Complaint Review: Bank Of America

I am currently a customer of B of A and when they first took over my account from Fleet Bank I had to make some adjustments. First the way they take your money out on your checks is different from Fleet or any other bank that I know of. They take the largest to the smallest. They should be really taking out funds on the first check in, and that should be the first one to be paid or the last one in should be the last one paid.

Also if you use your debit card to make a purchase they don't automatically take that money out of your account. I have seen instances where a purchase was made and the money comes out ten days or later while their automated system is not giving you the accurate balance.

Yes I paid fees at the beginning but once I learnt how they did business I am able to avoid be charged these fees. I never bounced a check with them but was charged NSF fees on a debit card purchases. They also refunded some of the NSF charges to me.

What is going on these days, with everybody being cheated & nobody higher up is doing anything about it & innocent lives get ruined make all the complaints you need to the attorney general, don't waste any time filing complaints with the better business bureau cause they are the fox guarding the hen house!. Nothing, is being done to these businesses who cheat & hurt people! so they can go ahead & steal from us poor people & making them richer!, it gets me angry that businesses like bank of america are still getting away with abusing & cheating people out of their hard earn money & ruining them finicailly!.

Bank of America just charged me $35 x 21 = $735.00 in a four day period after my small business deposited a $15,000.00 check on Monday, which an overworked teller was forced by their central computer to promise she'd lift the hold in two days. She forgot. Was the branch manager able to reverse the fees? Nope. Not without damaging the teller's employment record. B of A has specifically targeted small business and low income individuals with their "deposit hold" computer system.

Small business is too busy to fight back and the poor are too ignorant. We have but one effective option. LEAVE. VOTE WITH OUR FEET. Tell our friends. It is worth filing a formal complaint with the Office of the Controller of the Currency http://www.occ.gov. The check holding agreements we sign upon opening accounts are based on a non-electronic world enjoyed by our grandparents, when checks cleared the FED in five or six days by mail. Today, the FED clears these funds in 24 hours. Unless Congress is made aware of the abuses used by B of A in taking advantage of these antiquaited laws, B of A will continue to hide behind the "two week" deposit hold policy allowable by the Office of the Controller of the Currency. Finally, if they steal too much, turn it around on them, file for bankruptcy. "The tyranny of evil can only prevail if good men (and women) stand back and do nothing.

Boycott B of A.

Hostile

Oh where to begin. First off I am not a college student, living pay check to pay check, though I do not say that to show them scorn. They deserve good banking service too. I am a father of two, married, and working for a large transportation company. My gross household income is around $80,000. My most recent bout with BoA (of which I have had a few) is really the last straw. I had scheduled a mortgage payment for the 1st of the Montth, which fell on Saturday. Well it blasted into my account on Friday. I got hit with 3 overdraft fees of 34.00 each. The interesting thing is that I had about 580 dollars in my primary checking, and 280 in my savings. Now BoA has refused to link my savings and checking accounts because they were opened in different states... go figure. IF they had been linked my 625 dollar mortgage payment would not have been an issue. I also have BoA email alerts set as well, which are their to notify you when you account has an issue or a deposit.

Well I was notified of my Friday overdrafts at 2pm on MONDAY 04/03 even though their statements show my overdrafts occuring at on 03/31 Friday. So they pushed forward my mortgage payment to Friday, hit me with 3 fees, and waited til Monday to tell me. Good thing I didnt use my ATM card at all over the weekend or I'm sure I would really have been screwed. The worse thing is that I had the funds in Savings. Would BoA at least taken the two smaller transactions out first, then payed the largest transaction last incurring only a single fee? Hell no! This isn't the first time this has occured to me either, with very similar situations. BOA applied deposits, transactions of large size, and smaller transactions in such a way as benefitted them most.

I have also had to get them to admit to 'banking policy' making me late on payments, in writing, to repair my credit. The term 'Bank Policy' is some mysterious screen thrown over your the terms of service. It seems so unclear that you literally get different interpretations depending on who you talk too at BoA.

BoA structures your transactions in a way that MOST benefits them. They say it is how the system is set up... I cry BS. I work as a computer analyst. You configure a system to work a certain way.

If my ATM / Credit card had stopped working when I no longer had funds that would have alerted me sooner of that an issued had occured. This too is a system setting. My PayPal card stops working the INSTANT I have drawn out all the funds... both as an ATM/Debit card and as a credit card.

Don't do business with them. Try to encourage enterprises that you do business with to do the same.

Ben

I hate Bank of America and I work for them. Their little scheme with charging customers with overdraft fees is something they call a "Matrix Allowance". This matrix will allow transactions on your account to be paid even if you do not have the funds available. This in turn causes the overdrafts fees. Some customers have a Matrix Allowance of over $10,000, YES! $10,000, in which Bank of America will allow you to be in the overdraft. Try to guess how many overdraft fees that would be, before you noticed. Customers are not suppose to know about the Matrix Allowance, we are instructed to inform customers that we pay checks or any other transaction in "good faith" The "Matrix Allowance" would be ideal, if Bank of America did not charge the overdraft fees, but that would be to much of a courtesy for Bank of America to comprehend. No one signs up to have the Matrix Allowance; it is automatically given to you by their system. If the Matrix Allowance didn't exist, maybe instead of buying that cup of coffee for $2.09 when you only have $1.83 in your account and then being charge a 34.00 overdraft fee, you would be declined at the register and you would have to go out to your car and get the $3.00 in change you have in ashtray.

Bank of America is not for people who have to live pay check to pay check, take it from someone who actually has to work for the hellhole. Go to a smaller bank, get a safe and keep cash, and just SAY NO, to BANK OF AMERICA

Posted by: I hate my Job | February 21, 2006 at 07:34 PM

So I also work for the BOA theives. I absolutly hate my job, hate my boss, and can not wait for the day I call in and say ---- ---!!! I adore 90% of my customers and don't mind my actual job. It's just the STUPID people that sit at their desks all day long and dream about what they can do to drive us little people crazy. The whole LOBBY MANAGEMENT is STUPID!!!!!!! Let's see. On a busy Friday afternoon, our manager has a line of 5 or so people waiting to open an account. Our head teller is over on the platform side helping her out. Our other 3 tellers are busting their behinds off trying to get everyone in and out, while someone has to stand in the lobby and greet people while the line is forming out the door. It's stupid! Most of the time I get online when I'm out in the lobby and check my email. I could be helping the line move if I was behind the teller line. I HATE BANK OF AMERICA! They treat the employees like crap. I hate the Matrix Allowance. I don't think you should be able to use your debit card if you don't have the $ in the account. It causes a horriable domino effect. Most of my customers are blue collar workers that come to my branch live pay check to pay check.

They don't understand why their card went through if the $ wasn't there. Now they owe so much $ to the bank. I think the $5 fee to cash a check is highway robbery! I try to waive the fee when ever possible but I have been threatened to be fired if I "get soft" with customers. I use my freedome to act when it comes to stupid charges that makes Ken Lewis richer. I come home crying almost every night because I HATE my job. I am trapped right now. I'm going back to school this year so I can do something better with my life than work for COMPANY that doesn't care about me and certainly does not care about their customers! I dream of the day all customers that come in complaining about the bank's outrageous fees will take their money out of their account and leave.

BOA would be forced to stop doing their dirty tricks to steal money from innocent people. Someday I will be in a position to publically tell everything I know about their crooked ways and the vampires at the top will come tumbling down faster than the domino effect that makes customers poor.

I hate BOA


Posted by: boasucks!

B of A is a criminal organization. Our country has become a system of welfare for the rich and screw the living daylights out of the poor. B of A definitely manipulates the numbers so they can screw people. They count on the poor not doing anything about it. I just started investigating B of A and the evidence is pouring in like mad. We set up a mock account and we have been taking screen shots and making notes and getting witnesses. It's very exciting. They have a lot of advantages but help is on the way. These people are drunk with their own power. Do not get me wrong - they are sophisticated in what they do, but there are forces out there that are stronger.

Our large bank was aquired by BOA some years ago. I'm Still on the inside now and everything said here is true and worse, much worse. I see cover-ups everyday for "budget purposes". Oh!! and talk about security breaches!!!! Mama Mia!!! Did you know they hire temporary employees of the street to handle your sensitive info, because they don't have to pay them benefits or decent wages. Then when their done with them, they through the pissed-off ,once-hopefuls, back in the street with all your info. And over half of the temps hired look, act and speak as though they came directly from Ghetto Idiot training class. You couldn't possibly imagine!!!!!


If the customer doesn't know his rights, that works in their favor. In the past I too have received the bogus fees, the false holds on the check cards, the overlimit fees on finance charges. It's worse on the inside. I tell everyone I know not to use them at all. Even our rules and regulations for employees are not specific, but "at your managers discrection". What kinda loop-hole CRAP is this????!!!!!. I hope Bank of America gets another class action law suit. But this time of Enron epic proportion. They really need to be exposed. I and another coworker said that when we finally leave we will go on 60 minutes anonymously to expose everything. (anonymously because they have you sign legal documents when hired, that state you won't rat them out when you leave.) DOWN WITH BOA CRUSHING THEM FROM THE INSIDE

I can see that this is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed by our goverment. I too am a victim of BOA. I feel what they are doing is pirating our money.

I have been charged over $1500.00 worth of fees total.

I also have called and asked a customer service rep. why this is occuring in my account. I did exclactly what they have told me to do, and that was to not follow the online balance but run a register.

Ok with giving them the benefit of a doubt, I did so. I wrote down everything I did in order as they happened. I also tried using not just my visa end of the check card but the debit end as well and the atm.

Now my register reads exactly what the balance showed on my atm receipt, and what showed online. Then I called to get a balance over the phone and went to the bank itself finding that all ending balances match my register.

I then printed out the online page showing how my account had a 40.00 bal. I then made a purchase that cost me 30.47. Now by my register, I still have 9.53 still in my account.

I then paid with my check card using the visa end and feeling very confident that there was no reason why I should have any problem. Yes it APPROVED it.the key word is "approve" and the signed the slip.

The next important thing I then did was came home checked my balance online. Low and behold it showed my dinner in the pending with the exact amount as in my register. I then printed my page showing this. I did not go over my funds.

It was the next day when things exploded. Now things in the posted section were different and some of the transactions were gone, and on top of everything, I am now in the negative. Negative to the tune of $118.00.


I had my direct deposit going in, fees pending, and my hard earned money trying to work its way in and got interceped by BOA. They then charged all their fees and still left me in the negative.

Now mind you the transactions they removed still needed to be reposted to my account and now be declined and bounced. I never knew an atm or debit transaction could bounce, but with BOA it can.

Ok with all this in mind I called BOA. Evidence I presented to the BOA rep.,I was graced with, a credit back to my account. Now if this is not admitting falt when you can prove to them they are messing around with your hard earned money, what is.

This is just the most recent of many such incidents I have encountered with BOA. I am very tired of having to explain to them how to do their job.

I would just like to say for us all to win, Please, if you can, print a daily report from your online account for 2-3 or more days this will be all your proof they are pirating your money .....to their advantage.

gasoline and driving a car IS a necessity for those of us living in the hearland as opposed to a major urban center such as New York. It's not a luxury; there is not public transport, or, in the case of where I live, there is very LIMITED public transport that works for a very small part of the population. So, in my humble opinion, gasoline is a necessity, sadly. I just wanted to give you a dose of reality and make the case that we all tend to form opinions based on our own experiences. Sometimes you have to take a step back and see the bigger picture.

There is no debate here about the goodness or badness of banks. They are commercial enterprises with the purpose of making money and pleasing shareholders. No one disputes that. What is being diputed is the role of personal responsibility. Some people get it, and some don't. I want to reiterate that I got i even as a poor, desperate grad student living on $500 a month. I would call the dirt poor. Did I once think my bank was preying on me? No. Why? Because I didn't give them a chance to. I stayed on top of my finances (and it was easy to do so because my balances were small), and never once had and NSF issue. I can't put it any simpler. Almost everything complained about here is a result of the bank customer's action (bouncing checks and taking money out via the ATM when they shouldn't). If the customer knows his/her balance, none of this is an issue. Period.

We agree to diasagree, and I think therein lies the difference between what I feel are two types of peole in this country: The ones who understand personal responsibility and live by that simple concept (and are much happier from doing so), and the rest who are always blaming others.

My 2 cents.

I wanted to respond to a few of your comments.

"Consider, though that overdrafts (courtesy loans as you call them) are often NOT due to PIN based transactions. The proliferation of checkcards means that more and more transactions are done PINless, which subjects them to authorization holds rather than same-day debits that happen with PINs."

You are absolutely correct. No one should use a non pin based transaction for this specific reason. Holds for purchases at a gasoline pump, non pin based for example, can be from $1.00 to $75.00. This has been the exact cause of overdrafts in several posts here.

"Additionally, even if I do a PIN based transaction, other items may come in the same day that cause an overdraft (checks, or online banking bill pays, for example). In this case, the bank will not know beforehand that the transaction will cause an overdraft, so how could they possibly notify the customer?"

Yes, this occurs, however, you missed my point. Some banks are authorizing ATM withdrawals and debit transactions on accounts with insufficient balances, up to a preset limit. In the case of these transactions the overdraft courtesy loan fee is being charged. My point is that a few simple lines of code would cause a notification to appear on the terminal that the transaction was approved as a courtesy loan with $xx.xx fee. As the average fee is $28.50, and most of these transactions are for amounts less than $100.00, most consumers would simply cancel the transaction. The bank is NOT notifying the consumer, and most consumers are under the misconception that if a pin based debit transaction or ATM withdrawal is approved that funds are available. As the transaction does a real time inquiry, the bank knows fully well the funds are not available, yet allow the transaction without notice of the fees involved.

"Besides which, customers are notified when they open their accounts. Deposit agreements state a schedule of fees, and discuss how transactions are posted. Your argument is essentially that ignorance of the law (or the account balance) should be an excuse."

Simply incorrect. Surveys by independent consumer advocacy organizations at major banks found this not to be the case. The schedule of fees simply stated in some cases that the bank could pay an insufficient transaction at their discretion and a fee charged. While NSF fees are clearly annotated, overdraft courtesy loans are not. In many cases posting order of transactions is not addressed at all. The survey found that in many of the banks the account holder was simply pointed to a rack of brochures, often poorly stocked, with different account information available. When an account representative was asked to explain specific disclosures in the brochures in many cases they simply did not know the information.

Credit card rates. I can't cite the specific posts (as Michelle related there are 3200 + on bank complaints) but many who have commented that these bank practices are fine and the fault is always with the account holder have also commented in separate posts that with their outstanding credit, outstanding payment history etc. they found banks raising their interest rates to high levels without justification. My point was some of the same posters who object to higher interest seem to believe high overdraft loan fees or NSF fees are justified.

Were the option to decline a transaction that involved an overdraft courtesy loan made available to the consumer it would put the banks in a much better light, if they feel the amount of the fee is necessary. Most have NO daily limit on these fees and post highest to lowest to maximize collection of the fees. A good bank or credit union will usually limit these fees. In an online search I found 3 credit unions that charge NSF fees of $20.00 with a daily limit of 4 fees. Opposed to most banks which average $28.00 and will post as many fees as possible daily.

If the banks were to charge a reasonable fee (processing plus reasonable profit) and disclose the fee in advance they would better serve their customers.

Overdraft protection should only be available to credit qualified customers. To allow lending, without prior disclosure as is required of any other type of loan, and without a clear understanding of the loan and an application to receive it is bad policy.

Price gouging is price gouging. Thus my association to gasoline prices. Whether it is gasoline, bank services, cable services, utilities or the like; businesses should not be allowed to charge exorbitant rates or prices for services or goods without regulation.

Banking service is as much of a necessity as gasoline. Most work for companies which offer direct deposit in lieu of a paycheck. All companies are required to offer the option of a paycheck, but further delay the receipt of pay by informing employees if the opt for a check it will be mailed.

While it is extremely difficult to survive in our society without banking services it is possible - it is also possible not to ever drive. In NYC for example, I have many friends who have not ever had a license or an automobile.

Customer service. I have also worked in customer service in one form or another most of my life. Most people have had bad experiences with customer service representatives - it is simply not the "policies" which cause these problems, it is the poor attitude displayed by most representatives. When a person calls customer service for a problem courtesy, empathy and every attempt possible to resolve the problem often are sufficient even if the "policy" prevents the problem from being solved.

On this topic I will simply offer to agree to disagree with Stile and Michelle. They are staunch bank advocates and financial wizards in their own right - Kudos! I, on the other hand, tire quickly of large businesses taking advantage of customers because the customer is low income, poorly informed and an easy target for intimidation and price gouging.

"If you read my posts on this subject, while I do at times indicate NSF fees, in most instances I am referring to "courtesy overdraft" loans.

The fees charged, for transactions at ATM/Debit point of sale, in which a pin code is entered are unnecessary and exorbitant. Banks offering these "loans" should notify, with each transaction, of the funds coming from this source and the fee involved. Allowing the consumer to decline the transaction."

Consider, though that overdrafts (courtesy loans as you call them) are often NOT due to PIN based transactions. The proliferation of checkcards means that more and more transactions are done PINless, which subjects them to authorization holds rather than same-day debits that happen with PINs.

Additionally, even if I do a PIN based transaction, other items may come in the same day that cause an overdraft (checks, or online banking bill pays, for example). In this case, the bank will not know beforehand that the transaction will cause an overdraft, so how could they possibly notify the customer?

Besides which, customers are notified when they open their accounts. Deposit agreements state a schedule of fees, and discuss how transactions are posted. Your argument is essentially that ignorance of the law (or the account balance) should be an excuse.

"While you, and many others, have never experienced the nightmare many of these posters have it could well happen. If it ever does happen to you, and you get the grand experience of uncaring customer service representatives that have no inclination to assist you, then you will perhaps feel differently. I hope you never have to experience this."

Speaking as a former customer service rep, I think you're doing us a great disservice. Customer service reps, regardless of what industry they work in, or company they work for must work within the policies of their department. If their policies say "no refunds after the first time" then they simply can't do it.

It's not that they're malicious or uncaring. Additionally, when people call about overdrawn accounts, they're prepared to blame everyone except themselves (after reading this site, are you really surprised?), and the CSRs get a lot of bile and vituperation hurled at them.

"Gasoline purchase and use is a CHOICE. Just like a service (bank account) merhandise (fuel) is a retail product. A bank account is a retail product. The comparison of price gouging is not that far from possibility."

It's a big difference and you know it. If you own a car that you drive on a daily basis, you cannot through due diligence avoid using gasoline. By contrast, if you have a checking account that you use on a daily basis, you can easily avoid OD fees.

"Creative posting, high to low, targeting low to middle income individuals to gain fee income is criminal in my opinion."

"Creative" posting, which is disclosed when the customer opens the account, targets irresponsible account-holders. Many low and middle income people survive without ever having an OD fee, and plenty of people with tons of disposable income overdraw because they don't maintain their account properly.

"I find that on most "bank" threads here the same parties disagreeing and screaming that the problem is with the individual are also often those that on separate posts rant about exorbitant interest rates on their credit cards. Odd, both products come from a bank."

