Complaint Review: Bank Of America - Waldorf Maryland

Thanks for the acknowledgement. Not that I'm just waiting to be proven right all of the time. That's not important. What's important is getting the correct advice to the complainant. Which you have done to prevent FUTURE occurrences. But at the same time, what's even MORE IMPORTANT is not RIDICULING the complainant into thinking that they are IDIOTS and they WOULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE known this ALL ALONG had they read their Depositor Agreement, Terms and Conditions or whatever you want to call them. Many insist that EVERY SINGLE complaint about OD fees is ALWAYS the customer's fault. I have been saying for a long time that these GENERIC and MEANINGLESS statements don't hold water in A LOT of cases. But some contributors seem to get a kick out of it and it seems to be a ROBOTIC defense for every single complaint. Now you have CONFIRMED and ADMITTED exactly what I have said many times before. Now I'll return the favor and also do what I've done before - Give credit where it's due for your honesty and being a stand up person who admits the THE TRUTH no matter what. Even though we might still disgree in the future. I view each OP as unique.

Sure, the depositor's agreement doesn't state that ATM deposits are less common than teller deposits. I'm simply telling the customer, because I thought it would be helpful. The truth is, save for US treasury, BofA, and Fed Reserve checks, ALL deposits are subject to holds, period. Just because it didn't happen in the past, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. I'm simply trying to HELP. I just wanted to let the customer know that it wasn't illegal, and it wasn't an error, and sometimes what seems to be inconsitencies do happen, and wanted to give some advice as to how to avoid deposit holds. They are frustrating, they happen at all institutions (even the credit union I hold one account with). And by saying that ATM deposit holds are less common than teller deposit holds, I'm in no way contradicting the depositor's agreement. Since the agreement does state ALL deposits are subject to holds (except for cash, US treasury, Fed Reserve, and BofA checks).[that part is just for the guy who is pinning the depositor's agreement on me] I just thought I'd let you guys know what the current trend for deposit holds was, as it could be helpful. How the bank decides to apply the deposit hold guidelines is up to them, but a little inside knowlege can go a long way.

Sure, the depositor's agreement doesn't state that ATM deposits are less common than teller deposits. I'm simply telling the customer, because I thought it would be helpful. The truth is, save for US treasury, BofA, and Fed Reserve checks, ALL deposits are subject to holds, period. Just because it didn't happen in the past, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. I'm simply trying to HELP. I just wanted to let the customer know that it wasn't illegal, and it wasn't an error, and sometimes what seems to be inconsitencies do happen, and wanted to give some advice as to how to avoid deposit holds. They are frustrating, they happen at all institutions (even the credit union I hold one account with). And by saying that ATM deposit holds are less common than teller deposit holds, I'm in no way contradicting the depositor's agreement. Since the agreement does state ALL deposits are subject to holds (except for cash, US treasury, Fed Reserve, and BofA checks).[that part is just for the guy who is pinning the depositor's agreement on me] I just thought I'd let you guys know what the current trend for deposit holds was, as it could be helpful. How the bank decides to apply the deposit hold guidelines is up to them, but a little inside knowlege can go a long way.

Sure, the depositor's agreement doesn't state that ATM deposits are less common than teller deposits. I'm simply telling the customer, because I thought it would be helpful. The truth is, save for US treasury, BofA, and Fed Reserve checks, ALL deposits are subject to holds, period. Just because it didn't happen in the past, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. I'm simply trying to HELP. I just wanted to let the customer know that it wasn't illegal, and it wasn't an error, and sometimes what seems to be inconsitencies do happen, and wanted to give some advice as to how to avoid deposit holds. They are frustrating, they happen at all institutions (even the credit union I hold one account with). And by saying that ATM deposit holds are less common than teller deposit holds, I'm in no way contradicting the depositor's agreement. Since the agreement does state ALL deposits are subject to holds (except for cash, US treasury, Fed Reserve, and BofA checks).[that part is just for the guy who is pinning the depositor's agreement on me] I just thought I'd let you guys know what the current trend for deposit holds was, as it could be helpful. How the bank decides to apply the deposit hold guidelines is up to them, but a little inside knowlege can go a long way.

