Complaint Review: Wachovia Bank - Statesboro Georgia

WACHOVIA SCAMMED YOU. IT'S AN OLD ACCOUNTING SCAM. As you will see from the chart below that I created from your charges, the first diagram shows how you made charges and the dates. You only went overdraft on one charge by $40.48. But you will see in the second chart how Wachovia used creative accounting practices to multiply your overdrafts to 8. Wachovia then used this same accounting practice to charge you the other overdraft fees of $210.00 and $70. Wachovia is a crooked bank. ***There may or may not be any errors in the calculations; but the concept is correct, which is Wachovia used creative accounting to take your single overdraft and make it into 8 overdrafts. Basically, Wachovia stole $245.00 from you as identified in the postings below. It's called "conversion" in the law.*** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Posted/Charged Charges Acct Balance Available Balance Overdraft fee 3/02 2/27 $1.00 * $745.19 $527.76 3/02 2/27 $6.42 * 3/02 2/27 $9.93 * 3/02 2/27 $0.42 3/02 2/27 $12.25 3/02 2/27 $27.31 3/02 2/27 $28.59 $659.27 $441.84 3/02 2/28 $3.99 * 3/02 2/28 $4.14 * 3/02 2/28 $47.44 3/02 2/28 $57.73 $545.97 $328.54 3/02 3/01 $2.83 * 3/02 3/01 $5.75 * 3/02 3/01 $6.42 * 3/02 3/01 $19.49 3/02 3/01 $135.86 $375.62 $158,19 3/02 ??? Check $198.67 $176.95 -$40.48 $35 (1 overdraft) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As of 3/02, the Bank claimed that $745.19 was the balance and $527.76 was the available balance (Thus, $217.43 was on hold). WACHOVIA'S OVERDRAFT SCAM: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Posted/Charged Charges Acct Balance Available Balance Overdraft fee 3/02 ???Check $198.67 $745.19 $527.76 3/02 3/01 $135.86 3/02 2/28 $57.73 3/02 2/28 $47.44 3/02 2/27 $28.59 3/02 2/27 $27.31 3/02 3/01 $19.49 3/02 2/27 $12.25 3/02 2/27 $ 0.42 (Reached $527.76) Wachovia takes you into overdraft from here 3/02 2/27 $9.93 3/02 2/27 $6.42 3/02 3/01 $6.42 3/02 3/01 $5.75 3/02 2/28 $4.14 3/02 2/28 $3.99 3/02 3/01 $2.83 3/02 2/27 $1.00 -$40.48 $280 (8 overdrafts) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Wachovia paid the bills by the date and time they were made even if Wachovia posted them on 3/02, you would only pay a single overdraft fee. However, this is an accounting scam that Wachovia uses to increase overdrafts. Its implemented by (1) delaying the posting of your charges and combining them on a single day, (2) re-sequencing them from high to low, and (3) paying them as if the charges were all made on 3/02. Wachovia's own accounting caused you 7 additional overdrafts over you single overdraft. As you can see by the above diagram, you actually only caused one overdraft. Wachovia then delays posting available balances and conceals available balances from holds to throw you off so you go into overdraft. Wachovia then implements their accounting scam to add additional overdrafts to your account. Wachovia has been performing its contract with you and millions of other consumers with bad faith to increase its profit through overdraft fees by using creative accounting practices to cheat consumers out of their money. If you want to learn more about this scam, goto Badisse.com. I already have an attorney who is suing Wachovia for what they did to me. If you want to join this class action lawsuit with me, you can contact me at [email protected] or call me at 646-453-3614 B. David Mehmet

John of Califon, New Jersey or Robert of Buffalo, New York did you either of you guys ever figure anything else out, or are you still reviewing piles of bank statements, tax returns, criminal and medical records, in order to determine what's happening here? Truth Detector, I never respond to your earlier post. The reason I 'waste my time' with these individuals, is not for entertainment or ego, or just for the sake of arguing. It's to create a documented record that shows where they CANNOT explain or dispute the logic I use. And I guess I just cannot sit idle and be labeled an 'ignorant fraud', I'm sorry. So I stay on topic with indisputable logic in order to spotlight the cowardice and hypocrisy of those who can so easily jump in and dish it out, but it's kind of hard and embarrasing for them to take it on the receiving end, especially after having put their foot in their mouth with BOLD assertions (as they beat their chests). :)

This is in response to Gwen's post fro April 17th, 2009. Gwen, did you make it your personal quest to find "D" out? How did it go? Was your promise that the media will jump on this fulfilled? Did you make that YouTube appeal?

More specifically, the transactions which occurred on 2/26 and 2/27. 3/2 was a Monday; the $280 charge is for overdrafts which occurred on 2/27, or perhaps 2/26. Post your complete history (not just ONE transaction on 2/27. You are definitely hiding something.) Judging by your transactions, looks like you use your card for everything, including stamps!! I highly doubt all you had over those two days (2/26 and 2/27) was one transaction. Anyways, You posting your ledger proves NOTHING!! you could copypasta'd and changed the numbers. What you need to do is pay the fees, and get over yourself. 99% chance you messed up!! Have a nice day.

First a quick point to Robert of California. Regarding 'voting with your feet' and moving to a different bank with policies more to your liking. If you go back and review any of my original posts on this and other Wachovia threads, that's the precise advice I've been giving. This Unavailable Funds Fee is limited to very few banks with Wachovia and Bank of America two of the major banks on that VERY SHORT list. But at the same time, I also advised these Wachovia customers they may not have to go anywhere until they see the final outcome of the Wells Fargo PURCHASE of Wachovia. Because Wells Fargo does not now, and never has used this specific fee or procedure. But then you have Striderq the Wachovia employee come along and try to brainwash everyone into thinking it's pointless to 'vote with your feet' and move your account anywhere else, because ALL banks do what Wachovia is doing here. So what does that say about an employee who would KNOWINGLY put forth false information like that. And finally to the Happy 5/3 Customer. Apparently these Wachovia customers are very capable of 3rd grade math and more because they were able to recognize that these fees and the accounting method didn't quite add up. And apparently I'm capable of 3rd grade math and more because it was an 'ignorant fraud', like myself who had to take MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS to explain it to John of Califon, New Jersey and Robert of Buffalo, New York, even though Robert does this sort of thing voluntarily all the time.

Don't use a bank!!! If you are unable to do 3rd grade math, then you are not capable of holding a checking account. Do what the low-rent folks do... Take your check to the currency exchange, and deal in cash and money orders. PRESTO!! NO MORE SCAMS FROM THE BANK!!

Edward you stated it yourself.. "But sometimes it's legal ONLY because it's something NEW which hasn't been challenged in court yet. And the Unavailable Funds Fee certainly fits that category." - Okay until it makes it through the court or Congress it is legal. I wouldn't hold much hope out with Congress, and even though you hear almost daily "I want to join a Class Action Lawsuit", any suit that has been brought up and ruled on determined that fees are legal. If you feel that it is unethical then "vote with your feet" and switch banks to one that has policies more to your satisfaction. "So my question is, how in the world does that logic make sense? Really. Looking for an honest answer here." - The answer is don't even put yourself in this situation. You do this by keeping track of your own balances on your own register. Not only should you write down all of your debits/withdraws, but also knowing when your deposits become available. Then if you never attempt to spend more than is available you can't have unavailable fund fees and you can't overdraft. Yes, banks can make mistakes, but almost without exception every issue with Overdraft/Unavailable fund fees have to do with the person relying on the on-line banking(or nothing at all) rather than their own records.

Ok, now that we've got that settled, I'll try and get back to my question earlier about the legality here. Sometimes people have the wrong impression that just because they're doing it, that means it's legal. Yes this is partly true. But sometimes it's legal ONLY because it's something NEW which hasn't been challenged in court yet. And the Unavailable Funds Fee certainly fits that category. No hidden agend, no strings attached or any of that. What I was alluding to MUCH earlier, before the long diversion, is how can fees be charged for 'Transaction A' on Monday because of 'Transaction B' made on Tuesday. Referring back to the REAL LEDGER from ROR Report # 319896, focus on the Arby's transaction which posted on the 14th. In the description for this transaction, you'll notice it was made on the 12th. This means the funds for the Arby's transaction were HELD BEFORE all of the transaction made on the 13th and the 14th. If the Available balance is still positive after the Arby's transaction is made on the 12th, this means THAT TRANSACTION did not overdraw the account, and the funds for that transaction are SAFELY on HOLD, waiting for the merchant to submit it for payment. If the Merchant submits the payment the next day, or anytime within the 2-3 day window while the funds are STILL on hold, this means those funds were ALWAYS AVAILABLE to cover and post this transaction. THAT'S WHY THEY WERE HELD! Hello? But Wachovia is saying there were not enough funds (Unvavailable Funds) to cover the Arby's transaction, because those funds were on hold for the transactions made AFTER it on the 13th and 14th. This is the precise explanation given by the employee, and the reason for the $105 Unavailable Funds Fee on the 14th. So my question is, how in the world does that logic make sense? Really. Looking for an honest answer here.

ROR Report # 295413: Striderq THE EMPLOYEE'S quote: 'As we do the processing for each evening we take last night final posted balance (money physically in your account) minus the current active holds to give you your available balance, the balance you can have post from your account that day without any fees.' ROR Report # 286850: Striderq THE EMPLOYEE'S quote: 'The fees that occured together as the $140 are called unavailable funds fees. They are charged when you have one or more items that post that leave you with less in your account than the total that you need for the holds' ROR Report # 319896: Explaining how the customer was charged $105 (THREE FEES), the employee's quote: 'You used your card on the 13th and 14th and the merchants placed holds on your funds.' These are DIRECT QUOTES from Wachovia employees explaining how they do nightly processing and how these fees are assessed. Taking their explanations and applying them to the REAL LEDGER from ROR Report # 319896, which I posted above, here's how you determine those fees. Focus on the posting date of the 17th. You'll notice all of those transactions were made on the 13th and 14th. These are what the Wachovia employee was referring to. This means on the previous posting day of the 14th, all of those items were still on hold. If you add them up, the total amount is $280.92 that was ON HOLD on the 14th when nightly processing was done: Posted Balance.....Holds.........Posted Minus Holds...Item........Adjusted Balance $414.11...............$280.92.....$133.19..................$100........$33.19 $314.11...............$280.92.....$33.19....................$70.71.....($37.52) $243.40...............$280.92.....($37.52).................$13.57.....($51.09) $229.83...............$280.92.....($51.09).................$6.39.......($57.48) Using the posting method described by THE EMPLOYEES, the final three transactions that posted on the 14th result in a negative balance. Logically three fees are assessed. This would be the $105 Unavailable Funds Fee on the 14th. Fits like a glove. No need to see SIX MONTHS of full bank statements to figure this out. No need to examine two years of the customer's tax returns to figure this out.

You could have a videotape of Wachovia employees smoking/selling crack and these fools would STILL defend them to the death. Every rational person knows what Wachovia's game is. You are trying to relay facts to people who defend the indefensible day in and day out. Just as they refuse to address the outright hypocrisy of representatives of a vastly irresponsible company lecturing its customers on the virtues of keeping a check register (ironic, to say the least), when you provide iron-clad examples successfully refuting their arguments, don't expect them to acknowledge the truth. The reason that people like Jim, Robert, etc. defend the deplorable practices deployed by banks is simple. They would rather keep their own personal free accounts (Remember the days when banks DIDN'T screw consumers this way? Yeah, it was called the time of the non-existent "free checking account"...when consumers actually paid for the account and the services and privileges it provides) than to reform the crooked manner by which these same banks are allowed to do business. Their motivations are purely selfish, as evidenced by the snide manner with which they treat their fellow citizens and the way they castigate anyone who disagrees with them. This is much like the "Limbaugh Effect", where it is common practice to attempt to win a debate by mindlessly parroting the same talking points...over and over and over again. I admire your pluck and agree with you in principle, Edward. I just think you are beating your head against a brick wall (i.e. your opponents in this debate) if you expect people who don't care about the rights of others to ever see the flaws in their reasoning.

The people do not keep a register. They post a fraction of the transactions that they want to post to garner sympathy. The mystery $140 overdraft fees could (and probable) very well be from previous overdrafting but it is not known so you have no case there. There are 3 proven overdrafts from what section they posted alone. There is no denying that. If they kept a register like they should, they would know where there problem lies just as you would. The second report the person even admitted to overdrafting. How can you even argue that? Yes, you are a fraud. You simply want to continue to play the victim and con others into joining you though it will never solve yours or their real problems. You are not educating anyone as to how to avoid the fees. Millions do not overdraft ever day.

A REAL ledger from ROR Report # 319896: Date..........Type........Description.............Amount......Balance 03/18/2008 Deposit.....NSF/OD REFUND......$105.00.....($260.29) 03/17/2008 Other.......UNAVAIL FUND FEE...$245.00....($365.29) 03/17/2008 Purchase...SKIPS...DOGS 03/14 $7.4.........($120.29) 03/17/2008 Purchase...CITGO FOOD 03/14...$9.81.......($112.82) 03/17/2008 Purchase...THOMPSON 03/14....$20.00......($103.01) 03/17/2008 Purchase...JAMES JOYCE 03/14..$22.30......($83.01) 03/17/2008 Purchase...HOME DEPOT 03/13...$25.80......($60.71) 03/17/2008 Purchase...HOME DEPOT 03/13...$30.36......($34.91) 03/17/2008 Purchase...WAL-MART 03/13......$144.12....($4.55) 03/17/2008 Deposit.....HOME DEPOT 03/13...$21.13......$139.57 03/14/2008 Other.......UNAVAIL FUNDS FEE..$105.00.....$118.44 <--- Look Here 03/14/2008 Purchase...BP OIL 4016 03/13....$6.39........$223.44 <--- Look Here 03/14/2008 Purchase...ARBY'S #6637 03/12..$13.57......$229.83 <--- Look Here 03/14/2008 Other........DISH NETWORK PMT..$70.71......$243.40 <--- Look Here 03/14/2008 Other........CARDMEMBER SVCS...$100.00.....$314.11 03/13/2008 Purchase....BP OIL 4016 03/12....$7.44........$414.11 03/13/2008 Purchase....CITGO FOOD 03/11..$9.81........$421.55 03/13/2008 Purchase....WAL-MART 03/11.....$11.69.......$431.36 03/13/2008 Purchase....BP OIL 4016 03/11....$14.67.......$443.05 03/12/2008 Purchase....AVONDALE 03/11......$16.25.......$457.72 03/11/2008 Purchase....WAL-MART 03/09......$21.04......$473.97 03/11/2008 Purchase....BP OIL 4016 03/09.....$48.74......$495.01 03/10/2008 Purchase....SHELL OIL 03/07.......$6.51........$543.75 03/10/2008 Purchase....QT 712 0700 03/07....$19.97......$550.26 03/10/2008 ATM..........SNELLVILLE 03/09......$40.00......$570.23 03/10/2008 Purchase....KROGER #484 03/09...$60.38......$610.23 03/10/2008 Deposit......COUNTER DEP............$553.73....$670.61 03/06/2008 Purchase....RACETRAC467 03/04...$20.00.....$116.88 ---------- What's important about this ledger is the dates where the card was swiped (shown in the description). On the 14th a $105 Unavailable Funds Fee (or THREE $35 fees) was charged for the final three transactions that posted on that date. These would be (1) BP Oil, (2) Arby's, and (3) Dish Network. If you go and view the actual report # 319896, you will find the explanation DIRECTLY from a Wachovia EMPLOYEE. Here is the EMPLOYEE'S quote: 'You used your card on the 13th and 14th and the merchants placed holds on your funds.' Now, let's go back to those three transactions that were charged fees on the 14th. You'll notice the date the card was SWIPED at Arby's is THE 12TH. But a $35 fee was charged to this transaction because of other transactions made LATER on THE 13TH and THE 14TH. Does this sound familiar? Yes. Remember my example with Walmart, Home Depot and Best Buy? Well now here's your REAL LIFE LEDGER detailing the SAME behavior. And there can be no other explanation due to other possible transactions on the 12th or earlier dates because no other transactions with these earlier dates ever post, as the ledger shows, going all the way up to the 18th. Seems like an ignorant fraud like myself is getting pretty good at interpreting these ledgers. And to think I don't do it for a living or otherwise on a routine basis like Robert.