And both products disclose their policies up front. You don't want fees on your credit card? Pay it off on time every month. You don't want fees on your checking account? Balance it.

If you read my posts on this subject, while I do at times indicate NSF fees, in most instances I am referring to "courtesy overdraft" loans.

The fees charged, for transactions at ATM/Debit point of sale, in which a pin code is entered are unnecessary and exorbitant. Banks offering these "loans" should notify, with each transaction, of the funds coming from this source and the fee involved. Allowing the consumer to decline the transaction.

While you, and many others, have never experienced the nightmare many of these posters have it could well happen. If it ever does happen to you, and you get the grand experience of uncaring customer service representatives that have no inclination to assist you, then you will perhaps feel differently. I hope you never have to experience this.

Gasoline purchase and use is a CHOICE. Just like a service (bank account) merhandise (fuel) is a retail product. A bank account is a retail product. The comparison of price gouging is not that far from possibility.

Creative posting, high to low, targeting low to middle income individuals to gain fee income is criminal in my opinion.

I find that on most "bank" threads here the same parties disagreeing and screaming that the problem is with the individual are also often those that on separate posts rant about exorbitant interest rates on their credit cards. Odd, both products come from a bank.

... Thank you Steve and Angela, I am glad I am not the only one who sees the ridiculousness of Aafes reasoning and this too will be my last post, as arguing ludicrous points is crazy and anyone who can read will see that.

Aafes that fact you can honestly sit here and tell people you think that everyone should pay $12.00 a month for their account so the habitual overdrafts can pay fewer fees is beyond me!!! I know where every penny of my money goes, so I don't as you suggest pee it away without even knowing where it goes.

However I imagine those who don't maintain a register and keep track of there account, probably do and are not aware where they spend the money, resulting in avoidable overdraft fees. I would comment on the fact you compared it to gas however it seems others have already pointed out the ridiculousness of it, so I refer you to Steve and Angela.

So for my last rebuttal to this complaint, I will say the fees are avoidable, you choose to overdraft (on purpose by knowingly authorizing more than you have, or not keeping an accurate account register) and therefore choose to receive the fees, it is not a rip off when you the customer have total control of the situation. It all comes down to personal responsibility and accountability.

... Thank you Steve and Angela, I am glad I am not the only one who sees the ridiculousness of Aafes reasoning and this too will be my last post, as arguing ludicrous points is crazy and anyone who can read will see that.

Aafes that fact you can honestly sit here and tell people you think that everyone should pay $12.00 a month for their account so the habitual overdrafts can pay fewer fees is beyond me!!! I know where every penny of my money goes, so I don't as you suggest pee it away without even knowing where it goes.

However I imagine those who don't maintain a register and keep track of there account, probably do and are not aware where they spend the money, resulting in avoidable overdraft fees. I would comment on the fact you compared it to gas however it seems others have already pointed out the ridiculousness of it, so I refer you to Steve and Angela.

So for my last rebuttal to this complaint, I will say the fees are avoidable, you choose to overdraft (on purpose by knowingly authorizing more than you have, or not keeping an accurate account register) and therefore choose to receive the fees, it is not a rip off when you the customer have total control of the situation. It all comes down to personal responsibility and accountability.

... Thank you Steve and Angela, I am glad I am not the only one who sees the ridiculousness of Aafes reasoning and this too will be my last post, as arguing ludicrous points is crazy and anyone who can read will see that.

Aafes that fact you can honestly sit here and tell people you think that everyone should pay $12.00 a month for their account so the habitual overdrafts can pay fewer fees is beyond me!!! I know where every penny of my money goes, so I don't as you suggest pee it away without even knowing where it goes.

However I imagine those who don't maintain a register and keep track of there account, probably do and are not aware where they spend the money, resulting in avoidable overdraft fees. I would comment on the fact you compared it to gas however it seems others have already pointed out the ridiculousness of it, so I refer you to Steve and Angela.

So for my last rebuttal to this complaint, I will say the fees are avoidable, you choose to overdraft (on purpose by knowingly authorizing more than you have, or not keeping an accurate account register) and therefore choose to receive the fees, it is not a rip off when you the customer have total control of the situation. It all comes down to personal responsibility and accountability.

... Thank you Steve and Angela, I am glad I am not the only one who sees the ridiculousness of Aafes reasoning and this too will be my last post, as arguing ludicrous points is crazy and anyone who can read will see that.

Aafes that fact you can honestly sit here and tell people you think that everyone should pay $12.00 a month for their account so the habitual overdrafts can pay fewer fees is beyond me!!! I know where every penny of my money goes, so I don't as you suggest pee it away without even knowing where it goes.

However I imagine those who don't maintain a register and keep track of there account, probably do and are not aware where they spend the money, resulting in avoidable overdraft fees. I would comment on the fact you compared it to gas however it seems others have already pointed out the ridiculousness of it, so I refer you to Steve and Angela.

So for my last rebuttal to this complaint, I will say the fees are avoidable, you choose to overdraft (on purpose by knowingly authorizing more than you have, or not keeping an accurate account register) and therefore choose to receive the fees, it is not a rip off when you the customer have total control of the situation. It all comes down to personal responsibility and accountability.

I was not going to respond, but actually felt compelled to.

Your issue has, in large part, to do with the "creative posting" of debits from highest to lowest. MOST, if not ALL banks do it this way -- even my old credit union did it this way. Yes, I agree with EVERYONE, it is meant to make the bank money. But the point Michelle and I are making is that IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW BANKS PROCESS DEBITS. If you have $500, and incur $499.99 in debits (checks, ATMs, check card, whatever...) it doesn't matter how they post them to your account or when. So your issue is not valid. Avoiding NSF fees is 99.9 percent within your control (there's always the small chance of a bank error, etc).

If you made a mistake, and it's a first time mistake, the bank -- in most cases -- will work with you on the fees. I know this to be a fact. If you're habitual, they won't -- you've established a pattern. But regardless, how is YOUR accounting mistake the bank's fault? I know mistakes can happen, but keeping a checkbook is simple math: addition and subtraction. The very MINUTE you write a check -- even if it's going to be mailed to pay a bill -- you subtract that money immediately from your balance. I honestly think folks subtract items when they clear, and that's not a good practice.

About you going into branches and seeing mostly "blue collar" folks. Most people in the US -- I think it's something like 70 percent -- have direct deposit, so the customers you're seeing in the branch is not a representative sample, so I doubt BoA is targeting a certain type of (minority) customer as you allege.

The man who filed bankruptcy: I have heard of no instances where that alone has been the basis for a bank denying someone an account. I think the more likely scenario was that the guy had a history of writing bad checks, and likely was in a ChexSystems database. BoA, like other banks, may have a seond-chance type of program for those folks. Always remember that what you hear on these boards or from e-mails may not be the full story, and I was taught that if something someone tells you doesn't make sense, then they're lying (including by ommission).

As for certain holds on deposits, I agree that the information customers receive about the duration of those holds is inconsistent, and another time customers have to stay on top of things, follow up, make a phone call, and have NO account activity until their available balance is sufficient.

The elimination of the fee-based system and the highest to lowest posting of debits I think is coincidental and not corollary. I think the former occured first. I think one thing to keep in mind is that President Bush changed banking laws that favor banks, and are anti-consumer, and some of this MAY be a part of that, so, if you voted for him, you yourself may be to blame.

And, finally, to Aafes, price gouging has to do with a service or commodity. NSF fees are neither. A customer can't be gouged if they don't require the service or commodity.

I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it again: A bank only gets as many NSF fees from a customer as the customer allows. Yes, it's THAT simple.

All this business about class actions, etc. is a joke people.

Really no further point to continue with this, but my last 2 cents, here goes.

12 dollars a month isn't a huge fee, 144 extra dollars a year, fine. I still see no reason why I should pay it with the only reasoning to be lowering NSF fees. I don't care what they charge in NSF, I don't accumulate them! And your relation of oil prices/gas price gouging to NSF fees is ridiculous. I have no CHOICE but to use gas in some form or another if it be filling my own tank or using public transportation at a higher cost. I do, however, have a choice in NSF fees, and so does ANYONE else! Plus, I don't complain about gas prices because on a world wide scale we pay tons less than other consumers around the world, so don't speak for me.

Lori - "I suddenly realized that everytime I've been to Bank of America, I see mostly blue collar, working customers in the bank. I don't ever remember seeing a customer (either man or woman) who "looks" like a highly paid executive. In fact, I see MANY people who look like immigrants and I would imagine they probably get taken advantage of and they do nothing about it because they're happy they could get a bank account."

To even state that a blue collar worker or an immigrant would be taken advantage of because of bad credit is insane and offensive. I wasn't aware that if you are a blue collar worker or an immigrant means you automatically have bad credit or can't understand banking policy. And in today's American society how does an immigrant LOOK anyhow? I really hope that isn't what you meant, but it is what you said!

Really no further point to continue with this, but my last 2 cents, here goes.

12 dollars a month isn't a huge fee, 144 extra dollars a year, fine. I still see no reason why I should pay it with the only reasoning to be lowering NSF fees. I don't care what they charge in NSF, I don't accumulate them! And your relation of oil prices/gas price gouging to NSF fees is ridiculous. I have no CHOICE but to use gas in some form or another if it be filling my own tank or using public transportation at a higher cost. I do, however, have a choice in NSF fees, and so does ANYONE else! Plus, I don't complain about gas prices because on a world wide scale we pay tons less than other consumers around the world, so don't speak for me.

Lori - "I suddenly realized that everytime I've been to Bank of America, I see mostly blue collar, working customers in the bank. I don't ever remember seeing a customer (either man or woman) who "looks" like a highly paid executive. In fact, I see MANY people who look like immigrants and I would imagine they probably get taken advantage of and they do nothing about it because they're happy they could get a bank account."

To even state that a blue collar worker or an immigrant would be taken advantage of because of bad credit is insane and offensive. I wasn't aware that if you are a blue collar worker or an immigrant means you automatically have bad credit or can't understand banking policy. And in today's American society how does an immigrant LOOK anyhow? I really hope that isn't what you meant, but it is what you said!

Really no further point to continue with this, but my last 2 cents, here goes.

12 dollars a month isn't a huge fee, 144 extra dollars a year, fine. I still see no reason why I should pay it with the only reasoning to be lowering NSF fees. I don't care what they charge in NSF, I don't accumulate them! And your relation of oil prices/gas price gouging to NSF fees is ridiculous. I have no CHOICE but to use gas in some form or another if it be filling my own tank or using public transportation at a higher cost. I do, however, have a choice in NSF fees, and so does ANYONE else! Plus, I don't complain about gas prices because on a world wide scale we pay tons less than other consumers around the world, so don't speak for me.

Lori - "I suddenly realized that everytime I've been to Bank of America, I see mostly blue collar, working customers in the bank. I don't ever remember seeing a customer (either man or woman) who "looks" like a highly paid executive. In fact, I see MANY people who look like immigrants and I would imagine they probably get taken advantage of and they do nothing about it because they're happy they could get a bank account."

To even state that a blue collar worker or an immigrant would be taken advantage of because of bad credit is insane and offensive. I wasn't aware that if you are a blue collar worker or an immigrant means you automatically have bad credit or can't understand banking policy. And in today's American society how does an immigrant LOOK anyhow? I really hope that isn't what you meant, but it is what you said!

NSF fees are not a normal part of anyones account.
They are imposed when you break your contract with the bank.

I DO have FREE checking with Bank of America. I never pay ANY fees for my account. NONE. My checking account is absolutely FREE.

This is because I am responsible and dont write bad checks!

The solution is simple. Manage your account properly, and pay NO FEES! This is just too simple. I have been doing it for 17 years with Bank of America. Never had a problem.

Aafes..The comparison of a $34 NSF fee to a $34 gallon of gas is ridiculous. The NSF fee is not an essential item you need in day to day life. The gallon of gas is an essential item for most people. And, yes, we are being gouged on fuel.

But people still make a choice to not cut back on usage, and keep the price up. I cut back. I got rid of my big dually with the big V-8 454 engine and got into my old cougar with the little V-6 231. This was my spare car, now my primary.

What I'm saying here is that it is all about choices. A person, indirectly makes a choice to pay an NSF fee. Don't like the fees? learn to be responsible.

This NSF fee thing is a very tiring topic, as it can totally be avoided.

ps..One more thing..To Lori re: wanting to "join a class action lawsuit". Everyone wants to get involved as long as someone else does the work. Why don't to start one yourself?

There are not hundreds of complaints against BANK OF AMERICA but thousands and they're not difficult to find on the internet. There are even ex employees telling all - that they were forced to do unethical things to make money for the bank, they were warned to do it or risk losing their jobs, etc. Michelle, I NEVER actually said what happened in my bank account - I merely used a hypothetical example. My problem is solved - I have switched banks after only being with them for four months. They did give me a refund for their exhorbitant fees and asked me to keep my account but my relationship with them is much too sour to give them another chance. Actually, I was very surprised they offered to reverse the charges. I'm assuming it's because I accept credit cards and at times have sizable deposits transferred into my account. The fact they were willing to credit their fees is further proof that they manipulate their customers. After reading Aafes'comment, "Again, being financially responsible is the key. However, largest to smallest posting, unreasonable hold times on deposited funds and ONE mistake by an otherwise responsible, low income account holder quickly s****.>

Everyone makes mistakes. It is part of the human equation. Whether or not, the OP, intentionally overdrafted her account, or by mistake, the order in which the bank posted the transactions was solely to maximize profit.

If there are 5 transactions, the largest is posted first as it overdraws the account, and the remaining four posted second through fifth, the bank maximizes fee profit. Were the maximum amount of payable transactions posted and one (the largest) returned, the bank would still make a fee (much more than the processing cost), the customer would then have to deal with the "bounce" from the merchant as well - sufficient incentive (or penalty) to not reoffend.

As for those believing the bank should "penalize" these account holders. I don't recall ever reading in our laws that banks have jurisdictional authority to penalize offenders. There are bad check statutes in place, the court holds the authority, not the bank, to penalize these offenders. In many states the merchant can recover several hundred times the value of the bad transaction through the court and the offender may also have civil penalties.

The bank does not do this to teach a lesson, or as a penalty. They do it to continue to gain the billions of dollars in profits annually by price gouging.

Fee based checking, as it was before, does not penalize anyone. Complaints that it is unfair for "good" account holders to pay a measly $12 fee are ludicrous. Most people in this country pee away much more than $12.00 a month and have no idea when or where they spent it.

I have no problem with banks charging reasonable fees for NSF's. The problems I have are:

1. The bank's policies should be to pay the maximum amount of transactions on a given banking day to serve their account holders, and only return the transactions they must.

2. ATM/Debit transactions should NOT be paid if no funds are available. Pin based transactions DO check the available balance with the financial institution - From the FFIEC:

"The consumer enters a PIN to authorize the transaction. The merchant's financial institution requests authorization from the consumer's financial institution through the EFT/POS network. The consumer's financial institution, or in some cases the regional network, verifies funds and debits the consumer's account. The EFT/POS network contacts the merchant and authorizes the purchase."

Based on this, the bank should NOT be allowed to authorize overdrafts on an account for a pin based transaction made at an ATM or merchant terminal. The banks should be REQUIRED to warn the consumer the transaction is being authorized as an "overdraft courtesy loan" and the amount of the fee before the transactions complete. Most consumers would simply walk away from the transaction.

3. The fees charged by the banks for these "overdraft loans" and NSF fees should be regulated. The current fees are no more than price gouging. (I expect many of the bank supporters here have suspicions the oil companies are now price gouging and are not pleased - they are for profit, why not let them charge $34.00 a gallon for gasoline?)

Every business should be allowed to make a reasonable profit. Price gouging, however, is abhorrent and companies have been taken to task legally for this - everything from utility companies to contractors in the aftermath of natural disasters. It should not be tolerated, and is only a matter of time before consumer pressure changes this practice.

Amazing, how quick we are to penalize the people doing the right thing in favor of people that cannot handle the responsibility of their own finances. This post was started by someone that has admitted to writing a few bad checks. Hoping and wishing that a few smaller checks will go through before a big one is still writing a BAD check. Which is illegal. Why no one addresses that is beyond me.

I am a good account holder, I am not sitting with thousands in the bank, I just pay attention to my finances. I am not going to pay the same price as if I overdrafted my account 4+ times (12 a month for 12 months) in a year for a service that I can get for free. Penalize the ones that are in the wrong! Balance your checkbooks people, pay attention to YOUR money. And as far as the banks doing this to make money... go for it... that is in fact the American way. It is a business after all. So sorry that the overdraft fees meant to penalize irresponsible people are not giving people the warm and fuzzies!

I originally had no intention to further comment on this complaint however upon reading Aafes last rebuttal, I have changed my mind. I have to disagree with your comments and statements on charging a fee to all bank account holders, let me cut and paste below:

**I dispute your comment. The "system" I suggest was common banking practice until about a decade ago. The "fee-based" checking account generally cost the account holder an average of $12.00 a month up to a specified limit of checks processed. After this limit there was a small per-check charge (minimal). Overdraft protection was offered to credit qualified customers who based upon their credit history demonstrated financial responsibility.

This practice was one method of holding those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check. Yes NSF fees occurred but at amounts that do not approach today's fees.**

You were responding to Stile I am aware, I ignored the ignorance of the comment in the earlier post about going back to where everyone paid but now I cannot. You say that by going back the old banking practice where everyone paid (in your example $12.00) for the account is a way to hold those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check.

That is ludicrous, a fee for everyone, is not forcing irresponsible account holder to be more responsible, it's forcing the responsible account holders to pay for the irresponsible ones. The overdraft fee is the method of holding those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check, why should the competent ones who never overdraft have to pay?!? The overdraft fees have gone up and again, I don't care if tomorrow they start to charge $100.00 a fee, because the fees are preventable.

The overdraft fees going up, is what allows banks to offer the free checking and no fee accounts (We all know the evil bank are out to make profit, what company isn't), if they lower the overdraft fee, they will begin to charge a monthly service fee to the thousands of customers who never have a problem. It is ridiculous for it even to be suggested, the responsible and accountable customers should pay a monthly service fee, so the irresponsible ones overdraft fees will not be as high.

People overdraft all the time and the majority of it is knowingly (this complaint for example), they are aware of the charges, though they may not agree with how the items process, do you think, that by lowering the overdraft fee, but charging $12.00 is going to make these people more responsible. It is the most ludicrous suggestion I have ever heard and I guarantee you, if you go out the general public with this the majority will disagree with your argument.

This site has 3200+ complaints about banks and the number of customers these banks have is in the thousands, the number of people who actually receive overdraft fees is a small percentage of the banks actual customer base. The ones who should be charged fees are the ones who are being charged fees, those who do not monitor their accounts and abuse the courtesy overdraft loan method by knowingly authorizing more than they have.

The rest of us who have managed for YEARS never to have a problem, should not be required to pay a fee, so the habitual overdrafts get a break on their fees, I say charge them $100 each time and give me a free safety deposit box.

