot of customers.

**frugalfranny** · 12-19-2009, 01:06 AM

I hear you Niko. But isn't it damn sad that we have to be the ones that are screaming and hollering for the 'rightful' correction and that they can't just be honest!!! TOTAL GREED!

And I am very pessimistic about it getting corrected anytime soon!!

PS - to all the CU lovers - my biggest fight and almost 'biggest shaft' came from a CU that had a CD of mine, so they aren't totally innocent either!

**NikoSan999** · 12-19-2009, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Inkstain82

Weird in the sense that it's weird there's not more outrage that banks continue to try to rig the system to trigger overdrafts, but otherwise not that surprising.

Yes, customers should be aware of the rules. But I don't understand why we accept their active attempts to trip people up.

Exactly, His money was in there and over the hundred. They were quick to "fix" the "computer glitch" when called on it.

I, myself, have taken these"glitches" to the branch manager probably about 12-15 times over the past 2 1/2 years. Again, always quick to fix the "glitch". She never even questioned it. Now people that DON'T catch it and just assume that they themselves made a mistake, the bank gets the $35 a whack.

**shoiji** · 12-20-2009, 01:34 PM

With many banks it also depends on what time of the day the deposit is made on when the funds are deposited and available. The bank computer system needs to be run to update everything. Also can be "glitched" depending on where the check is coming from.

I remember once posting a federal check into my account. When I asked the teller when it would be available she said not until after 3:00pm that day. But I still love my bank because it is open all the time and they really are pleasant to deal with if I have a problem or need help. Except for when the tellers are to lazy to ask their co-worker sitting right next to them for larger bills.

Have had to use a lot of self discipline over the years to keep a certain amount in the account and to know when to stop buying things so my account does not get overdrawn. So far so good. But have had to many experiences when I did not use good judgement.

Good that you pointed out what was going on wrong with account. Glad he got everything taken care of.

**McD** · 12-20-2009, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by shoiji

Except for when the tellers are to lazy to ask their co-worker sitting right next to them for larger bills.

FWIW, cash-swapping between tellers and their drawers is usually not encouraged, if not downright against the rules at the bank. Both banks I worked for had strict policies against cash-swapping between tellers--opens both tellers up for bad situations in the event of an offage.

But, if they are to dang lazy to get you larger bills from their vault, I'd demand larger bills. Or all ones. And then demand it be counted back to you. By hand.

**madhen** · 12-20-2009, 02:43 PM

I bank with a CU, and I am usually pretty happy with it. The few times they have screwed up, they've fixed it based on just a phone call from me. One thing they did recently that ticked me off, however, was to put a hold on a deposit for TEN days. I wouldn't have cared, except: a) the check wasn't for a LOT of money; b) they didn't tell me they were going to put a hold on it; c) they IMMEDIATELY (within 24 hours) had withdrawn the funds from the check writer's account; and d) they NSF'd a check I wrote that was deposited about a week later because they said the funds were there, but not accessible. I did call and read them the riot act about how they could somehow immediately withdraw the funds so the money was accessible to them and yet somehow not have credited MY account FIVE days after they took the money from the other account. They made me bring a copy of the other person's bank statement, showing the withdrawal, and then they reversed the NSF fee they had charged me. Of course, that didn't address the check return and consequent late fee I had to pay on the check that didn't clear. When I talked to them about that, their answer was that they were SUPPOSED to tell me that the check would be held, due to the amount, and that I shouldn't have written a check on that amount until it had been released. I couldn't prove that they didn't tell me, so I ended up having to eat the rest of the charges.

**Judi Dial** · 12-20-2009, 04:24 PM

This sort of "practice" can be found in many businesses, not just banks, although I have a banking story too....

I was in the book business for many years. The first year I had a brick/mortar store, a customer asked me to order a country music annual publication. So I made up the order and mailed it off to the publisher with a check.

A month goes by, no book. My customer is asking politely, but he wants his book, where is it? So I call them.

This company's standard policy was to hold ALL checks 30 days before processing the order. They'd deposited it all right and they'd been paid, but they wouldn't ship until they'd had the check in their hands 30 days!!! I told them that was fine, I would NEVER do business with them again, but please ship the book when they could. I told my customer to please order any other books he wanted from them through a chain bookstore.

Re my banking story...I opened a savings acct. at a local bank. While I was waiting to do this, the CSR got up and talked to several people (while I was at her desk) and then answered a phone call "from a big depositor." I only had $55 to deposit, but if I'd had more, I probably wouldn't have at that point.

OK. 30 days go by. I made x amount on my deposit. But the bank charged me x + y amount in processing fees. They had instituted a new policy about minimum balances and fees the day I'd opened the account. She held up a notice that said this, which of course I'd never seen, and she hadn't mentioned it either. Gee...guess what? I closed the account.

It's the only savings account I've ever had < 1 year and I LOST money on it!

Judi