Complaint Review: Bank Of America Tennessee - Nashville Tennessee

Finally! Someone who gets it and someone in the financial industry no less. Thank you Dave for explaining what many banks still cannot answer. When I was a BofA customer, for me the final straw was the introduction of Available vs Ledger balance and OD charges as a result. Just as Dave said, why should you be charged OD fees for items ON HOLD but not yet POSTED? This is how BofA and many banks play fast and loose with the rules. This is the answer to the empty accusation of "spending money you don't have". Many consumers admit they keep their balances low but they know the rules and they live within those rules. In the old days when checks were written, you were ALWAYS charged NSF when a check was presented and not enough $ cover it, no matter whether it was PAID or RETURNED. Banks LOVED THIS! With the replacement of checks with Checkcards, a customer may attempt a transaction at Walmart but if his balance is $0, the transaction is DENIED but guess what, no NSF or OVERDRAFT fee. Banks HATED THIS! Checkcard - It works just like a check right? It did for customers but not for the bank with respect to fees. They soon realized this and changed the rules. Now that same transaction is ALLOWED, the bank collects its OD fee and they're happy again. Every time BofA changes its rules, customers read them and adapt. Sure they push the limit but it doesn't matter as long as you stay within the CURRENT rules. But once BofA realizes they're losing AGAIN, they change the rules AGAIN and it's a never ending cycle. This is the common ripoff. Just review the MANY ROR cases where long time BofA customers admit they've never had NSF's in more than 10 years with BofA until recently. Or the ROR cases from other customers who admit they've never had NSF's with any other bank until they switched to BofA?

When the bank charged me the four nsf I asked the same question because the funny part was that the four items that they charged me NSF for were still in pending status. The deposit came through prior to the merchants "claiming" their money. That is why I was confused how can you charge me when according to your rules anything in pending status does not really count. This along with my other actions is what got me my money back. Unfortunately, I am battling with BOA once again. I set up an automatic bill pay for my car note which was supposed to come out on 9/5/07, I had a deposit that would post on 9/5/07 SUPRISE!!! BOA is charging me NSF for the automatic bill pay because they posted it at 12:00 on 9/4/07 and the deposit on 9/5/07 and then charged me another NSF for using my debit card at the ATM on 9/1/07 because the transaction would not clear until the next business day 9/4/07 and due to the bill pay coming through my account was overdrawn for 1 min and since they post highest to lowest the bill pay came first and then the atm withdrawal. So the saga continues. Wish me luck.

When the bank charged me the four nsf I asked the same question because the funny part was that the four items that they charged me NSF for were still in pending status. The deposit came through prior to the merchants "claiming" their money. That is why I was confused how can you charge me when according to your rules anything in pending status does not really count. This along with my other actions is what got me my money back. Unfortunately, I am battling with BOA once again. I set up an automatic bill pay for my car note which was supposed to come out on 9/5/07, I had a deposit that would post on 9/5/07 SUPRISE!!! BOA is charging me NSF for the automatic bill pay because they posted it at 12:00 on 9/4/07 and the deposit on 9/5/07 and then charged me another NSF for using my debit card at the ATM on 9/1/07 because the transaction would not clear until the next business day 9/4/07 and due to the bill pay coming through my account was overdrawn for 1 min and since they post highest to lowest the bill pay came first and then the atm withdrawal. So the saga continues. Wish me luck.

When the bank charged me the four nsf I asked the same question because the funny part was that the four items that they charged me NSF for were still in pending status. The deposit came through prior to the merchants "claiming" their money. That is why I was confused how can you charge me when according to your rules anything in pending status does not really count. This along with my other actions is what got me my money back. Unfortunately, I am battling with BOA once again. I set up an automatic bill pay for my car note which was supposed to come out on 9/5/07, I had a deposit that would post on 9/5/07 SUPRISE!!! BOA is charging me NSF for the automatic bill pay because they posted it at 12:00 on 9/4/07 and the deposit on 9/5/07 and then charged me another NSF for using my debit card at the ATM on 9/1/07 because the transaction would not clear until the next business day 9/4/07 and due to the bill pay coming through my account was overdrawn for 1 min and since they post highest to lowest the bill pay came first and then the atm withdrawal. So the saga continues. Wish me luck.

When the bank charged me the four nsf I asked the same question because the funny part was that the four items that they charged me NSF for were still in pending status. The deposit came through prior to the merchants "claiming" their money. That is why I was confused how can you charge me when according to your rules anything in pending status does not really count. This along with my other actions is what got me my money back. Unfortunately, I am battling with BOA once again. I set up an automatic bill pay for my car note which was supposed to come out on 9/5/07, I had a deposit that would post on 9/5/07 SUPRISE!!! BOA is charging me NSF for the automatic bill pay because they posted it at 12:00 on 9/4/07 and the deposit on 9/5/07 and then charged me another NSF for using my debit card at the ATM on 9/1/07 because the transaction would not clear until the next business day 9/4/07 and due to the bill pay coming through my account was overdrawn for 1 min and since they post highest to lowest the bill pay came first and then the atm withdrawal. So the saga continues. Wish me luck.

Here's the real question, the 1 question that nobody can answer. How can the bank legally charge a fee when they HAVE NOT PAID OUT any money to the merchant(s)? Think about it. Yes, the funds are on hold, but they haven't been disbursed. They can't be disbursed until the merchant(s) run a batch. So, that money is still IN YOUR ACCOUNT. So, even if a check comes in, there's plenty of money in the account to cover it. The bank shouldn't be able to charge ANY fees until the account actually becomes overdrawn. Technically, you haven't spent more money than you have... The money is still in your account, regardless of what the HOLDS say. This is EXACTLY how banks make their profit. In this case, you are not FLOATING their money, or USING their money, you are using YOUR money. And if you have 10 items on hold, and you 0 dollars in the bank after a large check clears, you should NOT be charged 10 overdrafts until the holds actually POST TO YOUR ACCOUNT. Then, and ONLY then, should you be charged with overdraft fees, since now you have ACTUALLY overdrafted your account and are now using the banks money to fund the transactions. Again, in this case, you have 0 dollars, 10 items on hold, and then you have a deposit hit. 2 days later the holds become hard posts, and there is money in the account to cover them. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The bank is not out any money, other than their overdraft fees, which in this case should be illegal since it's STEALING. I dare someone to rebut this logic! I work for the largest financial institution in the world. I have been in finance for 23 years. The logic above is absolutely correct. I also have had 1 legit overdraft in about 20 years. I screwed up. So, I am not saying this because I have been charged 100s of $$$ in fees.

