Bank Of America ripoff Nationwide
I've been a customer with bank of america for many years. In fact, I opened my very first checking account with them when I was 21. It's been nearly a decade later, and I've remained a loyal customer... until now.
I used to think that Bank of America "rocked." I never dreamed of changing banks, despite the fact that some people tried to convince me that this bank wasn't a good one. I liked the way that Bank of America seemed to make things EASY. They were very convenient and attractive and on nearly every corner of the city where I lived. They even had a branch in Kroger that was open late and on weekends. Wow! What a bank!
If I ever bounced a check back then, it was very rare and I payed every single overdraft fee. Bank then, I thought the overdraft fees were expensive, but they were still less than ther $34 they currently charge. I felt like it was my mistake and never complained. In fact, the only time I never had an account with bank of America was only for a period of about a year... when my husband and I moved out of this state so he could get his master's degree in another state which had no Bank of America branches. As soon as we moved back here, we both opened accounts eagerly with Bank of America (individual accounts).
Then, things started to go wrong. I started having more overdraft fees, all of which I have paid with little or no complaining. But I realized in the past year, that Bank of America does have unfair practices. They have capitalized tremendously on my mistakes (no matter how tiny). They do hold deposits (even cash ones... cash is CASH, folks... why would they do THAT?)
I made a deposit once throught the ATM (a CHECK) and it was posted and then later debited from my account (a couple of weeks later) becuase it was "lost." I had wrote checks on that money that I thought was there. It was a personal check from my father for a small amount. Okay, they won't give a break but I countinued banking with them and had to pay the fees that were incurred despite the fact that someone on their side "lost the check." Oh, that check existed. My father made a stop payment after I found out it was lost and advised him to. I know I made the deposit becuase the atm took the enevelope and gave me a receipt for the amount of the deposit. The bank never once said we have an empty envelope from you as in, "yes you desposited an empty envelope with no check in it so it's your own fault. The envelope was simply lost.
Okay, the straw that really broke the camel's back is when, 4 very small items were presented in one day, along with another much larger check that was actually written and sent by mail several days AFTER these "smaller" DEBIT card purchases were made, and the larger check was paid FIRST, causing the other items to bounce. I can accept that I made a mistake in mishandling my funds/account. What is difficult to accept is the fact that this bank is so unethical in their business practices. They have extremely high overdraft fees and they do appear to PURPOSELY try to capitalize on anyone's mistake. They do arrange items to their benefit so that they can get as many fees as they can. They also ignore the fact that I've been a loyal customer for a long time and make me out to be a bad person for bouncing checks in the first place -EVEN THOUGH I've always paid everything I've ever owed them, and I usually felt that I made the mistake and had to pay for it!
I've asked them to take some of the fees off from that day and they took off ONLY ONE. They refuse to take off any more and refuse to close my account until the balance is no longer negative. I refuse to deposit any more money in that account, but I do intend to pay the balance in full soon so that it will not go to collections. I told them that my bills are a priority over their overdraft fees. I've since take my business elsewhere. Most banks probably do rip people off in some way or another, but I can no longer contine to do business with Bank of America and I am glad to be done with them. It is quite clear that they don't care about their customers, and their only objective is to get even more rich and more powerful anyway they can. YES, they are TOO BIG for their britches. The old saying is "the bigger one is, the harder one falls." I hope that will be the case with this bank. I thank God it has not been as bad as it could have been. Now, if only my husband will close his checking and CD with them and go elsewhere...
Mary
kennesaw, Georgia
U.S.A.
Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Bank of America
3 Updates & Rebuttals
Thomas
Shoreline,Washington,
U.S.A.
over drafts not legal, needs to be a class action suit filed against Bank of America for over drafts
#4Consumer Comment
Mon, June 20, 2005
There needs to be a class action suit filed against Bank of America for over drafts. If someone is going to file a class action ? please post information on home page of this site under lawsuits. Please read this website about banks and overdrafts or read below: http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/002389.html
June 8, 2005
Alan Greenspan
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20551
Julie Williams
Acting Comptroller of the Currency
250 E Street SW
Washington, DC 20219
Donald E. Powell
Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
550 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20429
Richard M. Riccobono
Acting Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20552
Dear Mr. Greenspan:
We are writing to share the results of recent research and surveys that illustrate why the Federal Reserve's Truth in Savings rules and the Interagency Guidelines for Bank Overdraft programs fail to protect consumers who overdraw their bank accounts. Consumer Federation of America, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), and US Public Interest Research Group urge you to take further steps to protect bank customers from bank overdraft bounce loans and practices that exacerbate the cost and risks to bank consumers who overdraw their accounts.
