Complaint Review: Bank Of America - Sacramento California

I actually have to agree with the original author - Although her pity party could be done without. I used to live in las vegas and would routinely cash my paycheck at one of the local casinos (1 - I didn't trust my employer, 2 - the casino gave spiffs for doing so) I would then, on that same day, make a bank deposit in CASH to bank of america. Paydays were on Wednesday. I made a CASH deposit of $1700 to BOA on wednesday after 2pm. Because I know that banking stops at 2 pm, I did not pay my bills out of that account until saturday. I did this by writing checks and mailing them. Yet they still bounced. I have documentable proof that showed that BoA did not mark my CASH deposit as valid for 6 days [the next wednesday]. In my lawsuit from 2005, this was proven, and BoA had to not only refund the fees that they charged me, but also had to refund the fees that some of my bills had charged too. BoA is a horrible bank, they are too huge to care about the little guy. What do you expect from a bank that charges $5 to cash a check that is drawn on ITSELF if you are not an account holder?

First off, I fail to see how it would have helped for the OP to keep her register any more up to date than it was. If a deposit shows as pending in my bank statement online (Wells Fargo) the funds are available for use and I can debit against them whether online or at the grocery store. Said debits also show as pending, by the way, but in no way incur penalties. My check register gets posted as well, but it is only going to show what my account shows online, when any deposit hits the statement. I certainly do not have to wait until it quits saying "pending" to write it into my check register or begin to draw against it. Now I am no defender of Wells Fargo by any means. They also cold-bloodedly refuse to rig my account so it won't go into overdraft. They actually lied when asked to do so and told me it isn't possible to fix it so it won't go into overdraft. I said this was a falsehood right to this c/s person's ear, because I have a new checking account recently opened with this same bank and it will refuse a transaction if the money isn't there in full. Somewhere along the line someone goes into the account history and then decides how much it can go overdraft. This is a cynical blood-thirsty ploy done in the hopes that this sucker will mess up with his accounting or receive an unexpected debit and spring for some overdraft fees. Bank of America is also cold and blood thirsty in that they have no scruples about doing business with invading felons, including those who engage in felony identity theft, so I wouldn't dream of giving them a cent of my money and hope to God that BoA will suffer huge losses over those loans to people who can't even produce a valid SSN. I tried calling other banks, including Compass and Washington Mutual, and neither would guarantee me that they would rig an account to not go negative. Somebody tell me there is one out there and I will gladly switch. Banks greedy? You bet. Blood thirsty and all that. If I want an advance against my direct deposit check they will be glad to oblige... at 120% per annum. They get around the usury laws by calling in the loan in one month, like they were pawn shops, so it appears to be 10% interest per annum. GRRR. But for now, (((competitor's name redacted)))isn't as badly mannered as BoA, so perhaps switch banks? sorry, allowing you to give a competitors name would instigate others to just file against their competition, to only come back later to suggest their company, ..plus, if you post a competitors name more than likely they will show up on search engines as a Rip-off! - - your comments on this policy are welcome. CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report. In this case we removed an alleged competitor's name

Take responsibility! Accept blame for your own shortcomings and ignorance! ---------------- See my post above about "responsibility." How come politically connected giant corporations like Halliburton or Bear Stearn don't have to take "responsibility." In case you missed the news....the average American taxpayer (suckers to the ruling elites) are bailing out Bear Stern to the tune of billions of dollars for their irresponsible lending practices (subprime mortgages).... You'd think the CEOs, corporate managers and the stockholders would be left holding the bag....but no...they go begging to the federal government just like any other politically connected corporation that donates to the Republicans and cross-dressing corporate Democrats. They are the REAL "welfare queens." Isn't it so much easier to distract attention away from this and dump on people like this original poster who is a victim of exploitive policies of the Bank of America???

I second the entry of the "Truth Detector". Were I to post to this link, he (she?) took the words right out of my mouth. . The political turn of some of the posts is ludicrous. More government control? Get serious, people. The Federal government is already trying (in futility) to assist people who choose not to do for themselves. Grow up! Take responsibility! Accept blame for your own shortcomings and ignorance! . I have sufficient Fed. in my life already!