I also want to dispute the comment I have cut and pasted below:

***It is continually posted that a simple call to the bank for a good account holder will result in waiver of these fees. In some cases yes, in others certainly not as evidenced by the many threads on this subject.***

In the vast majority lets say over 95% of the complainants that did not get a refund specifically state in their original complaint (as in this one), they have overdrafted before, or it has happened the last few months, or it has happened several times before, etc. These are not ONE TIME customers who overdraft, these are people who admit to overdrafting before, therefore they most likely have already received a refund in the past. I have read very few posts, where someone said they have NEVER overdrafted before and the bank refused a refund. And let me point out that if you read these other complaints there are several people (other than myself) that say they overdrafted once and received a refund. Again, it is the habitual overdrafters who are not receiving the fees and they should not, if you keep overdrafting you have no room to complain.

Aafes you continually post how much it costs to process items and the banks profits and how they are out to make money. NO ONE disagrees, they are a for-profit business, and they are out to make money. So is every other successful company out there, but the bottom line is, it is no excuses for a person to continually overdraft. What does the fact it costs $3.00 (according to you) to process a check have to do with someone overdrafting, nothing!!!! I understand you are using this reasoning to say why a $34.00 overdraft fee is high, but who cares, you are not forced to overdraft, no one is sitting there making you write checks or swipe your card. The fee can be avoided, it does not matter how the bank posts your items if you don't spend more money than you have.

In this complaint the person said they had $499 and spent $534 and as a result incurred fees. Why is this a rip-off?!? They knowingly spent money they did not have as I said in my last post. How much money the bank makes is irrelevant and is nothing more than a feeble attempt to distract from the truth.

She overdrafted, she knew she was going to, she admitted it in the original post, and now she is complaining about the fees. She CHOOSES to overdraft, she therefore CHOOSES to receive the fees; there is no rip-off, just a rant.

I originally had no intention to further comment on this complaint however upon reading Aafes last rebuttal, I have changed my mind. I have to disagree with your comments and statements on charging a fee to all bank account holders, let me cut and paste below:

**I dispute your comment. The "system" I suggest was common banking practice until about a decade ago. The "fee-based" checking account generally cost the account holder an average of $12.00 a month up to a specified limit of checks processed. After this limit there was a small per-check charge (minimal). Overdraft protection was offered to credit qualified customers who based upon their credit history demonstrated financial responsibility.

This practice was one method of holding those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check. Yes NSF fees occurred but at amounts that do not approach today's fees.**

You were responding to Stile I am aware, I ignored the ignorance of the comment in the earlier post about going back to where everyone paid but now I cannot. You say that by going back the old banking practice where everyone paid (in your example $12.00) for the account is a way to hold those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check.

That is ludicrous, a fee for everyone, is not forcing irresponsible account holder to be more responsible, it's forcing the responsible account holders to pay for the irresponsible ones. The overdraft fee is the method of holding those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check, why should the competent ones who never overdraft have to pay?!? The overdraft fees have gone up and again, I don't care if tomorrow they start to charge $100.00 a fee, because the fees are preventable.

The overdraft fees going up, is what allows banks to offer the free checking and no fee accounts (We all know the evil bank are out to make profit, what company isn't), if they lower the overdraft fee, they will begin to charge a monthly service fee to the thousands of customers who never have a problem. It is ridiculous for it even to be suggested, the responsible and accountable customers should pay a monthly service fee, so the irresponsible ones overdraft fees will not be as high.

People overdraft all the time and the majority of it is knowingly (this complaint for example), they are aware of the charges, though they may not agree with how the items process, do you think, that by lowering the overdraft fee, but charging $12.00 is going to make these people more responsible. It is the most ludicrous suggestion I have ever heard and I guarantee you, if you go out the general public with this the majority will disagree with your argument.

This site has 3200+ complaints about banks and the number of customers these banks have is in the thousands, the number of people who actually receive overdraft fees is a small percentage of the banks actual customer base. The ones who should be charged fees are the ones who are being charged fees, those who do not monitor their accounts and abuse the courtesy overdraft loan method by knowingly authorizing more than they have.

The rest of us who have managed for YEARS never to have a problem, should not be required to pay a fee, so the habitual overdrafts get a break on their fees, I say charge them $100 each time and give me a free safety deposit box.

I also want to dispute the comment I have cut and pasted below:

***It is continually posted that a simple call to the bank for a good account holder will result in waiver of these fees. In some cases yes, in others certainly not as evidenced by the many threads on this subject.***

In the vast majority lets say over 95% of the complainants that did not get a refund specifically state in their original complaint (as in this one), they have overdrafted before, or it has happened the last few months, or it has happened several times before, etc. These are not ONE TIME customers who overdraft, these are people who admit to overdrafting before, therefore they most likely have already received a refund in the past. I have read very few posts, where someone said they have NEVER overdrafted before and the bank refused a refund. And let me point out that if you read these other complaints there are several people (other than myself) that say they overdrafted once and received a refund. Again, it is the habitual overdrafters who are not receiving the fees and they should not, if you keep overdrafting you have no room to complain.

Aafes you continually post how much it costs to process items and the banks profits and how they are out to make money. NO ONE disagrees, they are a for-profit business, and they are out to make money. So is every other successful company out there, but the bottom line is, it is no excuses for a person to continually overdraft. What does the fact it costs $3.00 (according to you) to process a check have to do with someone overdrafting, nothing!!!! I understand you are using this reasoning to say why a $34.00 overdraft fee is high, but who cares, you are not forced to overdraft, no one is sitting there making you write checks or swipe your card. The fee can be avoided, it does not matter how the bank posts your items if you don't spend more money than you have.

In this complaint the person said they had $499 and spent $534 and as a result incurred fees. Why is this a rip-off?!? They knowingly spent money they did not have as I said in my last post. How much money the bank makes is irrelevant and is nothing more than a feeble attempt to distract from the truth.

She overdrafted, she knew she was going to, she admitted it in the original post, and now she is complaining about the fees. She CHOOSES to overdraft, she therefore CHOOSES to receive the fees; there is no rip-off, just a rant.

I originally had no intention to further comment on this complaint however upon reading Aafes last rebuttal, I have changed my mind. I have to disagree with your comments and statements on charging a fee to all bank account holders, let me cut and paste below:

**I dispute your comment. The "system" I suggest was common banking practice until about a decade ago. The "fee-based" checking account generally cost the account holder an average of $12.00 a month up to a specified limit of checks processed. After this limit there was a small per-check charge (minimal). Overdraft protection was offered to credit qualified customers who based upon their credit history demonstrated financial responsibility.

This practice was one method of holding those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check. Yes NSF fees occurred but at amounts that do not approach today's fees.**

You were responding to Stile I am aware, I ignored the ignorance of the comment in the earlier post about going back to where everyone paid but now I cannot. You say that by going back the old banking practice where everyone paid (in your example $12.00) for the account is a way to hold those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check.

That is ludicrous, a fee for everyone, is not forcing irresponsible account holder to be more responsible, it's forcing the responsible account holders to pay for the irresponsible ones. The overdraft fee is the method of holding those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check, why should the competent ones who never overdraft have to pay?!? The overdraft fees have gone up and again, I don't care if tomorrow they start to charge $100.00 a fee, because the fees are preventable.

The overdraft fees going up, is what allows banks to offer the free checking and no fee accounts (We all know the evil bank are out to make profit, what company isn't), if they lower the overdraft fee, they will begin to charge a monthly service fee to the thousands of customers who never have a problem. It is ridiculous for it even to be suggested, the responsible and accountable customers should pay a monthly service fee, so the irresponsible ones overdraft fees will not be as high.

People overdraft all the time and the majority of it is knowingly (this complaint for example), they are aware of the charges, though they may not agree with how the items process, do you think, that by lowering the overdraft fee, but charging $12.00 is going to make these people more responsible. It is the most ludicrous suggestion I have ever heard and I guarantee you, if you go out the general public with this the majority will disagree with your argument.

This site has 3200+ complaints about banks and the number of customers these banks have is in the thousands, the number of people who actually receive overdraft fees is a small percentage of the banks actual customer base. The ones who should be charged fees are the ones who are being charged fees, those who do not monitor their accounts and abuse the courtesy overdraft loan method by knowingly authorizing more than they have.

The rest of us who have managed for YEARS never to have a problem, should not be required to pay a fee, so the habitual overdrafts get a break on their fees, I say charge them $100 each time and give me a free safety deposit box.

I also want to dispute the comment I have cut and pasted below:

***It is continually posted that a simple call to the bank for a good account holder will result in waiver of these fees. In some cases yes, in others certainly not as evidenced by the many threads on this subject.***

In the vast majority lets say over 95% of the complainants that did not get a refund specifically state in their original complaint (as in this one), they have overdrafted before, or it has happened the last few months, or it has happened several times before, etc. These are not ONE TIME customers who overdraft, these are people who admit to overdrafting before, therefore they most likely have already received a refund in the past. I have read very few posts, where someone said they have NEVER overdrafted before and the bank refused a refund. And let me point out that if you read these other complaints there are several people (other than myself) that say they overdrafted once and received a refund. Again, it is the habitual overdrafters who are not receiving the fees and they should not, if you keep overdrafting you have no room to complain.

Aafes you continually post how much it costs to process items and the banks profits and how they are out to make money. NO ONE disagrees, they are a for-profit business, and they are out to make money. So is every other successful company out there, but the bottom line is, it is no excuses for a person to continually overdraft. What does the fact it costs $3.00 (according to you) to process a check have to do with someone overdrafting, nothing!!!! I understand you are using this reasoning to say why a $34.00 overdraft fee is high, but who cares, you are not forced to overdraft, no one is sitting there making you write checks or swipe your card. The fee can be avoided, it does not matter how the bank posts your items if you don't spend more money than you have.

In this complaint the person said they had $499 and spent $534 and as a result incurred fees. Why is this a rip-off?!? They knowingly spent money they did not have as I said in my last post. How much money the bank makes is irrelevant and is nothing more than a feeble attempt to distract from the truth.

She overdrafted, she knew she was going to, she admitted it in the original post, and now she is complaining about the fees. She CHOOSES to overdraft, she therefore CHOOSES to receive the fees; there is no rip-off, just a rant.

I originally had no intention to further comment on this complaint however upon reading Aafes last rebuttal, I have changed my mind. I have to disagree with your comments and statements on charging a fee to all bank account holders, let me cut and paste below:

**I dispute your comment. The "system" I suggest was common banking practice until about a decade ago. The "fee-based" checking account generally cost the account holder an average of $12.00 a month up to a specified limit of checks processed. After this limit there was a small per-check charge (minimal). Overdraft protection was offered to credit qualified customers who based upon their credit history demonstrated financial responsibility.

This practice was one method of holding those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check. Yes NSF fees occurred but at amounts that do not approach today's fees.**

You were responding to Stile I am aware, I ignored the ignorance of the comment in the earlier post about going back to where everyone paid but now I cannot. You say that by going back the old banking practice where everyone paid (in your example $12.00) for the account is a way to hold those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check.

That is ludicrous, a fee for everyone, is not forcing irresponsible account holder to be more responsible, it's forcing the responsible account holders to pay for the irresponsible ones. The overdraft fee is the method of holding those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check, why should the competent ones who never overdraft have to pay?!? The overdraft fees have gone up and again, I don't care if tomorrow they start to charge $100.00 a fee, because the fees are preventable.

The overdraft fees going up, is what allows banks to offer the free checking and no fee accounts (We all know the evil bank are out to make profit, what company isn't), if they lower the overdraft fee, they will begin to charge a monthly service fee to the thousands of customers who never have a problem. It is ridiculous for it even to be suggested, the responsible and accountable customers should pay a monthly service fee, so the irresponsible ones overdraft fees will not be as high.

People overdraft all the time and the majority of it is knowingly (this complaint for example), they are aware of the charges, though they may not agree with how the items process, do you think, that by lowering the overdraft fee, but charging $12.00 is going to make these people more responsible. It is the most ludicrous suggestion I have ever heard and I guarantee you, if you go out the general public with this the majority will disagree with your argument.

This site has 3200+ complaints about banks and the number of customers these banks have is in the thousands, the number of people who actually receive overdraft fees is a small percentage of the banks actual customer base. The ones who should be charged fees are the ones who are being charged fees, those who do not monitor their accounts and abuse the courtesy overdraft loan method by knowingly authorizing more than they have.

The rest of us who have managed for YEARS never to have a problem, should not be required to pay a fee, so the habitual overdrafts get a break on their fees, I say charge them $100 each time and give me a free safety deposit box.

I also want to dispute the comment I have cut and pasted below:

***It is continually posted that a simple call to the bank for a good account holder will result in waiver of these fees. In some cases yes, in others certainly not as evidenced by the many threads on this subject.***

In the vast majority lets say over 95% of the complainants that did not get a refund specifically state in their original complaint (as in this one), they have overdrafted before, or it has happened the last few months, or it has happened several times before, etc. These are not ONE TIME customers who overdraft, these are people who admit to overdrafting before, therefore they most likely have already received a refund in the past. I have read very few posts, where someone said they have NEVER overdrafted before and the bank refused a refund. And let me point out that if you read these other complaints there are several people (other than myself) that say they overdrafted once and received a refund. Again, it is the habitual overdrafters who are not receiving the fees and they should not, if you keep overdrafting you have no room to complain.

Aafes you continually post how much it costs to process items and the banks profits and how they are out to make money. NO ONE disagrees, they are a for-profit business, and they are out to make money. So is every other successful company out there, but the bottom line is, it is no excuses for a person to continually overdraft. What does the fact it costs $3.00 (according to you) to process a check have to do with someone overdrafting, nothing!!!! I understand you are using this reasoning to say why a $34.00 overdraft fee is high, but who cares, you are not forced to overdraft, no one is sitting there making you write checks or swipe your card. The fee can be avoided, it does not matter how the bank posts your items if you don't spend more money than you have.

In this complaint the person said they had $499 and spent $534 and as a result incurred fees. Why is this a rip-off?!? They knowingly spent money they did not have as I said in my last post. How much money the bank makes is irrelevant and is nothing more than a feeble attempt to distract from the truth.

She overdrafted, she knew she was going to, she admitted it in the original post, and now she is complaining about the fees. She CHOOSES to overdraft, she therefore CHOOSES to receive the fees; there is no rip-off, just a rant.

Free checking is a blatant lie. It is a simple marketing tool for banks to draw customers in the door so they can later charge these exorbitant overdraft courtesy loan fees.

"The system you suggest we return to limits the availability of banking services to those that can afford the monthly fees and are credit qualified. This could easily shut 15 - 20% of the population out from having access to a bank account."

I dispute your comment. The "system" I suggest was common banking practice until about a decade ago. The "fee-based" checking account generally cost the account holder an average of $12.00 a month up to a specified limit of checks processed. After this limit there was a small per-check charge (minimal). Overdraft protection was offered to credit qualified customers who based upon their credit history demonstrated financial responsibility.

This practice was one method of holding those who could not take financial responsibility for their accounts in check. Yes NSF fees occurred but at amounts that do not approach todays fees.

The increase in the fees is little more than price gouging. In surveys as recently as 3 years ago the average cost of a bank processing a paper check (good or bad) was less than $3.00. With rapid computerization of this process under Check 21 legislation the cost has certainly decreased. The cost for the bank to maintain a checking account monthly is minimal at best.

Overdraft protection lending and creative posting are methods used by the banks to maximize profits. The resultant fees charged are exorbitant and unreasonable. The banks are fully aware that the majority of fees from these practices will be collected from low to middle income families and that the threat of reporting these customers to industry credit reporting agencies such as Telecheck is a strong motivation for the customers to pay the fees.

The banks secondary motivation is that these account holders generate no income for the institution so the fees are a form of forced income. The bank gains nothing from being a funnel for the money of these account holders, the account is not profitable as there are not large amounts of funds present for the bank to invest, lend etc. The account therefore is an operating expense for the bank as they opened the account under the guise of "free" checking.

Again, being financially responsible is the key. However, largest to smallest posting, unreasonable hold times on deposited funds and ONE mistake by an otherwise responsible, low income account holder quickly s****.> It is continually posted that a simple call to the bank for a good account holder will result in waiver of these fees. In some cases yes, in others certainly not as evidenced by the many threads on this subject. In general, by the time the error is discovered by the account holder multiple fees have been charged and customer service representatives at the bank read the account as a "bad account" and are unwilling to assist. In many circumstances when the telephone call is made and fees reversed other pending transactions result in additional fees the next day.

For the record. I have not written a paper check since the advent of the debit card. Major expenses I pay directly to the creditor or through the bank. I have not personally experienced the problem of overdraft protection loans or NSF fees. I state this to make it clear I am not on a quest to stop these abhorrent practices by the bank because I am personally affected.

It is my belief with enough consumer pressure legislation will eventually put the banking industry into check.

One of the major problems allowing these practices began with deregulation. More and more consumers found their small, local banks swallowed up in corporate mergers. Small banks, that were customer and community focused find it more and more difficult to compete with multi billion dollar corporations. Deregulation was a mistake and needs revisiting.

I switched to B.O.A, and was dissatisfied with it.

I had two payments sent to the Credit Card company late, (luckly I called the Credit Card company and they waived my late charges.)

I sent these payments online 10 days before due,
and on the banks website they had pending on them, and all my payments started have pending by them.

B.O.A did not release the payments until 2 days after my due date.

When I called B.O.A. and went to a local branch, all they would tell me is they wasn't sure why this was happening.

I have closed my account with them and went back to W.A.M.U.(this has never happen before here)

Lucky they never charged me any N.S.F charges, because i always had money to cover my withdraws.

Best of luck, the best thing to do is just close your account and find a better bank. B.O.A coould care less about you and they do nothing to help you.

I hate Boa and would never bank with them again. The worse thing I think they do is lose money. How the hell does a bank lose your money. First case was when I was a kid my dad was with security pacific and of course Boa bought them out many years ago.

My dad had no problems with security and in fact was a customer for over 20 years when he was like 15 or younger can't remember exactly but it was about 6 months after they took over when it happend. He worked for a major motion picture company as a prop maker and made d**n good money and got really good tax returns. So he takes the check to the bank like normal deposits it and has no worrys never kept a balance under 2k there. So what happens he waits the 5 buissness day hold on a check over 5000 dollars to find out there is no 5000 dollars and he never made the deposit. It took him a week of fighting with these people and a closuer of his account to fix the problem it was the day he closed the account when a manager aid they found his money.

"When I posted, most recently, information on ATM fees, I was not speaking of the transaction fee of $1.00 typically for using non-bank ATM's. I was speaking of banks INTENTIONALLY allowing overdrafts at ATM's when they are real time transactions that query the bank's computer for availability of funds."

Yes and no. Most ATM transactions are checked against the bank directly for availability. However, if you're using a foreign ATM (an ATM that doesn't belong to your bank) then the authorization must be obtained through an interbanking network (Star, Plus, MAC, Cirrus, Novus, etc). In some cases, if there is high volume on these networks, then they may not be able to contact your bank directly, and they will decision your request for a withdrawal without the benefit of contacting your bank. So, not all ATM withdrawals that cause overdraft are the bank's fault. Also, keep in mind with the authorization hold process, that if you've made recent checkcard purchases that haven't posted but the hold has fallen off, that your balance will appear inflated, and the transaction may go through for that reason.