The Federal Reserve stated that it reserved the right to propose Truth in Lending regulations to apply to bank overdraft loan services if conditions warrant in the future. In adopting the Interagency Guidelines, federal bank regulators, with the notable exception of the Office of Thrift Supervision, noted that banks extend credit when they cover overdrafts. Our organizations believe that the time is now, not in the future, to apply Truth in Lending consumer protections and disclosure requirements when banks deliberately extend credit by routinely covering checks that overdraw accounts and when banks knowingly permit electronic transactions to overdraw consumers' accounts. New research from Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) reveals the startling extent to which banks have adopted overdraft loan services, and the vast sums this is costing consumers.
1. Penalty fees for NSF and overdrafts are a huge and growing expense for bank customers. Consumers are paying at least $10 billion per year or as much as $22.7 billion just for overdraft loans, according to CRL's estimates based on analysts' assumptions and reported checking account service fee revenue. The total cost to consumers of NSF and overdraft fees at all financial institutions in 2003 was $33 billion, according to Mike Moebs of Moebs Services. CFA found that over a fourth of big banks cite overdraft fees as a source of important revenue.
2. The biggest banks charge the highest fees for NSF and overdraft transactions. Banks in the CFA survey charged an average of $28.57 for overdrafts and $28.09 for NSF transactions. Big banks on average charge five percent more than banks in Bankrate.com's spring 2005 checking account study which also found that bounced check fees jumped five percent in the last six months. Six big banks in CFA's survey charge more for paying an overdraft than for bouncing a check. Nearly half of the big banks also charge sustained overdraft fees, some as high as $27.50 per incident.
3. Big banks are making overdraft loans. CFA's survey of banks holding over half of all consumer deposit accounts found that over 80% of banks are making overdraft loans by permitting consumers to overdraw at the ATM. Almost as many banks permit overdrafts at point of sale and over half permit consumers to overdraw to pay preauthorized debits. Courtesy overdraft is not just a small bank issue. Big banks are starting to advertise their willingness to let consumers overdraw at the ATM while charging penalty fees. For example, Bank of America charges $25 when its customers withdraw more than they have on deposit at the ATM.
4. Banks use debit processing order to maximize revenue from bounced checks. Thirty-three percent of big banks disclose that they use high to low debit clearing which causes more fees to be levied when the largest check processed causes other transactions to bounce. Another 15% disclose that they generally clear high to low and 24% reserve the right to use any debit clearing order. Banks justify high to low check clearing as serving consumers who want their largest and most important transactions to be paid. Banks that routinely pay overdrafts cannot use that justification. We believe that banks that provide overdraft bounce loans while also using processing order to enhance overdrafts are using unfair practices to enhance revenue at the expense of their customers.
5. Outdated check hold time periods contribute to increased risk of overdraft. The introduction of Check 21 in 2005, and the increasing conversion of paper checks to ACH payments both are speeding up the time in which funds leave consumers' accounts. As implementation of Check 21 continues to spread, and as adoption of ACH expands, consumers will increasingly be penalized by the mismatch between this faster velocity of funds leaving their accounts and the unchanged check and cash hold periods permitted by current law and regulation.
Recommendations to Federal Bank Regulators:
The Federal Reserve Board should close the Truth in Lending Reg Z loophole used by banks to make cash advances to consumers without providing TILA protections and comparable cost disclosures to consumers. Besides requiring that overdraft loan costs be disclosed under open-end credit rules, this action would require banks to get consumers' affirmative consent to extend credit.