First I'm labeled a 'fraud' because I display a hypothetical example that can only be fantasy because it's not a real ledger from a real experience. Then I point out PAST reports that do indeed have real ledgers. NOW the contention is, oh there just must be something missing because this just doesn't make sense and doesn't add up. Next, I'm labeled 'ignorant' because I don't understand. To John of New Jersey, a quote from your last post: ---------- 'I still contend that not all info is posted as the bank really had no reason to take $140 for nothing. My guess is that the example is when everything hard posted and not originally purchased and this is why there is $140 in fees as they did not have money in the account at time of purchase on some other items not shown here. ---------- There is absolutely NOTHING missing from this REAL ledger, proven by the running balance. Now that we're FINALLY on the same page, I'll zoom in on this 'contention' from your part about the $140 in fees. You contend that it could have been that when the purchases were made, they overdrew the balance AT THAT TIME, at the point of sale. NOPE! Not true at all! And that's not my opinion, it's fact! On several of these Wachovia reports where REAL ledgers have been posted, the transactions that caused the overdraft were MADE AFTER all previous transactions for which the Unavailable Funds Fee was charged. The employee Striderq, explained how it happened on these reports with REAL ledgers. His explanation: Wachovia starts with the Posted Balance, THEN it deducts any amounts that are ON HOLD, then Wachovia uses this Adjusted balance to begin posting transactions. To understand what I mean, I invite you to go back to my EXAMPLE with the Walmart, Home Depot and Best Buy transactions. The Best Buy transaction was MADE last. Neither the Walmart NOR Home Depot transactions overdrew the account at the point of sale, but fees charged for BOTH. This is what's happening in these REAL ledgers. THIS is the explanation for the $140 in fees that YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN in Report # 321683. I didn't include them here but on some of these reports with REAL ledgers, the date the transactions OCCURRED is also included. And when you review all of the transactions that post AFTER the Unavailable Funds Fees, the 'occurred' date is AFTER the date for previous transactions where the fee was charged. But I'm the ignorant fraud?

As explained, we still don't know of there was something left out of the report to garner sympathy as I think there was as there is a gap. ROR Report # 321683 1) 03/24/2008 Deposit $145.71 = +$263.25 2) 03/24/2008 Purchase -$109.99 = +$153.26 3) 03/24/2008 ATM WITHDRAWAL -$40.00 = +$113.26 4) 03/24/2008 Check View CHECK **** -$30.00 = +$83.26 5) 03/24/2008 Check View CHECK **** -$30.00 = +$53.26 6) 03/24/2008 ATM WITHDRAWAL -$20.00 = +$33.26 7) 03/24/2008 Purchase -$10.25 = +$23.01 8) 03/24/2008 Purchase -$10.25 = +$12.76 9) 03/24/2008 Purchase -$4.54 = +$8.22 10) 03/24/2008 Purchase -$4.31 = +$3.91 11) 03/24/2008 Purchase -$3.18 = +$0.73 12) (03/24/2008 Other OVERDRAFT/UNAVAILABLE FUNDS FEE $140.00 ($139.27) I don't know what this is yet so we'll skip it for now. 11) 03/25/2008 Purchase -$14.21 = -$13.46 (overdraft) 12) 03/25/2008 Purchase -$9.73 = -$23.21 (still overdraft) 13) 03/25/2008 Other OVERDRAFT/UNAVAILABLE FUNDS FEE -$70.00 = -$93.21 (still overdraft) 14) 03/26/2008 Purchase -$10.00 = -$103.21 (still overdraft) 15) 03/26/2008 Other OVERDRAFT/UNAVAILABLE FUNDS FEE -$35.00 = -$138.21 (still overdraft) So, the person overdrafted even without the $140 overdraft fee on 3/24. I still contend that not all info is posted as the bank really had no reason to take $140 for nothing. My guess is that the example is when everything hard posted and not originally purchased and this is why there is $140 in fees as they did not have money in the account at time of purchase on some other items not shown here. I'm sure a check register would show exactly how they were accumulated and all of it could have been avoided with a check register though. Something you keep omitting from your victimization posts. 333614 All you had to read was the second sentence to understand this one and no need to go any further: "I have recently been assessed fees on a 'authorization' that caused my account to go below its available balance." They admit to overdrafting (but that doesn't fit your agenda) and then they go on to cry about what everyone else does but themselves.

John your explanations are indeed crystal clear. But the explanations are addressing a GENERAL circumstance. If you overdraft your account, you get charged a fee. Of course that's certainly true. But you HAVE FAILED and CONTINUE to FAIL to address SPECIFIC transactions DID NOT overdraw the account. I repeat, if you overdraw your account, you're charged a fee. But how do you explain a fee being charged to transaction(s) that DID NOT overdraw the account. For the umpteenth time, here are those VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS: ---------- ROR Report # 321683 03/24/2008 UNAVAILABLE FUNDS FEE..... $140.00 .....($139.27) 03/24/2008 BURGER KING ..... $3.18 .....$0.73 03/24/2008 WAWA 142 0000..... $4.31 ..... $3.91 03/24/2008 WAWA 142 0000 ..... $4.54 ..... $8.22 03/24/2008 7-ELEVEN 15928 ..... $10.25 ..... $12.76 03/24/2008 WAWA 268 ..... $10.25 ..... $23.01 When you overdraw your account, you're charged a fee. Please explain how FOUR FEES were charged for (1) 7-ELEVEN, (2) WAWA, (3) WAWA, and (4) BURGER KING when NONE of these transactions overdrew the account. ---------- ROR Report # 333614 05/13/2008 UNAVAILABLE FUNDS FEE ..... $70.00 ..... $83.63 05/13/2008 ATM WITHDRAWAL ..... $12.50 ..... $153.63 05/13/2008 HESS 09448 ..... $14.86 ..... $166.13 05/12/2008 PUBLIX #081 ..... $15.50 ..... $180.99 When you overdraw your account, you're charged a fee. Please explain how TWO FEES were charged for (1) HESS and (2) ATM when NEITHER of them overdrew the account. ---------- ROR Report # 404061 12/18/2008 UNAVAILABLE FUNDS FEE ..... $105.00 ..... ($98.55) 12/18/2008 WALGREEN COMPANY ..... $9.08 ..... $6.45 12/18/2008 SOU USPS ..... $17.27 ..... $15.53 12/18/2008 TARGET ..... $43.06 ..... $32.80 12/18/2008 SHOES.COM ..... $50.00 ..... $75.86 When you overdraw your account, you're charged a fee. Please explain how THREE FEES were charged for (1) TARGET, (2) SOU USPS, and (3) WALGREEN, when NONE of them overdrew the account. ---------- Is that specific enough for you? As we also continue to wait for Robert of Buffalo. I wonder what could be taking so long to figure out, especially since he does this sort of thing all the time.

Just because you chose not the accept the truth time and time again is not anyone's fault but your own.

No offense to you but I've heard your lame responses and none of them address the VERY SPECIFIC questions that I have CAREFULLY and CLEARLY posed to you. I'm more interested in the response from Robert of Buffalo, New York. You know, since Robert does this sort of thing all the time on a volunteer basis. You know, reviewing REAL statements like these and assessing what happened, and providing financial counseling, and all. I'm am more interested in hearing his assessment and explanation. I'm on pins and needles with anticipation. I hope Robert doesn't take too long. After all, it shouldn't take him long at all. You know, since he does this sort of thing all the time.

1) The merchant overdrafted the account, thus it's the merchant's responsibility to cover the fees THEY caused - the bank DID NOT CAUSE THEM. 2) The person overdrafted and admitted it. No brainer there. 3) Person overdrafted but has such screwed up records if any at all that they can't decipher where they messed up but it/s easier to blame the bank like you do. So, you get called on your fraudulent, fantasy example, have to run away from that and distract with reports you pray support your bogs claims and now you get bitchslapped again with facts. Why have you still not tried to educate any of these people on the proper use of a register?

REAL people, REAL transactions, REAL fees, REAL examples can be found in: 1. Report # 321683 2. Report # 333614 3. Report # 404061 These are just three reports with documented REAL ledgers showing exactly how these RIPOFF fees are charged. I merely created a hypothetical example only as a means to explain DIFFERENTLY what these REAL customers tried to explain in their REAL reports with REAL ledgers. There's nothing fantasy about these reports. So please go and view these REAL reports with REAL ledgers and see if you can explain how they got charged with REAL fees. Then come back here and see me. I'll be waiting........

""That's Right - Undisputable Simply google it Robert and you'll see the word actually exists. But no matter how it's described, 'undisputable' or 'indisputable' the conclusion is still the same. The Unavailable Funds Fee CANNOT be justified with NORMAL accounting and NORMAL logic. And it certainly is shocking and hard to believe, I AGREE. That was my reaction, when I first understood what was happening. So I can relate to your disbelief."" I think you missed my point. I was not contesting your use of the word "undisputable." My point was that you have an hypothesis as to HOW the OD/NSF fees are generated and then you post a scenario with made up data (fictional ledger) that somehow PROVES your hypothesis. That's not how it works. You cannot prove anything (at least to me) using FABRICATED DATA. If you were to SCAN and post an actual bank statement that verifies your hypothesis, I would consider THAT as proof of your explanation. Simply put: FICTIONAL data proves NOTHING. These fees are EASILY AVOIDED and I've posted on numerous occassions proceedures for account holders to avoid these fees. Unlike others who post here, I actually conduct face-to-face counseling with folks experience credit/financial issues on a volunteer basis. I have reviewed bank statements and advised folks on how to AVOID these fees. I don't like these fees one bit, but what I don't like doesn't amount to squat. What counts is KNOWING how the fees are generated and conducting your banking actions accordingly to AVOID these fees altogether. That's what I do when counseling folks-I suggest to them a course of action so that NO FEES are assessed to their accounts. Simply put: The days of being able to "float" a loan with a checking account are OVER. The banks are using the transaction date (not the posting date) to assess these fees. This is similar to a CC statement which shows 2 dates; transaction date and posted date. It is no accident that the banks are doing this seeing as almost all ATM/bank cards are administered by a credit card company. When a person uses an ATM card, if there is not enough funds available on the transaction date, an NSF fee will be assessed (remember the posting order, debits before credits and highest before lowest.) It doesn't matter if a deposit is made the next day and the actual ATM card transaction is reconciled 2 days later. ""And so, I find it funny now that John of New Jersey and Robert want to label this 'make believe', 'hypothetical', and 'made up'. "" I believe they are referring to your "PROOF" as I am. Your fictional ledgers prove nothing. You cannot prove a hypothesis with a scenario that is substantiated with fabricated ledgers (data.)

QUOTE: 'The Collapse of the U.S. economy is in its infancy. Get all of your money out of the stock market and cash in your retirement NOW! Most people cannot see what is coming. I do! Americans have $4 Trillion in their retirements. 90% of that money is invested in the stock market. All of the clues & indicators are pointing to another COLLAPSE of the stock market. When the stock market goes, so goes American's RETIREMENTS!!' - 9/3/2007 To read that quote, simply 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT GM CREDIT CARD SERVICES, and go to Betty's Ripoff Report about her rate going from 10.99% to 32.44%. That quote appears in the '1st Update' to her Ripoff Report. FACT: The Dow Jones was around 14,000 that day. It closed at its all-time high just a month later. On 10-9-2007 it closed at 14,164. FACT: It's LOST over 6,000 points since then!!! FACT: Americans have LOST some, most, or all of their RETIREMENTS since that day!!! FACT: The government has injected HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of TAXPAYER'S dollars into our economy, and it's STILL COLLAPSING!!!! FACT: Americans have LOST over $11 TRILLION in wealth since the summer of 2007. FACT: GM is COLLAPSING, and needed BILLIONS of dollars in TAXPAYER'S money in order to stay 'afloat'. Just like AIG, & the many BANKS in the USA!!! Welcome to America- IN FRAUD, GREED, LIES, CORRUPTION, DECEPTION, & MANIPULATION WE TRUST! 'The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you have to EXPLODE!' - Dylan 'And the grand facade...so soon will burn.' - Peter Gabriel

QUOTE: 'The Collapse of the U.S. economy is in its infancy. Get all of your money out of the stock market and cash in your retirement NOW! Most people cannot see what is coming. I do! Americans have $4 Trillion in their retirements. 90% of that money is invested in the stock market. All of the clues & indicators are pointing to another COLLAPSE of the stock market. When the stock market goes, so goes American's RETIREMENTS!!' - 9/3/2007 To read that quote, simply 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT GM CREDIT CARD SERVICES, and go to Betty's Ripoff Report about her rate going from 10.99% to 32.44%. That quote appears in the '1st Update' to her Ripoff Report. FACT: The Dow Jones was around 14,000 that day. It closed at its all-time high just a month later. On 10-9-2007 it closed at 14,164. FACT: It's LOST over 6,000 points since then!!! FACT: Americans have LOST some, most, or all of their RETIREMENTS since that day!!! FACT: The government has injected HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of TAXPAYER'S dollars into our economy, and it's STILL COLLAPSING!!!! FACT: Americans have LOST over $11 TRILLION in wealth since the summer of 2007. FACT: GM is COLLAPSING, and needed BILLIONS of dollars in TAXPAYER'S money in order to stay 'afloat'. Just like AIG, & the many BANKS in the USA!!! Welcome to America- IN FRAUD, GREED, LIES, CORRUPTION, DECEPTION, & MANIPULATION WE TRUST! 'The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you have to EXPLODE!' - Dylan 'And the grand facade...so soon will burn.' - Peter Gabriel

QUOTE: 'The Collapse of the U.S. economy is in its infancy. Get all of your money out of the stock market and cash in your retirement NOW! Most people cannot see what is coming. I do! Americans have $4 Trillion in their retirements. 90% of that money is invested in the stock market. All of the clues & indicators are pointing to another COLLAPSE of the stock market. When the stock market goes, so goes American's RETIREMENTS!!' - 9/3/2007 To read that quote, simply 'Google' this- RIP OFF REPORT GM CREDIT CARD SERVICES, and go to Betty's Ripoff Report about her rate going from 10.99% to 32.44%. That quote appears in the '1st Update' to her Ripoff Report. FACT: The Dow Jones was around 14,000 that day. It closed at its all-time high just a month later. On 10-9-2007 it closed at 14,164. FACT: It's LOST over 6,000 points since then!!! FACT: Americans have LOST some, most, or all of their RETIREMENTS since that day!!! FACT: The government has injected HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of TAXPAYER'S dollars into our economy, and it's STILL COLLAPSING!!!! FACT: Americans have LOST over $11 TRILLION in wealth since the summer of 2007. FACT: GM is COLLAPSING, and needed BILLIONS of dollars in TAXPAYER'S money in order to stay 'afloat'. Just like AIG, & the many BANKS in the USA!!! Welcome to America- IN FRAUD, GREED, LIES, CORRUPTION, DECEPTION, & MANIPULATION WE TRUST! 'The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you have to EXPLODE!' - Dylan 'And the grand facade...so soon will burn.' - Peter Gabriel