"The bank does this for the fee income. If you made a mistake in tracking your balance, or deposited a check you weren't sure had cleared and went to an ATM checking FIRST the available balance and were told you have $300.00 available - most would not hesitate to take $100.00 out if needed. If the check you deposited has NOT cleared the banks are indicating available funds which INCLUDE their limit on overdraft courtesy loans on your account. They then allow you the money and charge you this fee. No reasonable person would withdraw the money if it was not shown as available and if the ATM warned a fee of $35.00 would be charged. This is my point on ATM/Debit transactions. If the fee were indicated in advance most would not complete the transaction."

Except that different banks charge different fees, so the ATM doesn't know what kind of fee I'll be charged if I overdraw my account. Moreover, the assumption is that the customer is aware of their balance when they are making the request for the withdrawal.

"I am all for personal responsibility. Why not use the system used in the past to hold acocunt holders responsible in which multiple NSF's resulted in a closed account very quickly. Yes there were fees but not exorbitant as today's fees. Account holders learned quickly tracking their accounts was critical. Now, banks will let the accounts go for several months, collecting large amounts of fee income before considering closing an account."

Consider what you're suggesting. Currently we have a system that allows banking access to everyone and penalizes those who use it irresponsibly. The system you suggest we return to limits the availability of banking services to those that can afford the monthly fees and are credit qualified. This could easily shut 15 - 20% of the population out from having access to a bank account. Banking is a hugely egalitarian industry as it makes its services available to practically everyone at little or no cost, provided that people abide by their deposit agreements. I would argue that limiting the population's access to banking (and as a result, the interest income generated by savings, CDs, investing, etc) would be unfair and inequitable.

To Lori, are you kidding me, I read exactually what you posted, there was not need to twist you words around or put words in you mouth because you typed everything in the original complaint. However for clarification, let me cut and paste exactally what you typed in the original complaint:

**I've been a customer at 2 other banks and they do not treat NSF checks in this manner. If there is an NSF check, they only send back the ONE check that is more than your account balance but pay any checks that are not more than the customer's balance. As a result of the manner in which they cheat people out of money, they can wipe out a bank account balance with NSF fees. It's taken me a couple of months to "figure out" their very unethical manner of cheating people of what must be BILLIONS of dollars.** original complaint 6/8/2006 6:19:37 PM

You then said:

**Talk about trying to "put words in my mouth" and doing "selective reading". I have NEVER had this problem with any bank I've been associated with - ONLY BANK OF AMERICA so your accusations are wrong.** Rebuttal 6/19/2006 6:50:44 PM**

You specifically said in the original that you have had two other banks that don't treat NSF's in this matter, that they send back the largest check. So you have had NSF's at other banks, which was my argument!! Let me post again what I typed, so to avoid any confusion:

**The fees are a problem for habitual overdrafters, who have no room to complain because they keep doing a practice that is causing them fees, instead of simply not spending the money when they don't have it. She readily admits she has been a customer at two other banks and was overdrafting there too, where is the rip off, she know she will receive fees if she authorizes more than she has available, yet she continues to do it.**Michelle Rebuttal 6/19/2006 11:12:52 AM

You stated the other banks don't post largest to smallest and only send back one check instead of the way Bank of America posts causing more than one fee. I simply stated you overdrafted at your other banks as well, that is what you said. I never said you had a problem with the two other banks, obviously you do not because they post items differently than BofA, resulting in fewer fees, but that does not negate the fact that you overdrafted there as well.

My argument is that the points Aafes are arguing are invalid, you have overdrafted in the past, according to you very own complaint, so you know what will happen, this was not a case of being uneducated about the courtesy overdraft loan as Aafes was talking about, you were well aware of it, even in your example, cut and pasted in my last rebuttal, you admitted to spending more than you have available. Where is the rip-off, you had (in the example) $499 and spent $534, you overdrafted and there are consequences. My point again is that customers need to start taking personal responsibility and accountability and stop blaming everyone else for their bad judgment.
To Aafes, Hi there again, I want to start by letting you know I do appreciate you responses, as they are always well thought out and valid. However, to your last post, which is again irrelevant to this complaint. The customer is not complaining she was giving inaccurate information at the atm machine, she stated she authorized more than she had money for, she was not unaware of this, she expected to only receive one fee, she expected, therefore the knew she overdrafted.

While you comments are interesting, they continually miss the point of the original complaint. If you are simply trying to prove banks are out to make money, NO ONE will argue with you, however if you are using the examples as excuses for what this complaint is about, there are irrelevant. In reference to deposits at atm machines, I will say this. If you make a deposit before your banks cut off time and then spend that money, you will not and I repeat will not receive a fee. However, if you make a deposit after cut of time and then withdrawal funds you will overdraft, however I guarantee you, if you look at the receipt for the deposit it reflects the NEXT business days date, so if you decided to take money out that day, you will most likely receive a fee. This again however comes down to personal responsibility, look at the receipt you are given, see what day your funds are available for withdrawal and if you are still unsure call the banks 24 hour customer service center.

You stated that if a person makes a mistake with their balance, etc, they will receive fees. That is correct, however I will again be more than willing to bet, if you make a one time mistake (not on a continual basis) the bank will be more than willing to work with you on the fees. Again, however it is not the occasional overdrafters (once or twice a year) that are complaining, it is the habitual overdrafters, who simply put should know better by now!!

I apologize for the length and appreciate all who take the time to read. To Lori, I wish BofA would put me on their payroll!!

Aafes: I see now that I misunderstood your ATM scenario. Having only personal experience to draw upon, I can honestly say the scenario you describe is not one that I have ever -- in my 22 years of having checking accounts and ATM/debit cards (ever since I was 15) -- experienced. Even as a naive and irresponsible high school and college student, and even when I was in grad school where I had to make a $500 stipend stretch for 30 days every month, I never experienced what you are describing. I guess that's because 1) I NEVER rely on what the bank tells me my balance is (either online or via ATM). Rather, I rely on my own accounting and reconcile monthly with the bank and don't overdraw (again, the personal responsibility thing), and 2) know my account and account rules inside and out.

Oh, and if there's a funds availability issue because you've made an ATM deposit or some other deposit that the bank has placed a hold on, educate yourself. Pick up the phone or ask a teller when the funds will be available BEFORE you go ATM/debit card/check crazy.

To Michelle: For whatever reason, some of us get it, and some don't and will never. I'm no financial wizard. In fact, I'm not even in a financial-related profession. I have NEVER,IN 22 YEARS, had a problem such as the ones described by some of these people. All I can say is that it doesn't matter what's at issue, some people reject the concept of personal responsibility because they can't or won't understand and live it.

I have bounced one cheque in my life. It cost me $8 so it was a few years ago. I know my exact balance before I spend money. It is not a hard concept to grasp.

It is ILLEGAL to write a cheque if you do not have the money. Yes banks make a fortune off the fees so reduce their profits by managing your money properly.

How would you like it if someone wrote you a bad cheque? I own a large company but that is not reason I should have to put up with people trying to stick it to me. Companies have a right to make money and I hate the attitude that a big company can afford it when people do not really plan of paying their bills.

I had wachovia, bad idea I did have a credit union and they do not charge the biggest check to the smallest. I almost opened account with boa and changed my mind after I asked them the similar question.

I had taken money out of my checking via atm and I had enough money in my account to cover any check. I did phone pay and decided not to pay it and I thought much to my dismay that they other checks would go through. Nope they pay the largest check and the others were returned. They do this so they can recevie more revenue. Think about it. why return the largest check when you can return other checks and get more money for your stoke holders. Currently I do not have a checking account for this reason. but I may go back to a credit union in the near future.

So to recap, only certain banks do this type of payment to increase revenue. thank you

Ten BILLION dollars in profit from non interest fee income says enough. The banks manipulate the system in their favor to maximize these profits.

When I posted, most recently, information on ATM fees, I was not speaking of the transaction fee of $1.00 typically for using non-bank ATM's. I was speaking of banks INTENTIONALLY allowing overdrafts at ATM's when they are real time transactions that query the bank's computer for availability of funds. The bank does this for the fee income. If you made a mistake in tracking your balance, or deposited a check you weren't sure had cleared and went to an ATM checking FIRST the available balance and were told you have $300.00 available - most would not hesitate to take $100.00 out if needed. If the check you deposited has NOT cleared the banks are indicating available funds which INCLUDE their limit on overdraft courtesy loans on your account. They then allow you the money and charge you this fee. No reasonable person would withdraw the money if it was not shown as available and if the ATM warned a fee of $35.00 would be charged. This is my point on ATM/Debit transactions. If the fee were indicated in advance most would not complete the transaction.

Largest to smallest posting is only in favor of the bank. Yes, don't spend money you don't have. However, if you make a mistake, or do write a check or authorize a transaction and all reach the bank on the same day - for the bank to pay largest first to gain maximum fee income is wrong. It usually occurs when there are funds on hold for the imaginary clearing time in the account.

I am all for personal responsibility. Why not use the system used in the past to hold acocunt holders responsible in which multiple NSF's resulted in a closed account very quickly. Yes there were fees but not exorbitant as today's fees. Account holders learned quickly tracking their accounts was critical. Now, banks will let the accounts go for several months, collecting large amounts of fee income before considering closing an account.

Talk about trying to "put words in my mouth" and doing "selective reading". I have NEVER had this problem with any bank I've been associated with - ONLY BANK OF AMERICA so your accusations are wrong. You remind me of CRIMINAL attorneys who twist everything around and blame the victim for causing the criminal to do what he is guilty of. I hope you find something or someone to fill your time with so you won't have to resort to "arguing" with complete strangers about problems that don't even concern you. There are HUNDREDS of complaints against Bank of America all over the internet about the same thing - their unethical practices.

As for me, I have to fix dinner for my child, do some paperwork, feed my cat, walk my dog, sweep off my patios, take the garbage out, do some laundry, return some phone calls, do some reading, take my aging neighbor something to eat, do some work on the computer, call my wonderful boyfriend and get ready for work tomorrow. I think you should call Bank of America and get them to put you on their payroll - the certainly can afford to do it with all the money they steal!

I did not see my response posted, so I am posting again, I apologize in advance if there are two similar postings back to back.

To Aafes, you are responding to a complaint started in June 2006 with information from June 2005, which while very interesting to read, is invalid at this point, especially in reference to Bank of America. It has been proven by me that the information on overdraft fees can be found quickly and easily, in about 30-60 seconds and the heading is in BIG BOLD LETTERS, so your argument at this point is invalid, as the information is readily available.

However this argument is irrelevant to begin with, in reference to this complaint, as the original poster was not saying she did not know about the fee, she in fact stated she expected to receive a fee, she even said how much it was!! She in fact is not complaining the bank would pay the check, she expected it to be paid, and she was not unaware of some hidden courtesy overdraft provision she was using this evil provision to get items paidlet me cut and past the part of her complaint I am referencing:

** They charge NSF fees for 4 checks instead of only one (for $500 check) so they charge the customer $136.00 in NSF fees instead of $34.00. That is SO WRONG. I've been a customer at 2 other banks and they do not treat NSF checks in this manner. If there is an NSF check, they only send back the ONE check that is more than your account balance but pay any checks that are not more than the customer's balance.** Original posters complaint

She is upset because they posted largest to smallest. My response again is it does not matter how they post, they can post in alphabetical order, by which store name has more syllables, it does not matter, so long as you don't spend money you don't have. I cannot understand why this is so complicated for people to understand. The fees are not meant to be fun and enjoyable; they are meant as a penalty and as such, are not something people like to get. So in order not to get themdon't spend the money. If you choose to overdraft, then you should not be on her complaining, you stated you did not have to money, so why did you write the check. The fees are a problem for habitual overdrafters, who have no room to complain because they keep doing a practice that is causing them fees, instead of simply not spending the money when they don't have it. She readily admits she has been a customer at two other banks and was overdrafting there too, where is the rip off, she know she will receive fees if she authorizes more than she has available, yet she continues to do it. I actually laugh out loud at the reasoning some people are using to make this everyone's fault but hers.

The next thing people will be arguing is that the bank is using subliminal messaging so people will overdraft. Start taking responsibility for your actions and decision and stop making excuses!!

It is apparent that you have well-researched this issue. Your cutting and pasting of Rep Frank's testimony was thought provoking, but as Michelle and I have stated what seems like a thousand times, MOST banks fees can be avoided. Don't like ATM charges? Then use your bank's ATMs. If that's inconvenient, most grocery stores (if you have one of their loyalty cards) will allow you to cash a personal check up to $25 or $50 at their service desk. Before going on vacation, take out some cash, and, if you run out, your hotel will cash a personal check for you.

The highest to lowest processing of debits -- while I agree this is meant to maximize a bank's revenue stream, this is only an issue if you allow it to be one. If you don't spend more than you have, it doesn't matter how debits are processed -- highest to lowest, lowest to highest, sidways, backwards, alpha numeric, every other, etc. It's that simple.

The only issue you raise is that if your bank processed debits before credits, then find another bank. I would consider my bank, Charter One (or Citizen's on the east coast), to have an EXTREMELY outrageous NSF policy: I think something like $37 for each returned item, then if your account is NSF for 3-5 days, you get assessed another $37, then another for days 6-9 if your account is negative (I'm not sure about the amounts, but that's their scheme). They do, however, process the day's credits before debits. Deposits made after 5 pm and before 7pm are posted the same day. Cash deposits are posted immediately. If your bank has different policies, find another one. Not all banks are the same (unless it has to do with NSFs).

I have 2 accounts, and have never had a problem.

So, I maintain my position that the NSF issue people raise here is nothing more than misplaced anger. Rather than blame the bank, people should accept personal responsibility, which is a lot harder to do.

It is apparent that you have well-researched this issue. Your cutting and pasting of Rep Frank's testimony was thought provoking, but as Michelle and I have stated what seems like a thousand times, MOST banks fees can be avoided. Don't like ATM charges? Then use your bank's ATMs. If that's inconvenient, most grocery stores (if you have one of their loyalty cards) will allow you to cash a personal check up to $25 or $50 at their service desk. Before going on vacation, take out some cash, and, if you run out, your hotel will cash a personal check for you.

The highest to lowest processing of debits -- while I agree this is meant to maximize a bank's revenue stream, this is only an issue if you allow it to be one. If you don't spend more than you have, it doesn't matter how debits are processed -- highest to lowest, lowest to highest, sidways, backwards, alpha numeric, every other, etc. It's that simple.

The only issue you raise is that if your bank processed debits before credits, then find another bank. I would consider my bank, Charter One (or Citizen's on the east coast), to have an EXTREMELY outrageous NSF policy: I think something like $37 for each returned item, then if your account is NSF for 3-5 days, you get assessed another $37, then another for days 6-9 if your account is negative (I'm not sure about the amounts, but that's their scheme). They do, however, process the day's credits before debits. Deposits made after 5 pm and before 7pm are posted the same day. Cash deposits are posted immediately. If your bank has different policies, find another one. Not all banks are the same (unless it has to do with NSFs).

I have 2 accounts, and have never had a problem.

So, I maintain my position that the NSF issue people raise here is nothing more than misplaced anger. Rather than blame the bank, people should accept personal responsibility, which is a lot harder to do.

It is apparent that you have well-researched this issue. Your cutting and pasting of Rep Frank's testimony was thought provoking, but as Michelle and I have stated what seems like a thousand times, MOST banks fees can be avoided. Don't like ATM charges? Then use your bank's ATMs. If that's inconvenient, most grocery stores (if you have one of their loyalty cards) will allow you to cash a personal check up to $25 or $50 at their service desk. Before going on vacation, take out some cash, and, if you run out, your hotel will cash a personal check for you.

The highest to lowest processing of debits -- while I agree this is meant to maximize a bank's revenue stream, this is only an issue if you allow it to be one. If you don't spend more than you have, it doesn't matter how debits are processed -- highest to lowest, lowest to highest, sidways, backwards, alpha numeric, every other, etc. It's that simple.

The only issue you raise is that if your bank processed debits before credits, then find another bank. I would consider my bank, Charter One (or Citizen's on the east coast), to have an EXTREMELY outrageous NSF policy: I think something like $37 for each returned item, then if your account is NSF for 3-5 days, you get assessed another $37, then another for days 6-9 if your account is negative (I'm not sure about the amounts, but that's their scheme). They do, however, process the day's credits before debits. Deposits made after 5 pm and before 7pm are posted the same day. Cash deposits are posted immediately. If your bank has different policies, find another one. Not all banks are the same (unless it has to do with NSFs).

I have 2 accounts, and have never had a problem.

So, I maintain my position that the NSF issue people raise here is nothing more than misplaced anger. Rather than blame the bank, people should accept personal responsibility, which is a lot harder to do.

Thank you for your very clear explanation of what Bank of America is doing to exploit money from their customers. Never experienced this with ANY bank I've ever been with and as of tomorrow - I'm GONE! I have a small business and money goes into and out of my account because I accept credit cards and it's impossible to keep up with fees, etc. because I don't know how much they're going to be.

Additionally, I never know when the automatic deposits are going to be made by the credit card companies. I am not an irresponsible person however, things happen sometimes. The bottom line is that if there are 6 checks going in for payment and perhaps ONE is more than what's in the balance (there's more than enough for the other 5), only that one should be charged NSF and the other 5 checks should get paid - PERIOD. The money is in the account yet they take it and put it in "suspense" for 1 or 2 days so they can charge the NSF fees and then they put the money back into your account and pay the checks but you have $180 less than what you had before (assuming they charge $30 per check).

WHERE IS THE MONEY for those 1 or 2 days? I still would like to know because it's MY money - NOT theirs. They are taking my money for one or two days and doing what with it? If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and walks like a rat - it is and Bank of America is. I would like to know how much money they are making by charging NSF fees in this manner and would love to know WHO gets it. That's the biggest RAT of all. I guess that's what they mean by their slogan, "Higher Standards" (for who?). I have no doubt they will be stopped - I will be included in the ones that help put a stop to their "creative posting". You sound like a very level-headed, intelligent and mature person and I appreciate your comments very much.
lori

Hello Michelle. Yes, again, I will agree that keeping one's account balance properly would be the key - IF the banks did not use creative posting as well as allow real time overdrafts to occur at both ATM's and with debit transactions. As the ATM and debit transactions both query the bank for availability, allowing these transactions solely to gain fees is criminal in my opinion.

My information is not as out of date as you suspect. Much of it is taken from Consumer Advocate websites and most is within the last year.

One source: Statement made by Rep. Frank to the House Financial Services Committee October 24, 2005.