During the last 28 years, 8 had a democratic president, and for 16+ years had a democratic majority in Congress, so you can't blame "right-wing" for everything. Anyway, it was during the 1990's that consumers went to Congress because the "banks" were "ripping them off", causing them to bounce their mortgage or rent/car payments, because the law mandated the posting order from smallest to biggest. So Congress changed the law to allow banks to set their own schedule; well, banks reversed their course. But what is happening now is the effect of electronic transactions. Banks have to guarantee the funds at the point of sale, in the middle of the day, while previously checks would come in through out a day (or usually overnight) and could then be batch processed before midnight. If the bank allows a transaction to go through during the day at a register, then rejects it at midnight, guess what - the person just committed theft, by the same method as writing a bad check, and that is a crime in most places. Electronic payments are not going away, and in fact are safer than checks (not including debit cards) when it comes to fraud, etc. especially since banks aren't checking signatures that much anymore. Anyone can get check paper at a store now, install free software, and create checks as soon as they have one from another account. And criminals know it, and know the game for the check approval process. One of my former company's clients had a check lost in the mail, six months later seven bad checks were presented at 5 different stores within 4 days, and then they stopped showing up - because the criminals know how long it takes for the checks to be stopped and the check approval systems to be notified. So for months I was assisting our client with dealing with collection agencies and the D.A. of two counties regarding those checks, when it wasn't even our client that did it. But it was their name on the checks, so that's all that mattered to the agencies and the D.A.s. Credit card payments have a lot more protection under the law for fradulent activity - because once someone cashes a check from your account, the money is gone until the bank completes an investigation and then decides to refund it. Even then, I've seen companies lose money to fraudulent checks and have the bank decide not to refund all of their money because of the lack of controls. TruthDetector is right about people needing to take responsibility for knowing when funds are available. I agree with that. But I don't agree with the feds bailing out Bear Stearns, but in reality all that happened there was the government guaranteeing the investments they held to prevent a full market collapse, which would have been devastating. Bear Stearns shares are being sold for $10 a share when they had been as high as $172 a share down to around $90 in February of this year: the feds aren't bailing out the investors in that company. And I don't believe that the feds should bail out the homeowners either. But doing nothing will collapse the economy, so I prefer a middle of the road scenario where the investors will be guaranteed their capital at a capped interest rate, but the homeowners will have to pay the loan for a longer period of time at a capped monthly payment amount, with restrictions on selling for a period of time. And of course this only applies to primary residences - no investment or multiple homes.

We reap we have sow....Americans have been voting in Right Wing politicians for 25+ years to "get the government off the backs of the people" and this is the end result...It was a bait & switch...It was really: get the government off the backs of big corporations so that they can do as they please. In your specific case, this is not a case of theft but of exploitation. The banks have changed the rules (specifically how they process deposits and the order that checks are processed) in order to maximize NSF and other fees. The banks are making a killing off of these new policies, and people like you suffer. In the end, it's refreshing to see posts like that of "Truth Detector" above because it reflects the actual callousness of conservatives who've tricked the poor and middle classes into voting for them with their bogus values platforms. You get to see these people for what they really are... Note to Truth Detector: ..Funny how conservatives only apply their "Personal responsibility" guilt trips to the common person...yet when big corporations like Bear Sterns get into trouble, all they have to do is go beg and cry to the federal government, and we the taxpayers, get to bail them out...This is nothing but corporate socialism...brought to us by American conservatives with their scam "free market" ideologies... Note to the original poster: Join a credit union instead...they tend to be better than banks....

What does that mean?, you ask: Here, I'll tell ya. I was with Bank of America for 3 years. In those 3 years, before I left and decided to go back, I had "No" overdrafts. I kept a close eye on my registers and made sure that every receipt I had for my check-card transactions or my check copies, were entered in my register. Bank of America is a great bank. I'm proud to be back with them and since I returned and got direct deposits to my account, I've never had a hold placed on those deposits, not once. This will show that Banks are not our baby-sitter or accountant. They are simply there to house our money for us. Some even with accounts that are interest bearing. Good day to you all!