Here's the real question, the 1 question that nobody can answer. How can the bank legally charge a fee when they HAVE NOT PAID OUT any money to the merchant(s)? Think about it. Yes, the funds are on hold, but they haven't been disbursed. They can't be disbursed until the merchant(s) run a batch. So, that money is still IN YOUR ACCOUNT. So, even if a check comes in, there's plenty of money in the account to cover it. The bank shouldn't be able to charge ANY fees until the account actually becomes overdrawn. Technically, you haven't spent more money than you have... The money is still in your account, regardless of what the HOLDS say. This is EXACTLY how banks make their profit. In this case, you are not FLOATING their money, or USING their money, you are using YOUR money. And if you have 10 items on hold, and you 0 dollars in the bank after a large check clears, you should NOT be charged 10 overdrafts until the holds actually POST TO YOUR ACCOUNT. Then, and ONLY then, should you be charged with overdraft fees, since now you have ACTUALLY overdrafted your account and are now using the banks money to fund the transactions. Again, in this case, you have 0 dollars, 10 items on hold, and then you have a deposit hit. 2 days later the holds become hard posts, and there is money in the account to cover them. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The bank is not out any money, other than their overdraft fees, which in this case should be illegal since it's STEALING. I dare someone to rebut this logic! I work for the largest financial institution in the world. I have been in finance for 23 years. The logic above is absolutely correct. I also have had 1 legit overdraft in about 20 years. I screwed up. So, I am not saying this because I have been charged 100s of $$$ in fees.

Here's the real question, the 1 question that nobody can answer. How can the bank legally charge a fee when they HAVE NOT PAID OUT any money to the merchant(s)? Think about it. Yes, the funds are on hold, but they haven't been disbursed. They can't be disbursed until the merchant(s) run a batch. So, that money is still IN YOUR ACCOUNT. So, even if a check comes in, there's plenty of money in the account to cover it. The bank shouldn't be able to charge ANY fees until the account actually becomes overdrawn. Technically, you haven't spent more money than you have... The money is still in your account, regardless of what the HOLDS say. This is EXACTLY how banks make their profit. In this case, you are not FLOATING their money, or USING their money, you are using YOUR money. And if you have 10 items on hold, and you 0 dollars in the bank after a large check clears, you should NOT be charged 10 overdrafts until the holds actually POST TO YOUR ACCOUNT. Then, and ONLY then, should you be charged with overdraft fees, since now you have ACTUALLY overdrafted your account and are now using the banks money to fund the transactions. Again, in this case, you have 0 dollars, 10 items on hold, and then you have a deposit hit. 2 days later the holds become hard posts, and there is money in the account to cover them. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The bank is not out any money, other than their overdraft fees, which in this case should be illegal since it's STEALING. I dare someone to rebut this logic! I work for the largest financial institution in the world. I have been in finance for 23 years. The logic above is absolutely correct. I also have had 1 legit overdraft in about 20 years. I screwed up. So, I am not saying this because I have been charged 100s of $$$ in fees.

Here's the real question, the 1 question that nobody can answer. How can the bank legally charge a fee when they HAVE NOT PAID OUT any money to the merchant(s)? Think about it. Yes, the funds are on hold, but they haven't been disbursed. They can't be disbursed until the merchant(s) run a batch. So, that money is still IN YOUR ACCOUNT. So, even if a check comes in, there's plenty of money in the account to cover it. The bank shouldn't be able to charge ANY fees until the account actually becomes overdrawn. Technically, you haven't spent more money than you have... The money is still in your account, regardless of what the HOLDS say. This is EXACTLY how banks make their profit. In this case, you are not FLOATING their money, or USING their money, you are using YOUR money. And if you have 10 items on hold, and you 0 dollars in the bank after a large check clears, you should NOT be charged 10 overdrafts until the holds actually POST TO YOUR ACCOUNT. Then, and ONLY then, should you be charged with overdraft fees, since now you have ACTUALLY overdrafted your account and are now using the banks money to fund the transactions. Again, in this case, you have 0 dollars, 10 items on hold, and then you have a deposit hit. 2 days later the holds become hard posts, and there is money in the account to cover them. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The bank is not out any money, other than their overdraft fees, which in this case should be illegal since it's STEALING. I dare someone to rebut this logic! I work for the largest financial institution in the world. I have been in finance for 23 years. The logic above is absolutely correct. I also have had 1 legit overdraft in about 20 years. I screwed up. So, I am not saying this because I have been charged 100s of $$$ in fees.

God Ss, slow down and take a breath. You are screaming here like you're a little girl and someone stole your dollhouse. This is a message board. You are not going to change BOA's or anyone else's NSF policy by having a tantrum. Also, your lack of respect for the opposing point-of-view is a bit disturbing. Are you really that afraid of any opinion that differs from yours? No one is going to win this debate. Calm down. Take a time-out if you need to. There are several viewpoints to be heard here and yours is not the only one. And by the way, BOA is not the only bank to use this sort of policy. Ever taken a look at 5/3 terms and conditions? At least BOA doesn't charge the consumer $6/day until payday.