Some of the text in support of my statements:

On June 9, 2005, the Consumer Federation of America issued a report indicating that:

(1) At least 27 of the 33 institutions surveyed (81.8%) have courtesy overdraft provisions written into the fine print (NOTE FINE PRINT NOT BOLD) of their account agreements that say that the bank may or may not, at its discretion, cover debits to checking accounts that would overdraw the account. All of these banks allowed depositors to overdraw their accounts at the ATM, 26 (87.8% allow overdrafts at point-of-sale debit transactions at merchants, and 17 (51.5%) allow overdrafts from automated or scheduled electronic payments."

(2) Twelve of the banks (36.4%) charge additional fees for not repaying the overdraft within a certain period. These sustained overdraft charges begin on average after the fifth day the account is deficient. Seven banks charge an average $5.57 per day sustained overdraft fee and five banks charge an average $27.50 single sustained overdraft fee.

(3) Contractual overdraft protection is cheaper than discretionary courtesy overdraft. The fee for a link to a savings account averaged $7.38; a link to a credit card averaged $10.00; links to lines of credit averaged $5.20; and the automatic courtesy overdraft averaged $28.57.

MANY BANKS AND BANK VENDORS MANIPULATE PAYMENT PROCESSING TO MAXIMIZE FEE INCOME

Many and perhaps most banks have programmed their computers to process customer payments in a manner designed to maximize overdraft fees; i.e., post the largest transaction first. In fact, many vendors' contracts often take a smaller percentage of each overdraft charge, provided the bank will pay the largest checks first, and then base their compensation on the amount of increase in fee income. This is all the more offensive given that, with overdraft protection, no checks get bounced, so processing the largest checks first is simply price gouging. To date, only the OTS has called for an end to this practice.

As you see Michelle, my information is from reliable, researched sources and is not as dated as you may have believed.

I am adamantly against creative posting (largest to smallest) (Debits before credits)as it's sole purpose it to manipulate accounts to generate fee income. I am against "overdraft courtesy loans" as these are little more than payday lending without the contract.

I am for the former, traditional practices the banks utilized in the past. Not offering "free checking" rather charging a reasonable fee for maintaining the account. Offering overdraft protection to credit qualified customers. Taking a hard stance on irresponsible account holders that wrote NSF checks on a regular basis. In the past a good account holder with an NSF check would likely have the check paid with a fee. On the other hand a repeated NSF check writer would quickly find his account closed.

This system worked very well for many, many years. Until the banks recognized the potential of making enormous fee income providing the overdraft courtesy loans.

Well as this is a public forum, you are all welcome to read. SMILE!!

Is there something about this being a public forum that escapes you?? Public as in anyone can read it, comment on it, laugh at it or ignore it. I mainly post on the financial threads because that is the field I work in, therefore I fell I can give the most fact based information. However I will post anywhere I choose to because it is a public forum and I can.

I have had nothing but good experiences from my banks, so just as you have the right to come on here and say how evil and bad they are, I have the right to come on and defend them by explaining it is the customer's responsibility. I understand that someone and I am not the only one in fact many different people from different states and I am guessing different backgrounds, etc have all explained how not the receive fees on your bank account. It is called being responsible and monitoring your account, using a check register, etc.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the fees are a penalty for over drafting your account. They are not supposed to be pleasant or likable, they are supposed to deter you from doing it again. However if you choose as you stated in your original post to (I will cut and past for accuracy) overdraft your account, then you will pay the consequences. How many times do you put your hand on a hot stove before you realize you are going to be burned, oncelets hope so!!

**Example: Your balance is $499. A check goes through for $500. On the same day, a debit or check goes in for $20, one for $10 and one for $4.**

So you have $499.00 and you authorize $534.00?!? Ok, maybe I am confused, but didn't you just overdraft, oh wait I remember, you feel you should only pay one and the largest to smallest scam as you call it, is what you have a problem with.

My response, you choose to spend more money than you had, a bank employee was not there holding your hand and making it write checks or authorize debits, so it is your fault you incurred fees. I don't care if the bank charges $100 each time your overdraft or post your items in alphabetical order because the act of overdrafting can simply be avoided by NOT USING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE! I really don't understand why this concept is so hard to understand. I have $500.00, I have written a check for $500.00, and I guess I cannot by that Starbucks Coffee or get my nails done today because I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY! I am not sure how much simpler any one of the reasonable people who are all presenting the same information can make it.

To Aafes, I am not sure where you get your information or perhaps how old it is but you can go online, right nowthis minute and download the statement of fees and funds availability at most all major banks websites and/or you can call you bank and ask that they resend them (They change every year, so they are sent every year anyways, although most don't read it) and I guarantee you every single bank will have information about the overdraft fees included!!

In fact, if you go online to BofA's website and type in schedule of fees in the search, wait just type in fees and it will give you the option to see the schedule of fees and guess what is included, the overdraft fees, in fact it has a big bold heading announcing it place on the page.

The one online is the same one they send you, go ahead take a chance and ask them to mail you one, I bet you will easily and quickly find what there overdraft fees are and why you get them. So nothing is hiding, but again, the customer has to take responsibility and personal accountability to read it!! Oh and it is not that small pamphlet they give you will 30 pages full of legal jargon, the pamphlet was 10 pages online with BOLD headings so you could easily locate what you are looking for, it took me less than 30 seconds.

So not knowing is not an excuses, all it takes is 30 seconds to get your answer. Or shoot, if you don't really feel like reading call the customer service center and ask about feesthey will also tell you!!

Wow, I had not intention of writing for so long, I feel that my point has been more than made through my comments and the many comments of others so at this point I am moving on

Aafes,

You made a good point as to people walking in and asking about fees. However I do know for a fact at the 2 BofA branches I bank at they [fee schedules] are clearly posted at that little counter along with the deposit slips, etc.

The fees are also in the new account brochures, and they are sent out quarterly with my statement.

And on top of that, it is common knowledge at every bank and credit union that you will pay an NSF fee when you spend more money than is in the account.

People just want to be irresponsible with no penalty.

Take responsibility for accurately maintaining your checkbook, and you will not pay NSF fees.

Do not use the ATM to determine your available balance. This is what gets most people in trouble.

I never signed up for or accepted overdraft protection on my account. If a check of mine would come back NSF, it would be returned unpaid. And I would pay 1 fee, as agreed in my account disclosure. And, yes, I would be mad. At myself!

Aafes,

You made a good point as to people walking in and asking about fees. However I do know for a fact at the 2 BofA branches I bank at they [fee schedules] are clearly posted at that little counter along with the deposit slips, etc.

The fees are also in the new account brochures, and they are sent out quarterly with my statement.

And on top of that, it is common knowledge at every bank and credit union that you will pay an NSF fee when you spend more money than is in the account.

People just want to be irresponsible with no penalty.

Take responsibility for accurately maintaining your checkbook, and you will not pay NSF fees.

Do not use the ATM to determine your available balance. This is what gets most people in trouble.

I never signed up for or accepted overdraft protection on my account. If a check of mine would come back NSF, it would be returned unpaid. And I would pay 1 fee, as agreed in my account disclosure. And, yes, I would be mad. At myself!

Aafes,

You made a good point as to people walking in and asking about fees. However I do know for a fact at the 2 BofA branches I bank at they [fee schedules] are clearly posted at that little counter along with the deposit slips, etc.

The fees are also in the new account brochures, and they are sent out quarterly with my statement.

And on top of that, it is common knowledge at every bank and credit union that you will pay an NSF fee when you spend more money than is in the account.

People just want to be irresponsible with no penalty.

Take responsibility for accurately maintaining your checkbook, and you will not pay NSF fees.

Do not use the ATM to determine your available balance. This is what gets most people in trouble.

I never signed up for or accepted overdraft protection on my account. If a check of mine would come back NSF, it would be returned unpaid. And I would pay 1 fee, as agreed in my account disclosure. And, yes, I would be mad. At myself!

"When you spend more money than you have in your account, you CHOOSE to pay the NSF fees that YOU agreed to when you opened your account."

That, in itself is the key here Steve. In many cases these "fees" are not as apparent as they should be in account disclosures. A consumer rights group did a nationwide survey using volunteers. The volunteers would go to various Banks (including B of A) and request account disclosure information to review prior to opening an account. In many cases they were simply pointed to a rack of brochures, often the racks were ill-stocked and did not contain full information. In test accounts that were opened with account representatives, it was often found brochures were not provided, those that were did not contain full information (as the banks addressed some items in separate brochures) and when questioned on specifics the account representatives often could not explain adequately.

While NSF fees are almost always explained the "overdraft courtesy loans" are almost never present in account disclosures. The Federal Reserve ruled that disclosure of these fees was exempt from the truth in lending act. The banks pay these debits/checks intentionally, knowing they draw fee income.

Yes, it is not proper to spend money you don't have. In most of the posts here you can clearly see the fees assess as a result of the creative posting practices of the bank. A deposit made on Friday for example, transactions reach the bank on Monday. The banks post the debits/transactions first, then post the credits.

Why would you take the time to get on a website to comment on something that you don't have a problem with? I just don't understand but I would like to. Do you have that much time on your hands?
Lori

Why would you take the time to get on a website to comment on something that you don't have a problem with? I just don't understand but I would like to. Do you have that much time on your hands?
Lori

Why would you take the time to get on a website to comment on something that you don't have a problem with? I just don't understand but I would like to. Do you have that much time on your hands?
Lori

"TO: Stile, alias "petard""

No, no... Stile is my pen-name. You'll note that all my posts have been signed "Stile." Hoisted by your own petard was a title of one of my posts. Please read for comprehension.

"How long have you worked for BOA?"

0 years, 0 months, 0 days.

"What is your position there?"

Vice President of non-employment.

"How much time do you spend on this site and others defending BOA and do they pay you for it? Do you guys get "bonuses" from the billions BOA robs people of?"

I check this site maybe 20 minutes a day. I don't post to BofA articles exclusively, nor do I always defend banks. And I wish I got paid for it.

"Will the bank take responsibility for taking ALL funds out of customer's accounts so any debits going into a customer's account (if ONE check is returned) do not get paid and they can charge multiple NSFs?"

Banks don't take funds out of customer's accounts except for fees and customer initiated transactions. If you spend more than you have, you will be charged fees. If you have multiple items going into an account without sufficient funds, you'll be charged multiple fees.

"Where does the money that gets put in "suspense" disappear to? What do they do with the billions of dollars they collect in this dishonest way and who gets it?"

A suspense account is a holding account for funds between the time they are deposited to the bank and the time they clear. If I deposit a non-local check, those funds are typically held in suspense for 5 business days upon which time they are released to my account. The bank doesn't get this money, it goes to the customer.

"And besides, with all your "alias" names, BofA (as you refer to them) will never find out you told us. Since I'm new at this, it never occurred to me to have a "pen" name (like when you write books only you spend your time arguing for BOA). I guess you have a need to have one with what you do. I'm just an ordinary citizen who innocently fumbled onto this site after I found a site called "BANK OF AMERICA SUCKS" because of my bad experience with them."

Clearly some customers have bad experiences with BofA (or any bank for that matter). You'll see that "Banks" is the third or fourth largest category on ripoff report. The vast majority of those complaints are over OD fees, which are completely within the customer's control.

"When did you become a "know it all"? Were you born that way or did you just grow up to be one? I'm very curious - since I don't even know your real name, I think it would be safe to tell me and I'd also like to know how old you are. I have an idea but I would really like to know from you. "

I love the smell of ad-hominem in the morning. I'm not a know it all, you just happen to be treading on one of the subjects I happen to know a lot about, working for a bank as I do. I don't give out my real name online, which is why I use a pen name. When I started using the internet 12 years ago, I did use my real name which led to some identity theft issues, so I haven't used it since. And not that it's germane, but I'm 28.

"If I was a "high risk customer" (as you state I am), it would be to their benefit - I would be an "asset" - more "income" to them."

There's a balance point between income and risk where the customer generates enough income for the bank to justify the bank keeping their account. However, people that repeatedly overdraw their accounts can easily find themselves on the wrong side of that line as it becomes too big a risk of loss for the bank to keep them, no matter how many fees they're charged. Charging someone a fee is useless if you can't collect that fee.

"Don't put words in my mouth - I have NEVER admitted this was "my own fault". The real issue is: BOA should not be able to take take money out of consumer's accounts to force multiple checks to bounce so they can collect multiple NSF fees."

You've admitted that you spent more money than you had in your account, that is an admission of fault. You violated your deposit agreement, and you were penalized as spelled out in your deposit agreement. What you're complaining about is the "biggest item first" clearing policy. Money isn't mysteriously disappearing from your account. Your largest items are using up all the available funds in your account, and the smaller items are generating overdraft fees.

"I strongly feel the way they've handled this is WRONG and believe someone at the top is corrupt and ruthless. I have no doubt they will eventually be forced to stop their unethical ways. In the meantime, they will continue to "milk" the cow. This is not about being negligent in keeping an accurate ledger. This is about BANK OF AMERICA being a corrupt bank."

If BofA is corrupt, then most of the banking industry is corrupt. If you really think this is the case, then switch to a credit union.

"We have had to live on credit cards so that we could feed this money-hungry monster called Bank of America! I will re-iterate my previous statement - we NEVER had problems like this until the past year and ever since BOA took over Nations Bank. Believe it or not folks, there are banks out there that treat you like a human being - BOA obviously excluded!"

I knew the "food from the mouths of children" card would be played eventually. Plain and simple, you spent more than you had and you were charged a penalty. And this has happened before, since BofA doesn't start its fees at $34, they start at a lower amount and build up to $34. And I hate to burst your bubble, but NationsBank bought out Bank of America. That is why the company is now based in Charlotte (the original home of NationsBank). Nations took on the BofA name because it is more marketable.

"I thought I did mention that I DO balance my checkbook and closely monitor my account. Did you NOT read that part or did you just want to insult me - a long-time customer of your bank?"

Actually, the word monitor doesn't appear in any of your posts, the word balance only appears as a noun (the balance of your account, not to balance your checkbook), and the word checkbook doesn't appear at all. So, please point out to me where you stated that you monitor your account and balance your checkbook.

"And I should not have to pay fees when I deposit money in my account THE SAME DAY to cover the transactions."

Was your deposit before or after the posted cutoff time at your bank? If before, then you shouldn't be charged if the transactions were pending. If after, then the deposit isn't counted until the next business day, and transactions that overdraw your account that evening will be penalized.

"You, BOA, and your morally bankrupt employees, are the ones to blame for the high fees. I don't recall approving your overdraft fee to be raised from $5 to $34 or agreeing to your new system of posting transactions according to amount rather than time."

Any time a bank changes its terms, customers are notified by a statement insert. Do you read the notices that come with your bank statement?

"You claim your system is designed to "protect" the customer by paying the big bills first. Yet, you always seem to pay all of them anyway, and then charge as many overdraft fees as you can get away with!!! Stop treating your customers as children and give us credit for having a brain. "

Well, if you only overdraw your account by a small amount, then the bank probably will pay the whole amount. But if you overdraw by a few hundred dollars, then the bank probably will reject new items. More on this below.

Now, Aafes. I've seen you post on several of these bank pages, and I appreciate that your arguments are clear and reasonable. I do have one point I'd like to address:

"The transaction, paper check or electronic, costs the bank less than $3.00 to process. To stiff a customer with these fees is no better than having your paperboy charge you $25.00 for the daily newspaper. It is unreasonable, we all know it, and the banks are robbing individuals and families blind by doing this. A 10 billion dollar profit nationwide in one year, from non interest fee income alone is proof enough."

Admittedly, it only costs a few dollars for banks to process transactions, but the difference between now and 20 years ago is the proliferation of the check card. Because check cards use the Visa or Mastercard system to preauthorize debits before funds are actually collected from accounts (unlike checks which are not preauthorized, or PIN-based transactions which are settled the same day) this can cause a situation whereby more funds are authorized than are available in an account. The important thing to know here is that when a transaction is preauthorized, the bank MUST pay it. Also, banks can't hold funds indefinately until a matching transaction is collected, so these authorization holds typically fall off after a day or two.

Example: I have $100 in my account. I spend $50 on gas, $40 on groceries, and $10 on lunch using my checkcard. None of the merchants in question settle their accounts that evening, and my bank only places a 1 day authorization hold. The next day, my balance still shows as $100, so I go out and spend another $30 going to the movies, and $25 to go to dinner. Neither of those merchants collect that evening, but the gas purchase posts that night. The authorization holds fall off, so now my balance shows as $50. I go out and spend $20 at my doctor's office. That night, all the outstanding charges post to my account, and I end up $175 in the hole. Because these charges are preauthorized, my bank MUST pay them. If they had all been checks, my bank could have mitigated the risk by refusing payment, and if they had been pin-based, they would have been denied at point-of-sale.

Because of the way that checkcards work, banks are exposed to more risk, because the decision on whether or not to pay an item is now often out of their hands. Customers can now generate much larger overdrawn balances than they could in the past through account mismanagement, and the bank takes the loss (as opposed to the merchants in the case of a bad-check writer). This is why OD fees have gone up.

I know this is a touchy subject, but it is so simple to solve this problem.

I have been a BofA customer for 17 years. I have not paid any NSF fees. This is because I diligently balance my checkbook, and I do not spend more money than I have in the account.

This is a very simple solution that anyone can learn to accomplish. The $30 fees should provide some learning incentive.

When you spend more money than you have in your account, you CHOOSE to pay the NSF fees that YOU agreed to when you opened your account.

Everything else is irrelevant. It is just too simple.

While I do agree that the person is responsible for ensuring they have the needed funds, I will also agree that mistakes do happen on both the Bank and customer sides.

I do however just want to refer to one comment you made in a post earlier.

You stated "Whether it's ethical or not isn't the point. It is a legal practice employed by the entire banking industry, which is a for-profit industry."

This may be correct, but all "scams" and "unethical practices" claim it is a legal practice until the law tells them it is illegal and un-ethical. Then the notion of "we don't see it that way" comes out.

Just my opinion.

You know what I really think is funny, how personally people take things. I guess the saying is true The truth hurts!! In reading to majority of the responses the people defending BofA (Those who just know how to monitor their accounts and take personal responsibility) are not being cruel or vicious; they are simply stating their opinion in logical and reasonable terms anyone could understand. However, they are constantly belittle and badgered by the ones making the complaint.

Get over it, there are going to be people in the world (like me) who have a BofA account and have never, not once had a problem with them, because let me say againthey take personal responsibility and keep track of the account!!! Of course the fees are high, but if they were fees you had to pay (meaning you could not control it, like charging $500 for a license would be crazy, because you have to have it, but $500 for speeding, well that could be avoided) say all banks charging $5.00 a day just to have an account, would be ridiculous. Overdraft/NSF and most all other fees can be AVOIDED, meaning if you don't do what you are not supposed to; you will not have a problem, so they could charge $100 for all I care, that is there choice.

It is a penalty, something to deter you from doing it again!! When it comes to anyone paying service fees that is crazy most all banks offer a menu of choices and if you take the time, you can find the account that is right for you. If you don't spend money you don't have to begin with and monitor your account you can wipe out any chance of overdrafting.

Most banks give you several ways to help you keep trackall free, if you just take the responsibility to do it. And no, I don't work at BofA, which I am sure I will be accused of because I defended them

Carol Ann, Where did you get your research??!! Bank of America is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

BoA is headquartered in North Carolina. It is a US chartered bank.