First, let me say I haven't received an overdraft fee for years. I was sick and tired of giving my money away and decided to keep a very accurate check register. However, this is to look at things from an overdrafters point of view. As with this post, BOA recently changed their rules by assessing overdraft fees based on available balance. They saw people were still using the float and decided to capitalize on this. I agree with their reasoning to a degree (we shouldn't use money we don't have yet), but the way they went about it was wrong. The OP was used to the way the bank worked. The OP was handling things based on the previous bank rules, and although OP was using the float, OP was getting the money in before the transactions hard posted (I'm not saying OP was right, but that's another point). Anyway, the bank recently decided to change their rules to benefit from people who do what the OP does. That's fine. However, the way they went about it was not fine. From what I have been reading, they just sent out the new Terms and Conditions to account holders, most of which is not understandable. They could have sent everyone a letter stating "as of this date, overdraft fees will be assessed on available balance, as well as posted balance." That is in plain English. They could have posted signs throughout the bank that said the same thing, in plain English, using wording people could understand. They deliberately chose not to, just to rake in those fees. They took advantage of their account holders. That is the main reason people have been so upset about this new practice. Reminds me of something else the banks did a few years ago. Their funds availability signs used to read: Cash deposits made before 2:00 will be available next business day. Cash deposits made after 2:00 will be available in 2 business days. Now, they have changed their wording to: Cash deposits made before 2:00 will be posted same day. However, with the posting of debits B4 credits, that is very misleading. Why couldn't they just have left the signs as they were? That was really the true disclosure. They changed the wording, knowing people would not know about about the rule of debits before credits, so they could collect more fees. And, when someone either goes into the bank or calls, asking why they are getting so many fees, the banks do not explain anything clearly. Why? So the account holder still does not understand and gets assessed with more fees. Same thing with overdraft protection. How can so many people not realize they will still be assessed the overdraft fee? Probably because it was not worded in plainly. The banks are being very shady and not exactly up front with any explanations about their practices, just to incur more and more fees. Tomorrow, they will probably change another rule (which they are within their rights to do), but will again word it so it is not understandable.

The ONLY thing I agree with all the whinning, mathchallenged, non-register keeping is that the fees ARE too excesive. I used to work in the proof department of a major bank Key bank) and I queationed the fees even then. They told us that it was a deterant, and it cost money for them to reprcess the NSF.YES, it DOES cost the bank money to process them again be it check or debit card, but it certainly does NOT cost $35.00. I think $5.00 is more like the cost. The reason the banks ALL charge what the are is because they CAN. It is a cash cow and a big money maker for the bank. THE ONLY way to send a message to the bank is to never give thme a chance to take any fees from you. I use my debit card as a credit card when ever I can because every time I use my pin number as a debit card, I get charged a fee. ANd I only use the fee free ATM,s.

This bill has been killed in committe since it was first introduced a couple of years ago. It gets sent to the committee where it is left to die when Congress ends its session. This bill would do NOTHING about the fees that are assessed whatsoever. What this bill WOULD do is require that the consumer be NOTIFIED that a fee would be assessed if the charge/debit is processed at the merchant POS. This is "feel good" legislation that the sponsors submit so they can tell their consituents "look, see? I tried." FYI, once a bill is held in committe to the end of the Congressional session, it MUST BE RESUBMITTED in the NEXT session of Congress. This has happened once, but alas it gets sent to the committee where it sits with no action to die again. This is a common ploy that is used my both the HOUSE and the SENATE for proposed bills that they KNOW will never pass or that they have no intention of passing. By holding it in committee, NO MEMBER of Congress is required to go on record as voting for or against the bill.

It is titled HR 946. This bill was introduced many years ago - then re-introduced in February of 2007. However, even the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, acknowledges: 'I support the general concept of overdraft loans and fees banks have the right to make money for what can be a valuable service.' To date, the bill hasn't even been debated on the floor of the house - let alone given a vote. You BOA haters squawk about the customer not being able to instruct the bank to deny transactions when there is insufficient money to cover it. There is a simple answer that even the biggest moron can understand: THE BANK SETS THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ACCOUNT, NOT THE CUSTOMER If you do not like the terms and conditions you read BEFORE you sign in agreement, then FIND ANOTHER BANK. It is not for the bank to conform to your particular wishes. Last I checked, there are many banks and credit unions to choose from. However, you WILL have to abide by their terms and conditions, not vice versa. Look people...if you don't like the present banking regulations, avail yourselves to the democratic process and elect representatives who will do things your way. Last I checked we have a national election in November. Stop whining like babies that life isn't fair and get off your a***s and actually do something about it. In the meantime, shut up and take some responsibility for your poor choices.