The Federal Reserve Board should direct banks to examine their check hold policies to ensure that the full check hold time period is not used except in instances where it is in fact required to avoid significant risk of an insufficient funds check; state that it is an unfair trade practice to charge overdraft or bounce protection fees on any check which would not have bounced if a hold period had been completed on a timely deposit or where a deposit was made sufficient to cover the check if funds for that deposit have in fact been received and the reason for the NSF status is that a hold period has not yet expired on the deposited funds. We urge the Federal Reserve to examine cash and check hold periods and reduce them by regulation at the earliest possible time.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should require financial institutions to separately report checking account fee revenue for insufficient funds and for overdrafts. Because the FDIC does not require banks to separately report checking account overdraft fee revenue, policymakers do not have a firm figure for the size of this growing credit segment.
Bank regulators should bring Federal Trade Commission Act cases against banks that order debit processing to maximize fee revenue while routinely covering overdrafts for their account holders. Bank regulators should also bring deceptive practices cases against banks that claim their courtesy bounce protection is discretionary while also advertising, representing or implying that consumers can expect the bank to cover overdrafts or while permitting consumers to overdraw at the ATM, POS or through preauthorized debits. Banks should be prohibited from advertising or promoting unsafe banking practices by consumers.
Consumers are losing control of their bank accounts through the convergence of electronic check processing, implementation of Check 21, bank overdraft practices, and delay in making deposits available to cover withdrawals. Consumer complaints and loss of confidence in banks will only grow if these practices are not corrected. The at-risk bank customers include low-balance accountholders who can least afford penalty overdraft fees. A fraction of bank customers are paying the bulk of NSF and overdraft fees. Unless corrected, we believe that some of these consumers will lose their bank accounts and rejoin the unbanked population.
If you have any questions, please contact Jean Ann Fox at 757-867-7523.
Sincerely,
Jean Ann Fox
Consumer Federation of America
Eric Halperin
Center for Responsible Lending
Gail Hillebrand
Consumers Union
Chi Chi Wu
National Consumer Law Center
Edmund Mierzwinski
US Public Interest Research Group
Consumers Union Offices: Communications Office, New York - Washington Office
West Coast Office - Southwest Office - Consumer Policy Institute
Health | Food | Phones & Media | Money | Product | Other | Take Action
About CU | Newsroom | Tips | Publications | En Espaol | New | Privacy Policy
Site Map | Donate | Home
Available for syndication. See the list of all available xml/rss feeds.
You can contact CU at: http://www.consumersunion.org/aboutcu/contact.html
If you experience any problems with this site, please send us a short email.
To contact Consumer Reports Customer Service, go here.
Details about this site.
All information 1998-2005 Consumers Union
I want to join a class action lawsuit.
Thomas
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff137663.htm
Thomas
Shoreline,Washington,
U.S.A.
over drafts not legal, needs to be a class action suit filed against Bank of America for over drafts
#4Consumer Comment
Mon, June 20, 2005
There needs to be a class action suit filed against Bank of America for over drafts. If someone is going to file a class action ? please post information on home page of this site under lawsuits. Please read this website about banks and overdrafts or read below: http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/002389.html
June 8, 2005
Alan Greenspan
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20551
Julie Williams
Acting Comptroller of the Currency
250 E Street SW
Washington, DC 20219
Donald E. Powell
Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
550 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20429
Richard M. Riccobono
Acting Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20552
Dear Mr. Greenspan:
We are writing to share the results of recent research and surveys that illustrate why the Federal Reserve's Truth in Savings rules and the Interagency Guidelines for Bank Overdraft programs fail to protect consumers who overdraw their bank accounts. Consumer Federation of America, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), and US Public Interest Research Group urge you to take further steps to protect bank customers from bank overdraft bounce loans and practices that exacerbate the cost and risks to bank consumers who overdraw their accounts.
The Federal Reserve stated that it reserved the right to propose Truth in Lending regulations to apply to bank overdraft loan services if conditions warrant in the future. In adopting the Interagency Guidelines, federal bank regulators, with the notable exception of the Office of Thrift Supervision, noted that banks extend credit when they cover overdrafts. Our organizations believe that the time is now, not in the future, to apply Truth in Lending consumer protections and disclosure requirements when banks deliberately extend credit by routinely covering checks that overdraw accounts and when banks knowingly permit electronic transactions to overdraw consumers' accounts. New research from Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) reveals the startling extent to which banks have adopted overdraft loan services, and the vast sums this is costing consumers.
