Bank of America ripoff victimized many consumers Jonesboro Arkansas *UPDATE ..UCC is Useless!
To Debby in Carson City, Nevada and all others with B of A troubles:
Thank you for your informative answer; it certainly lets me know to be on my guard. I do know that B of A does keep one of the most powerful legal firms in AR on retainer; I am beginning to see WHY after reading all the complaints! This is probaly true in all states as this bunch seems to exist to break the law!
This is my first experience with this company. I would never bank there after reading all the complaints posted.
I am electing to wait at this time for the OCC; as an American I have to believe that there is some recourse under the law or this country will fall into anarchy. I still urge all people with complaints to file them (is it even legal to hold a deposit into a new account for 10 days? That's absurd!) The squeaky wheel gets the grease and enough complaints and enough people calling to check on the status of their complaints might force some action.
A bank or any other business is nothing without customers. I urge everyone to bail while you are still solvent! My local bank is great! You probably have local banks as well that are much better to deal with and would be happy to have your business. They will take over your mortgages (unless B of A has ruined your credit as they have so many folks). Ask your local banker to read these posts and make sure you have something on here about your troubles. At least they might be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt after reading these horror stories. Leave these jokers high and dry. Boycott them. Bad-mouth them at every opportunity. They are nothing without you; a lesson they obviously have yet to learn. This is always a problem when a company buys out all the competition- they get too big for their britches and forget what made them what they are. THEIR CUSTOMERS. By paying all these ridiculous fees you are enabling them to keep their high-powered legal firms and make their political donations so that they can continue their malicious practices. Send a clear message that you have had enough!
No one should be above the law. Unfortunately, once a company gets big enough it becomes a force all its own. There are the problems with politicians who want to protect their cash cows. And reluctance as noted by Debby by federal agencies to do their jobs for fear of incurring the wrath of their bosses! It's a vicious cycle that needs to be broken in all sectors.
I do intend to follow this to the bitter end whether it be through the OCC or private suit as Debby suggested. I also will keep this forum advised as to the outcome. Hopefully right and law will prevail because this country is sorely in need of reassurance that our government really does work for us- THE PEOPLE!
Robin
Waldron, Arkansas
6 Updates & Rebuttals
Robin
Waldron,Arkansas,
U.S.A.
Backing up on the OCC.....
#7Author of original report
Wed, January 22, 2003
Well, after all my harsh comments, I may have to eat crow concerning this matter. We'll see.
One week after faxing the documents to the named "customer service specialist", I contacted her by phone and had some discussion with her over several disturbing things in this whole mess.
One, we have been to court three times with this debtor. His business name is "******, Inc." , yet he had never once produced any incorporation papers for his protection at any court proceeding, nor were we able to find any filings in Public Records. I explained to her that was why we had proceeded with the paperwork listing the debtor's name first followed by the dba. The Bank of America had set his account up under a business name evidently on the debtor's word that he was incorporated; I may be mistaken, but an unincorporated business should have it's accounts set up as the Writ was worded: "Name DBA Business name".
Two, amazingly enough, this specialist happened to be looking at the documents I'd faxed to her right then! I asked her to look at how the Writ was worded and tell me if she saw a business name on it. (Of course she did, it was clear as day!) I pointed out that first the B of A told me there was no such account and then told the OCC that the business name was not on the Writ at all! Was she willing to accept this blatant lie? She gave me the spiel that the OCC does not usually act on one infraction; only if there is a "pattern of abuse". I pointed out that there are hundreds of small civil suits ongoing with this bank at any given time which are pleaded, settled, and swept under the rug. Once a person hires legal counsel and goes through the gruelling proceedings required, how many of them are going to go to the additional trouble of notifying the OCC in order to establish a pattern? Very few, I am thinking. Again, I pointed out that a small suit is nothing but an irritation to these people; something along the lines of a pesky mosquito to be swatted. Someone with some power (the OCC) needs to get in there and look for these patterns. Find out what these suits are about and see if there is indeed a pattern.