Cory I totally agree with your posting. I find it intriguing that people would post in support of the bank on this. The truth is: 1. Bank of America implemented this on their own doing. If things are so fairly balanced, then why was this policy only just implemented. In other words, how does it help the consumer to assess an overdraft fee at the time of charge, rather than when the money is actually withdrawn??? 2. If Bank of America, "the almighty" is really "fair", then why do they not allow the consumer to instruct the bank to simply DECLINE the charge. Are these people saying that the technology does not exist to simply decline the charge? That is one of the things that is so insidious-- the gaul to say it is the consumer's fault when the bank has manipulated the accounting method to reflect that account as overdrawn when in fact it is not! 3. Why is the fee $35.00?! Why not $10,000 per overdraft? Why not limb amputation? Seriously? What is fair and what is utter ABUSE? At the very least, why not limit to $35 per day? or the lesser of $35 or the amount of the charge. $35.00 simply because you bought a doughut, NOW THAT IS ABUSIVE. Where is the government intervention when it is truly warranted? Where is the comptroller of the currency? Why is there no help for the average consumer? GOVERNMENT PLEASE HELP US!

Cory I totally agree with your posting. I find it intriguing that people would post in support of the bank on this. The truth is: 1. Bank of America implemented this on their own doing. If things are so fairly balanced, then why was this policy only just implemented. In other words, how does it help the consumer to assess an overdraft fee at the time of charge, rather than when the money is actually withdrawn??? 2. If Bank of America, "the almighty" is really "fair", then why do they not allow the consumer to instruct the bank to simply DECLINE the charge. Are these people saying that the technology does not exist to simply decline the charge? That is one of the things that is so insidious-- the gaul to say it is the consumer's fault when the bank has manipulated the accounting method to reflect that account as overdrawn when in fact it is not! 3. Why is the fee $35.00?! Why not $10,000 per overdraft? Why not limb amputation? Seriously? What is fair and what is utter ABUSE? At the very least, why not limit to $35 per day? or the lesser of $35 or the amount of the charge. $35.00 simply because you bought a doughut, NOW THAT IS ABUSIVE. Where is the government intervention when it is truly warranted? Where is the comptroller of the currency? Why is there no help for the average consumer? GOVERNMENT PLEASE HELP US!

The answer is that there is no hold on a Direct Deposit. By it's very nature, it has immediate availability. But... (there is always a but), when an employer submits a deposit file, it has an effective date attached to it. This will match the date on the pay stub. For instance, you may be handed your pay stub on Wednesday, or Thursday, but it dated for Friday. The bank gets the deposit file on Wednesday or Thursday and they 'warehouse' the actual transaction to hit the account on the effective date. Some smaller institutions do not do this, they just credit the accounts as the files come in. Generally the funds are fully available on th effective date, although in some institutions that could mean the night of the effective date. The depositor just needs to ask the question, if my pay stub is dated on Friday, are my funds available on Friday or Saturday? Then plan accordingly.

Even though your payday may be friday, and you have direct deposit, that does not automatically make your money available for use. For example, I get paid on Friday and have direct deposit, however, my direct deposit shows as pending all day Friday and actually posts Friday afternoon/evening, and Sat morning is added to my "available" balance. This is perfectly legal, and I have learned to live with it and accept it as I like my bank. THEREFORE, I do not spend that money until Saturday. Ver simple.

