Complaint Review: Bank Of America

I apologize for calling you a liar. I misunderstood what you were saying.

However, I stand by my contention that your post is misleading as all h*ll, and I think it's intentionally so, because it goes to some length to give the impression that I have no other recourse but to deal with this kind of shenanigans, and I don't. There are options (which aren't banks only in semantics) with much more reasonable policies, and which *are* insured, just not by the FDIC.

I'm sure I'll live.

Beyond that, your argument that 'all banks do it' is a simple appeal to common practice. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but that doesn't make it right. It just makes it common practice.

I apologize for calling you a liar. I misunderstood what you were saying.

However, I stand by my contention that your post is misleading as all h*ll, and I think it's intentionally so, because it goes to some length to give the impression that I have no other recourse but to deal with this kind of shenanigans, and I don't. There are options (which aren't banks only in semantics) with much more reasonable policies, and which *are* insured, just not by the FDIC.

I'm sure I'll live.

Beyond that, your argument that 'all banks do it' is a simple appeal to common practice. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but that doesn't make it right. It just makes it common practice.

I apologize for calling you a liar. I misunderstood what you were saying.

However, I stand by my contention that your post is misleading as all h*ll, and I think it's intentionally so, because it goes to some length to give the impression that I have no other recourse but to deal with this kind of shenanigans, and I don't. There are options (which aren't banks only in semantics) with much more reasonable policies, and which *are* insured, just not by the FDIC.

I'm sure I'll live.

Beyond that, your argument that 'all banks do it' is a simple appeal to common practice. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but that doesn't make it right. It just makes it common practice.

I apologize for calling you a liar. I misunderstood what you were saying.

However, I stand by my contention that your post is misleading as all h*ll, and I think it's intentionally so, because it goes to some length to give the impression that I have no other recourse but to deal with this kind of shenanigans, and I don't. There are options (which aren't banks only in semantics) with much more reasonable policies, and which *are* insured, just not by the FDIC.

I'm sure I'll live.

Beyond that, your argument that 'all banks do it' is a simple appeal to common practice. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but that doesn't make it right. It just makes it common practice.

A bank does not equal credit union.

Like I said in my post.

Are your funds insured by the FDIC in a credit union?

No.

Why?

Because it's not a bank.

As you have found, correct terminology is important on this website. Banks and credit unions are different entities and should not be in conjuction with each other when reading the rebuttals. Banks do post highest to lowest. Credit Unions each have their own policies.

My credit union does not post highest to lowest, nor to they post lowest to highest. They post at the time the merchant submits the charge whether it be morning, afternoon or night. They usually post checks last, but a charge may come through in the middle of checks if the merchant submits the charge late at night while the checks are posting.

It is a bummer though when you were expecting 1 NSF fee and get 10 instead. However, that is the way most BANKS do it. They have done whatever they can to get as many fees as they can.

In the old days, do you know how many people complained because the bank would pay the smaller items, then bounce rent or car payment? Now, the banks pretend like it's a favor to you by paying the higher items first to avoid that happening, but we all know it's to generate the fees. However, we can't forget we gave them the idea when we complained about our rent/car bouncing. Everything that is happening today came about from our actions of yesterday. We need to keep that in mind or tomorrow will be worse.

One more thing. Make sure your account with BOFA is closed with a zero balance. Your new credit union could run your info in a few months and if they find you're in Chexsystems, they will close your account.

Oh, and JG Shrugged, you need to look at a basic primer on logical arguments before you accuse others of using illogical ones, because you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Reductio Ad Absurdum is a perfectly logical refutation. By demonstrating that an argument is equally valid as a defense against something that is clealy wrong as well as the subject at hand, I've demonstrated that the argument is invalid as a justification for this penalty as well. This is 1000 level logic here, which you apparently flagrantly fail to grasp, because you're just declaring an argument which has been long recognized as logical by fiat as being a fallacy. So tell me - which fallacy did I use? That's what I thought.

And you can't even get your facts right, since it took me all of 15 minutes to find another bank which charges from LOWEST to HIGHEST. Your logic is bad, your facts are bad, you're wrong on multiple counts - in short, your post is of terrible quality and is extremely misleading. Try verifying your facts, or possibly, not making them up off the top of your head, before you post again.

You won't, of course, but whatever. It's worth a try.

