Complaint Review: JP Morgan Chase Bank - Baton Rouge Louisiana

You are correct in thinking that these 'rules' are not evenly applied, but I think it has less to do with gender and more to do with random luck and perseverance. I became so frustrated and furious at the recent tightening of the so called rules that I began a website to collect incidents of Chase fraud. They have begun to actually manipulate the "available" balance reports so as to mislead customers. Check out www.wamu-chase-ripoff.com for more detail. Your situation should be easy, but you need to be persistent. Send certified letters to your branch and CC to CEO James Dimon, Executive Offices, 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017 Threaten to seek out a class action attorney (this is actually a case that will soon be pending, which will bring the total ongoing class action suits against Chase to eleven!). File a complaint with the better business bureau and send Chase a letter, registered, copy Jamie Dimon. File a complaint with the Office of Thrift Supervision which can be done on line. Again, notify your branch and James Dimon of every step you are taking. I will bet $5.00 you will get fees refunded. And to those hectoring lecturers who think this is about careless habits or deadbeat customers, it isn't. This is a calculated manipulation of a bank, using its dominant position to profit at the expense of its customer. The law, on the other hand, holds that a bank has a fiduciary duty to it's non-commercial clients, requiring not only honesty in intent, but honesty in conduct. Chapter 4 of the UCC. They have been breaking these laws for so long some people assume that what they are doing must be legal. It isn't.

There is no gender bias. There is no class bias. Objectively, the general policy states that no refunds are to be given unless it is a bank error. (Only) Managers are allowed to override this policy, however there has to be sufficient justification, because it is an impact to the branch's bottom line (profit/expenses). Managers are reviewed (and rewarded) based on the profitablility of their branch. Contrary to your belief, customer's that habitually overdraw their accounts are the easiest ones to decline for a refund, because refunds are a "band-aid" fix. Unless their habits change, no matter what, they'll pay hundreds (even thousands) in fees. Several things are taken into consideration when refunds are requested. How long has the banking relationship been established (customer loyalty)? To what extent is the banking relationship (profitability)? What is the nature of the overdraft (marginal accident)? Have there been previous refunds? How many fees were charged? It is ultimately up to the manager to make a subjective decision. Whenever subjectivity is applied, you will get inconsitencies in answers and decisions. I advise customers daily on how to avoid being a "victim" of NSF/OD fees. As a customer AND an employee, it's a lot easier to be proactive than reactive. By knowing the Do's and Don'ts of banking, fees can EASILY be avoided. The quality of the response you get has more to do with the quality of the employee, not necessarily the quality of the bank itself. Your situation is unfortunate, because had "actual" fraud occurred, your fees would have been refunded when the disputed charges were reversed. Your biggest mistake was to give out your pin. NEVER, EVER give out your pin. Regretfully the dispute department will automatically decline any disputes where you didn't safeguard your card and/or PIN properly. It is the bank employee's perception that you were negligent. You may want to consider filing suit against the girl that stole your card and went on a shopping spree, in order to recoup your funds from the charges and the fees. I disagree with your statement that the bank should "share accountability". The bank provides several tools/resources for you to manage your money, however they do not do the managing for you. The bank did not put the card or the PIN in that girls hands... I hope this information helps to some extent.

Mike, Your assertion that I had frequently overdrawn my account is incorrect. As I stated, once my former husband was taken off the account overdrafts were a rare occurance. A fact that Chase employees could easily confirm by looking at the account history. It had been almost two years since the account became my individual account. I believe there had been one overdraft during that time and I accepted the NSF Fees as the consequences for my actions and did not request a refund. Comparatively, my former husband's accounts continued with overdrafts occuring regularly and the NSF Fees refunded at his request. Let me clarify that I am talking about more than $1000.00 a year in NSF Fee reversals on his accounts. I agree that Fee Reversals act as a deterrent to overdrafts and if Chase felt the need to continue reinforcing that to me, fine. I just want to know why the same branch of Chase Bank felt no need to deter the consistently irresponsible practices of another account holder. By the way, Chase did not view the young woman's unauthorized use of my account as theft because I gave her my PIN during the time she was a minor and in my custody. Once you give a person your PIN, you have given them permission for unlimited use of the account for as long as the PIN remains unchanged. (Law enforcement viewed it differently and was willing to charge her with Felony Fraud. But whether or not she committed a crime is unrelated to my complaint.) My error in judgment cost me about $500, exclusive of the NSF Fees. I did not ask or expect Chase to refund anything except the NSF Fees. Considering that $500 is more than 25% of my net monthly income, that alone seemed like punishment enough under the circumstances. Regardless, my question remains the same...How does Chase bank decide who deserves a break and who does not? Your response ignored certain facts and changed other facts of my experience in this matter. When all the facts are considered, it is obvious that your opinion is incorrect.

This is not about you, so none of the issues you brought up have to do with your situation. It's not about irresponsibility or gender. It's the Business Account. A lot of banks will refund the fees when the customer does a lot of business with the bank - in this case, your ex-husband had business accounts and the personal accounts with the bank. Banks treat business customers far better because of the activity flowing through the account and the related analysis fees that flow through to the bank as revenue. Accordingly, there would be a far greater likelihood your husband got the fees refunded on the personal account because of the business account he had there. Since your account converted to a personal account only, and do not have a business account there, there is no obligation to provide you the same service as your ex did when he had the business account (and the relationship) at the bank. Your NSF fees incurred by your daughter are yours and the bank is now choosing not to refund the fees - that is not only within their right, but it is a business decision. Now, you might be able to get a portion of them refunded, but your ex-husband will probably have to be the one to make the call because he's the one who had the relationship with the bank and that relationship can grease the skids in getting the fees refunded.

Most of the time banks will refund NSF fees for those people who have a documented history of being responsible with their money and not overdrawing their accounts. In your case, you have frequently overdrawn your accounts, so they choose not to refund, as they should. If there was no punishment, what would stop you from constantly spending money you didn't have? You're lucky the bank isn't pursuing your daughter for theft. Your only recourse is to sue your daughter for the cost of the fees since SHE is the responsible one here