Three, discussed with her the fact that B of A had a sudden insight into what account was at issue twenty days AFTER the scheduled court date and billed me for what were useless documents. She said it "sounds like they were trying to cover their fannies". I said that if this thing had not been so mishandled all along there would be no need for backpedaling to cover anything!
The outcome of all this is that the specialist is going to contact the B of A again. I cannot say what part of our conversation changed her mind, as she had definitely started out telling me that this was a civil matter. The whole thing stinks like three-day-old dead fish and perhaps she began to smell it at last. So, again we will wait to see what happens.
I again urge anyone with any problems concerning hanky-panky by this bank to notify the OCC. It may take some (or lots) of effort to followup, but in my case a fax and a phone call were sufficient. As the specialist stated they are looking for "patterns of abuse" and they will not find them unless YOU tell them! If you must hire a lawyer to get it taken care of, have the attorney send a letter to the OCC if your suit concerns breach of banking laws or standard procedure.
An interesting side note to all this: I have never been a customer of this bank nor had I ever been contacted by them for any reason whatsoever. Since the onset of this incident, I have received TWO offers to get a credit card through the Bank of America! I am wondering if they actually think I am insane enough to give them my personal information. (I must confess that this sudden appearance of mail from this organization in my mailbox has really creeped me out. It's like finding the horses's head in your bed!) They have never had any interest in little ol' me up until now. Hmmmm....
On the other hand, are they so hard up for customers that they would extend such an offer to someone who has already filed a complaint with a Federal Agency simply to try to get their numbers up? I really cannot decide if they are ignorant, or if they think I am ignorant, or if this is a subtle form of harrassment on their part. Whatever, this is a public notice to B of A; save your postage. I WILL NOT BITE!
OCC is useless (I know, I was told)......
#70
Fri, January 10, 2003
As promised, I am sending the results of this matter. Got a reply from the OCC on January 2,2003. As I had been warned, they were entirely useless. This is what the OCC wrote to me concerning this matter;
"In your correspondence with this agency, you complained that you received a judgement by a court of law, authorizing garnishment of ********** account as debtor to your company. You determined the account number and served the Writ of Garnishment to the Bank of America. The bank responded that they had no account under the name *********. It was you contention that the bank should have and was able to search for the account using the business name or personal name of the account holder."
NOTE: So far, so good. The personal name, business name, AND the ACCOUNT NUMBER were all provided with the Writ. To continue:
"The OCC contacted the bank, which responded by letter dated November 22, 2002. In their response, they reiterated that they were directed in the Writ to garnish the account of ******** and their records did not show up such a named account. They countered that had the Writ specified the business name on the account, they would have searched by the business name. However, the Writ did not list the business name; therefore they contend that they properly complied with the Writ of Garnishment as provided."
I immediately faxed the copy of the Writ as filed to the named "customer service specialist"(fancy title for folks that really aren't going to do anything except send out meaningless correspondence), which was "(Judgement debtor's name) DBA (company name)" and pointed out that "dba" means "doing business as" and to comply the bank should have searched both names. No response; the position of the OCC seems to be one of benign neglect; don't ask, don't tell, look the other way, bury your head in the sand, we don't really care. Rather than actually look at the several pages of documents sent to them it is easier to believe the Bank of America's response. And we all know that the Bank of America would never lie, or cheat, right??!!!
This is about par for government employees; they will receive the same paycheck whether they perform or not. Not so in the private sector. It is nothing to this so-called "specialist" that the amount of money the judgement debtor stiffed us for was our income for that month! She's gonna' get hers and to heck with us! Apathy is rampant at all levels of government because there is no incentive to get the job done.
What really chars my burger is that you and I are paying the salaries of these OCC clowns; I say let's shift that burden to the Bank of America. Why not, the OCC already works for them! Mr. Bush, if you are serious about tax breaks for the working folks, here's a great place to start!! As for me, I am looking for a lawyer who is willing to enter the trenches and get something done about this mess.(Believe me, very few are willing). If you are interested, contact me through this site; I read it daily.
