Complaint Review:
Wells Fargo Bank
Wells Fargo is hoarding your money. They are doing it to the maximum allowable legal bounds, but hoarding it nonetheless.
I get a letter from Wells Fargo telling me my check of $500 has a hold on it for three weeks. The stated reason, I had overdrafts posted to my account in the past six months.
As a student, and for many people out there, we occasionally get overdrafts. It happens, and we apologize and in the end the banks make a lot of money on overdraft charges.
So, I call Wells Fargo and a customer service representative tells me about Regulation CC.
I look up Regulation CC, and here is what it says:
For certain types of deposits, Regulation CC permits financial institutions to delay, for a reasonable period of time, the availability of funds. A reasonable time period is generally defined as one additional business day (making a total of two business days) for on-us checks, five additional business days (total of seven) for local checks, and six additional business days (total of eleven) for nonlocal checks. Banks can hold your money for the following reasons: history of overdrafts, redeposited checks, reasonable cause to doubt collectibility of a check, emergency conditions, and deposits into accounts of new customers.
See http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/regcc/regcc.htm#delay
The thing is Wells Fargo is using this regulation to hold your money no matter what if you fall within one of these categories. So, the whole idea of "reasonableness" goes out the window for this bank.
The problem is their purpose is not for their own protection - rather they are using the regulation for their own financial gain - holding your money for three weeks (eleven business days) when the funds are good - the funds have been electronically dispursed by the writer of the check. Thus, the bank isn't worried at this point - they have their hands on the money - but they still maintain a hold on it.
This doesn't make sense and it is actionable.
The other thing about regulation CC is that it doesn't mandate these holds, they are entirely discretionary with your bank. Banks can choose to follow these policies.
Wells Fargo has chosen to take the maximum limit allowed by the regulations (eleven days for non-local checks) to carve out a great savings with consumers' funds by applying a blanket hold on your money.
This is a fraudulent policy because it is an exploitation of a valid reg that has a good purpose. And frankly, its not good business Wells Fargo. As a customer of your bank, I am getting out and will make it my priority to inform everyone I know of about Wells Fargo's practice.
It is my hope that a good class action attorney can get their hands on this.
Anonymous
Los Angeles, California
U.S.A.
6 Updates & Rebuttals
Flex
Corona,California,
U.S.A.
PLEASE!!!
#7Consumer Comment
Fri, October 03, 2008
Student, when you opened your account, did the representative give you disclosures? The disclosures the bank gives you is for you to READ. You must've made your deposit thru the ATM machine that's why you received the letters days after. Had you gone into the branch, you would've known whether or not it was on hold. You probably went in and they told you they are going to place a hold on it so you decide to do it through the ATM machine. If your accounts are new, has repeated ODs or your average balance is low, then they will place a hold. Maybe if you balance your "Check Register" better then you won't run into these problems. Maybe you SHOULD consider moving your "money" else where since Wamu and Wachovia are doing so much better than Wells Fargo these days. I'm sure they can't wait to do the same to you. lol.
Jim
Anaheim,California,
U.S.A.
Yeah - I Don't See The Rip Off Either
#7Consumer Comment
Wed, October 01, 2008
The problem is what exactly is reasonable? Given your proclivity for overdrafting your account, the bank's standard for holding your money becomes more stringent; in other words - they've made a choice that you're a risk based on your history and they are protecting you based on your history.
The fact is they're actually losing money by deciding to hold your money for an extended period so that you don't overdraft the account. Based on your history with them - you're simply going to OD your account again and again. They're protecting you and they're doing it at their expense.
It's amazing - a bank does something to protect a customer and does it at the sacrifice of their own revenue stream and this dim bulb still complains. You ought to be thanking them for saving you money and learning something from this process - not whining and complaining.
Jim
Anaheim,California,
U.S.A.
Yeah - I Don't See The Rip Off Either
#7Consumer Comment
Wed, October 01, 2008
The problem is what exactly is reasonable? Given your proclivity for overdrafting your account, the bank's standard for holding your money becomes more stringent; in other words - they've made a choice that you're a risk based on your history and they are protecting you based on your history.
The fact is they're actually losing money by deciding to hold your money for an extended period so that you don't overdraft the account. Based on your history with them - you're simply going to OD your account again and again. They're protecting you and they're doing it at their expense.
It's amazing - a bank does something to protect a customer and does it at the sacrifice of their own revenue stream and this dim bulb still complains. You ought to be thanking them for saving you money and learning something from this process - not whining and complaining.
Jim
Anaheim,California,
U.S.A.
Yeah - I Don't See The Rip Off Either
#7Consumer Comment
Wed, October 01, 2008
The problem is what exactly is reasonable? Given your proclivity for overdrafting your account, the bank's standard for holding your money becomes more stringent; in other words - they've made a choice that you're a risk based on your history and they are protecting you based on your history.
The fact is they're actually losing money by deciding to hold your money for an extended period so that you don't overdraft the account. Based on your history with them - you're simply going to OD your account again and again. They're protecting you and they're doing it at their expense.
It's amazing - a bank does something to protect a customer and does it at the sacrifice of their own revenue stream and this dim bulb still complains. You ought to be thanking them for saving you money and learning something from this process - not whining and complaining.
Jim
Anaheim,California,
U.S.A.
Yeah - I Don't See The Rip Off Either
#7Consumer Comment
Wed, October 01, 2008
The problem is what exactly is reasonable? Given your proclivity for overdrafting your account, the bank's standard for holding your money becomes more stringent; in other words - they've made a choice that you're a risk based on your history and they are protecting you based on your history.
The fact is they're actually losing money by deciding to hold your money for an extended period so that you don't overdraft the account. Based on your history with them - you're simply going to OD your account again and again. They're protecting you and they're doing it at their expense.
It's amazing - a bank does something to protect a customer and does it at the sacrifice of their own revenue stream and this dim bulb still complains. You ought to be thanking them for saving you money and learning something from this process - not whining and complaining.
Ken
Randolph,Massachusetts,
U.S.A.
I don't understand your complaint
#7Consumer Comment
Tue, September 30, 2008
In your post you admit that you have a history of overdrafts. You go on to quote the federal regulation sprcifying that a history of overdrafts is reason for extending a hold. Where's the incongruity here?
Since you are still a student, might this not be a good time to learn how to manage your account responsibly and avoid all this grief?