1. Penalty fees for NSF and overdrafts are a huge and growing expense for bank customers. Consumers are paying at least $10 billion per year or as much as $22.7 billion just for overdraft loans, according to CRL's estimates based on analysts' assumptions and reported checking account service fee revenue. The total cost to consumers of NSF and overdraft fees at all financial institutions in 2003 was $33 billion, according to Mike Moebs of Moebs Services. CFA found that over a fourth of big banks cite overdraft fees as a source of important revenue.
2. The biggest banks charge the highest fees for NSF and overdraft transactions. Banks in the CFA survey charged an average of $28.57 for overdrafts and $28.09 for NSF transactions. Big banks on average charge five percent more than banks in Bankrate.com's spring 2005 checking account study which also found that bounced check fees jumped five percent in the last six months. Six big banks in CFA's survey charge more for paying an overdraft than for bouncing a check. Nearly half of the big banks also charge sustained overdraft fees, some as high as $27.50 per incident.
3. Big banks are making overdraft loans. CFA's survey of banks holding over half of all consumer deposit accounts found that over 80% of banks are making overdraft loans by permitting consumers to overdraw at the ATM. Almost as many banks permit overdrafts at point of sale and over half permit consumers to overdraw to pay preauthorized debits. Courtesy overdraft is not just a small bank issue. Big banks are starting to advertise their willingness to let consumers overdraw at the ATM while charging penalty fees. For example, Bank of America charges $25 when its customers withdraw more than they have on deposit at the ATM.
4. Banks use debit processing order to maximize revenue from bounced checks. Thirty-three percent of big banks disclose that they use high to low debit clearing which causes more fees to be levied when the largest check processed causes other transactions to bounce. Another 15% disclose that they generally clear high to low and 24% reserve the right to use any debit clearing order. Banks justify high to low check clearing as serving consumers who want their largest and most important transactions to be paid. Banks that routinely pay overdrafts cannot use that justification. We believe that banks that provide overdraft bounce loans while also using processing order to enhance overdrafts are using unfair practices to enhance revenue at the expense of their customers.
5. Outdated check hold time periods contribute to increased risk of overdraft. The introduction of Check 21 in 2005, and the increasing conversion of paper checks to ACH payments both are speeding up the time in which funds leave consumers' accounts. As implementation of Check 21 continues to spread, and as adoption of ACH expands, consumers will increasingly be penalized by the mismatch between this faster velocity of funds leaving their accounts and the unchanged check and cash hold periods permitted by current law and regulation.
Recommendations to Federal Bank Regulators:
The Federal Reserve Board should close the Truth in Lending Reg Z loophole used by banks to make cash advances to consumers without providing TILA protections and comparable cost disclosures to consumers. Besides requiring that overdraft loan costs be disclosed under open-end credit rules, this action would require banks to get consumers' affirmative consent to extend credit.
The Federal Reserve Board should direct banks to examine their check hold policies to ensure that the full check hold time period is not used except in instances where it is in fact required to avoid significant risk of an insufficient funds check; state that it is an unfair trade practice to charge overdraft or bounce protection fees on any check which would not have bounced if a hold period had been completed on a timely deposit or where a deposit was made sufficient to cover the check if funds for that deposit have in fact been received and the reason for the NSF status is that a hold period has not yet expired on the deposited funds. We urge the Federal Reserve to examine cash and check hold periods and reduce them by regulation at the earliest possible time.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should require financial institutions to separately report checking account fee revenue for insufficient funds and for overdrafts. Because the FDIC does not require banks to separately report checking account overdraft fee revenue, policymakers do not have a firm figure for the size of this growing credit segment.
Bank regulators should bring Federal Trade Commission Act cases against banks that order debit processing to maximize fee revenue while routinely covering overdrafts for their account holders. Bank regulators should also bring deceptive practices cases against banks that claim their courtesy bounce protection is discretionary while also advertising, representing or implying that consumers can expect the bank to cover overdrafts or while permitting consumers to overdraw at the ATM, POS or through preauthorized debits. Banks should be prohibited from advertising or promoting unsafe banking practices by consumers.
Consumers are losing control of their bank accounts through the convergence of electronic check processing, implementation of Check 21, bank overdraft practices, and delay in making deposits available to cover withdrawals. Consumer complaints and loss of confidence in banks will only grow if these practices are not corrected. The at-risk bank customers include low-balance accountholders who can least afford penalty overdraft fees. A fraction of bank customers are paying the bulk of NSF and overdraft fees. Unless corrected, we believe that some of these consumers will lose their bank accounts and rejoin the unbanked population.