Sure, the depositor's agreement doesn't state that ATM deposits are less common than teller deposits. I'm simply telling the customer, because I thought it would be helpful. The truth is, save for US treasury, BofA, and Fed Reserve checks, ALL deposits are subject to holds, period. Just because it didn't happen in the past, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. I'm simply trying to HELP. I just wanted to let the customer know that it wasn't illegal, and it wasn't an error, and sometimes what seems to be inconsitencies do happen, and wanted to give some advice as to how to avoid deposit holds. They are frustrating, they happen at all institutions (even the credit union I hold one account with). And by saying that ATM deposit holds are less common than teller deposit holds, I'm in no way contradicting the depositor's agreement. Since the agreement does state ALL deposits are subject to holds (except for cash, US treasury, Fed Reserve, and BofA checks).[that part is just for the guy who is pinning the depositor's agreement on me] I just thought I'd let you guys know what the current trend for deposit holds was, as it could be helpful. How the bank decides to apply the deposit hold guidelines is up to them, but a little inside knowlege can go a long way.

'Not to continue this longer than necessary'...I thought the whole point of all this is to clear up things for everyone's knowledge and benefit? If you're truly here to help us poor little customers who can't manage our finances, right? Now getting to the Depositor Agreement. Who can say that after reading the ACTUAL wording from this Agreement that it was clear to you your ATM deposits would ALMOST NEVER get held but your TELLER deposits would ALMOST ALWAYS get held? Raise your hands if this is what you read in the agreement. But after receiving OD fees because of a HELD deposit with a teller and then complaining that this never happened before with ATM, customers are told to 'quit whining, you should have read your Depositor Agreement that you signed and agreed to'. Really? Where does it plainly state this in the Agreement that I signed and agreed to? Guess what! It doesn't plainly state it. You want proof? Directly from the EMPLOYEE, Iamawesome, who goes on to say - 'I will have to agree though, that ATM deposits are generally a safer bet for depositing'. Uh, Ya Think? But just how did you reach this conclusion Imawesome? Because IT DID NOT PLAINLY say this in the Depositor Agreement. But yet complaining customers are told this, HYPOCRITICALLY, every single day! Translation - 'Not to continue this longer than necessary' because I'm afraid I'm going to put my foot in my mouth, and expose all of the PAST comments of myself and other bank supporters and the BANK itself for the HYPOCRITICAL FRAUDS they are!

Not to continue this longer than necessary but here is a copy of the information contained in your depositor's agreement. Longer Delays May Apply In some cases we will not make all of the funds that you deposit by check available to you by the first business day after the day of your deposit. Depending on the type of check that you deposit, funds may not be available until the sixth business day after the day of your deposit. The first $100 of your deposits, however, will be available no later than the first business day. If we are not going to make all of the funds from your deposit available by the first business day after the day of your deposit, we generally notify you at the time you make your deposit. We also tell you when the funds will be available. If your deposit is not made directly to one of our employees, or if we decide to take this action after you have left the premises, we mail you the notice by the next business day after we receive your deposit. If you need the funds from a deposit right away, you should ask us when the funds will be available. ======= (END) And Bank of America does place holds on ATM deposited items, it's just more rare than teller deposits. ATM deposit hold notices are mailed within one business day, and like I said, all fees incurred as a result of these Uncollected funds are refunded (as stated in the notice mailed with the advice of hold). And, in the end, deposits are handled, at one point or another, by humans. It's unfortunate but humans can make misguided decisions. ATM deposit processing workers are generally trained to look for different kinds of flags than tellers. I will have to agree though, that ATM deposits are generally a safer bet for depositing. There are a lot of variables that affect a banking center's decision to hold a check.