You seem to have incited quite a rage. This same thing happened to me at Wachovia a couple of years ago. It might've been around the holidays and I'd done a flurry of spending over a course of several days (without really keeping strict track of it -- I generally know about how much money I have available in my account). I had started doing online banking almost exclusively at that time, and had come to rely on the "statement" you see on the computer screen rather than my checkbook register or any paper statement. When a few days later I went online to check my account, I was stunned to find $210 dollars in NSF charges had been applied to my account. I mean, I almost fell off my chair. I took a long time evaluating the online statement to try to figure it out, and I couldn't. The order of the transactions on the online statement did not reflect any reason for all those NSF charges, although I could tell I'd overdrawn somewhat near the end of my spending spree. I don't remember if the order of the transactions on the computer reflected the actual order of my spending. That didn't matter to me because I (thought I) knew that transactions reach the bank at different rates, and I ** ASSUMED ** the order of transactions on the computer reflected the order they had reached the bank. And I couldn't find a problem there until the last one or maybe 2 purchases. The first thing I did was I did a "Print Screen" of what I was looking at so if it changed later I could have a record. Then I emailed the bank, attaching that image. After a very civil exchange with Customer Service over the next couple of days, I discovered that I was wrong about what I was looking at on the computer screen -- I was told what I view online bears NO/ZERO relationship to when things come in/get posted. I argued this was unethical -- that people who sign up for "paperless" banking rely on that computer view and it was deceptive to give them a false view of the activity in their account. In the end they agreed to remove all except the first $30 fee. For which I wrote them a thank you note, along with a suggestion they change their practices in this area. They may not have taken my suggestion, though :) -- I wonder if you have just experienced the same problem. On top of the issue about what the account activity looks like online is the issue that they continue to pile NSF fees on top of NSF fees. I think this might be what some of your commentators are referring to when they talk about double penalties. It's a horrible practice, and it's easy to see how people can fall into the trap if they use online banking especially. But I wonder if you have tried to talk to your bank? I have to say, as much as we may hate banks, I have usually found them to be human.

the United States of America is really ONE BIG LIE! 'Google' this- AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM, and watch that documentary on the web for proof. 'Google' this- THE SCORE BY RUDY STANKO, and go to the amazon.com site & simply read the 3 reviews on that book. Take a look at the American FLAG on the cover of that book!!! 'Google' this- DR MANDELSTAMM OF KIEFF, and read the passage entitled- 'The Talmud And The Ghettoes', and pay close attention to what was stated in that passage, and what is currently taking place in the USA, & around the world. ***History is simply being REPEATED. Nothing has changed in the past 2000 years! The 'ruling' elite have IMPRISONED the PEOPLE all over the world, and a COLLAPSE is taking place in almost every economy, as a result. WHY? Answer: FRAUD, CORRUPTION, DECEPTION, MANIPULATION, GREED, LIES, & the CONSTANT PURSUIT TO FINANCIALLY, & PHYSICALLY INJURE INNOCENT PEOPLE all over the world! Believe whatever you want. However, it CAN'T be denied!!! QUOTE: 'Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. If you want to continue to be SLAVES of the bankers, and pay the cost of your SLAVERY, then let the bankers continue to create money & control credit.' - Sir Josiah Stamp 'iniquity' (definition) - wickedness. QUOTE: 'No one must lightly dismiss the question of RACE. It is the KEY to world history. And it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity- It is written by people who DO NOT understand the race question, & what belongs to it. Language and religion do not make a race. Only blood does that.' - Benjamin Disraeli

the United States of America is really ONE BIG LIE! 'Google' this- AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM, and watch that documentary on the web for proof. 'Google' this- THE SCORE BY RUDY STANKO, and go to the amazon.com site & simply read the 3 reviews on that book. Take a look at the American FLAG on the cover of that book!!! 'Google' this- DR MANDELSTAMM OF KIEFF, and read the passage entitled- 'The Talmud And The Ghettoes', and pay close attention to what was stated in that passage, and what is currently taking place in the USA, & around the world. ***History is simply being REPEATED. Nothing has changed in the past 2000 years! The 'ruling' elite have IMPRISONED the PEOPLE all over the world, and a COLLAPSE is taking place in almost every economy, as a result. WHY? Answer: FRAUD, CORRUPTION, DECEPTION, MANIPULATION, GREED, LIES, & the CONSTANT PURSUIT TO FINANCIALLY, & PHYSICALLY INJURE INNOCENT PEOPLE all over the world! Believe whatever you want. However, it CAN'T be denied!!! QUOTE: 'Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. If you want to continue to be SLAVES of the bankers, and pay the cost of your SLAVERY, then let the bankers continue to create money & control credit.' - Sir Josiah Stamp 'iniquity' (definition) - wickedness. QUOTE: 'No one must lightly dismiss the question of RACE. It is the KEY to world history. And it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity- It is written by people who DO NOT understand the race question, & what belongs to it. Language and religion do not make a race. Only blood does that.' - Benjamin Disraeli

the United States of America is really ONE BIG LIE! 'Google' this- AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM, and watch that documentary on the web for proof. 'Google' this- THE SCORE BY RUDY STANKO, and go to the amazon.com site & simply read the 3 reviews on that book. Take a look at the American FLAG on the cover of that book!!! 'Google' this- DR MANDELSTAMM OF KIEFF, and read the passage entitled- 'The Talmud And The Ghettoes', and pay close attention to what was stated in that passage, and what is currently taking place in the USA, & around the world. ***History is simply being REPEATED. Nothing has changed in the past 2000 years! The 'ruling' elite have IMPRISONED the PEOPLE all over the world, and a COLLAPSE is taking place in almost every economy, as a result. WHY? Answer: FRAUD, CORRUPTION, DECEPTION, MANIPULATION, GREED, LIES, & the CONSTANT PURSUIT TO FINANCIALLY, & PHYSICALLY INJURE INNOCENT PEOPLE all over the world! Believe whatever you want. However, it CAN'T be denied!!! QUOTE: 'Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. If you want to continue to be SLAVES of the bankers, and pay the cost of your SLAVERY, then let the bankers continue to create money & control credit.' - Sir Josiah Stamp 'iniquity' (definition) - wickedness. QUOTE: 'No one must lightly dismiss the question of RACE. It is the KEY to world history. And it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity- It is written by people who DO NOT understand the race question, & what belongs to it. Language and religion do not make a race. Only blood does that.' - Benjamin Disraeli

the United States of America is really ONE BIG LIE! 'Google' this- AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM, and watch that documentary on the web for proof. 'Google' this- THE SCORE BY RUDY STANKO, and go to the amazon.com site & simply read the 3 reviews on that book. Take a look at the American FLAG on the cover of that book!!! 'Google' this- DR MANDELSTAMM OF KIEFF, and read the passage entitled- 'The Talmud And The Ghettoes', and pay close attention to what was stated in that passage, and what is currently taking place in the USA, & around the world. ***History is simply being REPEATED. Nothing has changed in the past 2000 years! The 'ruling' elite have IMPRISONED the PEOPLE all over the world, and a COLLAPSE is taking place in almost every economy, as a result. WHY? Answer: FRAUD, CORRUPTION, DECEPTION, MANIPULATION, GREED, LIES, & the CONSTANT PURSUIT TO FINANCIALLY, & PHYSICALLY INJURE INNOCENT PEOPLE all over the world! Believe whatever you want. However, it CAN'T be denied!!! QUOTE: 'Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. If you want to continue to be SLAVES of the bankers, and pay the cost of your SLAVERY, then let the bankers continue to create money & control credit.' - Sir Josiah Stamp 'iniquity' (definition) - wickedness. QUOTE: 'No one must lightly dismiss the question of RACE. It is the KEY to world history. And it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity- It is written by people who DO NOT understand the race question, & what belongs to it. Language and religion do not make a race. Only blood does that.' - Benjamin Disraeli

Wachovia managed its check register so well that it reported a profit drop of 98% just before it was taken over by Wells Fargo. In fact, Wells took a $2.83 billion loss in large part due to the toxic assets that Wachovia brought with it. Now THAT is some terrific managing of the check register, don't you think? And now, its snotty employees have the audacity to lecture consumers about financial responsibility? I don't give a rip if you had any first-hand dealings in the disaster that is your company or not. You post under the heading of Wachovia employee, you get the horns of the bull. Do us all a favor and shape up your company's own check register before you dare lecture any consumers about their habits. In the meantime, sit in angst while the U.S House (more specifically, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D)) debates introduced bills to quash your crooked methods of sneaking more and more dollars out of the pockets of the American consumer.

Simply google it Robert and you'll see the word actually exists. But no matter how it's described, 'undisputable' or 'indisputable' the conclusion is still the same. The Unavailable Funds Fee CANNOT be justified with NORMAL accounting and NORMAL logic. And it certainly is shocking and hard to believe, I AGREE. That was my reaction, when I first understood what was happening. So I can relate to your disbelief. Here's the condensed version. If I swipe my card at Walmart at 10am, and Home Depot at 11am, the funds for those two purchases are held in that TIME STAMPED ORDER, with a positive Available balance left. Then I swipe my card at Best Buy at 12pm and this overdraws my Available balance. This ONE FEE I understand and ACCEPT, no problem. BUT! When the Walmart and Home Depot transactions post, they will each be charged a fee ALSO. The logic that Wachovia is using is that there was not enough money to cover them because the money was ON HOLD for Best Buy. What! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! The Walmart and Home Depot money was already previously HELD FIRST, so how can it be UNAVAILABLE? And so, I find it funny now that John of New Jersey and Robert want to label this 'make believe', 'hypothetical', and 'made up'. The reason you guys feel compelled to label it this way is because if it's TRUE, then OF COURSE it certainly is a RIPOFF. I hate to be the bearer of bad news and break it to you. Striderq, the employee will even confirm it for you. In fact he already has. Striderq, the employee ADMITS that Wachovia uses this FUZZY MATH. Striderq's only dispute is his claim that Wells Fargo also uses this FUZZY ACCOUNTING, and that's where he's wrong, which is why he CANNOT answer my last post to him, the same way NONE of you guys, can logically explain how these EXTRA fees are being charged. Without a doubt this is WITHOUT QUESTION, a RIPOFF.

How can a hypothetical (made up) scenario be "undisputable" proof about anything? The reality is that using an account register and reconciling that register with a monthly account statement from the bank will prevent any account holder from causing any NSF/OD fees. The majority (if not all) of the reports I've read about NSF/OD fees have common behaviors of the account holders: using atm cards for everyday purchases. using more than ONE card attached to the account (husband and wife) using atm cards for online purchases. using atm cards for "auto-bill pay" (autodebits) relying upon telephone or online account balances to determine what money is available for that shopping trip to Walmart. *NOT using an account register. *not reconciling an account register with the scheduled account monthly statement generated by the bank. Ways to avoid these NSF/OD fees: 1. Use an account register and reconcile the account register with a monthly written statement generated by the bank. If the bank is not mailing statements, contact customer service to have monthly statements MAILED to you. 1a. Be aware of ATM fees, such as the "non-bank ATM fee" that most banks charge when you use an ATM that is not owned by your bank to make a withdrawal and post that fee in your account register immediately. 1b. Also be aware of any monthly "account service fee" charged by your bank and post that to your register on the appropriate date. 2. Do NOT GIVE bank account information (or ATM card info) to any merchant, service provider, utility, online service to pay for services and goods. Use a REAL credit card for this purpose (either secured cc or unsecured cc.) Do not setup any automatic deposit to an account that is attached to said cc-NO auto payments to CC company-mail a check each month. If the entity demanding payment makes a mistake, you're gonna have a host of problems and risk OD/NSF fees. 3. Do NOT use an ATM card for everyday expenses-USE CASH. Establish a monthly budget and withdrawal a weekly "allowance" for every day expenses such as "milk and bread" from the corner store, Burger King, etc. This will reduce the amount of transactions on the bank accout which in turn makes RECONCILING the account and detecting ERRORS easier to accomplish. Again, if the entity demanding payment makes a mistake, you're gonna risk NSF/OD fees. 4. Do not shop with the ATM card-use a real credit card. A real credit card offers protections that you don't have with an ATM card. If the merchant/service makes a mistake, you can dispute it with the CC company WITHOUT getting any OD/NSF. Not true if you use an ATM card-if the merchant makes a mistake, your money is gone until you can convince your bank to give it back, as well as OD/NSF fees. 5. ONLY ONE ATM CARD to one account. Do NOT have 2 or more atm cards for one bank account. Having "his and hers" ATM cards attached to the same account is the same as in the old days when some folks would have 2 checkbooks for writing checks. It was an invitation to disaster then, and it is today. Follow ALL of these suggestions and you will NEVER pay an OD/NSF fee again unless it is a LEGITIMATE bank error, and then the bank will gladly and quickly rectify the situation and credit any fees generated as well as contact payees and cover any fees the payees assess to you. This is a tried and true method to avoid these fees. It works EVERY TIME it's tried.

How can a hypothetical (made up) scenario be "undisputable" proof about anything? The reality is that using an account register and reconciling that register with a monthly account statement from the bank will prevent any account holder from causing any NSF/OD fees. The majority (if not all) of the reports I've read about NSF/OD fees have common behaviors of the account holders: using atm cards for everyday purchases. using more than ONE card attached to the account (husband and wife) using atm cards for online purchases. using atm cards for "auto-bill pay" (autodebits) relying upon telephone or online account balances to determine what money is available for that shopping trip to Walmart. *NOT using an account register. *not reconciling an account register with the scheduled account monthly statement generated by the bank. Ways to avoid these NSF/OD fees: 1. Use an account register and reconcile the account register with a monthly written statement generated by the bank. If the bank is not mailing statements, contact customer service to have monthly statements MAILED to you. 1a. Be aware of ATM fees, such as the "non-bank ATM fee" that most banks charge when you use an ATM that is not owned by your bank to make a withdrawal and post that fee in your account register immediately. 1b. Also be aware of any monthly "account service fee" charged by your bank and post that to your register on the appropriate date. 2. Do NOT GIVE bank account information (or ATM card info) to any merchant, service provider, utility, online service to pay for services and goods. Use a REAL credit card for this purpose (either secured cc or unsecured cc.) Do not setup any automatic deposit to an account that is attached to said cc-NO auto payments to CC company-mail a check each month. If the entity demanding payment makes a mistake, you're gonna have a host of problems and risk OD/NSF fees. 3. Do NOT use an ATM card for everyday expenses-USE CASH. Establish a monthly budget and withdrawal a weekly "allowance" for every day expenses such as "milk and bread" from the corner store, Burger King, etc. This will reduce the amount of transactions on the bank accout which in turn makes RECONCILING the account and detecting ERRORS easier to accomplish. Again, if the entity demanding payment makes a mistake, you're gonna risk NSF/OD fees. 4. Do not shop with the ATM card-use a real credit card. A real credit card offers protections that you don't have with an ATM card. If the merchant/service makes a mistake, you can dispute it with the CC company WITHOUT getting any OD/NSF. Not true if you use an ATM card-if the merchant makes a mistake, your money is gone until you can convince your bank to give it back, as well as OD/NSF fees. 5. ONLY ONE ATM CARD to one account. Do NOT have 2 or more atm cards for one bank account. Having "his and hers" ATM cards attached to the same account is the same as in the old days when some folks would have 2 checkbooks for writing checks. It was an invitation to disaster then, and it is today. Follow ALL of these suggestions and you will NEVER pay an OD/NSF fee again unless it is a LEGITIMATE bank error, and then the bank will gladly and quickly rectify the situation and credit any fees generated as well as contact payees and cover any fees the payees assess to you. This is a tried and true method to avoid these fees. It works EVERY TIME it's tried.