If you have any questions, please contact Jean Ann Fox at 757-867-7523.
Sincerely,
Jean Ann Fox
Consumer Federation of America
Eric Halperin
Center for Responsible Lending
Gail Hillebrand
Consumers Union
Chi Chi Wu
National Consumer Law Center
Edmund Mierzwinski
US Public Interest Research Group
Consumers Union Offices: Communications Office, New York - Washington Office
West Coast Office - Southwest Office - Consumer Policy Institute
Health | Food | Phones & Media | Money | Product | Other | Take Action
About CU | Newsroom | Tips | Publications | En Espaol | New | Privacy Policy
Site Map | Donate | Home
Available for syndication. See the list of all available xml/rss feeds.
You can contact CU at: http://www.consumersunion.org/aboutcu/contact.html
If you experience any problems with this site, please send us a short email.
To contact Consumer Reports Customer Service, go here.
Details about this site.
All information 1998-2005 Consumers Union
I want to join a class action lawsuit.
Thomas
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff137663.htm
Thomas
Shoreline,Washington,
U.S.A.
over drafts not legal, needs to be a class action suit filed against Bank of America for over drafts
#4Consumer Comment
Mon, June 20, 2005
There needs to be a class action suit filed against Bank of America for over drafts. If someone is going to file a class action ? please post information on home page of this site under lawsuits. Please read this website about banks and overdrafts or read below: http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/002389.html
June 8, 2005
Alan Greenspan
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20551
Julie Williams
Acting Comptroller of the Currency
250 E Street SW
Washington, DC 20219
Donald E. Powell
Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
550 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20429
Richard M. Riccobono
Acting Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20552
Dear Mr. Greenspan:
We are writing to share the results of recent research and surveys that illustrate why the Federal Reserve's Truth in Savings rules and the Interagency Guidelines for Bank Overdraft programs fail to protect consumers who overdraw their bank accounts. Consumer Federation of America, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), and US Public Interest Research Group urge you to take further steps to protect bank customers from bank overdraft bounce loans and practices that exacerbate the cost and risks to bank consumers who overdraw their accounts.
The Federal Reserve stated that it reserved the right to propose Truth in Lending regulations to apply to bank overdraft loan services if conditions warrant in the future. In adopting the Interagency Guidelines, federal bank regulators, with the notable exception of the Office of Thrift Supervision, noted that banks extend credit when they cover overdrafts. Our organizations believe that the time is now, not in the future, to apply Truth in Lending consumer protections and disclosure requirements when banks deliberately extend credit by routinely covering checks that overdraw accounts and when banks knowingly permit electronic transactions to overdraw consumers' accounts. New research from Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) reveals the startling extent to which banks have adopted overdraft loan services, and the vast sums this is costing consumers.
1. Penalty fees for NSF and overdrafts are a huge and growing expense for bank customers. Consumers are paying at least $10 billion per year or as much as $22.7 billion just for overdraft loans, according to CRL's estimates based on analysts' assumptions and reported checking account service fee revenue. The total cost to consumers of NSF and overdraft fees at all financial institutions in 2003 was $33 billion, according to Mike Moebs of Moebs Services. CFA found that over a fourth of big banks cite overdraft fees as a source of important revenue.
2. The biggest banks charge the highest fees for NSF and overdraft transactions. Banks in the CFA survey charged an average of $28.57 for overdrafts and $28.09 for NSF transactions. Big banks on average charge five percent more than banks in Bankrate.com's spring 2005 checking account study which also found that bounced check fees jumped five percent in the last six months. Six big banks in CFA's survey charge more for paying an overdraft than for bouncing a check. Nearly half of the big banks also charge sustained overdraft fees, some as high as $27.50 per incident.
3. Big banks are making overdraft loans. CFA's survey of banks holding over half of all consumer deposit accounts found that over 80% of banks are making overdraft loans by permitting consumers to overdraw at the ATM. Almost as many banks permit overdrafts at point of sale and over half permit consumers to overdraw to pay preauthorized debits. Courtesy overdraft is not just a small bank issue. Big banks are starting to advertise their willingness to let consumers overdraw at the ATM while charging penalty fees. For example, Bank of America charges $25 when its customers withdraw more than they have on deposit at the ATM.