I am not an advocate of the banks. In fact, I can't stand them because they are continuously changing their policies so they can make the most money. This is how it works so far (so you don't get screwed next time). When you swipe your card for a charge, your available is reduced, but not your regular balance. This is a soft post. It's not really posted, but it is on hold for the merchant. Then, when the merchant submits your charge for processing it is hard posted to your account. It is up to the merchant what date they submit the charges. I recently had a merchant that submitted 2 weeks after I made the charge. It sounds to me like your check came through for a hard post either the same day that the merchants submitted your charges, or earlier. Therefore the check was paid first (due to largest to smallest if same day, or first by itself because it came through the day before the soft posts came through). For example. Say you have $300 in the bank and ran up $200 in charges. The $200 is held as a soft post, and your available balance is $100. Then a check you wrote for $150 comes in for a hard post before the soft posted items come in for a hard post. The check is paid from the $300 balance and your available balance is reduced to zero. You are then charged the fee because even though they didn't "bounce" your check, you did not have enough available to cover it. Then after your check hard posts, the other items hard post, and between the check paid and the fee charged, you did not have have enough to cover the charges. Hence more fees. Hard posts are paid before soft posts, no matter to the date you actually made them. Hard posts in the same day are paid in largest - smallest amounts. A hard post can incur an NSF fee if the available balance is too low due to the soft posts. If a "hidden" (one the bank does not know about, such as a check) hard post is submitted the day before soft posts, it can be paid first, even though the money is on hold for the merchant. Anytime you write a check that you know may bounce, also be aware that any item not "hard posted" yet can bounce too. If you have to write a check that you know will bounce, make sure all your charges have hard posted. Also remember. Many gas stations only hold $1 or $2 as a soft post, then when they submit for a hard post, it is really $40. Because of this example, and others, your available balance is not really correct.

I recieved a pkg from BOA today with their "policies". Red flag #1: these policies began on July 2007. Red Flag#2: There are no specific policies it just states that they have the right to do things their way. I also spoke to a CSR concerning my acct and was told that if you use your pin number when using your checkcard the money will come out immediately which could save some of the NSF fees. He also told me that they process credits first which is the opposite of what I was told just days prior. Bottom line is that BOA is a bunch of crooks and I wont stop until I am able to get something done about it.

Quote "The only langauge a bank understands is $$$. If you don't like the terms of the banking agreement, don't sign the line to open the account. " I did agree to the bank's terms that were online last week. "These were provided for you when you opened the account and are on the BOA website as we speak." You have to be kidding. You bastards changed that page, and I have proof. I have also recorded my last five calls to BofA which all provide different information. The page change is proof of BofA's fraudulant activity. Don't give me any BS about the Disclosure. You know the Disclosure is so vague that the customer must call or read the site for information. BofA is kiting funds. For a split second, they pay funds that are already spent to ACH that they allow as the system updates. No Rip-off? It's a total rip-off, and I defnitely wouldn't reward BofA with more business through a Credit Line or Overdraft Coverage. Why? You'd still find a way to manipulate transactions to make money of the funds availability float. Bofa is caught and going down. I am going to push this information on every news outlet, government agency, and consumer group. People need to know why BofA continues to grow while customers default on loans and BofA is spending billions acquiring other companies. The industry is down but BofA has record profits? BofA is acquiring companies with losses and investing billions in competitors to give a false illustion of stability. In the meantime, they're abusing their power over other people's money in bad faith while claiming customers who incur NSF need to keep a check register. LOL. I have a freeking check register, and it doesn't suffer from split second amnesia like BofA's tricked system. Please show me in the Regs. where this info is allowed. At this point, I'm so annoyed that I don't care about the funds. I want justice. BofA should pay for being a dodgy company. Notice how BofA is eager to give accounts to Resident Aliens who don't have much money? Notice how much less money is being sent from BofA to Mexico now? There's been a significant drop in funds sent to Mexico and other low income countries ever since BofA decided to help these folks out with a checking account & secured CC. Is BofA stealing their money too and banking on their status in America? It's not Bank of America -- It's Banking on America, the land of the free where the rich get richer, and the poor pay their dues to exist. I would bet immigrants are going to become BofA's newest stream of nothing but positive Cash-flow. That VP who came up with this plan is a genius. He should be promoted and receive a multi million dollar bonus because he just made 10 times more for the bank. Alien residents are BofA's lastest victim who will eventually suffer as a hostage of the bank as BofA swipes their cash that would have been safer in a mattress in the city's roughest projects. Direct deposits won't be leaving the US to help families abroad as often now. Suddenly, immigrants can't send money home, and BofA continues to gobble their way across the Nation.

Dear Mr. Advocate (or should I say BofA rep), BofA changed the posting time, and changed the wording of information posted online to fit their needs over the last few days. If I knew the truth, I could have been prepared. Where does it say in Federal Regulation that the bank doesn't have to notify you if a 4:00 pm cut-off becomes 11:30 pm? Where does it say in the regs that IF a bank decides to release funds on "hold" back to your available balance AFTER the merchant submits the sale when previously the bank claimed the funds on "hold" is either paid to the merchant or dropped after 3 days? Why should I suffer when I play by the bank's rules? I have read the disclosures. I have read the posting times which are not in the disclosure but only available at Online Banking and via the phone with Customer Service. Why can the bank make an error and cost me money? Why don't they let me manage my own money and stop paying overdrafts. I don't want them paid. I use payment services that default to ACH but they can roll to other funding sources if the bank rejects a debit. If my money is blocked and I can't access it, why does the bank reallocate the funds under my account AFTER the merchant is paid? The law does not allow banks to manipulate rules to cause NSF on people's accounts. If the information is not in their disclosure, where do I get it? Online? Phone? YES. However, the information changes all the time without notice. Fortunately, I get deposits every single business day, so the account can't remain negative. If they pay something during an update using a 1 second float on the funds availability and it wasn't stated that way earlier, then d**n right I'm pissed as they proceed to take my next few direct deposits while continuing to pay items when funds are available for 1 second before the prior day's fees hit. Why wasn't I informed about this change in policy? Why wasn't I told that the Matrix can't apply if the funds become available for 1 second to give the illusion of availabe funds for a split second. Please show me in the Regs where this manipulation of policy is allowed to occur on the fly without notice to consumers. When I signed up with BofA, I agreed to their terms. I agreed to their preocess and posting times. However, what happened to me last week was not part of that agreement, and the proof is there. They changed that page and finally told me that funds go back to my available balance. If I knew this, I would take precautions. You also can't believe any sane person in a foreign country purposely sends an EFT right before 5 purchase for $5 to $20 in hopes that BofA will not bounce the $90 EFT so they can cost me 5 x $34 in fees and then make it hell for me to stop as I watch all my deposits. Why would BofA want to pay the EFT if I write bad checks? They wouldn't pay it if that were true. BofA pays it because they know the account gets direct deposit and prior NSF have been paid off promptly.

