Jim
Anaheim,#2Consumer Comment
Wed, December 19, 2007
It's obvious the overdraft was setup, or the bank would have rejected a check and you would have bounced a check or two. No one likes bounced checks because they have a way of ruining an account holder's credit. In other words, it would have been your credit damaged when the check bounced. If given an option between ruined credit and overdraft, account holders choose overdraft. What can happen if your credit is ruined? Only the following: 1. Inability to obtain a decent job since employers check credit of prospective employees now. 2. Inability to find a decent place to live 3. Inability to finance a car with a reasonable interest rate 4. Inability to obtain credit at a reasonable interest rate It is better to have overdraft than ruined credit. Now, can they transfer from savings to checking? Probably, but it depends largely on the account setup again. I say probably because the bank always pitches the idea that you can insure your checking account won't overdraft for any extended period without a transfer from savings to checking (and vice-versa). Most banks out there (not just this one) link the two accounts. So if you're asking if the bank can transfer the money without your consent - the answer is it depends on the account setup when the account was created. If they are linked, - the answer is absolutely YES, they can and they transfer without coming to you each time asking for permission. It doesn't sound from your ROR that you questioned the overdraft in your checking account - I suspect you knew you were overdrafted. The one good thing in doing the transfer is that the bank would continually pile on daily NSF fees to your account at a rate of $35/day. If the bank had not performed the transfer when they did, you would not have any of the $225 in your savings. As it is, the bank actually performed a service that benefitted you (I'm always amazed when banks do something that benefits a customer and not themselves) at their expense. The bank saved you $100+, which doesn't save anything, but it at least puts some food on the table. Best of luck to you.
Jim
Anaheim,#3Consumer Comment
Wed, December 19, 2007
It's obvious the overdraft was setup, or the bank would have rejected a check and you would have bounced a check or two. No one likes bounced checks because they have a way of ruining an account holder's credit. In other words, it would have been your credit damaged when the check bounced. If given an option between ruined credit and overdraft, account holders choose overdraft. What can happen if your credit is ruined? Only the following: 1. Inability to obtain a decent job since employers check credit of prospective employees now. 2. Inability to find a decent place to live 3. Inability to finance a car with a reasonable interest rate 4. Inability to obtain credit at a reasonable interest rate It is better to have overdraft than ruined credit. Now, can they transfer from savings to checking? Probably, but it depends largely on the account setup again. I say probably because the bank always pitches the idea that you can insure your checking account won't overdraft for any extended period without a transfer from savings to checking (and vice-versa). Most banks out there (not just this one) link the two accounts. So if you're asking if the bank can transfer the money without your consent - the answer is it depends on the account setup when the account was created. If they are linked, - the answer is absolutely YES, they can and they transfer without coming to you each time asking for permission. It doesn't sound from your ROR that you questioned the overdraft in your checking account - I suspect you knew you were overdrafted. The one good thing in doing the transfer is that the bank would continually pile on daily NSF fees to your account at a rate of $35/day. If the bank had not performed the transfer when they did, you would not have any of the $225 in your savings. As it is, the bank actually performed a service that benefitted you (I'm always amazed when banks do something that benefits a customer and not themselves) at their expense. The bank saved you $100+, which doesn't save anything, but it at least puts some food on the table. Best of luck to you.