This is an excerpt from their site when you do a search on Direct Deposit: I will defend my Bank... Skip Flash Content We're redefining Free Checking. Learn More > Direct Deposit Never worry about depositing your paycheck or other recurring deposits again. Return to Account Services How it works With direct deposit, your recurring deposits are made electronically into your checking, savings or money market account. Qualifying deposits include salary, pension, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, or other regular monthly income. Why is direct deposit so great? It's free It's convenient - you get "same-day" access to your deposit *(that means when the funds are shown, even as pending, they are available immediately). Any transactions there-after are posted after the direct deposit. It saves time - you don't have to make a trip to the bank to deposit your check It's reliable - your money is deposited even if you're out of town It gives you peace of mind - you don't have to worry about lost or stolen checks It's flexible - you can have your deposits made to one or more of your accounts. Hope this helps

This is simple addition and subtraction. You spent more then you have. That's not the bank's fault.

Wow, what a bunch of comments. You can look at this post in two ways. The OP believed she had money in her account because she had funds, directly deposited into her account, on the 30th of April. She then used some of the money on the 1st of May. The problem with this is that the bank MAY have put some type of hold on the direct deposit OR show the direct deposit as a PENDING TRANSACTION. The OP states "BoA's new policy of charging overdrafts on pending transactions" kind of confirms this. The OP believed she had funds in the bank and acted on that belief. She states that this is a new BoA policy. I read somewhere where some banks USE TO put holds on US gov. direct deposits just to rack up fees, but after running into some gov. opposition they stopped doing so. I don't know what the rules and regulations are concerning direct deposits. I do know when one bank wires money to another, the issueing bank guarantees those funds and they are made available immediately. I don't know if that holds true for direct deposits. We need to hear from one of our bank authorities on this site. But spare me the crap about balancing her check book. As far as she knew, she had the funds in her account AND if she had called or gone online and checked her balance, both would have indicated the funds WERE in her account. The question here is: What and for how long is the hold on direct deposits? Until that question is answered, we won't be able to make a judgement about this post.

This is just another case of poor account management. No ripoff here. Learn how to PROPERLY maintain your account through the use of an ACCURATE checkbook register, and the NSF fees will be a thing of the past. Guaranteed. Don't depend on the bank to manage your account for you. YOU need to take this responsibility for yourself. It is NOT their job to make sure you don't overspend your account, it is YOUR JOB! BofA did not "steal" anything. They simply enforced the terms and conditions you signed for when you opened the account. But who reads that stuff, right? And I really hate to see the sympathy act by telling us you are a single Mom, living paycheck to paycheck, etc. Totally irrelevent here. Furthermore, making small purchases on a debit card like that $3.54 safeway purchase for the coffee and the bagel is totally stupid and just asking for trouble. Especially if you don't maintain and accurate checkbook register and compounded by living paycheck to paycheck keeping small balances. Apply some common sense here along with some 3rd grade math skills, and your problems will go away. Guaranteed.

This is just another case of poor account management. No ripoff here. Learn how to PROPERLY maintain your account through the use of an ACCURATE checkbook register, and the NSF fees will be a thing of the past. Guaranteed. Don't depend on the bank to manage your account for you. YOU need to take this responsibility for yourself. It is NOT their job to make sure you don't overspend your account, it is YOUR JOB! BofA did not "steal" anything. They simply enforced the terms and conditions you signed for when you opened the account. But who reads that stuff, right? And I really hate to see the sympathy act by telling us you are a single Mom, living paycheck to paycheck, etc. Totally irrelevent here. Furthermore, making small purchases on a debit card like that $3.54 safeway purchase for the coffee and the bagel is totally stupid and just asking for trouble. Especially if you don't maintain and accurate checkbook register and compounded by living paycheck to paycheck keeping small balances. Apply some common sense here along with some 3rd grade math skills, and your problems will go away. Guaranteed.

This is just another case of poor account management. No ripoff here. Learn how to PROPERLY maintain your account through the use of an ACCURATE checkbook register, and the NSF fees will be a thing of the past. Guaranteed. Don't depend on the bank to manage your account for you. YOU need to take this responsibility for yourself. It is NOT their job to make sure you don't overspend your account, it is YOUR JOB! BofA did not "steal" anything. They simply enforced the terms and conditions you signed for when you opened the account. But who reads that stuff, right? And I really hate to see the sympathy act by telling us you are a single Mom, living paycheck to paycheck, etc. Totally irrelevent here. Furthermore, making small purchases on a debit card like that $3.54 safeway purchase for the coffee and the bagel is totally stupid and just asking for trouble. Especially if you don't maintain and accurate checkbook register and compounded by living paycheck to paycheck keeping small balances. Apply some common sense here along with some 3rd grade math skills, and your problems will go away. Guaranteed.