BofA always tells you that you should read your Disclosure but do they cite any facts from it? NO. The Disclosure confirms that they can screw you any which way they like and charge you for it. Once you get the booklet, you'll know that officially, and the courtesy credit from BofA will not happen again because they know that you know now. Your check came through ACH without a PIN. Does the disclosure tell you this can post instantly? NO. Does the disclosure tell you that the check will get paid first, and they will allow checks until midnight while the system updates? NO. Your check got paid because BofA dropped the "hold" for one second and moved the check in front of it. This is a new trick. Next time, you'll expect the check to move in front but a merchant will fail to capture promptly and you will bounce your check. As for a lawsuit, it's not even about the money. It's the games they play with people's lives. They change policy every other money and will just change the site's wording. Did online banking answer your questions? Probably not. BofA is not going to put anything specific in a letter to you. There is NOTHING specific in the Disclosure. You have to call for certain information or read their site. Once you understand something, they'll change it and tell you it never changed. I also bank a credit union and my Visa Check Card purchase never cause an OD. Unfortunately, I have to use BofA for select services, and they keep me on my toes when I can't possibly predict that they won't allow my EFT to bounce to my CC. Instead, they release funds for 1 second and make it available for check and then pay Visa transactions from non-sufficient funds. I wouldn't have figured this out if you didn't post here, and I went to compare your comments to that page on Online Banking. It changed in the last few days. It's typical really. Like you, I don't have time to play these games with BofA. One day, the "hold" is guaranteed to the merchant, and on the next day, the hold is released to your balance as available when the merchant captures their money? Come on. I have a merchant account, and when I capture funds, the money appears instantly in my account but the bank makes it available on the other side.... ? It wasn't like that a couple weeks ago.

It's unfortunate that you feel differently now that you got your money back when you felt betrayed earlier. You wanted to sue them. You felt wronged, and rightfully so. It will happen to you again, and next time, they will not refund fees. I also setup my account with BofA online, and that's copied from the "help" link under Online Banking. The Disclosure is also available online and it won't clarify anything but tell you that they can do whatever they please and not inform you. Do you know how many people read those page to understand BofA's system? BofA's disclosure is so broad with the word "may" in every sentence that it's meaningless. I'm pointing out the page because I have made adjustments for BofA and then they pull a change of policy. You sufferenced from that change of policy, and got lucky this time. However, the next time BofA makes changes, they will not be lenient. I live in Japan, and I do everything in my freaking power to prevent OD charges. They frequently make mistakes and they are only understanding the first time. BofA paid a check at midnight when check card purchases had been captured. I went negative 20 cents. I pay 2 NSF per purchase, one for the purchase and one for the Visa fee, so that's $70 each. If I was in America, I could stop the domino but I can't ever transfer to BofA fast enough and would prefer that they pay check card purchases first. BofA changed the Online Banking page to fit their needs and it changes often. Customers should have the right to refuse payment, and feel secure that Visa merchants are paid from captured funds. You will not find anything in the Diclosure that will tell you anything specific. Everything is "We may pay a check without funds and may overdraw your account if we chose to." I never bounced a check in my life or overdrew my account until recently. I'm livid because they change policy every other month. You'll see because it will happen again, and they will convince you that you misunderstood the purpose of a "hold". I only save the pages from BofA because they do this crap, and at some point, you will get the "so" response when you say that they told you something else last time.

It's unfortunate that you feel differently now that you got your money back when you felt betrayed earlier. You wanted to sue them. You felt wronged, and rightfully so. It will happen to you again, and next time, they will not refund fees. I also setup my account with BofA online, and that's copied from the "help" link under Online Banking. The Disclosure is also available online and it won't clarify anything but tell you that they can do whatever they please and not inform you. Do you know how many people read those page to understand BofA's system? BofA's disclosure is so broad with the word "may" in every sentence that it's meaningless. I'm pointing out the page because I have made adjustments for BofA and then they pull a change of policy. You sufferenced from that change of policy, and got lucky this time. However, the next time BofA makes changes, they will not be lenient. I live in Japan, and I do everything in my freaking power to prevent OD charges. They frequently make mistakes and they are only understanding the first time. BofA paid a check at midnight when check card purchases had been captured. I went negative 20 cents. I pay 2 NSF per purchase, one for the purchase and one for the Visa fee, so that's $70 each. If I was in America, I could stop the domino but I can't ever transfer to BofA fast enough and would prefer that they pay check card purchases first. BofA changed the Online Banking page to fit their needs and it changes often. Customers should have the right to refuse payment, and feel secure that Visa merchants are paid from captured funds. You will not find anything in the Diclosure that will tell you anything specific. Everything is "We may pay a check without funds and may overdraw your account if we chose to." I never bounced a check in my life or overdrew my account until recently. I'm livid because they change policy every other month. You'll see because it will happen again, and they will convince you that you misunderstood the purpose of a "hold". I only save the pages from BofA because they do this crap, and at some point, you will get the "so" response when you say that they told you something else last time.