Jim
Anaheim,#4Consumer Comment
Wed, December 19, 2007
It's obvious the overdraft was setup, or the bank would have rejected a check and you would have bounced a check or two. No one likes bounced checks because they have a way of ruining an account holder's credit. In other words, it would have been your credit damaged when the check bounced. If given an option between ruined credit and overdraft, account holders choose overdraft. What can happen if your credit is ruined? Only the following: 1. Inability to obtain a decent job since employers check credit of prospective employees now. 2. Inability to find a decent place to live 3. Inability to finance a car with a reasonable interest rate 4. Inability to obtain credit at a reasonable interest rate It is better to have overdraft than ruined credit. Now, can they transfer from savings to checking? Probably, but it depends largely on the account setup again. I say probably because the bank always pitches the idea that you can insure your checking account won't overdraft for any extended period without a transfer from savings to checking (and vice-versa). Most banks out there (not just this one) link the two accounts. So if you're asking if the bank can transfer the money without your consent - the answer is it depends on the account setup when the account was created. If they are linked, - the answer is absolutely YES, they can and they transfer without coming to you each time asking for permission. It doesn't sound from your ROR that you questioned the overdraft in your checking account - I suspect you knew you were overdrafted. The one good thing in doing the transfer is that the bank would continually pile on daily NSF fees to your account at a rate of $35/day. If the bank had not performed the transfer when they did, you would not have any of the $225 in your savings. As it is, the bank actually performed a service that benefitted you (I'm always amazed when banks do something that benefits a customer and not themselves) at their expense. The bank saved you $100+, which doesn't save anything, but it at least puts some food on the table. Best of luck to you.
Jim
Anaheim,#5Consumer Comment
Wed, December 19, 2007
It's obvious the overdraft was setup, or the bank would have rejected a check and you would have bounced a check or two. No one likes bounced checks because they have a way of ruining an account holder's credit. In other words, it would have been your credit damaged when the check bounced. If given an option between ruined credit and overdraft, account holders choose overdraft. What can happen if your credit is ruined? Only the following: 1. Inability to obtain a decent job since employers check credit of prospective employees now. 2. Inability to find a decent place to live 3. Inability to finance a car with a reasonable interest rate 4. Inability to obtain credit at a reasonable interest rate It is better to have overdraft than ruined credit. Now, can they transfer from savings to checking? Probably, but it depends largely on the account setup again. I say probably because the bank always pitches the idea that you can insure your checking account won't overdraft for any extended period without a transfer from savings to checking (and vice-versa). Most banks out there (not just this one) link the two accounts. So if you're asking if the bank can transfer the money without your consent - the answer is it depends on the account setup when the account was created. If they are linked, - the answer is absolutely YES, they can and they transfer without coming to you each time asking for permission. It doesn't sound from your ROR that you questioned the overdraft in your checking account - I suspect you knew you were overdrafted. The one good thing in doing the transfer is that the bank would continually pile on daily NSF fees to your account at a rate of $35/day. If the bank had not performed the transfer when they did, you would not have any of the $225 in your savings. As it is, the bank actually performed a service that benefitted you (I'm always amazed when banks do something that benefits a customer and not themselves) at their expense. The bank saved you $100+, which doesn't save anything, but it at least puts some food on the table. Best of luck to you.
Billcoll01
MESA,#6Consumer Comment
Tue, December 18, 2007
JUST TAKE THE MONEY THAT YOU WERE GOING TO USE TO REPLACE THE MONEY THAT YOU SPENT THAT YOU DIDNT HAVE IN THE ACCT IN THE 1ST PLACE & PUT IT IN YOUR SAVINGS TO REPLACE WHAT THEY MOVED. UNLESS YOU,WERE PLANNING TO NOT REPLACE THE MONEY THAT YOU SPENT THAT WAS NOT IN YOUR ACCT. IN THAT CASE, THEY ONLY REVERSED A RIPOFF THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO TO THEM. I DONT SEE THE PROBLEM, THE MANAGER OFFERED TO TO REFUND THE FEE. ITS NOT A RIPOFF IF YOU WERE PLANNING TO RIP THEM OFF 1ST SHAME ON YOU, YOUR CHILD WOULD PROLLY RATHER HAVE PRESENTS OBTAINED HONESTLY. BUT IM SURE STEVE & BART WILL COME ON HERE & CHALLENGE MY HONESTY BECAUSE I USED TO BE A DEBT COLLECTOR & THEY THINK ALL COLLECTORS ARE AS SCUMMY AS THEM. IM SURE TRUTH DETECTOR, OR WELFARE GUY , AS I LIKE TO CALL HIM WONT BE FAR BEHIND