Robin
Waldron, Arkansas
OCC is useless (I know, I was told)......
#70
Fri, January 10, 2003
As promised, I am sending the results of this matter. Got a reply from the OCC on January 2,2003. As I had been warned, they were entirely useless. This is what the OCC wrote to me concerning this matter;
"In your correspondence with this agency, you complained that you received a judgement by a court of law, authorizing garnishment of ********** account as debtor to your company. You determined the account number and served the Writ of Garnishment to the Bank of America. The bank responded that they had no account under the name *********. It was you contention that the bank should have and was able to search for the account using the business name or personal name of the account holder."
NOTE: So far, so good. The personal name, business name, AND the ACCOUNT NUMBER were all provided with the Writ. To continue:
"The OCC contacted the bank, which responded by letter dated November 22, 2002. In their response, they reiterated that they were directed in the Writ to garnish the account of ******** and their records did not show up such a named account. They countered that had the Writ specified the business name on the account, they would have searched by the business name. However, the Writ did not list the business name; therefore they contend that they properly complied with the Writ of Garnishment as provided."
I immediately faxed the copy of the Writ as filed to the named "customer service specialist"(fancy title for folks that really aren't going to do anything except send out meaningless correspondence), which was "(Judgement debtor's name) DBA (company name)" and pointed out that "dba" means "doing business as" and to comply the bank should have searched both names. No response; the position of the OCC seems to be one of benign neglect; don't ask, don't tell, look the other way, bury your head in the sand, we don't really care. Rather than actually look at the several pages of documents sent to them it is easier to believe the Bank of America's response. And we all know that the Bank of America would never lie, or cheat, right??!!!
This is about par for government employees; they will receive the same paycheck whether they perform or not. Not so in the private sector. It is nothing to this so-called "specialist" that the amount of money the judgement debtor stiffed us for was our income for that month! She's gonna' get hers and to heck with us! Apathy is rampant at all levels of government because there is no incentive to get the job done.
What really chars my burger is that you and I are paying the salaries of these OCC clowns; I say let's shift that burden to the Bank of America. Why not, the OCC already works for them! Mr. Bush, if you are serious about tax breaks for the working folks, here's a great place to start!! As for me, I am looking for a lawyer who is willing to enter the trenches and get something done about this mess.(Believe me, very few are willing). If you are interested, contact me through this site; I read it daily.
Robin
Waldron, Arkansas
OCC is useless (I know, I was told)......
#70
Fri, January 10, 2003
As promised, I am sending the results of this matter. Got a reply from the OCC on January 2,2003. As I had been warned, they were entirely useless. This is what the OCC wrote to me concerning this matter;
"In your correspondence with this agency, you complained that you received a judgement by a court of law, authorizing garnishment of ********** account as debtor to your company. You determined the account number and served the Writ of Garnishment to the Bank of America. The bank responded that they had no account under the name *********. It was you contention that the bank should have and was able to search for the account using the business name or personal name of the account holder."
NOTE: So far, so good. The personal name, business name, AND the ACCOUNT NUMBER were all provided with the Writ. To continue:
"The OCC contacted the bank, which responded by letter dated November 22, 2002. In their response, they reiterated that they were directed in the Writ to garnish the account of ******** and their records did not show up such a named account. They countered that had the Writ specified the business name on the account, they would have searched by the business name. However, the Writ did not list the business name; therefore they contend that they properly complied with the Writ of Garnishment as provided."
I immediately faxed the copy of the Writ as filed to the named "customer service specialist"(fancy title for folks that really aren't going to do anything except send out meaningless correspondence), which was "(Judgement debtor's name) DBA (company name)" and pointed out that "dba" means "doing business as" and to comply the bank should have searched both names. No response; the position of the OCC seems to be one of benign neglect; don't ask, don't tell, look the other way, bury your head in the sand, we don't really care. Rather than actually look at the several pages of documents sent to them it is easier to believe the Bank of America's response. And we all know that the Bank of America would never lie, or cheat, right??!!!