It's unfortunate that you feel differently now that you got your money back when you felt betrayed earlier. You wanted to sue them. You felt wronged, and rightfully so. It will happen to you again, and next time, they will not refund fees. I also setup my account with BofA online, and that's copied from the "help" link under Online Banking. The Disclosure is also available online and it won't clarify anything but tell you that they can do whatever they please and not inform you. Do you know how many people read those page to understand BofA's system? BofA's disclosure is so broad with the word "may" in every sentence that it's meaningless. I'm pointing out the page because I have made adjustments for BofA and then they pull a change of policy. You sufferenced from that change of policy, and got lucky this time. However, the next time BofA makes changes, they will not be lenient. I live in Japan, and I do everything in my freaking power to prevent OD charges. They frequently make mistakes and they are only understanding the first time. BofA paid a check at midnight when check card purchases had been captured. I went negative 20 cents. I pay 2 NSF per purchase, one for the purchase and one for the Visa fee, so that's $70 each. If I was in America, I could stop the domino but I can't ever transfer to BofA fast enough and would prefer that they pay check card purchases first. BofA changed the Online Banking page to fit their needs and it changes often. Customers should have the right to refuse payment, and feel secure that Visa merchants are paid from captured funds. You will not find anything in the Diclosure that will tell you anything specific. Everything is "We may pay a check without funds and may overdraw your account if we chose to." I never bounced a check in my life or overdrew my account until recently. I'm livid because they change policy every other month. You'll see because it will happen again, and they will convince you that you misunderstood the purpose of a "hold". I only save the pages from BofA because they do this crap, and at some point, you will get the "so" response when you say that they told you something else last time.

It's unfortunate that you feel differently now that you got your money back when you felt betrayed earlier. You wanted to sue them. You felt wronged, and rightfully so. It will happen to you again, and next time, they will not refund fees. I also setup my account with BofA online, and that's copied from the "help" link under Online Banking. The Disclosure is also available online and it won't clarify anything but tell you that they can do whatever they please and not inform you. Do you know how many people read those page to understand BofA's system? BofA's disclosure is so broad with the word "may" in every sentence that it's meaningless. I'm pointing out the page because I have made adjustments for BofA and then they pull a change of policy. You sufferenced from that change of policy, and got lucky this time. However, the next time BofA makes changes, they will not be lenient. I live in Japan, and I do everything in my freaking power to prevent OD charges. They frequently make mistakes and they are only understanding the first time. BofA paid a check at midnight when check card purchases had been captured. I went negative 20 cents. I pay 2 NSF per purchase, one for the purchase and one for the Visa fee, so that's $70 each. If I was in America, I could stop the domino but I can't ever transfer to BofA fast enough and would prefer that they pay check card purchases first. BofA changed the Online Banking page to fit their needs and it changes often. Customers should have the right to refuse payment, and feel secure that Visa merchants are paid from captured funds. You will not find anything in the Diclosure that will tell you anything specific. Everything is "We may pay a check without funds and may overdraw your account if we chose to." I never bounced a check in my life or overdrew my account until recently. I'm livid because they change policy every other month. You'll see because it will happen again, and they will convince you that you misunderstood the purpose of a "hold". I only save the pages from BofA because they do this crap, and at some point, you will get the "so" response when you say that they told you something else last time.

Thanks for your input. I do not plan on becoming a part of this lawsuit. I opened my account online and none of this information was presented to me. I requested a copy at the bank of this policy that they could not find and I also requested that a copy be mailed to me and was told I would receive it in 3-5 business days, its been two weeks still no mail. My money has been refunded and I am now taking extra precautions to ensure this never happens again. I have shredded my checks and would rather pay for a money order than deal with the drama at BOA. I am also still looking for VISA's requirements for banks concerning completed transactions. I have spoken to other banks and been told that visa purchases are gauranteed and therefore that money should not be touched for 3 business days or until the merchant sends paperwork whichever comes first.

The suit you speak of was brought not because of the overdraft fees but because some bank called Nations Bank did not disclose its terms and conditions prior to assessment which is required by law when a customer opens an account. If I understand correctly Bank of America acquired that bank but the suit was paid with assets Nations Bank carried with it after the acquisition in 1998. I think the article said they made $40 million in NSFs alone (whew!). You will not win any small claims or class action lawsuits against any bank who does this because current banking laws allow for the practice. Even the article I read about the lawsuit says that. The only langauge a bank understands is $$$. If you don't like the terms of the banking agreement, don't sign the line to open the account. These were provided for you when you opened the account and are on the BOA website as we speak. No ripoff here. Try a local credit union instead of a big bank. They need your business and will deal more fairly with you as a consumer.