And just to be clear (again): I do not work for a bank. I am an advocate of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, however. If you don't like the policy, switch to another bank, or don't use one at all (MOST banks post debits from highest to lowest now). Someone said here that if you don't have a history of bouncing checks, the branch may be willing to forgive one, some, or all. If not, go to another bank. If BoA bought your old bank and changed the policies, c'mon...they don't need to ask your permission to do so. I agree the fees are outrageous. I agree that the highest to lowest "scheme" is meant to maximize the amount of fees. And I agree it can be ridiculously expensive and cause a really bad financial position for someone, but all that is also 100 percent preventable. YOU can prevent it.

Bottom line: know your account, know your bank's rules and live by your bank's rules, or find another bank, or don't use one at all. It's THAT simple.

After Doing a little research Bank of America is based in Japan! What we all need to do is go to IRS.gov and download Form3949 For a Reward and that should fix them and Citicorp Bank but Good! Also file with Federal Trad Commission and FBI.gov Internet Fraud!

Is this a company you want to do business with?

I am so glad the BOA employees are showing their TRUE colors for the entire world to see! I can sit here all day and tell you how they treat a long-time customer, but now you can see if for yourself! They have a great publicity department, don't they?

Yes, taking food out of the mouths of children! It should be obvious to anyone that if someone doesn't have enough money in their account to be charged a fee, they don't have a lot of money at their disposal.

So when BOA insists on manipulating the system to up the fees and charge more fees than they are entitled to because of one or two mistakes - they are feeding themselves!

We have had to live on credit cards so that we could feed this money-hungry monster called Bank of America! I will re-iterate my previous statement - we NEVER had problems like this until the past year and ever since BOA took over Nations Bank. Believe it or not folks, there are banks out there that treat you like a human being - BOA obviously excluded!

I thought I did mention that I DO balance my checkbook and closely monitor my account. Did you NOT read that part or did you just want to insult me - a long-time customer of your bank?

I don't mind paying a fee if I am truly to blame, but I will never agree that I am to blame when you charge fees on transactions that should have posted to my account prior to the one that was legitimately overdrawn and when I had a POSITIVE balance! $170 is a LOT more than $34 - that's basic math folks!

And I should not have to pay fees when I deposit money in my account THE SAME DAY to cover the transactions.

You, BOA, and your morally bankrupt employees, are the ones to blame for the high fees. I don't recall approving your overdraft fee to be raised from $5 to $34 or agreeing to your new system of posting transactions according to amount rather than time.

This new policy is not posted on your website that can easily be found from my online account page. In fact, I couldn't find a link to my checking and savings account agreement from the customer service page at all.

Since I've opened my account over 10 years ago, I have received nothing that would tell me this new policy. Are you trying to hide this from your customers? Why isn't it more clearly posted on your website?

You claim your system is designed to "protect" the customer by paying the big bills first. Yet, you always seem to pay all of them anyway, and then charge as many overdraft fees as you can get away with!!! Stop treating your customers as children and give us credit for having a brain.

Personal attacks on your customers are only proof that your company is full of wicked and evil people and will eventually be your downfall. All anyone has to do is conduct a search on Google for "Bank of America Class Action Lawsuits" to find this bank has been hit with more lawsuits than you can count on your fingers - including some brought on by thier own employees.

Maybe the two over-zealous employees who posted here will be two of the 6,000 BOA employees they are looking to get rid of soon! Hopefully you'll see how hard it is to pay your bills when you're unemployed!

TO: Stile, alias "petard"

How long have you worked for BOA? What is your position there? How much time do you spend on this site and others defending BOA and do they pay you for it? Do you guys get "bonuses" from the billions BOA robs people of? Will the bank take responsibility for taking ALL funds out of customer's accounts so any debits going into a customer's account (if ONE check is returned) do not get paid and they can charge multiple NSFs? Where does the money that gets put in "suspense" disappear to? What do they do with the billions of dollars they collect in this dishonest way and who gets it? You can tell all of us - we won't tell. And besides, with all your "alias" names, BofA (as you refer to them) will never find out you told us. Since I'm new at this, it never occurred to me to have a "pen" name (like when you write books only you spend your time arguing for BOA). I guess you have a need to have one with what you do. I'm just an ordinary citizen who innocently fumbled onto this site after I found a site called "BANK OF AMERICA SUCKS" because of my bad experience with them.

When did you become a "know it all"? Were you born that way or did you just grow up to be one? I'm very curious - since I don't even know your real name, I think it would be safe to tell me and I'd also like to know how old you are. I have an idea but I would really like to know from you. Actually, you are wrong (I'm SO sorry!) when you state that "I'm sure BofA is sure to see her go, as she is a high risk customer". The first time I asked for an explanation, one of the bank's assistants was very rude and refused to explain anything to me. I then went to the teller and demanded an explanation as to what had happened to which she became very flustered after trying to make sense of it (which she could not) and called one of the bank managers over. The manager took me aside and very quietly told me, "I'll take care of this - we don't want to lose you as a customer". Of course, you won't believe me because you "know it all". If I was a "high risk customer" (as you state I am), it would be to their benefit - I would be an "asset" - more "income" to them. Don't put words in my mouth - I have NEVER admitted this was "my own fault". The real issue is: BOA should not be able to take take money out of consumer's accounts to force multiple checks to bounce so they can collect multiple NSF fees. I strongly feel the way they've handled this is WRONG and believe someone at the top is corrupt and ruthless. I have no doubt they will eventually be forced to stop their unethical ways. In the meantime, they will continue to "milk" the cow. This is not about being negligent in keeping an accurate ledger. This is about BANK OF AMERICA being a corrupt bank. I really don't deserve your attention - you should find someone else to scrutinize - you really should try a new hobby - you may not want to spend your free time arguing to "relax" when you discover something really fun to do.

To the B of A supporters. Yes, one should be responsible for tracking their finances. However, B of A, and many large banks are charging these $30.00 and up fees for overdrafts - a fee that is exorbitant.

The transaction, paper check or electronic, costs the bank less than $3.00 to process. To stiff a customer with these fees is no better than having your paperboy charge you $25.00 for the daily newspaper. It is unreasonable, we all know it, and the banks are robbing individuals and families blind by doing this. A 10 billion dollar profit nationwide in one year, from non interest fee income alone is proof enough.

I am totally new to posting ANYTHING on any website. Only reason is because I strongly believe I have been done wrong by BOA (MANY people say they have too). I am SO busy - this was for information purposes for me. What in the world are you doing taking the time to be argumentive to something that apparently has not affected you? I would NEVER be on this site for the sake of ARGUING. Honestly, I have NO time for doing what you're doing for "FUN". Why don't you all find some creative and fun things to do like make new friends, find a lover, clean your house, read or write a book, pray or read the Bible, go to church, join a group, go dancing, clean out your closets, do volunteer work, clean out your garage, do yard work, take up yoga, visit sick people in the hospital, get a second job, take classes, go jogging, ride a bike, go on a picnic, have a garage sale, visit your parents, go to the zoo, etc. etc. etc. There's also drinking - I hear it can really make you MELLOW and you won't give a darn about BOA (unless, of course, they pay you).

Lori,
You are correct in your interpretation of what happened. I banked at BOA for nearly a decade and recently gave up when they shafted me out of nearly $200 in overdraft fees, and I was what your opposition is referring to as "low risk"--so that is a load of crap.

BOA has been involved in many legal suits that have exposed unethical (or at least questionable) practices. The one that sticks out in my mind is when they were ripping SSI beneficiaries off by applying their direct-deposited funds to overdraft fees.

They paid dearly for that one--$75million to be exact, so the good guy does prevail from time to time. I responded to this because Newsweek recently ran a story that stated these overdaft practices at BOA are now being closely scrutinized. This is something that I see developing into a class action suit within the next year.

I recommend you search the internet heavily for that information and get involved if you can. And by all means, cease communication with this other person. He obviously has other motives for his defense of this organization. BOA will continue to grow and thrive as long as nuts like him continue to believe in them.

It's not just Bank of America anymore it is Citicorp Bank as well. My husband and I both reported Identity Theft to them more than 4 years ago and now, under a Nevada Law we can't even have a bank Account or a credit card because somone else is using our identifying information and stolen checks that were reported in person to them.

Somone also had the gall to open internet Service using our banking information and to date none of that money has been replaced.The guilty Bank Branches are or were Mission Center on Flamingo, UNLV Bank Branch and all of the Washington Mutual Banks in Las Vegas.

My suggestion to you is that you run to the nearest IRS office and ask that you be given a form to report improprieties and send it back to them via certified mail. Once the investigation is over, you will recieve a percentage, usually 10% for what they find wrong!

It's not just Bank of America anymore it is Citicorp Bank as well. My husband and I both reported Identity Theft to them more than 4 years ago and now, under a Nevada Law we can't even have a bank Account or a credit card because somone else is using our identifying information and stolen checks that were reported in person to them.

Somone also had the gall to open internet Service using our banking information and to date none of that money has been replaced.The guilty Bank Branches are or were Mission Center on Flamingo, UNLV Bank Branch and all of the Washington Mutual Banks in Las Vegas.

My suggestion to you is that you run to the nearest IRS office and ask that you be given a form to report improprieties and send it back to them via certified mail. Once the investigation is over, you will recieve a percentage, usually 10% for what they find wrong!

It's not just Bank of America anymore it is Citicorp Bank as well. My husband and I both reported Identity Theft to them more than 4 years ago and now, under a Nevada Law we can't even have a bank Account or a credit card because somone else is using our identifying information and stolen checks that were reported in person to them.

Somone also had the gall to open internet Service using our banking information and to date none of that money has been replaced.The guilty Bank Branches are or were Mission Center on Flamingo, UNLV Bank Branch and all of the Washington Mutual Banks in Las Vegas.

My suggestion to you is that you run to the nearest IRS office and ask that you be given a form to report improprieties and send it back to them via certified mail. Once the investigation is over, you will recieve a percentage, usually 10% for what they find wrong!

It's not just Bank of America anymore it is Citicorp Bank as well. My husband and I both reported Identity Theft to them more than 4 years ago and now, under a Nevada Law we can't even have a bank Account or a credit card because somone else is using our identifying information and stolen checks that were reported in person to them.

Somone also had the gall to open internet Service using our banking information and to date none of that money has been replaced.The guilty Bank Branches are or were Mission Center on Flamingo, UNLV Bank Branch and all of the Washington Mutual Banks in Las Vegas.

My suggestion to you is that you run to the nearest IRS office and ask that you be given a form to report improprieties and send it back to them via certified mail. Once the investigation is over, you will recieve a percentage, usually 10% for what they find wrong!

Yeah Chip, I am so glad you are on this site with me, I finally have someone who uses logic and reason when dealing with their account and fees. I am all over the banking and finance sites (In fact, I have not posted for a while as it is a futile task to try and use reason and logic with the majority of them) and I see one major common theme in 98% of them. Customers/Consumers need to start taking responsibility for their actions and choices and quiy trying to blame everyone else for their mishaps.

If you made a one time mistake you can call and more than likely get the fees refunded, however it is the customers who have a trend of overdrafting on a regular basis who are complaning and receiving the fees. I too agree that the charges are ridiculously high however the bottome line is, if you don't overdraft you will not have any fees!!

It cannot be more simple (you don't touch the stove after you were burned the first time), don't spend money you don't have and you will not have to worry about fees. If a checks card and checks are too much for you, just use cash only, that way when it's gone, it's gone!! Banks offer many different ways to help you to keep track, but yes, you still need to write down the transactions, so you have something to compare it to.

The problem with that is however, it requiries customers to be responsibile. I still fully support a required test before a person can become an account holder at any bank, in which they verify they can do basic math and maintain a check register (which the bank will give you free). So, now I am moving on again, I just could not resist giving Chip a high five for his very logical comments.

Yeah Chip, I am so glad you are on this site with me, I finally have someone who uses logic and reason when dealing with their account and fees. I am all over the banking and finance sites (In fact, I have not posted for a while as it is a futile task to try and use reason and logic with the majority of them) and I see one major common theme in 98% of them. Customers/Consumers need to start taking responsibility for their actions and choices and quiy trying to blame everyone else for their mishaps.

If you made a one time mistake you can call and more than likely get the fees refunded, however it is the customers who have a trend of overdrafting on a regular basis who are complaning and receiving the fees. I too agree that the charges are ridiculously high however the bottome line is, if you don't overdraft you will not have any fees!!

It cannot be more simple (you don't touch the stove after you were burned the first time), don't spend money you don't have and you will not have to worry about fees. If a checks card and checks are too much for you, just use cash only, that way when it's gone, it's gone!! Banks offer many different ways to help you to keep track, but yes, you still need to write down the transactions, so you have something to compare it to.

The problem with that is however, it requiries customers to be responsibile. I still fully support a required test before a person can become an account holder at any bank, in which they verify they can do basic math and maintain a check register (which the bank will give you free). So, now I am moving on again, I just could not resist giving Chip a high five for his very logical comments.

Yeah Chip, I am so glad you are on this site with me, I finally have someone who uses logic and reason when dealing with their account and fees. I am all over the banking and finance sites (In fact, I have not posted for a while as it is a futile task to try and use reason and logic with the majority of them) and I see one major common theme in 98% of them. Customers/Consumers need to start taking responsibility for their actions and choices and quiy trying to blame everyone else for their mishaps.

If you made a one time mistake you can call and more than likely get the fees refunded, however it is the customers who have a trend of overdrafting on a regular basis who are complaning and receiving the fees. I too agree that the charges are ridiculously high however the bottome line is, if you don't overdraft you will not have any fees!!

It cannot be more simple (you don't touch the stove after you were burned the first time), don't spend money you don't have and you will not have to worry about fees. If a checks card and checks are too much for you, just use cash only, that way when it's gone, it's gone!! Banks offer many different ways to help you to keep track, but yes, you still need to write down the transactions, so you have something to compare it to.

The problem with that is however, it requiries customers to be responsibile. I still fully support a required test before a person can become an account holder at any bank, in which they verify they can do basic math and maintain a check register (which the bank will give you free). So, now I am moving on again, I just could not resist giving Chip a high five for his very logical comments.

I seriously do not work for any bank.

I realize now your scenario was hypothetical, but it is STILL the customer's responsibility to:

1) Know all the fees that will be taken out of their account and when;
2) Know their balance;
3) Not overdraw; and
4) Keep an accurate accounting (which does NOT mean using online account information) of their accounts.

This is what responsible people do, it's easy and it takes minutes to do. Blaming the bank is pointless and the easy way out.

And this is my second post on this thread -- how many here are yours? Sounds like YOU have a lot of time on your hands -- maybe you should be balancing your checkbook instead.

We all make choices -- not to balance our checkbook, to intentionally overdraw our accounts, to have children, not to have children, live in a car, not live in a car -- and because of our choices we face consequences. It's time to stop blaming other people and, yes, evill banks.

I agree that banks are ruthless -- but they are only as ruthless to you as you allow them to be.

It's been a very long time since I have bounced a check. I read my bank statements and, and from the messages they put on there regarding changes to their fee structure for NSFs what seems like every other month, I know it can be expensive. $37 for the first 3 days your account is negative, then another $37 for days 4-7, then another starting on the 8th business day your account is negative. I think that is outrageous...but I can prevent it.

Besides...there has to be some deterrent for those who are inclined to bounce checks on purpose, don't you think?

Again, if you know your balance at all times and do not overdraw, this is not an issue and not a ripoff.

I seriously do not work for any bank.

I realize now your scenario was hypothetical, but it is STILL the customer's responsibility to:

1) Know all the fees that will be taken out of their account and when;
2) Know their balance;
3) Not overdraw; and
4) Keep an accurate accounting (which does NOT mean using online account information) of their accounts.

This is what responsible people do, it's easy and it takes minutes to do. Blaming the bank is pointless and the easy way out.

And this is my second post on this thread -- how many here are yours? Sounds like YOU have a lot of time on your hands -- maybe you should be balancing your checkbook instead.

We all make choices -- not to balance our checkbook, to intentionally overdraw our accounts, to have children, not to have children, live in a car, not live in a car -- and because of our choices we face consequences. It's time to stop blaming other people and, yes, evill banks.

I agree that banks are ruthless -- but they are only as ruthless to you as you allow them to be.

It's been a very long time since I have bounced a check. I read my bank statements and, and from the messages they put on there regarding changes to their fee structure for NSFs what seems like every other month, I know it can be expensive. $37 for the first 3 days your account is negative, then another $37 for days 4-7, then another starting on the 8th business day your account is negative. I think that is outrageous...but I can prevent it.

Besides...there has to be some deterrent for those who are inclined to bounce checks on purpose, don't you think?

Again, if you know your balance at all times and do not overdraw, this is not an issue and not a ripoff.

I seriously do not work for any bank.

I realize now your scenario was hypothetical, but it is STILL the customer's responsibility to:

1) Know all the fees that will be taken out of their account and when;
2) Know their balance;
3) Not overdraw; and
4) Keep an accurate accounting (which does NOT mean using online account information) of their accounts.

This is what responsible people do, it's easy and it takes minutes to do. Blaming the bank is pointless and the easy way out.

And this is my second post on this thread -- how many here are yours? Sounds like YOU have a lot of time on your hands -- maybe you should be balancing your checkbook instead.

We all make choices -- not to balance our checkbook, to intentionally overdraw our accounts, to have children, not to have children, live in a car, not live in a car -- and because of our choices we face consequences. It's time to stop blaming other people and, yes, evill banks.

I agree that banks are ruthless -- but they are only as ruthless to you as you allow them to be.

It's been a very long time since I have bounced a check. I read my bank statements and, and from the messages they put on there regarding changes to their fee structure for NSFs what seems like every other month, I know it can be expensive. $37 for the first 3 days your account is negative, then another $37 for days 4-7, then another starting on the 8th business day your account is negative. I think that is outrageous...but I can prevent it.

Besides...there has to be some deterrent for those who are inclined to bounce checks on purpose, don't you think?

Again, if you know your balance at all times and do not overdraw, this is not an issue and not a ripoff.

I seriously do not work for any bank.

I realize now your scenario was hypothetical, but it is STILL the customer's responsibility to:

1) Know all the fees that will be taken out of their account and when;
2) Know their balance;
3) Not overdraw; and
4) Keep an accurate accounting (which does NOT mean using online account information) of their accounts.

This is what responsible people do, it's easy and it takes minutes to do. Blaming the bank is pointless and the easy way out.

And this is my second post on this thread -- how many here are yours? Sounds like YOU have a lot of time on your hands -- maybe you should be balancing your checkbook instead.

We all make choices -- not to balance our checkbook, to intentionally overdraw our accounts, to have children, not to have children, live in a car, not live in a car -- and because of our choices we face consequences. It's time to stop blaming other people and, yes, evill banks.

I agree that banks are ruthless -- but they are only as ruthless to you as you allow them to be.

