Complaint Review: Charter One Bank

You confirm, with abundance, the conclusions of his study.  And ethics are relevant.  Morality is relevant.  Their breaches, when they are pointed out, are humiliating.  If they were irrelevant, you couldn't possibly have felt compelled to write two fulsome paragraphs attempting dismiss ethics and morality with a classic Appeal to Authority Logical Fallacy.

Just do what you're told, Jim.

"But, if a deposit is outstanding... Doesn't that mean you've recorded it to your ledger before the bank has posted it to your account?"

Possibly. The important thing to remember is that deposits made after 2pm are posted the following business day. Deposits made after 2pm are recorded in the register under the post date.

"I don't think you're giving very good advice on keeping a check register"

Why is that?

If a bank is allowed to profit on the idiocy of someone who can't balance their account, then so what?  Even our own lawmakers in Congress, when tasked with the decision of doing something about these fees in 2009, did nothing.  What they essentially did through their actions, is deem the practice not just acceptable, but legal.  Is it immoral?  Is it unethical?  Is it wrong?  Not relevant.  It only matters that it's legal.  Do I think consumers should profit if a bank makes an error.  Maybe so; it certainly wouldn't be without precedent.  If credit reporting agencies violate laws against individual consumers with respect to reporting errors, the consumer is entitled to money from the agency for the wrong doing.

Banks made...$35B on fees like that?  If they made $50B, it wouldn't matter.  If they made $1B, it wouldn't matter.  The argument has nothing to do with the amount of the fees.  The only thing that matters is their legality.  It's black and white argument.  Since it is legal, there is no argument to be made about the fees, and it's a waste of time trying to argue gray.  There isn't an amount, high or low, that really changes the argument.  Having said that, I would either like to see banks either have those fees go both ways, OR take the money for those fees to offer to consumers in the form of financial management classes free of charge.

Doesn't that mean you've recorded it to your ledger before the bank has posted it to your account?

"I've never been misled about how much money is in my checking account.
It's the balance shown in my check register minus outstanding checks and
debits, plus outstanding deposits."

Just make sure you read the entire paragraph you excised that first sentence from.  That paragraph is substantiated by everything that preceded it.  And, don't you worry.

I lerned my lesson. ;)

"customers are mislead about how much money is in the account"

I've never been misled about how much money is in my checking account. It's the balance shown in my check register minus outstanding checks and debits, plus outstanding deposits. Funny thing about numbers... they always work.

Oh, really, what planet do you bank on, here on EARTH the banks DO stand to Gain by your errors, and do.

They'll take you for everything they can.

You've ignored the cited evidence and reverted to your argument that has been completely refuted by the cited evidence.

And you're right.  The banks aren't in the business of holding anyone's hand.  You're absolutely right, my logically challenged little coaster.  The finer points of a well constructed argument have eluded you and you seem to have inadvertently created a compound logical fallacy but you've never been more right about the fact that, quite clearly, the banks aren't as interested in courtship as they are in economic acquaintance rape.

They are in the business of trapping the consumer; of luring them in with a false pretense of economic and personal security and then, because of one miscalculation about how much money is available in the account, stacking their customers with inordinate fees.  They are deliberately creating these situations where customers are mislead about how much money is in the account, have difficulty catching and fixing out-of-balance conditions, and then working against the customer who is trying to fix the condition in a timely enough manner with which to avoid excessive penalties.  While the software technology exists that would prohibit debit cards from falling out of balance, banks utilize software that maximizes the number of transactions that will hit an out of balance account.

Go ahead and keep writing your utterly stupid little quips based on one sentence taken out of context to disregard the sentence that follows it:

"Rather, the banks are, in fact, utilizing a coercive economic measure as a method to consistently generate more income."

"the banks have no interest, what-so-ever, in implementing a punitive measure to curb their customer's irresponsible behavior"

Overdraft penalties and opt-out options should be enough to discourage an adult from acting irresponsibly. If that's not enough, then they pay more. Banks provide financial services; they are not in the business of holding hands and teaching basic common sense principles to the irresponsible segment of the population.

Bank service fees have virtually doubled in the eight years from 1995 and
2003, from $16.4 to $32.6 billion.3 Interestingly, fees from overdraft protection
programs (also called nonsufficient funds or NSF fees) have risen so
dramatically that they may now represent the preponderance of all such fee
income for banks and credit unions.4 NSF income for banks and/or credit
unions can amount to up to 50% of total consumer checking account revenue.5
One recent analysis estimates that such NSF fees account for more than half
roughly $18.8 billion of the service-fee income derived by Americas
banks and credit unions.6 An independent consultant estimates that banks
collected $22 billion in overdraft fees in 2003.7 Virtually all banks now
impose NSF fees.8

"The largest check cashing chain (EZ: and by extension, payday lending) in the United States if funded by Wells Fargo." 0:23:42  "...Wells Fargo also funds Cash America..." 0:24:14  Mike Hudson, an investigative journalist goes into more detail about the conflict of interest, beginning at 26:30

"fall out of balance" is not a banking term. It's called an overdraft. An overdraft occurs when the account holder draws funds in an amount greater than what is in the account. DKF created an overdraft.

"the fees themselves are absolutely unethical"

The fees are actually penalties to discourage account holders from causing incessant overdrafts.

Not a rip off.

Whatever part this guy played in his over-draft fee fiasco, the fees themselves are absolutely unethical.  Banks don't have to let accounts fall out of balance for debit card transactions, but they do, precisely because what happened to this guy generates them boat-loads of revenues.  It's a shake-down. 

So, there were no checks being presented.  The only other possibility is you continued to use your ATM card when you knew there wasn't enough money in your account.  Can't fix stupid.

Perhaps I used the wrong descriptive term.  These were overdraft fees.  There weren't any checks presented for payment.   I did transfer money to cover the $12 debit purchase but the bank hit me with the fee anyway.  Then things spiraled.  I didn't get an overdraft letter from the bank for 9 days!  When I talk to the bank and actually went to my branch to ask them to stop with the overdraft fees until this problem was resolved, they wouldn't do it.  The branch manager asked me if I wanted to bring the joint account current and I said not until Customer Service contacts me and we resolve this issue.  She could have told me about the Right of Offset, but didn't.  She also reassured me that someone from customer service would call, but they didn't call until I'd accumulated another $150+ in overdraft fees.  They absolutely didn't call within the 48 hours time frame and they took the money out of my other account the same day they left the voice message - a voice message left at 5 PM.  They didn't have the decency to speak to me personally!  Like I said this has happened to me before and I know other people that have had this same problem, as well as similar problems, with Charter One. 

   The OD they said you could cover was the $12 debit card transaction. The NSFs indicate that some item or items was/were being presented against the account and being returned unpaid due to lack of funds. Your bank has no control over how many times the items are presented. The only possible thing they should have offered you is a stop payment against those items. There's usually a business day lag before it's effective. If you place the stop Monday the item(s) may still be returned unpaid  during Monday processing at a fee but then as of Tuesday processing would be returned due to the stop payment. There would have been a fee for that but it would be a one time fee per item versus that item being presented 2-3 times and causing a NSF each time.   As far as the money being transferred from the business account to cover the personal account, that called Right of Offset. If you have an account with a bank that has a negative balance and your name is on any other account at that bank, the bank can without notice transfer money into the negative account to bring it to a zero balance. The authorization for this is in the paperwork that you signed when you opened the account. As far as I know every bank and credit union has the procedure.