This is what's frustrating about many of these OP's with LEGITIMATE yet SIMPLE questions like this OP. How so many posts, comments and rebuttals go on informational tyrades that mean absolutely nothing in relation to THE ISSUE. But, you finally answered the question which is 'How can a deposit made at an atm NOT be held, but that SAME deposit made with a teller WILL BE held'. And your answer makes PERFECT sense - 'Bank of America only places holds on items deposited through an ATM when we absolutely have to, it is a major pain for us (and the customer) to find out that the funds they deposited are on hold and they weren't notified'. Now. I ask WHERE in the Terms and Conditions does it state what you have just revealed? How was Michael, myself, or any other customer supposed to know this by READING the Terms and Conditions? This is what KILLS me from so many of the comments and rebuttals from those who give this generic, copout answer for EVERYTHING, even when it's IRRELEVANT! The KEY - The customer wasn't NOTIFIED about the hold by the ATM, therefore it's not fair to place a hold on the deposit. TOTALLY logical, and now this explains why Michael and myself NEVER had atm deposits held. In the future, this information CAN and WILL be held against you in the court of the ROR.

I don't really think I gave a clear answer as to why the funds are available via ATM and not through a teller: -Bank of America only places holds on items deposited through an ATM when we absolutely have to, it is a major pain for us (and the customer) to find out that the funds they deposited are on hold and they weren't notified. Also to take care of a refund the customer must make an additional call to dreaded customer service once the check has cleared. -- Hold policies within a banking center are more centered around some other key things: That banking center's management's policies How much loss that banking center can expose itself too Teller discretion Returned checks from the same acct number The area of the banking center Your history with the banking center Your account balance at the time Perhaps that banking center has not (or not recently) processed a check from that acct number. Another thing on holds: A bank employee can't legally tell you, "oh, we're placing a hold on this check because this company bounces checks ALL the time" and companies do. So that employee is stuck regurgitating the hold policy printed in your depositor's agreement (WHICH EVERYONE SHOULD READ THAT HAS A BANK ACCOUNT) It's absolutely ludicrous to think a payroll check can't come back NSF, it takes little more to open a business/payroll account than it does to open a personal account. Even one bounced check from a sizeable firm can be a flag for a bank to proceed with caution when depositing checks from this company. Due to feedback from customers (those stupid surveys really do make a difference) and from associates dealing with PO'd customers the bank has made an effort to reduce the amount of holds it places, and did so between 20-30 percent. And you know what kind of customers associates have to deal with now? People mad that the bank let them spend the money before the check was cleared (the whole point of a hold is to prevent this). I guarantee it won't be long before there's a report on just this issue. It's impossible to win, and everyone who posts a report has a valid point, unfortunately banks aren't tailored to each person's convenience, their policies are based on customers as a whole.

As to your response about ATM deposits, funds deposited through the ATM are also placed on hold. Customers are mailed a notice within one business day (per another government mandate) and the available balance is decreased the amount of the hold. However, if the customer gets any NSF charges, UCF returned checks, or overdraft fees they are refunded once that hold is released. We refund ATM deposit hold charges because we had no way to notify the customer at the time the deposit was made that the funds wouldn't be available.

((ROR REDACTED))) - not sure if this direct link will work, but there some good answers on deposits in general and how holds work. 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.

Do my eyes deceive me? An actual BofA EMPLOYEE responding? Please tell me I'm not dreaming! To the employee Iamawesome, thanks for your post and information. You don't owe ME any explantion at all, as I'm not the OP complainant, and you did answer the OP's question about whether this is legal. However, I find it odd that you conveniently dodged one other important question. Even though this is legal, why are the holds are ONLY done when making deposits with a teller? But if you make the same deposit via ATM, all of the funds are fully available? As I mentioned in my example above, this was ALWAYS the case for me while I had an account with BofA. And apparently according to the OP, it's still done this way today? What's the difference between these two depositing methods?

Do my eyes deceive me? An actual BofA EMPLOYEE responding? Please tell me I'm not dreaming! To the employee Iamawesome, thanks for your post and information. You don't owe ME any explantion at all, as I'm not the OP complainant, and you did answer the OP's question about whether this is legal. However, I find it odd that you conveniently dodged one other important question. Even though this is legal, why are the holds are ONLY done when making deposits with a teller? But if you make the same deposit via ATM, all of the funds are fully available? As I mentioned in my example above, this was ALWAYS the case for me while I had an account with BofA. And apparently according to the OP, it's still done this way today? What's the difference between these two depositing methods?