Unbelievable! The definition page for funds on "hold" and pending transactions at BofA's web site changed within the last few days. Why is that? What is the bank hiding? I have screenshot of both pages before and after the change. The wording has changed to fit the bank's needs to collect OD fees on funds that the customer couldn't access but only when the conditions benefit the bank and they can get away with it by lying to the Feds. Whenenver I access Online Banking, I screen capture the page, save a copy locally to my harddrive, and print a copy because I know the bank pulls a trick at midnight. It is harming consumers who view their Visa Check Cards like cash, and could previously rely on "holds" to mark spent money. This is complete abuse by the bank. I can't even imagine how devestating their actions can cause on other people's lives, like low income families and single parents. It's not right! As a Visa merchant, I am also outraged that the bank could wreck havoc on my customer's life when I think I've blocked funds from existing cash, and the cardholder believes I'm paid from existing cash to discover that I just caused a series of ODs when I captured their purchase. This is a complete abuse of control over other people's money. Someone has got to file a Class Action because I pretty sure even Federal Regs don't allow a bank to flip-flop on policy to cause NSF on accounts. On August 20th, BofA's web site said: ===================================== Transactions: Your transaction list contains your cleared and pending transactions up to the date you specify in the Go to drop down box. Cleared transactions are transactions that have been processed completely through the bank's system, and posted to your account. "Cleared" transactions are not always final, as there may be certain circumstances under banking laws and regulations when such transactions may be reversed. Pending transactions refer to credits, debits and holds that have not yet posted to your account. Only certain types of transactions will be temporarily displayed as pending transactions, and the time it takes for a transaction to be displayed as pending after it is initiated may vary. We may debit or place a hold on your account for a debit transaction either on the day it is presented to us for payment by electronic or other means, or on the day we receive notice of the transaction, whichever is earlier. When you use your PIN for an ATM or Check Card transaction, the transaction generally posts to your account on the same business day if completed prior to 4:00 p.m. local time. Check Card transactions made without a PIN may take several business days to post. If a merchant or another financial institution requests an authorization for a transaction you want to conduct (a pre-authorization request), we may place a hold on your account for the amount of that pre-authorization request. Some merchants may request pre-authorization of an amount either higher or lower than the actual transaction amount which ultimately posts to your account. While we place a hold on the pre-authorized amount, your account will only be debited for the actual transaction amount when the transaction is processed. While the hold remains on your account, the balance available for subsequent card authorizations is reduced by the amount of the hold. However, this hold will not affect the payment of other withdrawals such as checks, electronic funds transfers, or previously authorized card transactions that are posted to your account before the pre-authorized transaction is received. The hold will not prevent the pre-authorized transactions from overdrawing your account if sufficient funds are no longer available when the actual transaction is posted to your account. We are not responsible for damages or losses of any type, including wrongful dishonor, if any transaction is not authorized because of a hold. We will remove a hold from your account when the actual transaction amount is debited from your account or up to three business days after the pre-authorization request (one business day for certain types of transactions), whichever occurs sooner. = = = = = = = = = = = = = As of Sept 3, it says: = = = = = = = = = = = = = Your transaction list contains your cleared and pending transactions up to the date you specify in the Go to drop down box. Cleared or posted transactions are transactions that have been processed and posted to your account. Pending transactions include credits and debits that have not yet posted to your account. They may also include holds applied to certain transactions or to your balance. Pending transactions are listed in lowest to highest dollar amount order, and are not listed in the order that they post to your account. A transaction made with your ATM or Check Card using a PIN typically is processed and posted to your account on the same day that the transaction is made, or on the next business day. A transaction made with your Check Card but without your PIN, may take several business days to post to your account. When we approve a request to authorize your debit card transaction, we may reduce the available balance in your account by the amount listed in the request by the merchant. Your remaining balance must be sufficient to cover checks and other debits that post to your account, or you may incur charges such as overdraft or returned item fees. When the check card transaction posts to your account, or after 3 business days, we add this amount back to your available balance. The amount is not applied to any specific transaction or item. Some check card transactions may not show as pending transactions and may not affect your available balance until they post. In some cases the amount of the pending transaction may not match the actual amount of the transaction. This is because some merchants request us to authorize a nominal amount such as $1 or the amount that they estimate you will spend, which could be higher or lower than the actual amount of the transaction. When the transaction posts, your account is charged the amount of the transaction presented by the merchant. = = = = = = = = = = = = I copied the first example 2 weeks ago because I know it said something else in the past about funds on "hold" and declined transactions. Now, funds on "hold" are made available once the merchant processes the transaction. It's not right! It didn't say this a few days ago! They're intentionally causing ODs and they KNOW it. How can they do this? I've been sending questions about the "hold" on funds to the OCC, but they haven't replied yet. Knowing BofA plays these games, I also started doing screen captures of their web pages, like the page that tells you to toss your statements and use Online Banking to track your account activity as transactions occur, not when yourr statement arrives. I can show you guys the images too. They literally changed the text within the last few days to fit their needs to justify OD fees on funds on "hold". A consumer gets used to one system, and then BofA changes their "policies" while they act like it's never worked the way you have experienced for the last 5 years. This is proof of change and deception on the bank's part! I'm so angry right now! They can't keep hiding behind excuses in the Regs., as if it justifies deceit within the bank. We can post in any order and refuse to deny transactions because we help our customers to a nice heap of OD fees on "held" funds & over drafts when we change policy on the fly!