This is about par for government employees; they will receive the same paycheck whether they perform or not. Not so in the private sector. It is nothing to this so-called "specialist" that the amount of money the judgement debtor stiffed us for was our income for that month! She's gonna' get hers and to heck with us! Apathy is rampant at all levels of government because there is no incentive to get the job done.
What really chars my burger is that you and I are paying the salaries of these OCC clowns; I say let's shift that burden to the Bank of America. Why not, the OCC already works for them! Mr. Bush, if you are serious about tax breaks for the working folks, here's a great place to start!! As for me, I am looking for a lawyer who is willing to enter the trenches and get something done about this mess.(Believe me, very few are willing). If you are interested, contact me through this site; I read it daily.
Robin
Waldron, Arkansas
OCC is useless (I know, I was told)......
#70
Fri, January 10, 2003
As promised, I am sending the results of this matter. Got a reply from the OCC on January 2,2003. As I had been warned, they were entirely useless. This is what the OCC wrote to me concerning this matter;
"In your correspondence with this agency, you complained that you received a judgement by a court of law, authorizing garnishment of ********** account as debtor to your company. You determined the account number and served the Writ of Garnishment to the Bank of America. The bank responded that they had no account under the name *********. It was you contention that the bank should have and was able to search for the account using the business name or personal name of the account holder."
NOTE: So far, so good. The personal name, business name, AND the ACCOUNT NUMBER were all provided with the Writ. To continue:
"The OCC contacted the bank, which responded by letter dated November 22, 2002. In their response, they reiterated that they were directed in the Writ to garnish the account of ******** and their records did not show up such a named account. They countered that had the Writ specified the business name on the account, they would have searched by the business name. However, the Writ did not list the business name; therefore they contend that they properly complied with the Writ of Garnishment as provided."
I immediately faxed the copy of the Writ as filed to the named "customer service specialist"(fancy title for folks that really aren't going to do anything except send out meaningless correspondence), which was "(Judgement debtor's name) DBA (company name)" and pointed out that "dba" means "doing business as" and to comply the bank should have searched both names. No response; the position of the OCC seems to be one of benign neglect; don't ask, don't tell, look the other way, bury your head in the sand, we don't really care. Rather than actually look at the several pages of documents sent to them it is easier to believe the Bank of America's response. And we all know that the Bank of America would never lie, or cheat, right??!!!
This is about par for government employees; they will receive the same paycheck whether they perform or not. Not so in the private sector. It is nothing to this so-called "specialist" that the amount of money the judgement debtor stiffed us for was our income for that month! She's gonna' get hers and to heck with us! Apathy is rampant at all levels of government because there is no incentive to get the job done.
What really chars my burger is that you and I are paying the salaries of these OCC clowns; I say let's shift that burden to the Bank of America. Why not, the OCC already works for them! Mr. Bush, if you are serious about tax breaks for the working folks, here's a great place to start!! As for me, I am looking for a lawyer who is willing to enter the trenches and get something done about this mess.(Believe me, very few are willing). If you are interested, contact me through this site; I read it daily.
Robin
Waldron, Arkansas
Update on OCC complaint
#70
Wed, October 23, 2002
10/22/2002 Called OCC regional office. They have verified that my complaint has been received and is "up for review". Just wanted to keep folks informed as to how long a process this may be (or how short, if luck is with us!) If I don't hear something within a reasonable length of time, I will call again.
Folks, this Bank of America bunch of thieves and lawbreakers really needs to be STOPPED
and SOON!!!! Get those complaints rolling in to the proper authorities and call to check that it was received (it's an 800 number). If in doubt as to how to do this type "OCC" into any search engine and it will give you all necessary contacts and addresses. Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and inaction lets them continue their shady deals. Make noise; LOTS OF NOISE!!! That's how a democracy works- one person at a time.