In this new sample scenario below, you have a customer who opens a NEW account with Wachovia and deposits $500 cash for the OPENING BALANCE. Wachovia has buckets that it uses for transactions that are on hold. For each debit card transaction made and placed on hold, Wachovia takes that amount from the customer's account and sets it aside in one of the HOLD BUCKETS. So this new account holder begins his spending. Walmart $100, Posted Balance=$500, Hold Bucket #1=$100, Available Balance=$400 Home Depot $300, Posted Balance=$500, Hold Bucket #1=$100, Hold Bucket #2=$300, Available Balance=$100 Best Buy $125, Posted Balance=$500, Hold Bucket #1=$100, Hold Bucket #2=$300, Hold Bucket #3=$125, Available Balance=($25). I understand the arrival and posting order of transactions is never guaranteed. I ADMIT that if the transactions arrive or post in a different order from this example then no complaint can be made regarding the number of fees charged. But, in order to show how this RIPOFF works, I'm stipulating the transactions arrive and post in the same order they were made. Based on that stipulation, here's what SHOULD happen and what DOES happen at 99% of banks: 1. Debit $100 <-- Taken from Hold Bucket #1 which is now empty, Posted Bal=$400, Hold Bucket #2=$300, Hold Bucket #3=$125, Avail=($25). 2. Debit $300 <-- Taken from Hold Bucket #2 which is now empty, Posted Balance=$100, Hold Bucket #3=$125, Available Balance=($25). 3. Debit $125 <-- Taken from Hold Bucket #3 which is now empty, Posted Balance=($25), Available Balance=($25). 4. Overdraft Fee $35. Posted Balance=($60), Available Balance=($60) But instead, here's what ACTUALLY happens at these VERY FEW banks using this fee: 1. Opening Balance=$500, Hold Bucket #2=$300, Hold Bucket #3=$125, Posted Minus Holds=$75, Debit Post $100, Overdrawn by ($25) 2. Posted Balance=$400, Hold Bucket #3=$125, Posted Balance Minus Holds=$275, Debit Post $300, Overdrawn by ($25) 3. Unavailable Funds Fee $35 (For transaction #1, $100 Debit), Posted Balance=$65, Available Balance=($60) 4. Unavailable Funds Fee $35 (For transaction #2, $300 Debit), Posted Balance=$30, Available Balance=($95) 5. Posted Balance=$30, Total on Hold=ZERO, Debit Post $125, Overdrawn by ($95) 6. Overdraft Fee $35 (For transaction #3, $125 Debit), Posted Balance=($130) Here's the FLAWED logic these FEW banks are using. The Walmart transaction arrives, ready to POST first. This means the Home Depot and Best Buy money is still on hold. That's a total of $425 still on hold and that money is UNAVAILABLE for spending. Everyone knows that. But at these few banks, that money is ALSO unavailable for posting and not very many people realize this because not very banks do this. The bank takes the $500 account balance, subtracts the $425 on hold, leaving a balance of $25. And that's not enough to cover the $100 Walmart debit post. Fee #1. The Home Depot transaction arrives next, and the same thing occurs. Fee #2. Then the Best Buy transaction arrives last. Fee #3 and the ONLY fee that should have been rightfully assessed. Here's the hole in their logic and the VERY IMPORTANT KEY to understanding this Ripoff. The Walmart transaction was made first. Its money was HELD FIRST and set aside FIRST in its own separate HOLDING BUCKET. So how can that money be UNAVAILABLE to cover it when it arrives to post? Simply walk over to Holding Bucket #1, remove the $100 and use it to cover the $100 Debit Post for Walmart (as shown in the first ledger). No Fee! That's what the money was held for to begin with, right? And it was HELD FIRST. That's where their logic falls flat and confirms without a doubt this fee is nothing else but a PURE RIPOFF. This new Unavailable Funds Fee, has NOTHING to do with money that's UNAVAILABLE because of a deposit hold. Many still make this wrong assumption. That's why I eliminated that element in this example. This is the very complicated yet flawed logic being used to charge this RIPOFF fee, by Bandits of America, Walk-Over-Ya, and very few other banks.

No one can make you do it no matter how much you and fraudward try to say they can.

I noticed there seems to be a very large amount of people who post here who rush to defend the banks and their shady practices. Banks make 13 billion a year from overdraft fees and their trick accounting programs and they have been know to employ public relations firms to protect their scams. The American Bankers Association is a very powerful group and it wouldn't suprise me if they were on here daily defending these scams. What banks do is bury the details in complicated customer agreements with tiny fine print. That legally allows them to scam you. Since when is the "available balance" not an available balance. Why don't you banks use common english and use terms like "posted balance, PENDING balance, and ACTUALLY AVAILABLE FOR SPENDING WITHOUT PENALTY BALANCE". You have to use deception to make money. Suppose I am camping and am bit by a rattlesnake. The EMT's call the hospital and say "he must get 50 cc's of anti-venom or he will die". The hospital responds "we have 50 cc's of anti-venom available, come on over". Then when you get to the hospital, they say "available does not mean available, it means we are expecting some in a day or two" Disgusting. Good thing Barney Frank is outlawing your scams.

The employee 'D', is self explanatory. No need to elaborate. As for Striderq, I have consistently said and continue to say Wells Fargo NEVER HAS and STILL DOES NOT charge this fee. Now please, I'm BEGGING you to respond and point out the EXACT post where I said Wells Fargo charges the Unavailable Funds Fee. Until then, here's the growing list that shows your ever decreasing credibility: 1. Your statement of me saying that Wells Fargo uses this fee, when ALL of my posts say the opposite. Are you really THAT confused? 2. Wells Fargo reports mentioned by yourself and Robert where I explained the TRUE issue of the report, confirming it had nothing to do with Unavailable Funds Fee. Not a peep from either of you since. 3. Your refernce to the Way Back Machine website and archived web pages for wellsfargo.com that seemed to support your claims. I had to point out to you that those historical web pages were actually the current wellsfargo.com website, EVIDENCED by the 2009 copyright date at the bottom. Not a peep from you since. 4. The Wikipedia page for Unavailable Funds Fee, the history of how it's been updated over time and the ABSENCE of Wells Fargo on that list. Be careful Striderq. With MOUNTING evidence such as this, you're bordering on falling into the class with the likes of others such as your 'alleged' collegue 'D'. And since you're proving to be a SELECTIVE reader with short memory, let me close by repeating what I said at the beginning of THIS POST: I'm BEGGING you to respond and point out the EXACT post where I said Wells Fargo charges the Unavailable Funds Fee.

Actually, Wells Fargo is now accessing the unavailable funds fee (as Edward admits in some of his posts) and it also accesses a fee if your account is in the negative for a certain number of days. So edwrd's advice of keep doing the same thing and hope that you don't get charged the same fee won't work. Now, as far as 'D' is concerned. I'm not sure if he/she really is a Wachovia employee. I do apologize for the posts that they have put representing themselves as an employee. The vast majority of employees that I have dealt with do care about the account holders and do all they can do help. I will admit that some employees her (as in all jobs) are bad apples and should not be employed anywhere.If you do decide to close your account, I will be sorry to see you go but would encourage you to read and follow the advice of posters such as Edgeman, resty, Jim and others to learn how to avoid the fees that have been accessed on your account.

I don't see them spending the resources on it.

I don't see them spending the resources on it.

I don't see them spending the resources on it.

Can you post the link to the news article that will be written about the mysterious, "D"? The YouTube appeal to, if you don't mind. (psst... most employers need more than an anonymous post on the internet to dismiss an employee, but let's keep quiet about this. I want to see how far it goes)

To "D", the Wachovia Employee: I am going to do you one better favor. First of all, I am going to print your post and take it into my Wachovia branch and close my account, since most of you Wachovia employees would prefer we do that anyway. Next, I am taking this post to a local reporter in the Atlanta area in hopes of getting them to do a story on this problem. It is obvious that Wachovia employees do not want customers, just paychecks. Since you are hiding your name and identity, I trust Wachovia will do some research as a part of damage control and find you down in Naples, Florida and throw you out on the street so you can join the OP's husband and see how it feels to be unemployed. Further, Wachovia will probably be interested in knowing about its employees who are on the internet trashing the customers instead of educating the customers and showing concern for their financial plights and try to keep them. I am going to make it my personal quest to seek you out and get you fired! You have embarrassed your entire operation. I promise you, the press is going to jump on this! Also, to everyone reading this post, I will also be doing a You Tube appeal to find this person within the next week. I'll send a post to inform you of the details.

To "D", the Wachovia Employee: I am going to do you one better favor. First of all, I am going to print your post and take it into my Wachovia branch and close my account, since most of you Wachovia employees would prefer we do that anyway. Next, I am taking this post to a local reporter in the Atlanta area in hopes of getting them to do a story on this problem. It is obvious that Wachovia employees do not want customers, just paychecks. Since you are hiding your name and identity, I trust Wachovia will do some research as a part of damage control and find you down in Naples, Florida and throw you out on the street so you can join the OP's husband and see how it feels to be unemployed. Further, Wachovia will probably be interested in knowing about its employees who are on the internet trashing the customers instead of educating the customers and showing concern for their financial plights and try to keep them. I am going to make it my personal quest to seek you out and get you fired! You have embarrassed your entire operation. I promise you, the press is going to jump on this! Also, to everyone reading this post, I will also be doing a You Tube appeal to find this person within the next week. I'll send a post to inform you of the details.

To "D", the Wachovia Employee: I am going to do you one better favor. First of all, I am going to print your post and take it into my Wachovia branch and close my account, since most of you Wachovia employees would prefer we do that anyway. Next, I am taking this post to a local reporter in the Atlanta area in hopes of getting them to do a story on this problem. It is obvious that Wachovia employees do not want customers, just paychecks. Since you are hiding your name and identity, I trust Wachovia will do some research as a part of damage control and find you down in Naples, Florida and throw you out on the street so you can join the OP's husband and see how it feels to be unemployed. Further, Wachovia will probably be interested in knowing about its employees who are on the internet trashing the customers instead of educating the customers and showing concern for their financial plights and try to keep them. I am going to make it my personal quest to seek you out and get you fired! You have embarrassed your entire operation. I promise you, the press is going to jump on this! Also, to everyone reading this post, I will also be doing a You Tube appeal to find this person within the next week. I'll send a post to inform you of the details.

To "D", the Wachovia Employee: I am going to do you one better favor. First of all, I am going to print your post and take it into my Wachovia branch and close my account, since most of you Wachovia employees would prefer we do that anyway. Next, I am taking this post to a local reporter in the Atlanta area in hopes of getting them to do a story on this problem. It is obvious that Wachovia employees do not want customers, just paychecks. Since you are hiding your name and identity, I trust Wachovia will do some research as a part of damage control and find you down in Naples, Florida and throw you out on the street so you can join the OP's husband and see how it feels to be unemployed. Further, Wachovia will probably be interested in knowing about its employees who are on the internet trashing the customers instead of educating the customers and showing concern for their financial plights and try to keep them. I am going to make it my personal quest to seek you out and get you fired! You have embarrassed your entire operation. I promise you, the press is going to jump on this! Also, to everyone reading this post, I will also be doing a You Tube appeal to find this person within the next week. I'll send a post to inform you of the details.

Yes!!! Anybody who isn't able to do simple math IS STUPID. And if you can't do that, STICK WITH CASH!!!

Since no name was referenced, I'm making the assumption the last post from the newest Employee was intended for the OP, Jeannie. So based on that assumption I'm going to repeat what I've said to Jeannie in most of my previous posts. Hey Jeannie. No need to CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT. This report is ENTIRELY RELATED to Unavailable Funds Fees. This is a fee used by Wachovia. This fee IS NOT used by Wells Fargo, who just bought Wachovia. The Unavailable Funds Fee has nothing to do with keeping and balancing a check register and nothing to do with deposit holds. It's a fee charged even when enough money is IN YOUR ACCOUNT and the money is USED to PAY and COVER transactions. But a fee is still charged for those transactions that were PAID and COVERED with money PHYSICALLY in your account. (See my example above). So instead of closing your account based on the very mature and professional advice by the newest employee, instead what you can do is simply sit tight and wait for Wells Fargo to take over. There's no guarantee, but this RIPOFF fee just might go away if Wells Fargo keeps its own policies. But after the integration is complete, and Wells Fargo does indeed ADOPT this RIPOFF fee from Wachovia, then Jeannie, by all means follow the advice of the mature and professional employee and CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT.

Soon we will ALL have discovered what a horrible bank this is and we WILL ALL GO AWAY poor little wachovia employee... How's life living on our tax cash? Are they paying you well? GEE MAYBE YOU SHOULD SPREAD YOUR WISDOM TO THOSE AT WACHOVIA that is you cannot manage your finances you should get out of finance... because the thought that my hard earned taxes go to you people who harass and steal because of "creative" accounting makes me ill... While you are on your high horse WE ALL PAY FOR YOUR EMPLOYER to exist and you are eating with our money that is charity to a company that nearly ran this country into the ground with greed, selling bad debts on the stock market. And yet you want to get all indignant on people who have been ripped off. That whole attitude that the customer is at fault while wachovia employes meathods and accounting unheard of in the history of banking... DO you think all these people ALL OF THEM are stupid? NO! This company has NO IDEA HOW TO TREAT A CUSTOMER. THAT is why wachovia is the worst bank that has ever existed and the entire reason they will soon have ZERO customers. So keep on telling people to leave! Soon you will be walking out that door and to the unemployment line. BUT Kudos for the stellar advice.

I am an employee with Wachovia. Please do us a favor, CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT!!!! If you are unable to do SIMPLE math, close your account. We are sick and tired of people like you coming in crying saying that we stole your money. Run your life wish CASH that way we 'WON'T STEAL'(LOL) anymore money from you.