This is just another case of poor account management. No ripoff here. Learn how to PROPERLY maintain your account through the use of an ACCURATE checkbook register, and the NSF fees will be a thing of the past. Guaranteed. Don't depend on the bank to manage your account for you. YOU need to take this responsibility for yourself. It is NOT their job to make sure you don't overspend your account, it is YOUR JOB! BofA did not "steal" anything. They simply enforced the terms and conditions you signed for when you opened the account. But who reads that stuff, right? And I really hate to see the sympathy act by telling us you are a single Mom, living paycheck to paycheck, etc. Totally irrelevent here. Furthermore, making small purchases on a debit card like that $3.54 safeway purchase for the coffee and the bagel is totally stupid and just asking for trouble. Especially if you don't maintain and accurate checkbook register and compounded by living paycheck to paycheck keeping small balances. Apply some common sense here along with some 3rd grade math skills, and your problems will go away. Guaranteed.

The BusinessWeek Article- A CREDIT CARD YOU WANT TO TOSS in the comments section! (you can Google that article! It's about Bank of America!!) MILLIONS read these articles everyday!! There are all sorts of compalints about BofA!! DO IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First and foremost, you being a single mom is completely irrelevant. Contrary to what you and NOW may think, there are no separate rules for men, married couples, and single mothers. You are subject to the same terms and conditions as the rest of us...period. About those terms and conditions...you know, the ones you signed when you voluntarily opened the account? Those terms and conditions state the manner by which the bank orders and posts credits and debits to your account. You asked the questions: 'How come I was able to withdraw $40 from the ATM if there were no funds available? How was I able to get gas if there were no funds available? How was I able to get my morning coffee and bagel if there were no funds available? By the way, I was charged a $35 overdraft fee on a $3.54 purchase at Safeway.' The more salient question to be asked is: Why did you initiate transactions when you did not have money available to cover them? Before you reply with some sort of feminist bravado whining 'how dare you!', 'you don't know me or my situation', blah blah...let me fill you in on a little secret. I like people like you...you know, the ones who pay the bank overdraft fees so EVERYTHING I have with the bank is FREE. Those of us who actually manage our accounts in a responsible fashion life the high life because of irresponsible folks like yourself, so by all means keep it up! Oh, and I don't need to know your situation. It is irrelevant in any situation where someone overdrafts their account, then tries to blame the bank for their poor choices.

First and foremost, you being a single mom is completely irrelevant. Contrary to what you and NOW may think, there are no separate rules for men, married couples, and single mothers. You are subject to the same terms and conditions as the rest of us...period. About those terms and conditions...you know, the ones you signed when you voluntarily opened the account? Those terms and conditions state the manner by which the bank orders and posts credits and debits to your account. You asked the questions: 'How come I was able to withdraw $40 from the ATM if there were no funds available? How was I able to get gas if there were no funds available? How was I able to get my morning coffee and bagel if there were no funds available? By the way, I was charged a $35 overdraft fee on a $3.54 purchase at Safeway.' The more salient question to be asked is: Why did you initiate transactions when you did not have money available to cover them? Before you reply with some sort of feminist bravado whining 'how dare you!', 'you don't know me or my situation', blah blah...let me fill you in on a little secret. I like people like you...you know, the ones who pay the bank overdraft fees so EVERYTHING I have with the bank is FREE. Those of us who actually manage our accounts in a responsible fashion life the high life because of irresponsible folks like yourself, so by all means keep it up! Oh, and I don't need to know your situation. It is irrelevant in any situation where someone overdrafts their account, then tries to blame the bank for their poor choices.

If you would have balanced your check book using your check register you would have know how much money you have to use. B of A did not take food out of the mouth of your child, you did. You claim you are a poor single mom trying to put a roof over your head. If you are soo poor why are your going out and buying coffee and bagles. I bet you have a nice TV and DVD player. I bet you have a cell phone. I bet you have a nice car with big payments. If you would get ride of all of that stuff you would have money to buy food for your child.