Hi, Thanks for your reply. I will check into the information you mentioned and class action lawsuit. I haven't heard of that particular class action but I am aware of one case for California customers where BofA was accused of releasing private information on customers to outside companies and vendors. The settlement offered by BofA and case are here: www.BankPrivacyCase.com I found this information while searching Visa's site, and Visa obviously has certain expectations on how banks handle check card purchases, as well as held funds: http://usa.visa.com/personal/cards/debit/visa_check_cards_faq.html#anchor_1 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - Important Visa check card facts * The amount of your purchase is deducted from your checking account automaticallyso be certain you have adequate funds at the time of purchase. * Car rental companies may require you to present a credit card in order to reserve a car but you may pay for the rental at its conclusion with your Visa check card. * To meet consumer demand for payment conveniences such as express/video checkout at hotels, pay-at-the-pump fueling, and one-swipe payment at restaurants, Visa has established processes to protect Visa check card issuers, merchants, and cardholders. Similar to how check deposits can't be immediately withdrawn, account deductions can't immediately be cleared when the final amount isn't knownthis typically applies to hotel, restaurant, and pay-at-the-pump gas station purchases. * For example, you may use your Visa check card at a restaurant and your card gets authorized before the tip is applied. For these types of purchases, Visa check card issuers may earmark cardholder funds to cover the estimated cost of the transaction. This process, known as a hold, safeguards both cardholders and merchants, ensuring cardholders don't spend more money than they have and merchants are paid for the transaction. While most transactions have a less than 24-hour hold, Visa protects cardholders by requiring issuers or financial institutions to remove all holds within 72 hours. * You could be charged two fees when you use your card to withdraw cash at an ATM that is not owned by your financial institutionone by your financial institution, and one by the ATM owner. * Some financial institutions charge transaction fees to customers who make Visa check card purchases or get cash back at supermarkets using a PIN. Ask your financial institution about such fees before using your Visa check card. * Many Visa check cards have daily cash withdrawal limits of up to $1,000, and daily spending limits may be even higher. These spending limits are meant to protect you in case your card is stolen. Your card may be declined if you make daily purchases that exceed your daily withdrawal limit, even if you know you have plenty of funds within your checking account. You can always ask the bank to lower or raise your purchase or withdrawal limits to suit your spending habits. - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - In a matter of one week, BofA has stolen over $1000 out of my account. I did not expect them to pay a new authorization and NSF on the 5 transactions since the funds were already reserved for the merchants and the account would not have been overdrawn if BofA declined the last merchant. Unfortunately, most of my transactions are international. As a result, BofA charges Visa's fee as a separate transaction. This means, I pay TWO NSF per purchase. Visa changed the Check Card rules in 2005, so international fees are now billed to banks by Visa, instead of the cardholder by Visa. Banks, like BofA, were treating Visa's 2% fee as a purchase that qualified for NSF, so Visa changed their handling of this fee. In addition to changing how the fee is handled, Visa dropped the 2% to 1% billed directly to each card issuer as a cost paid by the bank, not the cardholder. Now the bank is billed by Visa, and the bank can either eat the cost or recover it from the cardholder. It now works like any other "foreign" bank fee where the bank is charged and recovers that charge. BofA doesn't charge NSF on bank fees. Visa made this change because of abuse by banks. The banks were treating each transaction (purchase & Visa fee) as a purchase that qualified for NSF. Unfortunately, BofA will not acknowledge Visa's change and they still treat the fee, which includes 2% for BofA and 1% for the amount Visa billed to Bofa, as two purchases. It's so frustrating because even if funds are blocked, I can still incur NSF on the fee which is not blocked. I understand that now, and do everything within in my power to ensure an extra 5-10% is available for each purchase. BofA claims they don't charge NSF on bank fees, but apparently recovering costs with a 2% bank margin is not a bank fee in BofA's book. By bank fees, I am referring to fees that generate revenue for the bank or fees charged to BofA by other banks. BofA won't even admit that they are recovering a cost or charging 2% to the customer but it's stated on Visa's site!

I went to the credit info center for answers. I found out that there was recently a class action law suit where BOA agreed to pay $9 mil to customers for the way that they process items coming through their accounts. It was listed under the area that was talking about ChexSystems (another ripoff). I basically called and asked for supervisors and sent several emails threatening to turn them into the BBB. They promised to send me a disclosure statement explaining their practices which I still have not recieved. Even though I got a refund I am still trying to find other ways to stop BOA. I am in the process of trying to find out what VISA has to say about all of this. I worked for a bank and I know that they bank is obligated to freeze funds for any completed visa purchases for either 3 days or when the paperwork is recieved whichever comes first. Maybe if we can get more companies involved BOA wont have a choice but to quit ripping people off. There is also a link on the credit info site when you go the the link above the one for chexsystems that tells you how to claim your part of the refund from the lawsuit. Good Luck and from now on I will be sure to post any info that I find out.

Sharay, Congratulations on proving your case to BofA! Unfortunately, you didn't quote any specifics in the law or provide a link to this claim, "the website that regulates bank and I am correct like many other BOA customers, money held for Visa purchases is gauranteed to the merchant and therefore the bank can not release this money at their convenience in order to rack up NSF fees". I can't find the information either. I have checked the OCC, HelpwithMybank, and FTC without success. I've been searching for days and can't find this information. Can you provide a direct link to this information or at least, point me in the right direction with a web site name? As a BofA customer who has recently experienced the same issue, I am desperate to find this information. BofA used blocked funds to pay a larger debit card transaction while the money was not available in my account. The funds were blocked for 5 check card transactions and all 5 posted within 2 total days. They allowed a new authorization when funds were not available, and then posted the debits in order, so that the 5 transactions posted after the large one. They blocked this money to pay the 5 merchants, and then gave it to someone else. How is that possible? If funds are gauranteed to 5 merchants and BofA holds the money to ensure there are adequate funds for the 5 merchants, then why did they use the funds to pay a different merchant? It's not right. I am so paranoid about BofA that I print my account history every single time I access my account via Online Banking. Right there in black in white, I can see the funds on hold, the authorization for $150 enter "pending" while the blocked funds were on hold for 5 pending debits, and then all transactions post at once. On Monday, my balance was positive and I had 5 "pending" Visa Check Card purchases pending through Visa for purchases made on Sunday. A Visa Check Card hold typically remains for 3 business days, and normally, the merchant captures the funds before BofA releases the money into my account's available balance. In this case, all 5 merchants captured/settled the purchase within 1 business day (or 2 calendar dates). On Tuesday, BofA approved an authorization for $150. This brought my available balance negative $100 because I only had $50 available out of $140 total. The 5 check card purchases were still showing as "pending" in the amounts of $10, $20, $25, $30, and $5. Even if the funds were not on hold for the 5 authorizations, the $150.00 transaction still exceeded the $140 on deposits ($90 was blocked). BofA should have denied the merchant, as I do not want ODP or any "courtesy" from BofA. I have told them many times that my matrix should be set to ZERO, and BofA should never pay money that's not available. At midnight, BofA posted the $150.00 as well as the 5 purchases, which were guaranteed with funds blocked specifically for those Visa transactions. BofA then charged FIVE NSF because the first (largest) transaction wiped out funds completely and took the account negative $10.00. BofA claims they block Visa Check Card purchases for 3 days because they are required to pay any authorized amount, so the funds are blocked until the merchant settles the sale or 3 days pass. I can't withdraw or spend funds blocked for a Visa Check Card purchase, and I prefer it that way but for some reason, BofA allowed this merchant to debit my account and made a killing off 5 NSF. Had BofA denied the authorization for insufficient funds, the merchant would have simply defaulted to next funding source registered on that account. What's so hard to understand on BofA's side? They told me that I could opt-out of their courtesy loans, but then they ignore their own opt-out rules to cause a multitude of NSF. BofA has denied this same company in the past, but this time, they paid it with funds that were clearly blocked for the 5 Visa Check Card purchases. The hold never dropped from my account. I have told BofA numerous times to zero my account's "matrix" and never -- under any circumstance -- allow an overdraft if funds are not adequate and a company attempts to authorize the card. As per BofA's staff, BofA will not pay insufficient funds transactions once a customer's matrix is set to zero but I witnessed their system approve the authorization for $150 when the account had insufficient funds! What kind of company is BofA? I can't withdraw blocked funds from the bank, but the bank can apparently use it for whatever they choose to cause a domino of NSF, even when the funds are blocked for a specific purchase & merchant. It's not right.