"Items have been posted to accounts nationwide from largest to smallest for more than a decade; it's just with technology the problem has reversed itself."

You're a g*&*&* liar, JG Shrugged. I already stated that I found a bank that posts from lowest to highest. So STFU until you can post accurate information.


As for Strider,

"Either way I guess you will get one desire. I'll leave you alone to wallow in your self pity."

I don't care how you go away, as long as you go away. Your advice sucks, your arguments suck, and your English sucks most of all. Furthermore, you apparently can't read, because I've already addressed what you have to say, yet, you can't seem to do anything but dribble it out over and over again. Reading your posts is like listening to someone with a horrible speech impediment because you write so terribly. It's really annoying. So yeah, thanks for going away. I'm sure you'll just troll somewhere else, but at least it won't be here.

"Items have been posted to accounts nationwide from largest to smallest for more than a decade; it's just with technology the problem has reversed itself."

You're a g*&*&* liar, JG Shrugged. I already stated that I found a bank that posts from lowest to highest. So STFU until you can post accurate information.


As for Strider,

"Either way I guess you will get one desire. I'll leave you alone to wallow in your self pity."

I don't care how you go away, as long as you go away. Your advice sucks, your arguments suck, and your English sucks most of all. Furthermore, you apparently can't read, because I've already addressed what you have to say, yet, you can't seem to do anything but dribble it out over and over again. Reading your posts is like listening to someone with a horrible speech impediment because you write so terribly. It's really annoying. So yeah, thanks for going away. I'm sure you'll just troll somewhere else, but at least it won't be here.

"Items have been posted to accounts nationwide from largest to smallest for more than a decade; it's just with technology the problem has reversed itself."

You're a g*&*&* liar, JG Shrugged. I already stated that I found a bank that posts from lowest to highest. So STFU until you can post accurate information.


As for Strider,

"Either way I guess you will get one desire. I'll leave you alone to wallow in your self pity."

I don't care how you go away, as long as you go away. Your advice sucks, your arguments suck, and your English sucks most of all. Furthermore, you apparently can't read, because I've already addressed what you have to say, yet, you can't seem to do anything but dribble it out over and over again. Reading your posts is like listening to someone with a horrible speech impediment because you write so terribly. It's really annoying. So yeah, thanks for going away. I'm sure you'll just troll somewhere else, but at least it won't be here.

"Items have been posted to accounts nationwide from largest to smallest for more than a decade; it's just with technology the problem has reversed itself."

You're a g*&*&* liar, JG Shrugged. I already stated that I found a bank that posts from lowest to highest. So STFU until you can post accurate information.


As for Strider,

"Either way I guess you will get one desire. I'll leave you alone to wallow in your self pity."

I don't care how you go away, as long as you go away. Your advice sucks, your arguments suck, and your English sucks most of all. Furthermore, you apparently can't read, because I've already addressed what you have to say, yet, you can't seem to do anything but dribble it out over and over again. Reading your posts is like listening to someone with a horrible speech impediment because you write so terribly. It's really annoying. So yeah, thanks for going away. I'm sure you'll just troll somewhere else, but at least it won't be here.

Your deposits aren't insured by the FDIC.

They are insured by NCUSIF, because they operate differently. Credit unions should always have lower fees since they have to share those fees with their members rather than stockholders!

Banks want to make a profit, Credit unions don't want to make too much profit, and if they do, they offer higher rates of return.

You can't compare a bank's policy with a credit union's and say the bank is a ripoff. It's like comparing a Corvette with a Toyota Corolla.

They both are cars, have 4 wheels, run on gasoline, and will get you from Point A to Point B.

But because the Corvette costs more doesn't automatically make it a ripoff - they are different, that's why!

Thanks, Tec. The credit union definitely has much more reasonable policies than BoA. Their fees are 30% less expensive, and their fees post (contrary to Robert's unsupported allegations that all banks do this, although I'm sure he'll continue going around and spamming it in all the bank complaints anyway) from LOWEST to HIGHEST, not highest to lowest. At worst, the fees for this exact same situation at the credit union would have been less than half of what is cost with Bank of America. More likely, since the post electronic payments from LOWEST to HIGHEST and then checks are posted last in the same order, I would have only incurred a single NSF fee.

For. The. Exact. Same. Situation.