It's been a very long time since I have bounced a check. I read my bank statements and, and from the messages they put on there regarding changes to their fee structure for NSFs what seems like every other month, I know it can be expensive. $37 for the first 3 days your account is negative, then another $37 for days 4-7, then another starting on the 8th business day your account is negative. I think that is outrageous...but I can prevent it.

Besides...there has to be some deterrent for those who are inclined to bounce checks on purpose, don't you think?

Again, if you know your balance at all times and do not overdraw, this is not an issue and not a ripoff.

"First of all, I did not list any specifics about what occured in my bank account. I merely provided an example. Things happen - sometimes there are unexpected fees that may be as little as $5 that will throw someone's bank account off. That does not excuse BOA for the way they handle NSF checks. If there is money in your bank account for ANY check, they should get paid. They have NO right to take your money and put in in "suspense" and return all checks. This is their scheme to be able to charge multiple NSF charges instead of one."

A 'scheme' which you agreed to when you opened your account. Incidentally, fees don't accumulate upon fees, so if you're charged a $5 fee by your bank (let's say a monthly maintenance fee) and your account is overdrawn, you're not going to get charged an overdraft fee as a result of the $5 fee. So the only way you can get charged OD fees is for charges you make. If you made the $5 charge, then how is it unexpected? Lori, are you keeping a check register, or not? If you didn't with BofA, I hope you are with your new bank, it will save you a lot of trouble.

"Secondly, I was responding to someone's comments that worked for BOA that said he had lived in his car to save up enough money to get an apartment among other ways including nickle and diming his way through life and he indicated everyone should do as he has done (it was obvious he didn't have children). I'm NOT familiar with posting comments on any sites so I did not respond to the person I thought I was sending the message to."

Well, you've only responded to me, and I'd like you to point out where I've stated that I lived in my car, or nickle and dimed my way through life. And, as I've already stated, I don't work for BofA, I work for a competing bank. The one truth in this paragraph is that I have no kids, which I did state earlier.

"As for your comments, they are useless to me - I'm trying to resolve a problem and I will. I'm glad you have your "act" together and can control everything that happens in your life - you're one in a million. You don't know any circumstances about my life, work, being a parent. You obviously have NOTHING important or exciting to do if you took the time to send the message you sent. I think you're the same one that works for BOA - you just changed your name. For every one like you, there are at least 5 that have experienced what I did. Read the two that responded before you did as well as the numerous ones posted on this and other sites."

I don't think Chip is saying that he controls everything that happens in his life, he is stating that he practices a little basic financial responsibility. I don't think he's one in a million for doing so. I also find it interesting that you continue to insult anyone who disagrees with you by claimsing that we have nothing important or exciting to do, or that we have boring lives. Cicero said when you have no argument you abuse the plaintiff. I see you've taken this lesson to heart. Chip is not me (an email to the editor can confirm that), nor do I work for BofA (again).

Now Michael, as far as your situation, I have a few points.

"I'm guessing when BOA recently settled for $9 Million in a recent lawsuit(as long as they didn't have to claim 'guilt') they realized the jury would've dug much deeper than that for them
after their practices were exposed before that jury.

Also, their benevolence I'm sure was motivated by pending lawsuits in 3 different states over the same matter this initial poster levied."

Wikipedia's entry for Bank of America states that the "recent lawsuit" was actually back in 1999, not that recent. Also, it references lawsuits in California, New York, and Nevada over this same issue, yet google searches bring up no results of any active legal action.

"I stumbled upon this site searching for information on how long banks can legally hold checks. I had an escrow account check deposited yesterday from a local bank not more than 20 miles from my BOA branch.

You want to know how long they put a hold on the check for? 12 days!"

As far as your 12 day hold, there is an explanation for this. Look up Reg CC on google, you'll come to a page on the federal reserve website that explains how long funds can be held by banks. In the case of a local check, it can be held for no more than 7 business days. Now, let's say you made your deposit on a Friday before the bank's cutoff time (day 1). Saturday and Sunday don't count as business days. Monday - Friday of the next week add 5 more days (6 business days, 8 calendar days total so far). The following Saturday and Sunday also don't count. Then Monday is the 7th business day, 11th calendar day, and the funds are available on Tuesday, the 12th calendar day. If your deposit was after the cutoff on Friday, then your funds aren't available until Wednesday. If the timing in your situation is something like what I'm describing, then the bank acted in accordance with Reg CC, and held the funds no longer than they were supposed to.

"The problem with apologists like you is you've bought the company policy and not questioned the legality or ethical standard behind such practices."

You should check some of my other posts. In some cases, I've suggested people contact the OCC when they've been wronged. Just because I work for a bank doesn't mean that I think all banks actions are right. Banks work very hard not to make errors, but when they occur, they can be penalized.

In this situation, however, Lori's initial argument contains her own downfall (incidentally, this is what "hoisted by your own petard" means, it isn't my pen-name). She states upfront that she spent more money than she had in her account, so any overdraft fees she was charged in accordance with her deposit agreement are legitimate. If she doesn't like the fees, then she can switch banks, as she has done. I wouldn't be surprised though if her new bank has similar, if not identical policies.

First of all, I did not list any specifics about what occured in my bank account. I merely provided an example. Things happen - sometimes there are unexpected fees that may be as little as $5 that will throw someone's bank account off. That does not excuse BOA for the way they handle NSF checks. If there is money in your bank account for ANY check, they should get paid. They have NO right to take your money and put in in "suspense" and return all checks. This is their scheme to be able to charge multiple NSF charges instead of one.

Secondly, I was responding to someone's comments that worked for BOA that said he had lived in his car to save up enough money to get an apartment among other ways including nickle and diming his way through life and he indicated everyone should do as he has done (it was obvious he didn't have children). I'm NOT familiar with posting comments on any sites so I did not respond to the person I thought I was sending the message to.

As for your comments, they are useless to me - I'm trying to resolve a problem and I will. I'm glad you have your "act" together and can control everything that happens in your life - you're one in a million. You don't know any circumstances about my life, work, being a parent. You obviously have NOTHING important or exciting to do if you took the time to send the message you sent. I think you're the same one that works for BOA - you just changed your name. For every one like you, there are at least 5 that have experienced what I did. Read the two that responded before you did as well as the numerous ones posted on this and other sites.

Rest assured, BOA will suffer the consequences of what they've done very soon. Please don't respond - I'm sure there are other complaints more entertaining than mine.

"Petard says: "Survey says X. Almost all banks process checks largest to smallest. It's basically industry standard at this point"

Massachusettes courts say: Sorry BOA, NO WAY."

Working in the banking industry, I can tell you that Massachusetts has some of the strictest consumer laws in the country. Practically all the forms that banks use are separated into two piles: One for Massachusettes, and one for the rest of the country. Fantastic for Mass consumers.

"Lemme get this strait, Petard? Because something's "basically industry standard at this point" this makes it an acceptable and ethical business practice?"

Whether it's ethical or not isn't the point. It is a legal practice employed by the entire banking industry, which is a for-profit industry. If you would rather not be subject to the fees that may result from biggest to smallest processing (which is disclosed in your deposit agreement when you open your account) then don't overdraw your account, plain and simple. If you're morally opposed to banking, then switch to a credit union or bury your money in glass jars in your backyard. It's your choice.

"Of course, if you want to roll over for the big Boys and allow them to shake you down for your money----be my friend."

Nobody shakes me down for my money because I handle my money in accordance with the terms of my account. I'm not Bill Gates, I don't make a lot. Sounds like both of you probably make more than I do, yet I don't have any fees.

"I'm guessing when BOA recently settled for $9 Million in a recent lawsuit(as long as they didn't have to claim 'guilt') they realized the jury would've dug much deeper than that for them
after their practices were exposed before that jury.

Also, their benevolence I'm sure was motivated by pending lawsuits in 3 different states over the same matter this initial poster levied."

The lawsuit wasn't recent, it was in 1999, and it was against Nations Bank, BofA's predecessor (check wikipedia). So, they're lawsuit free on this point for the last 7 years. Wiki also states that New York, California, and Nevada are "fighting this practice" yet Google searches for ""Bank of America" (state) lawsuit" bring up nothing about lawsuits over OD fees except, ironically, the wikipedia article itself. I wonder if these lawsuits really are progressing.

"Get off your frikkin high horse and realize many big businesses, including BOA, aren't interested in establishing a business relationship. They're more interested in holding your money and digging as deep as they can before getting called out on the carpet."

Oh, I realize that big businesses are more interested in extracting as much money as possible from you - that's called simple economics and it's been that way since the first caveman decided to trade some of his spare saber-tooth tiger meat to the guy in the next cave. I'm sure when you sold your home (which is what I'm guessing your escrow check was for) you tried to get the maximum possible price out of the buyer, not to become his friend and give him a good deal. I submit that we're on the same "high horse."

"I stumbled upon this site searching for information on how long banks can legally hold checks. I had an escrow account check deposited yesterday from a local bank not more than 20 miles from my BOA branch.

You want to know how long they put a hold on the check for? 12 days!

Think about it petard. It may be standard banking practice----i don't know, I'm not in the industry. But when I very well know an escrow company, by law, HAS to have those funds available, please tell my why they should feel so inclined to hold onto my money 10 days beyond the time that check has cleared?"

Your situation doesn't have to do with standard banking practice, it has to do with federal law. Look up Reg cc on google, you'll get a page on the federal reserve's website about the laws surrounding holds on checks. This states that banks can hold funds up to 7 business days for local checks or 11 business days for non-local checks, and may extend this time for a reasonable period if the situation warrants it.

Let's say you deposited your check on a Friday afternoon after the banking center cutoff time, then Friday doesn't count, nor do Saturday and Sunday so that's 3 days right there. The next week is the first 5 days (you're up to 8 now), and then Saturday and Sunday don't count. The next Monday and Tuesday complete your 7 business day waiting period, making your funds available on Wednesday. Including the Saturdays and Sundays, this totals 12 calendar days. If my description is close to what happened to you, then it sounds to me like your bank held it no longer than it was supposed to. Incidentally, if the check was over $5,000, then you should have had access to the first $5,000 of the deposit immediately.

"What a racket. Freeze the mans money---we can invest it, while making it inaccessible to him then multiply that 100,000 times countrywide. Tommorrow comes, repeat, wash and rinse."

Hate to break it to you, but this is part of how banks earn profit, on the differential between the interest they pay on savings accounts, CDs, IRAs, etc and the interest they earn in loans. Banks don't invest in the stock market with funds on deposit, so they weren't playing the ponies with your escrow check. And the banks don't earn interest on funds on deposit; the banks are the ones that pay interest, so how can they earn interest? They had it held in a suspense account until the federally mandated period expired. Though they theoretically could have used some of your money to fund a home loan to another client.

"The problem with apologists like you is you've bought the company policy and not questioned the legality or ethical standard behind such practices."

You should check some of my other posts. I've referred people to call the OCC when I feel they've been wronged. I don't think that everything banks do is ethical, or even legal in some cases. The point is that easily 90% of the posts on this site complain about overdraft fees. Those fees are disclosed when you open your account, as is the method by which the banks handle transactions on your account. Ultimately, the responsibility for managing your account and keeping a register is the customer's, not the banks', and so when they customer mishandles their account, they're setting themselves up to be penalized.

Lori in Texas was given a deposit agreement when she opened her account, she chose not to read it. She spent more money than she had in her account, and then bank penalized her. This must have happened several times, because the amount of fees she's talking about is higher than the $19 that BofA charges for the first few overdrafts, so she was repeatedly mishandling her account. She's upset that the bank has charged her, but refuses to take responsibility for keeping a check register and not spending more than she has. She closed her account, and I'm sure BofA is sure to see her go, as she is a high risk customer. I hope her new account isn't with my bank, as we have enough like her already.

Lastly, I'm amused that my name has somehow morphed into "petard" in the last few posts. As you can see in my signature, the name is Stile (well, the pen name at least). "Hoisted by your own petard" is an expression which means literally that you are injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others. In this case, within Lori's argument is an admission of her own fault. So all her railing against BofA is irrelevant, as any bank would treat her the same way, and she is defeated by her own argument.

First, I do not work for a bank. But, using your own example, you had $534 in debits with a balance of $499. You KNEW your account was going to overdraw, you just didn't expect the bank to pay the largest item first, causing not one overdraft, but actually 4 overdrafts. How is the bank's fault? (I find it difficult to believe your scenario was an 'accident').

It shouldn't matter what order checks are processed in -- highest to lowest, lowest to highest, sideways, or backwards -- as long as you don't spend more than you have.

Most banks process debits from highest to lowest, but it's not an issue if you KNOW your balance and don't overdraw.

Yes, it's THAT simple.

This is not a ripoff. Take responsibility for your own actions and move on. If you made an accounting mistake, again, how is that the bank's fault?

By the way, and I don't mean to sound like a total jerk, but you keep emphasizing how expensive children are. I agree, they are, and perhaps you just weren't in the position financially to have them. Again, how are your actions the bank's fault?

Petard says: "Survey says X. Almost all banks process checks largest to smallest. It's basically industry standard at this point"

Massachusettes courts say: Sorry BOA, NO WAY.

Lemme get this strait, Petard? Because something's "basically industry standard at this point" this makes it an acceptable and ethical business practice?

Of course, if you want to roll over for the big Boys and allow them to shake you down for your money----be my friend.

I'm guessing when BOA recently settled for $9 Million in a recent lawsuit(as long as they didn't have to claim 'guilt') they realized the jury would've dug much deeper than that for them
after their practices were exposed before that jury.

Also, their benevolence I'm sure was motivated by pending lawsuits in 3 different states over the same matter this initial poster levied.

Get off your frikkin high horse and realize many big businesses, including BOA, aren't interested in establishing a business relationship. They're more interested in holding your money and digging as deep as they can before getting called out on the carpet.

I stumbled upon this site searching for information on how long banks can legally hold checks. I had an escrow account check deposited yesterday from a local bank not more than 20 miles from my BOA branch.

You want to know how long they put a hold on the check for? 12 days!

Think about it petard. It may be standard banking practice----i don't know, I'm not in the industry. But when I very well know an escrow company, by law, HAS to have those funds available, please tell my why they should feel so inclined to hold onto my money 10 days beyond the time that check has cleared?

What a racket. Freeze the mans money---we can invest it, while making it inaccessible to him then multiply that 100,000 times countrywide. Tommorrow comes, repeat, wash and rinse.

The problem with apologists like you is you've bought the company policy and not questioned the legality or ethical standard behind such practices.

Lori,
You are correct in your interpretation of what happened. I banked at BOA for nearly a decade and recently gave up when they shafted me out of nearly $200 in overdraft fees......and I was what your opposition is referring to as "low risk"--so that is a load of crap.

BOA has been involved in many legal suits that have exposed unethical (or at least questionable) practices. The one that sticks out in my mind is when they were ripping SSI beneficiaries off by applying their direct-deposited funds to overdraft fees.

They paid dearly for that one--$75million to be exact, so the good guy does prevail from time to time. I responded to this because Newsweek recently ran a story that stated these overdaft practices at BOA are now being closely scrutinized. This is something that I see developing into a class action suit within the next year.

I recommend you search the internet heavily for that information and get involved if you can. And by all means, cease communication with this other person. He obviously has other motives for his defense of this organization. BOA will continue to grow and thrive as long as nuts like him continue to believe in them....

Honestly, thou does protesteth too much. Now I have no doubt you are an employee of Bank of America. I can't imagine not having anything better to do than what you are doing. I have a problem and was seeking out others in the same situation - only reason I even got on this site. I specifically asked for someone that was having the same type problem to contact me. Obviously, you are not one.

This is "fun" to you? You must have a very boring life and no friends or family to email with good things "in between" your two jobs and taking care of your disabled wife. Please do not respond as I have no desire to "argue" with a complete stranger or anyone else for that matter. I can tell you that I have TWO HUNDRED things that I enjoy doing for fun so this is further proof to me that you are one of the bank's employees. Actually, since I have your attention, I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell someone in your "organization" they should treat their customers with respect and be honorable to keep them.

After all, they have OUR money or they would be out of business. There wouldn't be so much negativity written about them if they weren't doing something wrong. I'm just glad I stumbled across this and a couple of other sites because I had never experienced what they have done to me. I actually opened an account with another bank today and when I told the clerk who I had been banking with, HE asked me if I had experienced what I'm complaining about on this site! They are aware of how your bank operates (unhappy ex-customers perhaps????). They do not do what Bank of America does with customers' money.

If a check goes in that's larger than the balance, the balance REMAINS in the CUSTOMER'S account (as it should because the money IS THERE), that specific check gets returned and any checks that come in at the same time that can be covered with the balance GET PAID. It doesn't matter what you say - customers are smarter than what you give us credit for. Remember, "You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". There's a really good and interesting book called the Bible. Try reading it in your spare time for fun. I pray that you will be enlightened soon and refuse to take part in this awful scam Bank of America has going. There are many other banks out there that are honest and forthwright with their customers. Surely you would enjoy working for one them much more. May God bless you and your wife (maybe she's not really "disabled" or she may not even "exist").

"TO: Hoisted by your own petard - - I suspect you are a BOA employee."

As I've said in other threads on this site, I work for another bank, not Bofa. I always find it interesting that anytime someone disagrees with an OP's sob story, they must be an employee of the company.

"The only reason I found this website was because of the problem I've had with BOA and was actually surprised when I discovered the many other people that have experienced the same problem."

Indeed, many people on this site have the same issue: a failure to properly maintain their accounts.

"I do not have time to sit around and argue with people by email. If you have two jobs and a disabled wife why in the world would you take the time to even send the comments you sent to me?"

Took me 5 minutes. I may be busy, but it doesn't mean that I don't get time during the day to relax.

"I suspect you are a BOA employee. If not, spend your time doing more productive things - if your wife is disabled you should be helping do the housework, take care of the kids, yard work, cooking, etc. Your time would be spent more productive. God bless you."

Thanks for your concern, but I already do most of the housework and all the cooking. We have no kids, and don't have a yard. The only reason I brought up my circumstance is as a contrast to you talking about "raising children (the hardest job in the world and expensive) and need a home to raise them, dependable cars to drive, food to buy, bills to pay, housework to do including laundry, cleaning, cooking, running a household, working full time, carpooling kids to school and activities & on and on." I would argue that your circumstance is no worse than most people, and is much better than many, and yet they have no trouble balancing their checkbooks.

The only reason I found this website was because of the problem I've had with BOA and was actually surprised when I discovered the many other people that have experienced the same problem. I do not have time to sit around and argue with people by email. If you have two jobs and a disabled wife why in the world would you take the time to even send the comments you sent to me? I suspect you are a BOA employee. If not, spend your time doing more productive things - if your wife is disabled you should be helping do the housework, take care of the kids, yard work, cooking, etc. Your time would be spent more productive. God bless you.