On this thread, it has not been my intent to debate what Wachovia is doing here. They are charging the Unavailable Funds Fee. That has already been established long ago. The point of all my posts on this thread was to show that NOT ALL banks use this fee. MOST IMPORTANTLY, Wells Fargo DOES NOT use this fee. This is important because here you have a Wachovia customer asking and complaining about this. My point to Jeannie was if she detests this Unavailable Funds Fee, don't worry, because Wells Fargo just bought Wachovia and Wells Fargo DOES NOT use this fee. And then Striderq comes along and says yes Wells Fargo does and MOST banks do. That is UTTERLY FALSE and MISLEADING, and you have only to review the EVIDENCE I've already laid out in all of my previous posts to confirm this. Jim, you of ALL PEOPLE should understand this. Remember all of your posts on pasts threads to those complaining about the policies of big banks? You recommended they CONSIDER Credit Unions because these are more customer friendly and they don't do what the banks are doing? Well Jim, that's all I've done here. MANY banks DO NOT use this fee that Wachovia is using and Wells Fargo, who JUST BOUGHT Wachovia is one of them. Hey Jim, what if I or anyone else responded to your past credit union posts and I FALSELY claimed that in fact the credit unions are no different than the big banks, so don't bother switching. This falsely contradicts what you in fact KNOW TO BE TRUE about credit unions. Well that's what Strider, the Employee, has tried to do here as he FALSELY and WRONGLY attempts to group OTHER banks in with Wachovia. Once again, review ALL the evidence clearly laid out earlier. And finally ONE LAST example for Dave of Wisconsin. This is a VERY SIMPLE example picking up on the one given by Robert. I have $300 in the bank and I make a check deposit of $500. I wait until the next day for the deposit to fully post to my account. Now I have $800 in my account. In this SIMPLE EXAMPLE, let's assume this is a stack of CASH and the teller puts it in my safe deposit box. So I spend $50 to Merchant #1, then I spend $700 to Merchant #2, both using a debit card. Then I spend $400 to Merchant #3 using a debit card and this takes my AVAILABLE balance negative. The NEXT DAY, Merchant #1 PHYSICALLY comes to my bank and asks for his $50. The teller goes and removes $50 CASH from my safe deposit box and gives it to him. Then behind him comes Merchant #2 who asks for his $700. The teller goes to my safe deposit box, removes $700 CASH and gives it to him. Merchant #1 and Merchant #1 BOTH walk out the door with their CASH in hand from my account. And I still have $50 cash left in my safe deposit box. Merchant #3 has not arrived yet. He will be seeking $700 but I only have $50 left. A fee will occur because of this. No Problem. But remember Merchant #1 and Merchant #2 who BOTH walked out with their money? Well, Wachovia charged me a $35 fee for BOTH of them. Robert's point about the POSSIBILITY of all items posting on the same day is valid, but that's not what's happening. Dave your point about the risk of checks being returned and Merchant fees is a valid point. But that's not what's happening. The ONLY argument being made on all of these Wachovia reports is fees being charged for transactions that were PAID free and clear with money FROM the customer's account. In my example, two fees because of Merchant #1 and Merchant #2, when both Merchants walked out the door with their CASH. This is what you Robert and Dave and many others have been missing. That's the most SIMPLEST example of this ripoff here, which Wells Fargo does not do.

Edward, I said it before. Once a bank starts a successful policy, they will all copy it. As banks are consolidating, you're finding fewer and fewer banks that don't kick the fund fee to the customer on an overdraw of the available balance. Misleading? Maybe a year ago. Today? Probably not.

I have spent way too much time reading through this post. Edward...give it a rest. Striderg and Robert are correct and have presented clear information. I like millions of other people do most of my banking electronically, paying with a debit card and checks and I don't get NSF fees. you know why? I keep a register and know that if I make a deposit in most cases the funds are NOT AVAILABLE for immediate use. When people don't understand that they get in trouble. Edward, all banks operate the same. Stop trying to make excuses for why people bounce checks. The days of "floating"checks are over The funds deposited into the bank must be posted to the account before they can be used. The only Rip off here is when someone tries to convince other people that it is ok not to keep an accurate register and over draw their account, then scream it is a rip off to be charged NSF fees. From the OP's report did the bank list the transactions as paid to the store? If so,then the customer is lucky since they would not be paying an NSF fee to the store on top of the banks NSF So lets look at another option. which will help the customer not pay NSF fees to the bank. Let's say the customer has 100.00 available in the account and just made a 200.00 deposit that hasn't posted yet. 3 purchases are made and post to the account in this order (or any order you wish) 50.00 35.00 and 50.00. The bank pays the first and 2nd transactions because the money is there, the last one they should just send back. No fee charged and the account will not be overdrawn. Oh wait, the store will charge an NSF fee won't they. And if a person has several other transaction the same weekend (unless it is 15.00)they will have several other NSF fees at several other stores. Then there is the possibility the customer can be charged for passing bad checks and end up going to court and not only pay for the bad check but also the cost associated with the bad check/transaction and have a court record also. Problem solved, no bank fees.

After the answer for Robert. Here's the answer for Striderq to your question of how you mislead Jeannie here. You gave the impression that what happened to Jeannie here would have happened the EXACT same way at just about ANY bank. That's misleading. You conveniently failed to mention that what happened to Jeannie here is due to Wachovia's use of the Unavailable Funds Fee. A fee recently implemented by a very short list of banks. You conveniently failed to mention to Jeannie that if she banked at 99% of the OTHER banks who DO NOT use the Unavailable Funds Fee, this would not have happened to her. Sure she would have been charged an overdraft fee, but not the MULTIPLE FEES as was the case with Wachovia. Refer back to Wikipedia and Unavailable Funds Fee and the list of banks who USE IT. That's the misleading part which you've done on ALL of these Wachovia reports from THE BEGINNING. And that's the ripoff here.

Robert, what an excellent example and an excellent question. I can easily see how you're confused about the outrage. Probably because of Striderq's deliberate way of trying to confuse what Wachovia is doing in direct CONTRAST with the way MOST OTHER banks post transactions and charge fees. I'll take your example except modify it just slightly so you see the RIPOFF and outrage a little more clearly. Picking up on your example. You have deposited a $500 check, to go with your original balance of $300, giving you a new balance of $800. You wait until the next day for the deposit to post, so the entire $800 is FULLY IN YOUR ACCOUNT and POSTED. You then make a $50 debit card purchase leaving an 'AVAILABLE' balance of $750. You then make a $700 debit card purchase leaving an 'AVAILABLE' balance of $50. Then finally you make a $400 debit card purchase, and of course this overdraws your account. Here's the RIPOFF. Let's say the transactions DO NOT all come in on the same day and post on the same day. Let's say the first two debit purchases come in on the first day. So when the $50 debit and the $700 debit come in and post, your ACCOUNT BALANCE is $800. You have $800 physically in your account. So the bank takes the money IN YOUR ACCOUNT and pays the $50 debit, and the $700 debit, leaving you with $50 in your account. The third $400 debit is still ON HOLD. At the MAJORITY of banks, this i show those first two transactions would have been handled. Remember the last $400 debit is still ON HOLD, so it has NO BEARING on the money PHYSICALLY in the account to pay those first two items when they post. At Wachovia, Bank of America and VERY FEW banks, you would have been charged one fee EACH for the $50 debit and the $700 debit, even though the money was physically IN YOUR ACCOUNT to pay them. Now do you see the RIPOFF Robert?

my first answer spoke directly to the OPs report. Answers after that were in response to your posts. So exactly where have I tried to mislead anyone? I explained why the fees occured and what she could do to avoid the fees in the future, this is misleading? Oh yeah, I forgot, according to you everyone is supposed to change banks, keep their financial management the same and hope that they get less fees. Who's trying to mislead people again?

Why are certain people hung up on "Available" Balance. It seems that this should be common sense. For example: If I have $300 Available and deposit a check for $500. I know my bank does not post that check until that night so it is NOT available to use until the next day. The next day I use my Debit Card for $50. I write it in MY register, that now shows I have $750 AVAILABLE. I then write a check for $700 leaving me with $50 AVAILABLE because in MY register I show that I have spent the money. It does not matter when the merchant submits it or the bank posts either of these. Because I know I have spent the money. So now, I have a decicision as to if I write a $400 Check and overdraft my account. Taking the chance that all of the items will post on the same day thus incurring 2 OD fees($700,$400,$50) even though I wrote the $400 check last. So even if this is a new way they are posting, or just playing word games between "available balance" or "actual actual". Please explain why AVAILABLE balance is treated like it is the plague? -- As for the posting order, yes this is a very common practice for many years. I know because I have this "magic" knowledge I must be an employee. Sorry, but I am not nor have I ever been an employee of any bank. It basically goes back to me learning from my mistakes after bouncing some checks in the early 90's. Did I blame the bank..Nope. Did I learn how my bank handles transactions and what to do to avoid this in the future..YEP. This is the difference. I do feel for the people who get OD fees for the FIRST time. The advice here may seem critical, but it is really to help them to avoid it in the future. Because the bank's are not going to change, so they must. If they wish to continue thinking that the bank is wrong and not actually looking at what they are doing, then that is their choice. But then it is also their choice to be hit with the OD fees also. Just think how much time people have spent writing all of these reports and doing all of this research to try and prove the banks wrong. Where if they devoted that time to balancing their account they would never overdraft. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the banks are perfect and don't make mistakes. But in a vast majority of the reports here and other places, it is because the account holder was wrong.

Let's quickly review the points supporting the fact that Wells Fargo DOES NOT charge the Unavailable Funds Fee or anything SIMILAR to it by ANY OTHER NAME: 1. Liz Pulliam Weston's MSN article 'When Banks Turn Evil', written in May of 2007 where Wachovia was SINGLED OUT for being the ONLY ONE doing this at that time. 2. Jim, Faron, and Truth Detector, all very familiar with everything under the sun when it comes to bank policies. But somehow the Unavailable Funds Fee was foreign to them even though MOST banks have been doing it for years, according to Striderq. 3. Bank of America's NEW policy change in 2008 (After the acquisition of LaSalle Bank). After the acquisition and policy change, new ROR reports MAGICALLY start showing up against BofA for Unavailable Funds Fees, when NONE of these reports existed prior to 2008. 4. The Wikipedia page for Unavailable Funds Fees, created in March of 2006 and updated over the past three years, but no mention of Wells Fargo. 5. And of course, NO Wells Fargo ROR reports AT ALL. --------- Now let us review the arguments submitted by THE EMPLOYEE that suggests Wells Fargo and MANY banks use this fee and HAVE BEEN using it for years. 1. ALL of the Wells Fargo reports submitted by Robert - Proven to be unrelated. 2. The ONE or TWO Wells Fargo reports submitted by Striderq - Proven to be unrelated. 3. The wording of the Deposit Agreement. - Prior to 2008, BEFORE it started charging this fee, BofA had the SAME wording as Wells Fargo does now, but BofA was not charging the fee back then. The wording is being MISINTERPRETED by Striderq. 4. Oh yeah, here's a new one. Hey Striderq, do me a favor and go back to waybackmachine.com, search Wells Fargo and then go to April 1, 2006, just like you did before. NEWSFLASH - That page is the CURRENT wellsfargo.com site. Simply scroll to the bottom of the page where you'll see the copyright years 1999 - 2009. That's why the wording is the same. So what's your new explanation? One of these two statements is true: 1. You have a bank employee who apparently is not as astute as he thinks he is regarding the procedures of other banks including his new employer. OR 2. You have an employee who does know how all of these other banks work, but he is DELIBERATELY misleading customers like Jeannie here. Either way, it is very troubling indeed!

so according to Edward, until a complaint is reported then the problem doesn't exist. So let's see: Free Credit Report was established in 1995; Ripoff Report was established 1999; first report on Free Credit Report was in 2001; first report on Triple Advantage was in 2005. So I guess by Edward's logic that Free Credit Report from 1995 through 2001 didn't sign you up for credit monitoring when you ordered your 'free credit report'. And I guess that Triple Advantage didn't start charging 'unauthorized charges' until 2005. Some how I don't think that's true. So I believe you have to take the businesses word as to how they do business. If you have Fred's Bank that accesses fees based on the posted balance, then no one who banks at Fred's will know or use 'available balance' because it won't exist for them. If they have $100 in the bank and use their card to purchase $50, $30 and $10, then a check for $80 comes in they get no fees. Because the $100 covers the check and as long as they make a deposit before the card purchases post then they get no fees because the posted balance has bever gone negative. But if you have Tom's Bank that accesses on available balance then the customer would get a fee when the $80 check comes in (because the available balance is in the negative, $100 posted minus $90 in holds leaves $10 available minus the check equals -$70 available balance). Then if there was no deposit to cover the holds and the fee, the items on hold would be accessed fees as well. Tom's customers would know of the words available balance and be concerned if their card allows them to make purchases over the available balance. But until and unless someone posted a report on Tom's Bank then they would not be doing this. Seems to me the logic falls apart in reality.

Returning to the original OP, here's a repeat of my previous suggestion. Jeannie, to avoid being RIPPED OFF with these DOUBLE, TRIPLE, or QUADRUPLE fees in the future, you can move your account to 99% of the other banks which do not charge them. Or Jeannie, you can simply sit tight and wait to see the final outcome of the Wells Fargo, Wachovia integration. Because Jeannie, Wells Fargo DOES NOT charge this fee, as of now. Here's YET ANOTHER to add to the list of individuals, experts, news articles and other facts and figures that support 'my opinion', according to Striderq. Since you Striderq are so intrigued with websites like waybackmachine.com, let us ALSO consider Wikipedia. When you go to Wikipedia and look up 'Unavailable Funds Fee' you will find a GREAT description of how the fee works, and how it's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the regular overdraft fee and NSF fee. But more importantly, here's something else you'll find on Wikipedia. The list of banks who have implemented this fee. How convenient. So let's go take a look, shall we. Directly from Wikipedia: Banks known to have implemented the Unavailable Funds Fee: ---------- Bank of America, N.A Wachovia bank, N.A. U.S. Bank, N.A. Suntrust Bank, N.A. Sovereign Bank N.A. Citizens Bank (RPS Citizens) Compass Bank ---------- Here's another little tidbit for ya. Wikipedia has something known as revision history, where it shows how the information has changed over time. 1. The page for the Unavailable Funds Fee was first created in August of 2006. 2. The list of known banks who use it wasn't added until July of 2008. On that original list was BofA, Wachovia, and US Bank. 3. Suntrust added to the list in July of 2008. 4. Sovereign Bank added to the list in September of 2008. 5. Citizens Bank added to the list in November of 2008. 6. Compass Bank added to the list in December of 2008. Let's play a game. Can you tell whose NOTICEABLY missing from this list? Here's a hint - they just bailed out Wachovia. ;)

his latest post is nothing than hot air. Edward wants people to accept the reports words at face value but discounts the words of the companies as meaning nothing. It didn't happen unless someone complained about it. Pretty sad attitude to have in life.

Fact #1: Here's the entire quote from Liz Pulliam Weston in the MSN Article. Remember, she's ONLY the most read personal finance columnist on the Internet, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, with columns in many major newspapers across the country. ---------- Where Wachovia differs from many of its banking brethren is what happens when other transactions are processed that exceed this "available balance." With MANY BANKS, you won't get a bounced-check fee unless you exceed the actual balance in your account. With Wachovia, you can wind up with a fee if you exceed the "available balance" -- even if you actually have enough money in your account to cover the transactions.....If you're a Wachovia customer, raise hell, contact your lawmakers and consider moving to another bank. ---------- Fact #2: Bank of America's NEW Disclosures updated in 2008 to include the following paragraph. Prior to 2008, the folloiwng paragraph was NEVER present in ANY of BofA's past Deposit Agreements. Try looking THAT up on waybackmachine.com and DISPROVE me. Please. I beg you. ---------- Funds in your account are not available to cover a check or other item if we determine when we process the check or other item that the funds are subject to an authorization we place on the account for a debit card transaction, to any type of hold we place on the account, to a dispute, or to legal process. ---------- Prior to 2008, no BofA reports for these fees. Then in 2008, AFTER this NEW/MODIFIED paragraph, the BofA reports start showing up. Makes Perfect Sense. Fact #3: STILL no Wells Fargo reports. Another correction to your last post. I said BofA recently began this. Not Wells Fargo. I have said many times on this thread and others, that Wells Fargo NEVER HAS, and STILL DOES NOT charge this fee, not even TODAY! Can you hear me now? You lose credibility when you claim you can read, comprehend and unsterstand Bank Disclosures, but you can't even keep up with SIMPLE things I've said REPEATEDLY and mis-quote my stances which everyone, including YOURSELF can go back and read on THIS VERY THREAD. Prior to 2007, only Wachovia reports. Then BEGINNING in 2008, Wachovia AND Bofa reports, but none still for Wells Fargo and 99% of other banks. Isn't it FUNNY how MY opinions seem to be backed up by all of these FACTS and UNDISPUTED evidence? Please spare us the same pitiful response that reports are out there. Where? If they're so prevalent, it should be EASY to produce the report numbers. I can produce HUNDREDS of Wachovia report numbers, EASILY. Why can't the same be done for Wells Fargo? Why are you and I continuing to post on these Wachovia reports? Why don't WE BOTH start posting on the Wells Fargo reports? Because they DO NOT exist. I am BEGGING and PLEADING for these reports so I can begin to rant against Wells Fargo. But alas, I will not FALSELY ACCUSE.