4. Banks use debit processing order to maximize revenue from bounced checks. Thirty-three percent of big banks disclose that they use high to low debit clearing which causes more fees to be levied when the largest check processed causes other transactions to bounce. Another 15% disclose that they generally clear high to low and 24% reserve the right to use any debit clearing order. Banks justify high to low check clearing as serving consumers who want their largest and most important transactions to be paid. Banks that routinely pay overdrafts cannot use that justification. We believe that banks that provide overdraft bounce loans while also using processing order to enhance overdrafts are using unfair practices to enhance revenue at the expense of their customers.
5. Outdated check hold time periods contribute to increased risk of overdraft. The introduction of Check 21 in 2005, and the increasing conversion of paper checks to ACH payments both are speeding up the time in which funds leave consumers' accounts. As implementation of Check 21 continues to spread, and as adoption of ACH expands, consumers will increasingly be penalized by the mismatch between this faster velocity of funds leaving their accounts and the unchanged check and cash hold periods permitted by current law and regulation.
Recommendations to Federal Bank Regulators:
The Federal Reserve Board should close the Truth in Lending Reg Z loophole used by banks to make cash advances to consumers without providing TILA protections and comparable cost disclosures to consumers. Besides requiring that overdraft loan costs be disclosed under open-end credit rules, this action would require banks to get consumers' affirmative consent to extend credit.
The Federal Reserve Board should direct banks to examine their check hold policies to ensure that the full check hold time period is not used except in instances where it is in fact required to avoid significant risk of an insufficient funds check; state that it is an unfair trade practice to charge overdraft or bounce protection fees on any check which would not have bounced if a hold period had been completed on a timely deposit or where a deposit was made sufficient to cover the check if funds for that deposit have in fact been received and the reason for the NSF status is that a hold period has not yet expired on the deposited funds. We urge the Federal Reserve to examine cash and check hold periods and reduce them by regulation at the earliest possible time.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should require financial institutions to separately report checking account fee revenue for insufficient funds and for overdrafts. Because the FDIC does not require banks to separately report checking account overdraft fee revenue, policymakers do not have a firm figure for the size of this growing credit segment.
Bank regulators should bring Federal Trade Commission Act cases against banks that order debit processing to maximize fee revenue while routinely covering overdrafts for their account holders. Bank regulators should also bring deceptive practices cases against banks that claim their courtesy bounce protection is discretionary while also advertising, representing or implying that consumers can expect the bank to cover overdrafts or while permitting consumers to overdraw at the ATM, POS or through preauthorized debits. Banks should be prohibited from advertising or promoting unsafe banking practices by consumers.
Consumers are losing control of their bank accounts through the convergence of electronic check processing, implementation of Check 21, bank overdraft practices, and delay in making deposits available to cover withdrawals. Consumer complaints and loss of confidence in banks will only grow if these practices are not corrected. The at-risk bank customers include low-balance accountholders who can least afford penalty overdraft fees. A fraction of bank customers are paying the bulk of NSF and overdraft fees. Unless corrected, we believe that some of these consumers will lose their bank accounts and rejoin the unbanked population.
If you have any questions, please contact Jean Ann Fox at 757-867-7523.
Sincerely,
Jean Ann Fox
Consumer Federation of America
Eric Halperin
Center for Responsible Lending
Gail Hillebrand
Consumers Union
Chi Chi Wu
National Consumer Law Center
Edmund Mierzwinski
US Public Interest Research Group
Consumers Union Offices: Communications Office, New York - Washington Office
West Coast Office - Southwest Office - Consumer Policy Institute
Health | Food | Phones & Media | Money | Product | Other | Take Action
About CU | Newsroom | Tips | Publications | En Espaol | New | Privacy Policy
Site Map | Donate | Home
Available for syndication. See the list of all available xml/rss feeds.
You can contact CU at: http://www.consumersunion.org/aboutcu/contact.html
If you experience any problems with this site, please send us a short email.
To contact Consumer Reports Customer Service, go here.
Details about this site.
All information 1998-2005 Consumers Union
I want to join a class action lawsuit.
Thomas
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff137663.htm