Complaint Review: US BANK

I fail to see why the bank should change. I don't agree with the amount of fees charged to people, but the fees are legit. Just because the deposited checks are paychecks and government checks doesn't mean they don't have to be processed just like personal checks. I am a small business owner and just because I have a business name and a fancy logo on my checks doesn't mean I can't write checks that I know I can't cover. Maybe in the future you should just leave yourself a buffer of a few hundred dollars. I would think after you got a couple hundred dollars of fees the first month you would have fixed it by the second month, but as you mentioned they gave you more fees the second month. I wouldn't see that as being the bank's fault when you could have corrected. That would be like me accidentally drinking spoiled milk but rather than throwing it away I would put it back in the fridge so that I could use it the next morning for cereal knowing that it is already spoiled, then act surprised the next morning.

I used to work at USB, so I'd think I'd know the laws on holding government checks.

By law, government checks ARE as good as cash. A hold cannot be placed on a government check which is deposited into the account of the payee. Bank's computer systems recognize the routing number on government checks (it is only used by the government) and automatically gives immediate credit for the check.

The poster is incorrect in saying (among other things) that their government check is being held.

It actually isn't the bank who puts your bad check through over and over. It would be the payee trying to redeposit the check, and collect the money that they are owed. (By the way, they are more than likely being charged by their bank for having a returned item.)

I think government checks should be held just like a normal check. A common myth about governement checks is that they're "as good as cash". I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. There are several reasons that check may be held up...
1. It's counterfeit.
2. There is a stop pay on it.
3. The payee may have an upcoming problem with the account such as a garnishment or large impending withdrawl.
4. The bank account of payor is changing or there is a hold up on that bank's side.
5. It was issued in error, perhaps even to the wrong person.

I could go on, but believe me, these things happen. So no, these checks should be treated as a normal check. In fact, #4 happened to yours truly. Yes, it was federal check too.

Government as in written from the US Treasury, not state/local gov't. I think they can only hold the check one day (i.e. it's as good as cash) If you have written evidence that they held a US Treasury check more than that, you may have a case - see a local attorney.

Otherwise, the regular guidelines will apply, including payroll checks. There are plenty of cases where a business bounces a payroll check and can't make good on it. Yes, that's illegal, but so are a lot of other things that go on in our country.

They gave me a checking account with no fees. It actually pays interest. They gave me a debit card that also earns cash back. I also have a savings account and a safe deposit box and they haven't charged me for those. When I had a fraudulent transaction charged to my account, they stopped it and issued me a new debit card and reversed the OD fees that I would have gotten. I have no reason to want to sue them and what would I (or you) sue them for?

Reading your report, I can see where the problems began for you. You wrote checks against a deposit when the funds were not available. You also used your debit card when your account had a negative balance. That's where your fees are coming from. You should stop doing these things.

Every bank is required to give out and post in their lobby their funds availabilty policy. Checks deposited in your account are subject to this policy - whether they are payroll checks, government checks, etc. In many cases, the hold is not nearly long enough to verify funds or to guarantee that the check has cleared, it is just a reasonable time frame to collect the money from the bank the check is drawn on and hopefully, if the check is not good, be able to reject it so you aren't writing checks against money that may be debited back out of your account - because of course you aren't writing checks until the money is already in the account?

Most (if not all) banks post direct deposits directly into available funds. My bank recommended it to me so I don't have to wait until the next day if I need to get at my money. The only thing to be careful about direct deposit is a change in the way they post those checks. Not too long ago, if your check was due you on the 1st of the month, the check would post to you account the night of the 30th or 31st and was able to be used to pay items that posted that same night. My bank has changed their policy so that the check is not posted that night, but pending posted the morning of the first. What this means is that if you have checks or debits that post the 30th or 31st, and there isn't enough in there before you direct deposit, you will incur overdraft fees. The money is available on the day you are due the money - not the night before. It all goes back to that concept that you don't use your debit card or write checks until the money is already in your account!

The funds availability policies are clearly stated in the documentation that you received when you opened the account. You signed a document stating that you understand and agree to the terms of the account.

So your main problem with the bank is:

A. They want to verify that a check is good before they cash it.
B. They are presenting checks to the account that you wrote.
C. They let you use your card even though there are paper checks still uncashed. (I hope you realize that your bank doesn't know that you wrote checks to someone before they're cashed.)
D. They are adhering to the document that you signed and agreed to.

Oh man, what is US Bank up to? Good luck in court! (sarcasm)