If charging a customer more than FIVE TIMES the amount as other institutions for the exact same situation for reasons openly admitted by the posters here as being no longer valid isn't a ripoff, I simply don't know what is. Bank of America is one of the worst deals in banks one can get. People should be aware of this so that they can stay as far away from it as possible.

Jacob, take a couple of deep breathes so you don't pass out man.
The thing is, you can claim the advice is invalid and obvious and anything else you want to but it's correct. If you have $100 in your account and you spend 4100 or less then you will not be charged an OD/NSF fee. But if you spend even one cent over that $100, then you have agreed to let the bank take your money as fees.
Doesn't matter what you expect/want/desire. Each bank has policies on how they post and how they access fees. If you chose to have an account there you have accepted these policies and fees. The vast majority of accoun holders get this and know how to not be accessed fees. The others post here about the evil bank ripping them off when they are the ones that over spent their accounts. And they are the ones that can keep themselves from being accessed more fees.
So I guess you have two choices now. 1) You can listen to this 'invalid, obvious' advice and not have any more fees or 2) you can continue to 'victimhood' party and continue to give your money to the bank.
Either way I guess you will get one desire. I'll leave you alone to wallow in your self pity.

You didn't refute one thing that was rebutted against your RoR.

The bank DOES NOT arbitrarily post things to your account. And many banks use available funds/actual funds when determining NSF. Some call the fees on holds "unavailable" funds fees rather than NSF.

Items have been posted to accounts nationwide from largest to smallest for more than a decade; it's just with technology the problem has reversed itself. The bank used to process checks in different orders but they bounced large checks, which resulted in foreclosure, car repos and evictions, when it would have been overdraft by only a few dollars! So consumers complained, and banks changed their policy so that larger items always post first. So the smaller items get bounced.

But with ATM cards, the bank is guaranteeing the funds to the merchant, like an electronic check. So it is owed at the time of the swiping. The big difference is that banks still do not know (for non-positive pay accounts) how much in checks are outstanding on your account when you swipe that card!

Using the debtor's prison argument is a fallacy of logic. We are talking about two separate things here. The law does not allow you to go to jail for failure to pay a debt. It used to. The law does not mandate posting order, and in fact the Federal Reserve and the courts agree that it is up to the banks to determine posting order as long as they disclose it to their customers. Even the proposed Regulation changes don't address posting order.


With all this being said, I suspect the pendulum will swing back the other way, with checks/check card use being deducted when they come through, and checks will clear in the middle of the day...but then we'll hear "I was embarassed at Starbucks when they cut my card up because it told them to! I checked my balance online at 6 am and it said I had $100 in my account. Then at 620 they cleared a check for $99.50! They used to clear checks at night! This is unethical!"

Jacob i just wanted to add that if been with BoA for almost 12 years and i have bounced 5-7 checks/debt card in that time,The last one i bounced was on a BoA visa debt card which i really never understood how it worked with the debt card but because of a $3 or $4 dollar purchase that it caused about 3 items to bounce which in turn cost me about $105.00 in NSF charges WoW.But then i started reading my bank statements and making phone calls to BoA and started asking how to keep from doing this and i learned how and have not bounced another one because i think you really need to watch the transactions more closely now than before with the checks.Also i have checked with several credit unions in my area and have found out that credit unions charge the same way as BoA and other banks on fee's and they also have just about as many customers with bounded NSF fees as the banks.Its been about 5 years since i've bounded anything.I hope this helps others out there...

Good Luck at the credit union you joined Jacob...

Apparently you're another person who can't post even remotely logical or cogent responses, Strider. This argument you're making is very obviously invalid, as I've already explained, but you're ignoring so you can continue to act like a sanctimonious jerk. You could say the exact same thing if the penalty was them sending someone to your house to burn you with hot irons. "WELL JUST DON'T SPEND MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE, LOL!" It's an obviously stupid response. Whether or not a penalty is reasonable or fair, or whether or not it's a complete rip off, is clearly completely irrelevant to whether or not the penalty can be avoided. This is kid stuff, but I get that you're a concern troll who's being concerned, so you'll just ignore this obvious problem.