You and Edward seem to have made a career of defending this bank. For YEARS! Don't you have anything else to do I mean God look how many people are having the same issue. This bank is corrupt!!!!!!!!!!! Volunteer in your community, take up a hobby, maybe a more interesting job..something. No one hears your programmed single-minded response anymore.

Good for you Sharay! All of your comments are exactly correct and this is proven by the fact that you received your refund. You can bet that if the bank was not at fault, there is no way in He*^ they would have given you your moneyy back, not at all! All of the other usual comments and generic responses by the other two are irrelevant! Each case is unique in it's own right. Glad to hear you got your rightfully deserved money back!

By the way after contacting Bank of America and providing them with the laws governing banks my money for NSF was refunded back to me. So apparently I had the right idea that money can not be taken from a check card purchase. And I did know about the check being electronically deposited which is why I did not turn it in until I knew that the money would be going into the bank. I was not charged NSF fees for the check it was for check card purchase for previous transactions where the money was not only available but was already being held for the purchases. What I did is no different from when someone mails a check to a company a couple of days before payday to make sure that they get it on time. If I had been charged NSF fee for the check I would not have been upset but I was charged for items that were already pending to be paid. Not to mention the fact that the check and direct deposit was all processed within minutes so I still had a balance of over $300.

For one no I did not spend money prior to me having it. Second the merchant places a hold on the money and they have three business days to present the paperwork for the transaction. Third the check that I wrote was for $126 and the second deposit was for $503 both of which were to post at midnight so it is not like I was writing checks that I had no intentions of honoring. Finally, I have looked on the website that regulates bank and I am correct like many other BOA customers, money held for Visa purchases is gauranteed to the merchant and therefore the bank can not release this money at their convenience in order to rack up NSF fees. So maybe you should find something better to do than harassing consumers who have already been targeted by companies.

When the bank receives the transaction from the merchant, the funds are released. They don't receive the transaction and hold it for three business days. That just doesn't make sense. If the bank doesn't receive the transaction within three business days, the hold is released. Restaurants and gas stations place a larger hold than the actual purchase on funds when a check card is used. Perhaps you didn't have as much available to draw on as you thought. Then you go and spend the funds from a direct deposit before it is available. You spent it before you had it. You made an assumption about how the bank would process your transactions that overdrew your account and were wrong. Pay the fees, there is nothing bogas about them. As for class action law suits. Good luck. Everyone wants to join one but nobody wants to initiate it.

First of all, you knowingly made transactions that your account did not have money to cover. That is living "on the float". Second, most checks are processed immediately with the new check21 law. That check is like cash to that electric company. You were counting on that next direct deposit on Monday to cover your float. It didn't happen. Checks and charges are posted before deposits and credits at MOST banks. This is common banking practice. There is no ripoff here. Just another person who never bothered to read that little paragraph called funds availability in your terms and agreement with your bank. Why are the first words always "class action" lawsuit? A class action is the absolute worst way to go. You usually end up with nothing or like 5 bucks, and the lawyers on both sides get rich.

First of all, you knowingly made transactions that your account did not have money to cover. That is living "on the float". Second, most checks are processed immediately with the new check21 law. That check is like cash to that electric company. You were counting on that next direct deposit on Monday to cover your float. It didn't happen. Checks and charges are posted before deposits and credits at MOST banks. This is common banking practice. There is no ripoff here. Just another person who never bothered to read that little paragraph called funds availability in your terms and agreement with your bank. Why are the first words always "class action" lawsuit? A class action is the absolute worst way to go. You usually end up with nothing or like 5 bucks, and the lawyers on both sides get rich.

First of all, you knowingly made transactions that your account did not have money to cover. That is living "on the float". Second, most checks are processed immediately with the new check21 law. That check is like cash to that electric company. You were counting on that next direct deposit on Monday to cover your float. It didn't happen. Checks and charges are posted before deposits and credits at MOST banks. This is common banking practice. There is no ripoff here. Just another person who never bothered to read that little paragraph called funds availability in your terms and agreement with your bank. Why are the first words always "class action" lawsuit? A class action is the absolute worst way to go. You usually end up with nothing or like 5 bucks, and the lawyers on both sides get rich.

First of all, you knowingly made transactions that your account did not have money to cover. That is living "on the float". Second, most checks are processed immediately with the new check21 law. That check is like cash to that electric company. You were counting on that next direct deposit on Monday to cover your float. It didn't happen. Checks and charges are posted before deposits and credits at MOST banks. This is common banking practice. There is no ripoff here. Just another person who never bothered to read that little paragraph called funds availability in your terms and agreement with your bank. Why are the first words always "class action" lawsuit? A class action is the absolute worst way to go. You usually end up with nothing or like 5 bucks, and the lawyers on both sides get rich.