Edward your sample ledgers are just representations of how you interpret the transactions to post. The banks say when an item posts to the negative available balance they will charge a fee. And yet you try to cling to your manufactured ledgers and 3 people who "agree" with you. Oh yeah and your "expert" who wrote the article. Basically what you have presented are opinions, including that of your expert. And everyone can have an opinion. However in dealing with companies such as banks, you must deal with reality. The reality is the banks charge a fee for each and every item that posts to a negative available balance. And actually your stance on banks charging when the available balance goes negative has been that Wachovia and only Wachovia charges this fee. You then concede that Wells and BOA just recently started charging these fees. Well I invite you to use the WayBackMachine.com Waybackmachine.com is a great website that you can search for archived data from specific website as they appeared in the past. I went to way back machine and searched for WellsFargo.com. I then went to April 01, 2006 and pulled up their website. In the search area I input FAQS and then under Wells Fargo Customer Service-FAQS I looked at Transactions and the fees selection. Under the question: What is an overdraft fee or returned item fee? Overdraft is a term to indicate when an item such as a check, Check Card purchase or other transaction presented for payment is paid even though the available balance in your account is less than the amount of the item, thereby creating an Overdraft (or negative balance) in your account. An overdraft fee will apply. I then went to their current website and found the exact same explanation of an OD fee. Supposedly WF has changed their policy within the last couple of months to now charge the unavailable funds OD fee and yet they are still using the same explanation from 2 years ago. Now some people might try to say that they just haven't updated the answer. I would say they haven't updated the answer because it was true in 2006 and it's still true today. Meaning they charged the unavailable funds fee in 2006 and are still charging it today. Yeah I know the next argument will be but nobody was complaining of it until recently. Doesn't mean it wasn't happening. I have a tendency to believe a company, when they say you will be charged a fee when you meet these criteria, then you will be charged a fee. Wells has explained the reason behind the fee exactly the same for at least two years so I believe that they have been charging the fee exactly the same for at least two years. Information for BOA that I found was equivalent. No change in the description of when the fee is charged. The only changes I found in any information about the fee was the amount charged per item and it seems that BOA has recently done away with a per day limit that they had on the number of fees they would charge. Everything else is the same for at least the last two years. So my posts starting in November of 2007 when I said that other banks that Wachovia were charging the fee seems to be the truth. Some may not want to accept that but until anything is presented to disprove the information in the way back machine, then it seems that I have been correct all along.

Edward your sample ledgers are just representations of how you interpret the transactions to post. The banks say when an item posts to the negative available balance they will charge a fee. And yet you try to cling to your manufactured ledgers and 3 people who "agree" with you. Oh yeah and your "expert" who wrote the article. Basically what you have presented are opinions, including that of your expert. And everyone can have an opinion. However in dealing with companies such as banks, you must deal with reality. The reality is the banks charge a fee for each and every item that posts to a negative available balance. And actually your stance on banks charging when the available balance goes negative has been that Wachovia and only Wachovia charges this fee. You then concede that Wells and BOA just recently started charging these fees. Well I invite you to use the WayBackMachine.com Waybackmachine.com is a great website that you can search for archived data from specific website as they appeared in the past. I went to way back machine and searched for WellsFargo.com. I then went to April 01, 2006 and pulled up their website. In the search area I input FAQS and then under Wells Fargo Customer Service-FAQS I looked at Transactions and the fees selection. Under the question: What is an overdraft fee or returned item fee? Overdraft is a term to indicate when an item such as a check, Check Card purchase or other transaction presented for payment is paid even though the available balance in your account is less than the amount of the item, thereby creating an Overdraft (or negative balance) in your account. An overdraft fee will apply. I then went to their current website and found the exact same explanation of an OD fee. Supposedly WF has changed their policy within the last couple of months to now charge the unavailable funds OD fee and yet they are still using the same explanation from 2 years ago. Now some people might try to say that they just haven't updated the answer. I would say they haven't updated the answer because it was true in 2006 and it's still true today. Meaning they charged the unavailable funds fee in 2006 and are still charging it today. Yeah I know the next argument will be but nobody was complaining of it until recently. Doesn't mean it wasn't happening. I have a tendency to believe a company, when they say you will be charged a fee when you meet these criteria, then you will be charged a fee. Wells has explained the reason behind the fee exactly the same for at least two years so I believe that they have been charging the fee exactly the same for at least two years. Information for BOA that I found was equivalent. No change in the description of when the fee is charged. The only changes I found in any information about the fee was the amount charged per item and it seems that BOA has recently done away with a per day limit that they had on the number of fees they would charge. Everything else is the same for at least the last two years. So my posts starting in November of 2007 when I said that other banks that Wachovia were charging the fee seems to be the truth. Some may not want to accept that but until anything is presented to disprove the information in the way back machine, then it seems that I have been correct all along.

Edward your sample ledgers are just representations of how you interpret the transactions to post. The banks say when an item posts to the negative available balance they will charge a fee. And yet you try to cling to your manufactured ledgers and 3 people who "agree" with you. Oh yeah and your "expert" who wrote the article. Basically what you have presented are opinions, including that of your expert. And everyone can have an opinion. However in dealing with companies such as banks, you must deal with reality. The reality is the banks charge a fee for each and every item that posts to a negative available balance. And actually your stance on banks charging when the available balance goes negative has been that Wachovia and only Wachovia charges this fee. You then concede that Wells and BOA just recently started charging these fees. Well I invite you to use the WayBackMachine.com Waybackmachine.com is a great website that you can search for archived data from specific website as they appeared in the past. I went to way back machine and searched for WellsFargo.com. I then went to April 01, 2006 and pulled up their website. In the search area I input FAQS and then under Wells Fargo Customer Service-FAQS I looked at Transactions and the fees selection. Under the question: What is an overdraft fee or returned item fee? Overdraft is a term to indicate when an item such as a check, Check Card purchase or other transaction presented for payment is paid even though the available balance in your account is less than the amount of the item, thereby creating an Overdraft (or negative balance) in your account. An overdraft fee will apply. I then went to their current website and found the exact same explanation of an OD fee. Supposedly WF has changed their policy within the last couple of months to now charge the unavailable funds OD fee and yet they are still using the same explanation from 2 years ago. Now some people might try to say that they just haven't updated the answer. I would say they haven't updated the answer because it was true in 2006 and it's still true today. Meaning they charged the unavailable funds fee in 2006 and are still charging it today. Yeah I know the next argument will be but nobody was complaining of it until recently. Doesn't mean it wasn't happening. I have a tendency to believe a company, when they say you will be charged a fee when you meet these criteria, then you will be charged a fee. Wells has explained the reason behind the fee exactly the same for at least two years so I believe that they have been charging the fee exactly the same for at least two years. Information for BOA that I found was equivalent. No change in the description of when the fee is charged. The only changes I found in any information about the fee was the amount charged per item and it seems that BOA has recently done away with a per day limit that they had on the number of fees they would charge. Everything else is the same for at least the last two years. So my posts starting in November of 2007 when I said that other banks that Wachovia were charging the fee seems to be the truth. Some may not want to accept that but until anything is presented to disprove the information in the way back machine, then it seems that I have been correct all along.

Edward your sample ledgers are just representations of how you interpret the transactions to post. The banks say when an item posts to the negative available balance they will charge a fee. And yet you try to cling to your manufactured ledgers and 3 people who "agree" with you. Oh yeah and your "expert" who wrote the article. Basically what you have presented are opinions, including that of your expert. And everyone can have an opinion. However in dealing with companies such as banks, you must deal with reality. The reality is the banks charge a fee for each and every item that posts to a negative available balance. And actually your stance on banks charging when the available balance goes negative has been that Wachovia and only Wachovia charges this fee. You then concede that Wells and BOA just recently started charging these fees. Well I invite you to use the WayBackMachine.com Waybackmachine.com is a great website that you can search for archived data from specific website as they appeared in the past. I went to way back machine and searched for WellsFargo.com. I then went to April 01, 2006 and pulled up their website. In the search area I input FAQS and then under Wells Fargo Customer Service-FAQS I looked at Transactions and the fees selection. Under the question: What is an overdraft fee or returned item fee? Overdraft is a term to indicate when an item such as a check, Check Card purchase or other transaction presented for payment is paid even though the available balance in your account is less than the amount of the item, thereby creating an Overdraft (or negative balance) in your account. An overdraft fee will apply. I then went to their current website and found the exact same explanation of an OD fee. Supposedly WF has changed their policy within the last couple of months to now charge the unavailable funds OD fee and yet they are still using the same explanation from 2 years ago. Now some people might try to say that they just haven't updated the answer. I would say they haven't updated the answer because it was true in 2006 and it's still true today. Meaning they charged the unavailable funds fee in 2006 and are still charging it today. Yeah I know the next argument will be but nobody was complaining of it until recently. Doesn't mean it wasn't happening. I have a tendency to believe a company, when they say you will be charged a fee when you meet these criteria, then you will be charged a fee. Wells has explained the reason behind the fee exactly the same for at least two years so I believe that they have been charging the fee exactly the same for at least two years. Information for BOA that I found was equivalent. No change in the description of when the fee is charged. The only changes I found in any information about the fee was the amount charged per item and it seems that BOA has recently done away with a per day limit that they had on the number of fees they would charge. Everything else is the same for at least the last two years. So my posts starting in November of 2007 when I said that other banks that Wachovia were charging the fee seems to be the truth. Some may not want to accept that but until anything is presented to disprove the information in the way back machine, then it seems that I have been correct all along.

Striderq. Yes, I believe Wells when they say they charge fees for going over your available balance. Most banks do. I've stated this in just about ALL of my previous posts. So redundant!! What I don't believe is that they charge fees for PREVIOUS transactions when those transactions POST to a negative available balance. As my sample ledgers show above. These are the cold hard facts and sound logic that the other three guys agreed with, whom I referenced. The point of the reference was to show how it wasn't just me who recognized this RIPOFF. Let's add SOMEONE ELSE to that list. In the MSN article 'When Banks Turn Evil' referring to what we're discussing here, the author SPECIFICALLY calls out Wachovia and says 'Where Wachovia differs from many of its banking brethren.....' The author of course is Liz Pulliam Weston. She's only the most read personal finance columnist on the Internet, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, with columns in many major newspapers across the country. I'm glad you asked again about the 2003 Wells Fargo report. The argument used in that report is the same argument used in many other reports. The customer is angry that Wells Fargo allowed them to keep spending once their balance reached zero. The customer would have preferred if the transaction were DENIED. The reason of course is the customer doesn't want to be charged a fee, ONE FEE. For the millionth time. The customer is angry because they know this one transaction that was allowed overdrew their account and so they will be charged a fee for it. That's all. It has nothing to do with getting DOUBLE or TRIPLE charged fees for other PREVIOUS transactions. That report falls in line with the debate between customers who prefer their card to be allowed at zero balance and those who prefer it be denied at zero balance. Got it? That report has nothing to do with the ripoff here. But don't believe lowly ole Edward. Just ask Liz Pulliam Weston.

Very funny coming from you Edward. You want to take the words of yourself and three others that you found that say this is a ripoff. And yet you refuse to take Wells at their word in their terms and conditions that they charge on the available balance. Also there are reports on several banks (5/3, US Bank, BOA, etc) that say the customer is being charged when their available balance goes into the negative. And yet you want to try the old and settled argument that Wachovia is the only bank that currently charges this. Astonishing. Basically then, you want us to accept the written words when it helps your side of the argument but to discount/ignore the written words when it goes against your argument. Simply amazing. I notice you're ignoring the 2003 report on Wells where the OP complained about transactions being approved above the available balance. Perhaps you could answer the question that if Wells accesses fees only on posted balances, then how would the OP have known or cared about available balances?

>> Quote from Jim of Anaheim in Report # 285936 'Edward, I am waiting for either (1) the other banks to catch on to what Wachovia is doing because it is pretty sneaky, or (2) a determination that what they're doing is wrong and needs to be changed.' >> Quote(s) from Faron of Houston in Report # 285936 'I think the complaint really boils to Wachovia will pop you twice for the same charge'. 'First, they will hit you with the unavailable fee for uncleared amounts which throw you over your balance.' 'The second charge can occur after your amounts are posted if have extended yourself, then you get popped again for NSF fee.' 'So, the same transaction can cause you to be hit twice. I get that.' >> Quote from Truth Detector of Pennsylvania in Report # 285936 'As much as it pains me to agree with him...I have to back Edward on this particular point.' This is but a small sample of comments from many users. All three of these guys are on record with being very strict on consumers and all three emphasize consumer responsibility first. But one thing they have in common with me is NONE of these three guys understood what Wachovia was doing until LAST YEAR. Their quotes I posted here were in March of 2008 when they first saw the light. Funny how it took these guys YEARS to realize something that ALL banks were doing according to Striderq. Hmmm.... Combine that with NO reports against BofA for this practice prior to 2008. Then after BofA changed it's policy, now the BofA reports are flying in left and right. But Striderq would have everyone believe all banks, including BofA were already doing it back then. So, in 2008 BofA ANNOUNCED they have a NEW POLICY which states they will continue doing something they have already been doing for years according to Striderq? Huh? What? And finally. We're all familiar with posting order complaints. This is something that I can agree on. MOST, but not all banks post transactions in order of largest to smallest amount. And on most of those reports you'll find HUNDREDS of comments from different people stating that MOST bank do this and have done this for years. Their comments are not unusual because this practice is indeed WIDESPREAD and WIDELY KNOWN by almost everyone. Funny how we don't find that same FLOOD of comments on these Wachovia reports from HUNDREDS of users stating how this practice of DOUBLE charging fees IS NOW and always HAS BEEN in use by MOST banks, as Striderq would have everyone believe. Case in point, the OTHER EMPLOYEE on this very thread who said NOTHING of the sort. As Striderq tries to UNFAIRLY group ALL banks in with Wachovia's obvious ripoff here.