What I'm telling you is to take your 'concern' elsewhere, even though I know you'll just keep using the same tired and flaccid argument you've spewed here everywhere else despite the fact that it just got soundly refuted. That's what trolls do. I'm used to it. I'm just going to call you out on it. So go ply your trade on someone who can't see right through your flimsy act. Thanks in advance.

that the OP says it's obvious to not spend money you don't have and yet he's the one here complaining of doing just that same thing.

Everyone's comments are very helpful, really, but it may help if you wish to post a rebuttal to use logic that isn't easily refutable by a reasonably intelligent 13 year old.

In short, your outcries that I "shouldn't have spent money that I didn't have" amount to nothing more than an base Appeal to Spite. Thanks for the update, Captains of Obvious, but I'm very well aware of that. Even if I possess absolutely no ability to balance an account (which I do), it's *completely immaterial* to a discussion on whether or not the practices BoA uses to debit its accounts, charge NSF's on simple holds, and generate as many overdraft charges as possible are fair or equitable to customers. Furthermore, your objections are easily refuted via reductio ad absurdum to this - the exact same argument you're using here would be equally applicable as a justification for debtor's prisons. "Well you just shouldn't go into debt." Give me a break.

Oh, and don't patronize me with this "All banks do this" hockey. I already found a credit union with much more reasonable policies. This is simply an outright lie.

If you have any questions - JFGI. Thanks.

You spent money you don't have.

BofA(or any bank) does not ARBITRARILY post debits in a particular order, it is always HIGHEST to LOWEST. I really do wonder what logic people use when they feel that the only "reasonable" way to post transactions is to have them post LOWEST to HIGHEST.

So one more time, banks post HIGHEST to LOWEST and it has ALWAYS been done this way. It is not some new conspiracy. The difference is the technology. In the past people would write a check for a given amount, they knew that they had a day or two "float" to get the money back in. Today there is NO FLOAT, the second you swipe your card you have to treat the money is gone from your account, even though it won't get "POSTED" until the next day with all your other transactions. For these low dollar purchases people used CASH in the past. You remember cash don't you, it is those pieces of paper and metal with pictures of dead Presidents on them.

If you have a real problem with managing your account go back to the old way and get $20-$40 out of the bank for these small purchases. You may still OD with the checks you write if you don't keep a proper register. But at least avoid the OD's on those $1 sodas.


So in short
- Keep an accurate register
- DO NOT spend money you don't have.
- Don't blame the bank for your mistake
- Don't use your Debit card for small purchases.
- Don't expect the banks to ever post transactions lowest to highest.

Bank of America and US Bank operate the same way although they are different companies.
B of A would charge me overdraft fees because of the overdraft fee's already applied.
They put holds on federal checks. They have put a hold on 2 of my United states treasury checks in the past and would charge me the overdraft fee because the check was not yet cleared (Which is cleared the second you deposit it because it is a federal check)

They also put a hold on account funds if I spend more than $100 at a time for theft protection which I told them to raise the limit to $400 they never did.

So you KNEW you only had $60.00 in your account, yet you SPENT $96.00! Yet, this is the bank's fault????

People wonder why our economy is so bad. No one accepts personal responsibility anymore.

Like the previous poster, I don't spend money that is not IN MY ACCOUNT. I haven't had a NSF in almost 10 years. And while that one was MY FAULT(not the banks), it was not intentional.

For a moment, let's put aside the fact that you should never spend more than you have in your account. No, in fact let's focus on that: DON'T SPEND MORE THAN WHAT'S IN YOUR ACCOUNT. If you follow that simple rule, then it won't matter if they process the charge largest, smallest, chronological, alphabetical. Also, folks with only $60 in their account shouldn't be wasting money on Starbucks and soda anyway.

As for the posting order, do you really think there is some overarching conspiracy to extract overdraft fees from every customer who has an account? If that is the case, why do hundreds of thousands of middle class customers such as myself never incur a single NSF fee? Isn't it possible, however remotely, that the problem may rest w/ you overspending your account?

Let's assume that, in fact, the bank is arranging charges in such a way as to extract fees, isn't it then in your best interest to follow your money closely and not overdraw the account, thus beating the bank at their own game.

BOA sucks. It is the Wallyworld of banks, which is why I left for greener pastures. Like you, I incurred numerous OD fees, and I too railed against the injustice of it all. When I left, I turned a critical eye to how I managed my money, and I have not bounced a charge in a year.