I don't really understand all that you are saying, but I just want to say that My family and I use BOA and have had no problems. I am sorry that you are having these problems. I would say talk to the highest up person you can like the manager or someother higher person you can and tell them your problem. Or I guess you could sue BOA or take some legal action. I really don't know what NSF is so like I said i really don't know whats going on but I just want to say that my family and I love BOA and I am sorry you are having troubles with them. My only complaint would be is that if you over draw on your account you get fined $20 no matter how small the draw out is. like if it is a $1.00 and you don't pay it you end up paying $20. but good luck to you and hope you find another bank that sutes you better

"ATTN: I am interested in joining a class action lawsuit against Bank of America for the unethical manner in which they charge customers for NSF fees. If anyone knows how I can join, please let me know."

If you're really interested in a class action, why don't you file one. I'm always entertained how everyone is ready to join a suit, as long as they don't have to do any work.

"I am a new customer of BOA (4-5 months) and was SHOCKED when I discovered how they process checks and balances. I've had accounts with other banks and this is the FIRST bank that processes your largest check, holds whatever money you have in your balance "hostage"."

Survey says X. Almost all banks process checks largest to smallest. It's basically industry standard at this point.

"Every check that goes in for payment while your money is being held "hostage" gets hit with an NSF fee (usually $34 each) even if you have enough money to pay the checks. Expample: Your balance is $499. A check goes through for $500. On the same day, a debit or check goes in for $20, one for $10 and one for $4."

In your example, you spend $524 on a $500 balance. Please explain why it is unethical for the bank to charge you a disclosed penalty whereas it is ethical for you to intentionally mishandle your account.

"Even though "technically" the only check that should be returned and charged NSF fees is the $500 check and your balance is really $499 less the NSF fee for the $500 check, BOA will "HOLD" your balance in "suspense" and not pay for the three checks that also went in the same day."

The bank may or may not pay the checks. If you rarely overdraw your account, they are more likely to pay the item, since you're not a high risk customer. If you overdraw frequently, then you're a higher risk, and the bank will have a lower tolerance.

"They charge NSF fees for 4 checks instead of only one (for $500 check) so they charge the customer $136.00 in NSF fees instead of $34.00. That is SO WRONG. I've been a customer at 2 other banks and they do not treat NSF checks in this manner. If there is an NSF check, they only send back the ONE check that is more than your account balance but pay any checks that are not more than the customer's balance. I've been a customer at 2 other banks and they do not treat NSF checks in this manner. If there is an NSF check, they only send back the ONE check that is more than your account balance but pay any checks that are not more than the customer's balance. As a result of the manner in which they cheat people out of money, they can wipe out a bank account balance with NSF fees. It's taken me a couple of months to "figure out" their very unethical manner of cheating people of what must be BILLIONS of dollars. "

Did you review your deposit agreement when you opened the account which disclosed how the bank pays items and posts fees? Do you keep a check register, a paper one not the online banking? If you do these two things, and refrain from spending more than what your register shows, I guarantee you'll never have another overdraft again.

"
It's so difficult to "catch up" to bring the balance back to positive. As several people stated, the bank personnel use the excuse that they "post the LARGEST checks" first because that "large check" could be your mortgage payment and "aren't you glad we care enough about our customers that we want to make sure mortgages, car payments, etc. get paid FIRST". My reply: But you still DO NOT pay for the (large) check - it still gets returned. Response: A defensive/mad look on the BOA employee's face. Don't want to discuss anymore - what's done is done. No offer to reverse any NSF charges and unwilling to do so. They KNOW what is going on and that it is WRONG. They get rid of you quickly."

The only reason they wouldn't pay the largest check is if it overdraws the account by enough that the bank chooses not to pay it. If the overdraft is small, then they would pay the large check. Again, if you're a high risk customer they may not cover any of your overdrafts, since it puts the bank at risk that you won't pay back what you owe.

"To all the ones that criticized the persons that wrote in to let people know about the unethical practices of Bank of America, you have missed the point. This site is specifically for reporting companies or individuals that take advantage of people so others can know they are not the only ones that have had bad experiences or been taken advantage of."

This site is for reporting companies that take advantage. How is a bank that discloses its policies, and works within those policies in a transparent manner taking advantage of anyone? You know that saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse?" It's the same thing here. It's not the bank's fault that you're ignorant about how your account works.

"Power comes in numbers and this is a problem that needs to be stopped. However you decide to live your life, whether living in a cardboard box to "save" your money, etc., is your business. Most people are raising children (the hardest job in the world and expensive) and need a home to raise them, dependable cars to drive, food to buy, bills to pay, housework to do including laundry, cleaning, cooking, running a household, working full time, carpooling kids to school and activities & on and on. If we tried to live in a van (no running water, electricity, toilet, showers, beds, etc.) CPS would take our kids away from us."

And if the banks are so horrible, please explain how millions of people in the same circumstances you describe manage their accounts without fees.

"Those of us that have been taken advantage of by BOA need to come together to put a stop to the way they are taking advantage of innocent people. If there was a dr. that intentionally misdiagnosed his patients and they all suffered from it, the patients would have to come together to get justice. Yes, the patient had a choice to leave and go to another dr. however, during treatment with that dr., the patient was unaware of the dr's mistreatment of them. The patient trusted the dr. That does not excuse the dr. from mistreating harming misdiagnosing the patient at the time."

Your analogy fails on every level. The situation here is more along the lines of a patient going to the doctor and being given a specific regimen of pills to take. If the patient follows the course of pills, they will be cured. But some patients think they don't need to follow the directions on the bottle. Then they get mad at the doctor when something goes wrong.

"Same holds for BOA - had they told me how they process checks, NSF fees, etc., when I opened my account, without a double, I would have NEVER opened an account with them. Things happen that cause account errors - I don't believe most people intentionally write checks that won't be covered by their bank balance."

They did tell you how they process transactions and charge fees when you opened your account. It's called a deposit agreement. They're not just printing them to waste trees, you should read them. You may not have intentionally written the checks that overdrew your account, but you did mismanage the account. I'll grant that you're not malicious, but you are negligent.

"Most of us have stressful and busy lives - working, raising children, etc. Lastly, I want to say that I have NO doubt that BOA knows exactly what they are doing. I suspect they make billions of dollars from charging NSF fees in outrageous ways. I'm sure they do more than that to rob people of money."

Lori, I work 2 jobs, and I don't make a lot of money. My wife is disabled and has piles of medical bills. I have all the normal household bills as well. Since college, I have had 1 overdraft fee which occurred because I forgot to carry a 1, which my bank (not Bofa) waived because it was the only fee I had ever had with them.

Banks are a business, not a charity. They have shareholders to answer to, and if they allowed their customers to overdraw their accounts without charging the maximum penalties, then they wouldn't be successful. If they didn't disclose that fee structure to their customers, they would be in trouble with the government. You may not like that you were charged for mishandling your account, but the federal regulators won't have a problem with it, and neither will BofA's shareholders.

"ATTN: I am interested in joining a class action lawsuit against Bank of America for the unethical manner in which they charge customers for NSF fees. If anyone knows how I can join, please let me know."

If you're really interested in a class action, why don't you file one. I'm always entertained how everyone is ready to join a suit, as long as they don't have to do any work.

"I am a new customer of BOA (4-5 months) and was SHOCKED when I discovered how they process checks and balances. I've had accounts with other banks and this is the FIRST bank that processes your largest check, holds whatever money you have in your balance "hostage"."

Survey says X. Almost all banks process checks largest to smallest. It's basically industry standard at this point.

"Every check that goes in for payment while your money is being held "hostage" gets hit with an NSF fee (usually $34 each) even if you have enough money to pay the checks. Expample: Your balance is $499. A check goes through for $500. On the same day, a debit or check goes in for $20, one for $10 and one for $4."

In your example, you spend $524 on a $500 balance. Please explain why it is unethical for the bank to charge you a disclosed penalty whereas it is ethical for you to intentionally mishandle your account.

"Even though "technically" the only check that should be returned and charged NSF fees is the $500 check and your balance is really $499 less the NSF fee for the $500 check, BOA will "HOLD" your balance in "suspense" and not pay for the three checks that also went in the same day."

The bank may or may not pay the checks. If you rarely overdraw your account, they are more likely to pay the item, since you're not a high risk customer. If you overdraw frequently, then you're a higher risk, and the bank will have a lower tolerance.

"They charge NSF fees for 4 checks instead of only one (for $500 check) so they charge the customer $136.00 in NSF fees instead of $34.00. That is SO WRONG. I've been a customer at 2 other banks and they do not treat NSF checks in this manner. If there is an NSF check, they only send back the ONE check that is more than your account balance but pay any checks that are not more than the customer's balance. I've been a customer at 2 other banks and they do not treat NSF checks in this manner. If there is an NSF check, they only send back the ONE check that is more than your account balance but pay any checks that are not more than the customer's balance. As a result of the manner in which they cheat people out of money, they can wipe out a bank account balance with NSF fees. It's taken me a couple of months to "figure out" their very unethical manner of cheating people of what must be BILLIONS of dollars. "

Did you review your deposit agreement when you opened the account which disclosed how the bank pays items and posts fees? Do you keep a check register, a paper one not the online banking? If you do these two things, and refrain from spending more than what your register shows, I guarantee you'll never have another overdraft again.

"
It's so difficult to "catch up" to bring the balance back to positive. As several people stated, the bank personnel use the excuse that they "post the LARGEST checks" first because that "large check" could be your mortgage payment and "aren't you glad we care enough about our customers that we want to make sure mortgages, car payments, etc. get paid FIRST". My reply: But you still DO NOT pay for the (large) check - it still gets returned. Response: A defensive/mad look on the BOA employee's face. Don't want to discuss anymore - what's done is done. No offer to reverse any NSF charges and unwilling to do so. They KNOW what is going on and that it is WRONG. They get rid of you quickly."

The only reason they wouldn't pay the largest check is if it overdraws the account by enough that the bank chooses not to pay it. If the overdraft is small, then they would pay the large check. Again, if you're a high risk customer they may not cover any of your overdrafts, since it puts the bank at risk that you won't pay back what you owe.

"To all the ones that criticized the persons that wrote in to let people know about the unethical practices of Bank of America, you have missed the point. This site is specifically for reporting companies or individuals that take advantage of people so others can know they are not the only ones that have had bad experiences or been taken advantage of."

This site is for reporting companies that take advantage. How is a bank that discloses its policies, and works within those policies in a transparent manner taking advantage of anyone? You know that saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse?" It's the same thing here. It's not the bank's fault that you're ignorant about how your account works.

"Power comes in numbers and this is a problem that needs to be stopped. However you decide to live your life, whether living in a cardboard box to "save" your money, etc., is your business. Most people are raising children (the hardest job in the world and expensive) and need a home to raise them, dependable cars to drive, food to buy, bills to pay, housework to do including laundry, cleaning, cooking, running a household, working full time, carpooling kids to school and activities & on and on. If we tried to live in a van (no running water, electricity, toilet, showers, beds, etc.) CPS would take our kids away from us."

And if the banks are so horrible, please explain how millions of people in the same circumstances you describe manage their accounts without fees.

"Those of us that have been taken advantage of by BOA need to come together to put a stop to the way they are taking advantage of innocent people. If there was a dr. that intentionally misdiagnosed his patients and they all suffered from it, the patients would have to come together to get justice. Yes, the patient had a choice to leave and go to another dr. however, during treatment with that dr., the patient was unaware of the dr's mistreatment of them. The patient trusted the dr. That does not excuse the dr. from mistreating harming misdiagnosing the patient at the time."

Your analogy fails on every level. The situation here is more along the lines of a patient going to the doctor and being given a specific regimen of pills to take. If the patient follows the course of pills, they will be cured. But some patients think they don't need to follow the directions on the bottle. Then they get mad at the doctor when something goes wrong.

"Same holds for BOA - had they told me how they process checks, NSF fees, etc., when I opened my account, without a double, I would have NEVER opened an account with them. Things happen that cause account errors - I don't believe most people intentionally write checks that won't be covered by their bank balance."

They did tell you how they process transactions and charge fees when you opened your account. It's called a deposit agreement. They're not just printing them to waste trees, you should read them. You may not have intentionally written the checks that overdrew your account, but you did mismanage the account. I'll grant that you're not malicious, but you are negligent.

"Most of us have stressful and busy lives - working, raising children, etc. Lastly, I want to say that I have NO doubt that BOA knows exactly what they are doing. I suspect they make billions of dollars from charging NSF fees in outrageous ways. I'm sure they do more than that to rob people of money."

Lori, I work 2 jobs, and I don't make a lot of money. My wife is disabled and has piles of medical bills. I have all the normal household bills as well. Since college, I have had 1 overdraft fee which occurred because I forgot to carry a 1, which my bank (not Bofa) waived because it was the only fee I had ever had with them.

Banks are a business, not a charity. They have shareholders to answer to, and if they allowed their customers to overdraw their accounts without charging the maximum penalties, then they wouldn't be successful. If they didn't disclose that fee structure to their customers, they would be in trouble with the government. You may not like that you were charged for mishandling your account, but the federal regulators won't have a problem with it, and neither will BofA's shareholders.

"ATTN: I am interested in joining a class action lawsuit against Bank of America for the unethical manner in which they charge customers for NSF fees. If anyone knows how I can join, please let me know."

If you're really interested in a class action, why don't you file one. I'm always entertained how everyone is ready to join a suit, as long as they don't have to do any work.

"I am a new customer of BOA (4-5 months) and was SHOCKED when I discovered how they process checks and balances. I've had accounts with other banks and this is the FIRST bank that processes your largest check, holds whatever money you have in your balance "hostage"."

Survey says X. Almost all banks process checks largest to smallest. It's basically industry standard at this point.

"Every check that goes in for payment while your money is being held "hostage" gets hit with an NSF fee (usually $34 each) even if you have enough money to pay the checks. Expample: Your balance is $499. A check goes through for $500. On the same day, a debit or check goes in for $20, one for $10 and one for $4."

In your example, you spend $524 on a $500 balance. Please explain why it is unethical for the bank to charge you a disclosed penalty whereas it is ethical for you to intentionally mishandle your account.

"Even though "technically" the only check that should be returned and charged NSF fees is the $500 check and your balance is really $499 less the NSF fee for the $500 check, BOA will "HOLD" your balance in "suspense" and not pay for the three checks that also went in the same day."

The bank may or may not pay the checks. If you rarely overdraw your account, they are more likely to pay the item, since you're not a high risk customer. If you overdraw frequently, then you're a higher risk, and the bank will have a lower tolerance.

"They charge NSF fees for 4 checks instead of only one (for $500 check) so they charge the customer $136.00 in NSF fees instead of $34.00. That is SO WRONG. I've been a customer at 2 other banks and they do not treat NSF checks in this manner. If there is an NSF check, they only send back the ONE check that is more than your account balance but pay any checks that are not more than the customer's balance. I've been a customer at 2 other banks and they do not treat NSF checks in this manner. If there is an NSF check, they only send back the ONE check that is more than your account balance but pay any checks that are not more than the customer's balance. As a result of the manner in which they cheat people out of money, they can wipe out a bank account balance with NSF fees. It's taken me a couple of months to "figure out" their very unethical manner of cheating people of what must be BILLIONS of dollars. "

Did you review your deposit agreement when you opened the account which disclosed how the bank pays items and posts fees? Do you keep a check register, a paper one not the online banking? If you do these two things, and refrain from spending more than what your register shows, I guarantee you'll never have another overdraft again.

"
It's so difficult to "catch up" to bring the balance back to positive. As several people stated, the bank personnel use the excuse that they "post the LARGEST checks" first because that "large check" could be your mortgage payment and "aren't you glad we care enough about our customers that we want to make sure mortgages, car payments, etc. get paid FIRST". My reply: But you still DO NOT pay for the (large) check - it still gets returned. Response: A defensive/mad look on the BOA employee's face. Don't want to discuss anymore - what's done is done. No offer to reverse any NSF charges and unwilling to do so. They KNOW what is going on and that it is WRONG. They get rid of you quickly."

The only reason they wouldn't pay the largest check is if it overdraws the account by enough that the bank chooses not to pay it. If the overdraft is small, then they would pay the large check. Again, if you're a high risk customer they may not cover any of your overdrafts, since it puts the bank at risk that you won't pay back what you owe.

"To all the ones that criticized the persons that wrote in to let people know about the unethical practices of Bank of America, you have missed the point. This site is specifically for reporting companies or individuals that take advantage of people so others can know they are not the only ones that have had bad experiences or been taken advantage of."

This site is for reporting companies that take advantage. How is a bank that discloses its policies, and works within those policies in a transparent manner taking advantage of anyone? You know that saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse?" It's the same thing here. It's not the bank's fault that you're ignorant about how your account works.

"Power comes in numbers and this is a problem that needs to be stopped. However you decide to live your life, whether living in a cardboard box to "save" your money, etc., is your business. Most people are raising children (the hardest job in the world and expensive) and need a home to raise them, dependable cars to drive, food to buy, bills to pay, housework to do including laundry, cleaning, cooking, running a household, working full time, carpooling kids to school and activities & on and on. If we tried to live in a van (no running water, electricity, toilet, showers, beds, etc.) CPS would take our kids away from us."

And if the banks are so horrible, please explain how millions of people in the same circumstances you describe manage their accounts without fees.

"Those of us that have been taken advantage of by BOA need to come together to put a stop to the way they are taking advantage of innocent people. If there was a dr. that intentionally misdiagnosed his patients and they all suffered from it, the patients would have to come together to get justice. Yes, the patient had a choice to leave and go to another dr. however, during treatment with that dr., the patient was unaware of the dr's mistreatment of them. The patient trusted the dr. That does not excuse the dr. from mistreating harming misdiagnosing the patient at the time."

Your analogy fails on every level. The situation here is more along the lines of a patient going to the doctor and being given a specific regimen of pills to take. If the patient follows the course of pills, they will be cured. But some patients think they don't need to follow the directions on the bottle. Then they get mad at the doctor when something goes wrong.

"Same holds for BOA - had they told me how they process checks, NSF fees, etc., when I opened my account, without a double, I would have NEVER opened an account with them. Things happen that cause account errors - I don't believe most people intentionally write checks that won't be covered by their bank balance."

They did tell you how they process transactions and charge fees when you opened your account. It's called a deposit agreement. They're not just printing them to waste trees, you should read them. You may not have intentionally written the checks that overdrew your account, but you did mismanage the account. I'll grant that you're not malicious, but you are negligent.

"Most of us have stressful and busy lives - working, raising children, etc. Lastly, I want to say that I have NO doubt that BOA knows exactly what they are doing. I suspect they make billions of dollars from charging NSF fees in outrageous ways. I'm sure they do more than that to rob people of money."

Lori, I work 2 jobs, and I don't make a lot of money. My wife is disabled and has piles of medical bills. I have all the normal household bills as well. Since college, I have had 1 overdraft fee which occurred because I forgot to carry a 1, which my bank (not Bofa) waived because it was the only fee I had ever had with them.

Banks are a business, not a charity. They have shareholders to answer to, and if they allowed their customers to overdraw their accounts without charging the maximum penalties, then they wouldn't be successful. If they didn't disclose that fee structure to their customers, they would be in trouble with the government. You may not like that you were charged for mishandling your account, but the federal regulators won't have a problem with it, and neither will BofA's shareholders.