>> Quote from Jim of Anaheim in Report # 285936 'Edward, I am waiting for either (1) the other banks to catch on to what Wachovia is doing because it is pretty sneaky, or (2) a determination that what they're doing is wrong and needs to be changed.' >> Quote(s) from Faron of Houston in Report # 285936 'I think the complaint really boils to Wachovia will pop you twice for the same charge'. 'First, they will hit you with the unavailable fee for uncleared amounts which throw you over your balance.' 'The second charge can occur after your amounts are posted if have extended yourself, then you get popped again for NSF fee.' 'So, the same transaction can cause you to be hit twice. I get that.' >> Quote from Truth Detector of Pennsylvania in Report # 285936 'As much as it pains me to agree with him...I have to back Edward on this particular point.' This is but a small sample of comments from many users. All three of these guys are on record with being very strict on consumers and all three emphasize consumer responsibility first. But one thing they have in common with me is NONE of these three guys understood what Wachovia was doing until LAST YEAR. Their quotes I posted here were in March of 2008 when they first saw the light. Funny how it took these guys YEARS to realize something that ALL banks were doing according to Striderq. Hmmm.... Combine that with NO reports against BofA for this practice prior to 2008. Then after BofA changed it's policy, now the BofA reports are flying in left and right. But Striderq would have everyone believe all banks, including BofA were already doing it back then. So, in 2008 BofA ANNOUNCED they have a NEW POLICY which states they will continue doing something they have already been doing for years according to Striderq? Huh? What? And finally. We're all familiar with posting order complaints. This is something that I can agree on. MOST, but not all banks post transactions in order of largest to smallest amount. And on most of those reports you'll find HUNDREDS of comments from different people stating that MOST bank do this and have done this for years. Their comments are not unusual because this practice is indeed WIDESPREAD and WIDELY KNOWN by almost everyone. Funny how we don't find that same FLOOD of comments on these Wachovia reports from HUNDREDS of users stating how this practice of DOUBLE charging fees IS NOW and always HAS BEEN in use by MOST banks, as Striderq would have everyone believe. Case in point, the OTHER EMPLOYEE on this very thread who said NOTHING of the sort. As Striderq tries to UNFAIRLY group ALL banks in with Wachovia's obvious ripoff here.

>> Quote from Jim of Anaheim in Report # 285936 'Edward, I am waiting for either (1) the other banks to catch on to what Wachovia is doing because it is pretty sneaky, or (2) a determination that what they're doing is wrong and needs to be changed.' >> Quote(s) from Faron of Houston in Report # 285936 'I think the complaint really boils to Wachovia will pop you twice for the same charge'. 'First, they will hit you with the unavailable fee for uncleared amounts which throw you over your balance.' 'The second charge can occur after your amounts are posted if have extended yourself, then you get popped again for NSF fee.' 'So, the same transaction can cause you to be hit twice. I get that.' >> Quote from Truth Detector of Pennsylvania in Report # 285936 'As much as it pains me to agree with him...I have to back Edward on this particular point.' This is but a small sample of comments from many users. All three of these guys are on record with being very strict on consumers and all three emphasize consumer responsibility first. But one thing they have in common with me is NONE of these three guys understood what Wachovia was doing until LAST YEAR. Their quotes I posted here were in March of 2008 when they first saw the light. Funny how it took these guys YEARS to realize something that ALL banks were doing according to Striderq. Hmmm.... Combine that with NO reports against BofA for this practice prior to 2008. Then after BofA changed it's policy, now the BofA reports are flying in left and right. But Striderq would have everyone believe all banks, including BofA were already doing it back then. So, in 2008 BofA ANNOUNCED they have a NEW POLICY which states they will continue doing something they have already been doing for years according to Striderq? Huh? What? And finally. We're all familiar with posting order complaints. This is something that I can agree on. MOST, but not all banks post transactions in order of largest to smallest amount. And on most of those reports you'll find HUNDREDS of comments from different people stating that MOST bank do this and have done this for years. Their comments are not unusual because this practice is indeed WIDESPREAD and WIDELY KNOWN by almost everyone. Funny how we don't find that same FLOOD of comments on these Wachovia reports from HUNDREDS of users stating how this practice of DOUBLE charging fees IS NOW and always HAS BEEN in use by MOST banks, as Striderq would have everyone believe. Case in point, the OTHER EMPLOYEE on this very thread who said NOTHING of the sort. As Striderq tries to UNFAIRLY group ALL banks in with Wachovia's obvious ripoff here.

>> Quote from Jim of Anaheim in Report # 285936 'Edward, I am waiting for either (1) the other banks to catch on to what Wachovia is doing because it is pretty sneaky, or (2) a determination that what they're doing is wrong and needs to be changed.' >> Quote(s) from Faron of Houston in Report # 285936 'I think the complaint really boils to Wachovia will pop you twice for the same charge'. 'First, they will hit you with the unavailable fee for uncleared amounts which throw you over your balance.' 'The second charge can occur after your amounts are posted if have extended yourself, then you get popped again for NSF fee.' 'So, the same transaction can cause you to be hit twice. I get that.' >> Quote from Truth Detector of Pennsylvania in Report # 285936 'As much as it pains me to agree with him...I have to back Edward on this particular point.' This is but a small sample of comments from many users. All three of these guys are on record with being very strict on consumers and all three emphasize consumer responsibility first. But one thing they have in common with me is NONE of these three guys understood what Wachovia was doing until LAST YEAR. Their quotes I posted here were in March of 2008 when they first saw the light. Funny how it took these guys YEARS to realize something that ALL banks were doing according to Striderq. Hmmm.... Combine that with NO reports against BofA for this practice prior to 2008. Then after BofA changed it's policy, now the BofA reports are flying in left and right. But Striderq would have everyone believe all banks, including BofA were already doing it back then. So, in 2008 BofA ANNOUNCED they have a NEW POLICY which states they will continue doing something they have already been doing for years according to Striderq? Huh? What? And finally. We're all familiar with posting order complaints. This is something that I can agree on. MOST, but not all banks post transactions in order of largest to smallest amount. And on most of those reports you'll find HUNDREDS of comments from different people stating that MOST bank do this and have done this for years. Their comments are not unusual because this practice is indeed WIDESPREAD and WIDELY KNOWN by almost everyone. Funny how we don't find that same FLOOD of comments on these Wachovia reports from HUNDREDS of users stating how this practice of DOUBLE charging fees IS NOW and always HAS BEEN in use by MOST banks, as Striderq would have everyone believe. Case in point, the OTHER EMPLOYEE on this very thread who said NOTHING of the sort. As Striderq tries to UNFAIRLY group ALL banks in with Wachovia's obvious ripoff here.

Wells DOES charge the unavailable funds fee. BOA does, Wachovia does, Fifth Third does and just about every other bank that has a report here on ROR does. Your contention that even though Wells says it charges this in their terms and conditions but doesn't just because there are no complaints about it are hot air. There are reports specifically reporting being charged the unavailable funds fee by Wells. And the report I mentioned indicate it may have been charged back in 2003. So continue to live in your dream world. You seem to be the one refudsing to understand the words.

** WARNING ** PLEASE READ POSTS WORD-FOR-WORD! In my previous post, I CLEARLY stated that BofA began to charge fees for items that post to a negative available balance. I was not referring to Wells Fargo beginning to do this in 2008. Because I've consistently said all along, Wells Fargo has not ever charged this fee and still does not charge this fee to this day. You either misread or half-read my previous post. Everything you said in your LAST post is correct, when applied to Wachovia, Bank of America, and a few other banks. Everything you said in your last post is INCORRECT when applied to 99% of OTHER banks. Repeating my last, this is what you have cleverly and effectively tried to intermingle all along. On all of the previous Wachovia threads, when it finally became obvious to other posters what Wachovia was doing, your M.O. ever since is to pitifully try to group all of the OTHER banks in your category. Wrong! Nothing new to add. My previous post said it all. Try reading it carefully, in its entirety some time. Everyone else gets it, Mr. Employee. And I graciously thank you again for your assistance in making it all possible. ;-)

Edward, it doesn't matter when the purchases were made. What matters is when they post do they take the available balance into the negative? If they do then that item is cahrged an unavailable funds fee. If you have three items post on Tuesday night to a negative available balance then you will have three fees. If the four items that were on hold on Tuesday then post on Wednesday to a negative available balance they will each have a fee accessed, four fees. It's interesting that you say Wells only started this in 2008, and yet report61736 dated 06-24-2003 talks about card puechases being approved for more than the available balance. If the bank only posts charges when the posted balance goes negative then the available balance doesn't matter. And yet here's a report from 2003 talking about available balance, so apparently even back in 2003 available balance was a concern on your account. I don't now if the person in that report was charged unavailable funds fees, but I find it intersting that one of her complaints lists the available balance at a time when you contend it had nothing to do with fees being accessed.

The common theme amongst any banking institution is affiliated with bank regulations, funds availability and the way the VISA/Mastercard Debit system works for all institutions. The biggest misconception amongst the public is how the VISA/Mastercard system works with the Federal Banking System, Check Clearing (AKA: "Check 21"), Funds Availability (Reg. CC) and the Consumer Protection Laws that govern banks (Regulation E). Thus far in this specific thread, I have not seen anybody mention the fact that this customer did not keep a check register. If you don't keep a check register - you could check all your transactions on-line all day long and you'd still risk an overdraft for numerous reasons. Here are some examples; 1) The Gas & Oil Industry, VISA, Mastercard & the Banking Industry agreed long ago that ANY checkcard purchase for Gasoline (non pin-based) is authorized for $1.00 at the point of sale. The merchant (Gas Station Owner or his payment processor) sends through a subsequent authorization 2-3 business days later for the full amount of the purchase which then "hard posts" to the account. If the hard-posted transaction is presented when account is already in the negative or the transaction itself overdraws the account - an Overdraft fee is assessed. This is NOT exclusive to any one bank. Don't believe me - just call your bank and ask them how gasoline purchases work when it comes to a non-pin based transaction. Gasoline purchases are the number one reason people overdraft their account(s). The reason the industry agreed on this payment process ("$1.00 auth") was due to the extraordinary fraud affiliated with gas purchases (how many gas attendants have ever even looked at your "CID" code - "Check ID" on the back of the card?) The "$1 auth" process allows two things to happen that mitigates risk to both the banks and the Gas & Oil industry A) The authorization merely verifies that THE CARD is active. To the contrary, the VISA/Mastercard system does NOT verify funds available in the account or on the line of credit when it comes to gasoline purchases. B) It allows the banks and the oil & gas companies to work together to reduce fraudulent purchases and share in losses when it comes to "drive-offs". 2) Hotels, Rental Companies, Airlines, Travel Agencies, Internet purchases, QVC, Amazon, Catalog companies and other similiar service-oriented businesses have a completely different agreement with VISA/Mastercard. To illustrate, if I book a reservation with a hotel, they will run an authorization for the assumed amount of the stay. If it's a VISA Debit card, there might be a "hold" of 2-3 business days on available funds for the assumed amount of the room charge. If the hold expires (because the stay may be reserved for 2-3 months out), then the merchant reserves the right to a) run a new authorization and charge a fee in the event the room is cancelled too close to the reservation date b) run a new authorization to hold the room and use the new auth# to capture the funds when you check out or c) use the expired auth# to hold the room but allow you the option to pay with a different card when you check out. All of this is governed by the Depositors agreement and is in accordance with the usage of the VISA/Mastercard - which, by the way, is considered a seperate bank account even though it debits a primary checking account. This is a general rule of thumb for service/travel industry but if you are not sure how this works, the merchant must disclose their billing policy when asked. 3) ACH Debits and "Check 21" or "E-Checks"; These types of funds clearing confuse even sophisticated customers of banks, credit unions, etc. Generally, if I authorize a "check by phone" to my Cell Phone provider - the merchant will not debit your account for 2-3 business days. However, they consider the date of the payment as the same day you phoned it in. If the funds are not available when the payment is PRESENTED, then the bank reserves the right to charge an overdraft or NSF fee and the merchant a return check fee. ACH Debits are generally pre-scheduled monthly payments on a specific date. If the scheduled date falls on a weekend or holiday, then funds must be available on the next immediate business day. Check 21 is the electronic submission of funds to a financial institution but the payee "keeps" the physical check they received. Your statement becomes the proof of payment. This was authorized by an act of Congress via the Treasury back in 1995 (???). Finally, there are consumer protection laws that prohibit banks and merchants from charging fees for verified fraud, unauthorized transactions, bank/merchant errors, etc. Unauthorized charges must be reported within 60-90 days of the posted transaction date (or no later than the last 2 statements plus the current statement cycle). The bank and/or merchant MUST refund overdraft and NSF fees when verified fraud or a bank/merchant error has occurred. When it comes to the banking industry, most of these supposed "Fee Rip-Offs" are really complaints that should be routed to your representatives in Congress and the Senate Banking Committee. There the only ones that can change the banking laws. Don't waste your time playing the blame game - either you overdrafted your account, there was fraud or a bank/merchant error occurred. It's really that simple. If you were really ripped off, contact the Better Business Bureau or the regulating arm of the financial industry "OCC" and/or "OFAC". Institutions do not have a choice when it comes to responding to these complaints. Happy banking and don't forget to keep a transaction register folks!!!

Let me carry this one step further beyond Wells Fargo. Most if not all banks charge a fee when your available balance goes into the negative. The KEY difference is they ONLY charge you a fee for the FIRST card swipe that causes your available balance to go negative. And a fee is charged for each SUBSEQUENT card swipe MADE AFTER the available balance is negative. For any previous card swipes made BEFORE the available balance went negative, these banks DO NOT charge any fees when those transactions post. That's the KEY DIFFERENCE, which Striderq has cleverly and effectively tried to intermingle all along. The concrete proof is Bank of America. Like most banks, Bank of America has charged a fee when the available balance goes negative. This has been true even well before 2008. Let's review Striderq's quote, 'When a bank, any bank, charges a fee when your available balance goes into the negative it will charge a fee for each and every item that posts to a negative available balance'. If Striderq's quote were true, BofA should have charging fees this way well before 2008, because they have been charging fees for overdrawing the Available balance all along. So the question is, What happened in the year of 2008 to cause BofA customers to get all in an uproar and for the NEW BofA reports to start showing up in 2008. If BofA is doing nothing new, why the sudden outrage? It's because BofA changed it's policy to do exactly what Striderq says. NOW, BofA does indeed charge a fee for transactions that POST while the Available balance is negative. They DID NOT do this before 2008, even though they did charge a fee for overdrawing the available balance. And all BofA customers can confirm this. This has been the RIPOFF all along and the DISTINCTION between Wachovia and a few banks compared with ALL other banks. Thanks to my accomplice Mr. Striderq for helping to make this CRYSTAL CLEAR for everyone. Finally!

you got your info, but your post shows your error. When a bank, any bank, charges a fee when your available balance goes into the negative it will charge a fee for each and every item that posts to a negative available balance. Therefore with your ledger, all 3 banks are the same. 4 items posting to a negative available balance, 4 fees accessed.

you got your info, but your post shows your error. When a bank, any bank, charges a fee when your available balance goes into the negative it will charge a fee for each and every item that posts to a negative available balance. Therefore with your ledger, all 3 banks are the same. 4 items posting to a negative available balance, 4 fees accessed.

you got your info, but your post shows your error. When a bank, any bank, charges a fee when your available balance goes into the negative it will charge a fee for each and every item that posts to a negative available balance. Therefore with your ledger, all 3 banks are the same. 4 items posting to a negative available balance, 4 fees accessed.

you got your info, but your post shows your error. When a bank, any bank, charges a fee when your available balance goes into the negative it will charge a fee for each and every item that posts to a negative available balance. Therefore with your ledger, all 3 banks are the same. 4 items posting to a negative available balance, 4 fees accessed.