Do my eyes deceive me? An actual BofA EMPLOYEE responding? Please tell me I'm not dreaming! To the employee Iamawesome, thanks for your post and information. You don't owe ME any explantion at all, as I'm not the OP complainant, and you did answer the OP's question about whether this is legal. However, I find it odd that you conveniently dodged one other important question. Even though this is legal, why are the holds are ONLY done when making deposits with a teller? But if you make the same deposit via ATM, all of the funds are fully available? As I mentioned in my example above, this was ALWAYS the case for me while I had an account with BofA. And apparently according to the OP, it's still done this way today? What's the difference between these two depositing methods?

Do my eyes deceive me? An actual BofA EMPLOYEE responding? Please tell me I'm not dreaming! To the employee Iamawesome, thanks for your post and information. You don't owe ME any explantion at all, as I'm not the OP complainant, and you did answer the OP's question about whether this is legal. However, I find it odd that you conveniently dodged one other important question. Even though this is legal, why are the holds are ONLY done when making deposits with a teller? But if you make the same deposit via ATM, all of the funds are fully available? As I mentioned in my example above, this was ALWAYS the case for me while I had an account with BofA. And apparently according to the OP, it's still done this way today? What's the difference between these two depositing methods?

As employee for the bank in question, I don't necessary support all the bank's policies but deposit holds are a necessary part of the procedure at any financial institution. The bank makes 100 dollars available to you initially as a courtesy, and since it was a local check (a non-local will take about 5 business days) they've delayed the funds for 2 business days to allow time to pass in the event the check comes back unpaid. Not only is this practice legal, the time that checks hold banks is mandated by the government. ANY item you deposit is subject to holds, this includes: payroll checks, cashier's checks (yes cashier's checks), postal service money orders, personal checks, access checks from credit cards, loan checks, insurance checks, and so on. It's simply a way for the bank to cover itself (and you) if the check comes back unpaid. The only items which aren't subject to holds are electronic items (ACH credits, wire transfer credits), cash, and checks drawn on BofA (or your institution). Payroll checks do come back unpaid, they are no more guaranteed than personal checks. Banks place money orders and cashier's checks on hold because often times they're fraudulent. In this day and age of electronic check clearing, it seems ridiculous to hold a check for five business days, but remember that banks do not notify other banks that a check has cleared, only if it is returned. Banks must place holds to allow an acceptable amount of time to pass to be fairly sure that the check will not be returned unpaid. BofA's policy is if you make a deposit and your check is placed on hold: You can call customer service, and a rep can release the deposit hold IF and only IF you've had an account for one year, and you have a balance of at least 1000 dollars at the time of the deposit. But yes, it is legal to place a payroll check on hold.

Michael, While I was with Bandits of America, this exact same thing happened to me as well. Week after week I would deposit payroll and personal checks via atm. As long as it was done before the cutoff, the deposits ALWAYS posted the same day and the funds were fully available the next day. No exceptions. But one day, I went into a BofA branch and proceeded to deposit a check and the teller told me that the deposit would be held. I told the teller that I've been depositing these checks for months via atm and they have never been held. The teller's response didn't change, so I told her to give me the check back and I would deposit it at the atm A FEW FEET AWAY. After depositing the check via atm and of course the funds becoming fully available the next day, I returned back to the same branch and teller to show her the receipt and funds availability to see how she could explain why the funds would have been held if she made the deposit for me. No explanation and she probably could have cared less, and she probably already knew what I told her the previous day was true. She just didn't give a flip. The lesson I learned is different tellers do things differently and this always works against the customer. First of all, I believe the teller has the ability to OVERRIDE the hold, if they choose to, but they're not obligated to. But secondly and MORE IMPORTANTLY, once they enter all of the deposit information and the system displays a FLASHING message about a hold, they are SUPPOSED to inform you about the hold notification BEFORE they complete the deposit. This gives you the option of going a different route. This is what the teller did in my situation and it allowed me to do things differently. In your wife's case, what the Bandits will claim is they did inform her about the hold, even though they probably didn't. But they will use the receipt to say yes they did. This is the ripoff here - the poor customer service.