Let me clarify my position that Striderq is incorrectly stating. I'm AM NOT saying that Wells Fargo doesn't charge fees for going over the Available balance. Most banks do this. What I AM saying is they will only charge fees BEGINNING with the transaction that caused it, and for transactions AFTER that. Wells Fargo will not go back in time and charge fees for transactions ALREADY MADE before the overdraft occurred. Here's a sample ledger that shows how it works: ---------- The beginning ledger after transactions are made but still PENDING or on HOLD: Date.....Item.....Amt....Posted Bal.... Available balance 12-17....Prv Bal..$00....$100............$100 12-19....Check...$30....$ 70.............$ 70 12-19....Check...$25....$ 45.............$ 45 12-19....HOLD....$10....$ 45.............$ 35 12-19....HOLD....$02....$ 45.............$ 33 12-20....HOLD....$20....$ 45.............$ 13 12-20....HOLD....$50....$ 45............($ 37) The FINAL $50 debit is the last transaction made. It overdraws the account. It will be charged a fee. Any transactions made AFTER it will also be charged a fee. ---------- Here's the final ledger when things POST days later at Wachovia and Bank of America: Date.....Item.....Amt....Posted Bal.... Available balance 12-17....Prv Bal..$00....$100............$100 12-19....Check...$30....$ 70.............$ 33 12-19....Check...$25....$ 45.............$ 33 12-20....Debit....$10....$ 35.............($ 37) 12-20....Debit....$02....$ 33.............($ 37) 12-20... 2 Fees..$70....($ 37)...........($ 37) 12-21....Debit....$20....($ 57)...........($177) 12-21....Debit....$50....($107)..........($177) 12-21... 2 Fees..$70....($177)..........($177) A total of FOUR fees charged, when only ONE transaction overdrew the account. ---------- Here's the final ledger at Wells Fargo: Date.....Item.....Amt....Posted Bal.... Available balance 12-17....Prv Bal..$00....$100............$100 12-19....Check...$30....$ 70.............$ 33 12-19....Check...$25....$ 45.............$ 33 12-20....Debit....$10....$ 35.............($ 37) 12-20....Debit....$02....$ 33.............($ 37) 12-21....Debit....$20....$ 13.............($ 72) 12-21....Debit....$50....($ 37)...........($ 72) 12-21....Fee......$35....($ 72)...........($ 72) To use Striderq's exact words, the customer's AVAILABLE balance goes into the negative. Wells Fargo charges them a fee. But they charge them ONE fee for the transaction that caused it. Footnote: Prior to 2008, BofA's ledger looked like this one based on their old policy. BofA, like Wells Fargo, charged A FEE when the available balance goes into the negative just like Striderq says. So Striderq is partially correct, but with a subtle yet clever change which makes all the difference in the final result. And that's the ripoff here.

it's because I believe a company when they state in their terms and conditions that you will get an OD fee if your available balance goes into the negative. Wow, the company tells you waht will happen, then it happens. Imagine that concept. However you want to contend that even though Wells says they will charge on a negative available balance that they don't do it because there's no reports. Totally wrong. The reports and the phrases used have changed since I and other bankers have started posting here to educate the people on how to avoid these fees. However there are reports from the banks you claim don't do it or just started doing it that reflect these fees have been charged for a while. But again, no complaint so it's not happening right? LMAO. When a company says this is how it is to do business with us, then that's how it is. Doesn't matter who complains or says what, that's the way. But I guess the OPs can just take your advice and go to another bank (that has the same fee structure), continue to spend in the same fashion and then 'hope' they get fewer fees. Won't happen. About the only difference in banks these days is what is the amount of their fees and do they credit deposits before or after debits for that business night. So you can continue in your dream world but most people prefer reality. Keepinf an accurate register is the reality to prevent OD fees.

Robert, thank you for doing what Striderq refuses or cannot do. Did it ever occur to you why Striderq hasn't bothered to reference these same reports? It's because he's smart enough to realize they DO NOT deal with the specific issue we're discussing here. Unavailable Funds Fees, or fees charged for posting transactions because they don't leave enough money to cover pending holds. Here are the explanations and why none of your referenced reports fit: 6/2008, Report # 345193 - Tried to beat transactions with a deposit, but the deposit posted last. 5/2008, Report # 332433 - The issue is largest first posting order. 10/2007, Report # 278429 - Transactions posted but deposits were held. 10/2007, Report # 277456 - Only deals with CHECKS and largest first posting order. 8/2007, Report # 271203 - Just a common complaint about fees in general. 4/2006, Report # 187894 - No details for it to be CRYSTAL clear either way. 4/2006, Report # 187876 - Deals with posting order debits before deposits. 3/2006, Report # 180756 - Deals with approved card swipes with zero balance. 9/2004, Report # 106534 - The issue is largest first posting order. 7/2004, Report # 97556 - Deals with paying vs returning a written check. On to BofA. I never said BofA had NO reports prior to 2008. I was referring to a specific type of report. Reports discussing fees charged for HOLDS. Everyone knows BofA has reports for all other issues. But there can't be any BofA reports for the topic on this thread prior to 2008, because they just implemented this policy last year. Are you kidding me? Do you even know what we're discussing here? Has it ever occurred to anyone how we're all jumping from report to report on this issue? Anyone notice anything similar about these reports? They're all Wachovia and Bank of America. I'm anxiously trying to find some Wells Fargo reports of this SAME TYPE so I can go add my $.02 to them. Why are we not all discussing this on some of these 'phantom' Wells Fargo reports? Because they don't exist. They don't exist, probably because they're not doing it? Ya think?

"Contrary to what you're lead to believe, THE EVIDENCE suggests that Wells Fargo has not used this procedure IN THE PAST. Reviewing the report history here on the ROR, you can go all the way back to 2006 and you will not find ONE SINGLE report of this nature against Wells Fargo.." Well here is just a sample of the reports located on RipOff report. These all deal with Posting Order and Charging of Overdraft Fees for WELLS FARGO. 6/2008 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/345/RipOff0345193.htm 5/2008 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/332/RipOff0332433.htm 10/2007 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/278/RipOff0278429.htm 10/2007 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/277/RipOff0277456.htm 8/2007 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/271/RipOff0271203.htm 4/2006 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/187/RipOff0187894.htm 4/2006 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/187/RipOff0187876.htm 3/2006 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/180/RipOff0180756.htm And as for your 2006 Cut-off: 9/2004 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/106/RipOff0106534.htm 7/2004 - http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/097/RipOff0097556.htm By the way you can search for BofA reports and see reports well before 2008 also. So no Wachovia is not the only bank that does this, and it is NOT a new policy. The difference is the use of the DEBIT Card. Before people would write checks for big purchases and use cash for the small purchases. So if they OD they may get hit with 1 or 2 fees. The point now, is the same as the point then. You must always keep track of your balance using a register, especially if you use a Debit Card. This means keeping track of not only your debits, but how your deposits are posted. If you can not do this than you MUST cut up the debit card and go back to using CASH for these small purchases. The OP is a perfect example they had 7 Transaction that TOTALED less than $20($16.52) all were under $5 and the smallest one was $0.42. Were any of these items a necesity...very doubtful. So had the OP either taken out a single $20 bill and used it for these 7 or just not spent the money at all they would have saved over $200 in OD fees.

Something has to change. You people keep debating this bank or that bank. Things aren't gonna change. These banks are going to continue to rip people off. THAT'S not gonna change. If anything these banks are getting worse. PEOPLE are gonna have to change the way they behave. They're gonna have to learn to play the bank's game. If the OP learned how, she'd be $2000 richer.

Jeannie, let me follow up on the EXCELLENT advice given by Cory earlier. I again express sympathy for your situation, but I agree it does call for you and your family to make adjustments. Something you're probably already aware of. But even after you make adjustments, stuff happens. As you expressed in your report, these are tough economic times for many families. But even as they struggle to make adjustments, many will find themselves in a situation where they are forced to overdraw their account out of necessity. Desperate times call for desperate measures. They realize they will be charged a fee, and they accept it. Here's where you have a point in your report. I point you back to my example given earlier when I explained how Wachovia's fees worked. Remember those nine transactions that were EACH hit with a fee all because of ONE pending hold? At Wells Fargo and MOST OTHER banks, their policies would only have resulted in ONE FEE charged for that LAST transaction. That's what my example customer and family expected and willingly accepted because they knew they had to overdraw their account for food or whatever else. It's not like they're trying to get off scott free. But at Wachovia, Bank of America and very few banks, that final transaction made OUT OF NECESSITY will result in NINE additional fees for OTHER transactions that NEVER OVERDREW the account. And the reasoning and logic for this has already been pitifully explained by the employee, Mr. Striderq. So in MY EXAMPLE, you have any typical family where the wife and husband both lose their jobs, and they make a tough decision to overdraw their account with ONE transaction to keep food on the table. Then along comes Wachovia and Bank of America to kick them while their down and try to justify charging TEN fees for ONE transaction. And you have employees, like Mr. Striderq and other bank supporters who say 'Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that'. Who said life was fair? Now isn't this the absolute LAST THING that famillies like this want to hear?

Edward, thank you for finally answering the question of how you 'help' people being charged OD fees. Your help, go to another bank and hope they only charge you one fee. Even though the banks are charging the unavailable funds fee, even Wells which specifically tells you that in the terms and conditions. So your advice to change banks will do NOTHING to help the OP. The ONLY thing that will help is to properly keep an accurate check register and not spend money not available in your account. This will lead to no OD fees being charged. Your advice will just lead to OD fees being charged from their new bank.

Jeannie, I truly sympathize with your situation, expressed in your own words - 'I am very frustrated at how, in the middle of such a horrible economy, a banking institution can continue to use such lude if not criminal tactics to steal money from the American public.' This is why I'm persistent in trying to TRULY answer your question - 'So where do these charges come from? Someone please help me or at least lead me in the right direction to someone who can.' I've already explained how these charges work in my previous post. If you remain with Wachovia, they will continue to DOUBLE or TRIPLE charge fees whenever you overdraw your account. However, if you were to move your account to MOST OTHER banks, besides Wachovia or Bank of America, then you would only get charged ONCE for the ACTUAL transcation that overdraws your account. Or you can remain patient to see how Wells Fargo handles this, now that they have bought Wachovia. Contrary to what you're lead to believe, THE EVIDENCE suggests that Wells Fargo has not used this procedure IN THE PAST. Reviewing the report history here on the ROR, you can go all the way back to 2006 and you will not find ONE SINGLE report of this nature against Wells Fargo. But now coincidentally in this new year of 2009, the very first report # 420342 was filed against Wells Fargo. So you Jeannie are lead to believe that Wells Fargo has been doing this for who knows how long, but yet over a four year period, NOT ONE report until now. When on the other hand reports like yours against Wachovia are a commodity. Combine this with the reporting history for BofA. No reports prior to 2008, but then in 2008 reports for them are now also a commodity just like Wachovia. It's because BofA changed their policy in 2008 to start doing this. Still not a peep of Wells reports. You can reach your own conclusion and most importantly, good luck to you!

"My husband lost his job about six months ago and we have been struggling ever since". If he lost his job and you've been struggling ever since, you're going to have to make some sacrifices and work smarter for your money. Knock off the frivolous purchases. You're probably getting hit for $30 to $35 for every NSF charge and you have 3 for around ONE dollar or less, even one for 42 cents, probably a stamp. Come on, 42 cents, dig it out of the kids piggy bank? You pay a $30 NSF fee for a 42 cent purchase. There were a couple more for under $5. Same thing, pay a $30 NSF fee for a $3.07 purchase. There were even more $5 to $10 purchases at $30 to $35 a whack. Another suggestion is to make a list of things you're gonna need and stick to it. Train the kids and your husband to put down on a list, the things they'll need for the week and shop ONLY once a week. Going back to a store two or three times on the same day, burns up gas and racks up your NSF count. IF you're gonna have NSF fees, at least you'll have one instead of 2 or 3. AND, stop eating out. $1 for a coffee at mcdonald's cost you a $30 NSF fee. For what you pay for one meal, you can feed your family for a couple of days to a week, if you're smart. Finally, you had around 25 purchases in a 5 day period. Stop hitting the same stores several times a day. you'll cut down on the number of NSF's.

No, Edward, this is not unique to Wachovia. More than a handful are charging this fee, including Wells Fargo, BOA. The reason is the money is spent when you swipe your card so the money has to be AVAIABLE when you swipe your card. Very easy to understand and prevent.

This comes down to a UNIQUE way in which Wachovia charges it's fees. There are a handful of other banks which have recently begun this new RIPOFF, but they are very few. Most banks do not charge fees this way. Here's an example of how it happens. You swipe your debit card nine times on Monday and your balance is positive after all nine swipes. So NONE of these nine transactions will be charged a fee, right? Hold that thought. Then on Tuesday you swipe your card for the tenth time. This last SINGLE transaction is the ONLY ONE that overdraws your account, and it's still on HOLD. At this point, your available balance is now negative. Remember, those previous nine transactions that were ALREADY MADE and ALREADY CLEARED the Available balance? Well now those nine transactions will come in and post. Since the Available balance is negative when they post, all nine of them will be charged a fee. Then, when the tenth transaction comes in and posts, it will also be charged a fee. At the majority of OTHER banks, the ONLY transaction that would have been charged a fee in this scenario is the FINAL transaction. It was the ONLY one that overdrew the account. And it posted last, so it has nothing to do with swapping the posting order either. When you think about it, you will realize and AGREE this how banks have charged fees since forever. And this how the majority of them still charge fees, unlike Wachovia and very few others.

When we do our processing for a business day, we take the posted balance from the previous business night subtract the total amount on hold then add any deposit/credits for that business day and then subtract the debits from largest to smallest. Looking at the itmes that posted on 03-03-09 and 03-04-09 (the checkcard purchases that were done on 03-02) you had an amount of $136.99. There was either something else on hold that expired or a deposit hold on a previous deposit, because $280 in fees equals 8 fees. That means the first item that posted on 03-02-09 that was charged a fee was the Twin City grocery $9.93 that left your balance at $207.50. When you subtract the holds that puts your available balance at $70.51. So there was another hold(s) in effect for about that amount. With the way the debit card is run for approval and the hold being placed at that time, you must consider the purchase as being made at the time you run your card not whne it posts to your account. This means you must have an available balnce to cover everything posting that night and all items on hold. Please use a check register to track every transactions. Subtract your purchase when you make them. Add your depsoits/credits when they are available. Use online banking and the phone system ONLY to see what has posted and not to see what your balance is to go shopping. You can turn the corner and stop the fees by making the right financial management changes.

They did not steal your money. This basically comes down to you either not understanding how banks process transactions, not keeping a register, or keeping a register and thinking you can spend more in your account than you have. First you MUST keep your own accurate register of your account, do not rely on On-Line/Phone/or ATM balances. Because for various reasons are not accurate and were never meant to be your sole method of managing your account. This includes writing down every single transaction you make. Then NEVER spend more than you have in the account. Next you have to understand how banks(and I am talking about most banks not just Wachovia) post transactions. They post transactions HIGHEST to LOWEST, of everything that has been submited since the last banking day. So this means since weekends are not banking days they will post anything that was submited on Saturday or Sunday on Monday. They will also post any debit before any credit. Then you also must understand your funds availability policy. This includes cut-off times for deposits. Generally deposits are not made available immediatly. So if you make a deposit by check they may hold it for a few days before they post it to your account. Also, if you go into a bank and deposit $300 they will apply any debits that day before the $300 deposit. And one other very important item. If you fail to keep very accurate records of all of your transactions through your check register, or have a very low balance STOP using the debit card, especially for small purchases. I mean are you saying you didn't have $0.42 in change for a stamp at the Post Office? Go back to what was done before debit cards. Take out a set amount of cash and use that cash for those small purchases.