Michael, While I was with Bandits of America, this exact same thing happened to me as well. Week after week I would deposit payroll and personal checks via atm. As long as it was done before the cutoff, the deposits ALWAYS posted the same day and the funds were fully available the next day. No exceptions. But one day, I went into a BofA branch and proceeded to deposit a check and the teller told me that the deposit would be held. I told the teller that I've been depositing these checks for months via atm and they have never been held. The teller's response didn't change, so I told her to give me the check back and I would deposit it at the atm A FEW FEET AWAY. After depositing the check via atm and of course the funds becoming fully available the next day, I returned back to the same branch and teller to show her the receipt and funds availability to see how she could explain why the funds would have been held if she made the deposit for me. No explanation and she probably could have cared less, and she probably already knew what I told her the previous day was true. She just didn't give a flip. The lesson I learned is different tellers do things differently and this always works against the customer. First of all, I believe the teller has the ability to OVERRIDE the hold, if they choose to, but they're not obligated to. But secondly and MORE IMPORTANTLY, once they enter all of the deposit information and the system displays a FLASHING message about a hold, they are SUPPOSED to inform you about the hold notification BEFORE they complete the deposit. This gives you the option of going a different route. This is what the teller did in my situation and it allowed me to do things differently. In your wife's case, what the Bandits will claim is they did inform her about the hold, even though they probably didn't. But they will use the receipt to say yes they did. This is the ripoff here - the poor customer service.

Michael, While I was with Bandits of America, this exact same thing happened to me as well. Week after week I would deposit payroll and personal checks via atm. As long as it was done before the cutoff, the deposits ALWAYS posted the same day and the funds were fully available the next day. No exceptions. But one day, I went into a BofA branch and proceeded to deposit a check and the teller told me that the deposit would be held. I told the teller that I've been depositing these checks for months via atm and they have never been held. The teller's response didn't change, so I told her to give me the check back and I would deposit it at the atm A FEW FEET AWAY. After depositing the check via atm and of course the funds becoming fully available the next day, I returned back to the same branch and teller to show her the receipt and funds availability to see how she could explain why the funds would have been held if she made the deposit for me. No explanation and she probably could have cared less, and she probably already knew what I told her the previous day was true. She just didn't give a flip. The lesson I learned is different tellers do things differently and this always works against the customer. First of all, I believe the teller has the ability to OVERRIDE the hold, if they choose to, but they're not obligated to. But secondly and MORE IMPORTANTLY, once they enter all of the deposit information and the system displays a FLASHING message about a hold, they are SUPPOSED to inform you about the hold notification BEFORE they complete the deposit. This gives you the option of going a different route. This is what the teller did in my situation and it allowed me to do things differently. In your wife's case, what the Bandits will claim is they did inform her about the hold, even though they probably didn't. But they will use the receipt to say yes they did. This is the ripoff here - the poor customer service.

Michael, While I was with Bandits of America, this exact same thing happened to me as well. Week after week I would deposit payroll and personal checks via atm. As long as it was done before the cutoff, the deposits ALWAYS posted the same day and the funds were fully available the next day. No exceptions. But one day, I went into a BofA branch and proceeded to deposit a check and the teller told me that the deposit would be held. I told the teller that I've been depositing these checks for months via atm and they have never been held. The teller's response didn't change, so I told her to give me the check back and I would deposit it at the atm A FEW FEET AWAY. After depositing the check via atm and of course the funds becoming fully available the next day, I returned back to the same branch and teller to show her the receipt and funds availability to see how she could explain why the funds would have been held if she made the deposit for me. No explanation and she probably could have cared less, and she probably already knew what I told her the previous day was true. She just didn't give a flip. The lesson I learned is different tellers do things differently and this always works against the customer. First of all, I believe the teller has the ability to OVERRIDE the hold, if they choose to, but they're not obligated to. But secondly and MORE IMPORTANTLY, once they enter all of the deposit information and the system displays a FLASHING message about a hold, they are SUPPOSED to inform you about the hold notification BEFORE they complete the deposit. This gives you the option of going a different route. This is what the teller did in my situation and it allowed me to do things differently. In your wife's case, what the Bandits will claim is they did inform her about the hold, even though they probably didn't. But they will use the receipt to say yes they did. This is the ripoff here - the poor customer service.