Complaint Review: Wachovia - Lake Mary Florida

I agree with edward on this. There a difference with overdraft and unavailible funds fees. And Wachovia keeps telling me there sending info on fees and have not recieved anything yet. I only used the #'s to better explain more clearly. The stated balance of $100 was really more and that money was in account direct deposit and posted 1/17. So there should have been no issues of funds not being there from bank. It was a payroll deposit same as other months so no issues of new deposit or anything. Or have any reason to suspect going to be problems with those funds. It also had an extra business day to post.

The charges were more like $280. 2 overdraft and 6 unavailible funds. they credited back $28 dollars. I was still angry so wrote into the BBB and the reply I got from wachovia is the credit an additional $105 dollars. So they must know there doing something wrong and just wanted to get the BBB off thier backs.

The charges were more like $280. 2 overdraft and 6 unavailible funds. they credited back $28 dollars. I was still angry so wrote into the BBB and the reply I got from wachovia is the credit an additional $105 dollars. So they must know there doing something wrong and just wanted to get the BBB off thier backs.

OP posted: "Let's just say I had 100 bal." That is pretty vague, as far as I am concerned, and his story became progressively even more vague as it unfolded. So, banks suck. Stop using them! Credit cards suck. Stop using them! Debit cards suck. I never use them! I use three credit unions and three banks. None of them ever give me a lick of trouble. I also use three credit cards. Again, none of these give me a lick of trouble. You guys cannot handle ONE bank? Something is wrong, guys! And I am not sure the problem is with the banks.......... [I remember a conversation I had 8 years ago with a (real) buyer's broker and his wife/partner, showing them how I evaluate real estate using a Pugh Matrix. After I quickly explained how a Pugh Matrix led one to a correct buying decision, they pointed out that most people were too math-challenged to do what I did. Could this explain the cause of the problem being argued here??]

Try reading the OP over again and pay CLOSE attention to the wording. There was no pending deposit made. There is no issue here with any funds that were waiting to be deposited but not yet fully posted, not AVAILABLE and cleared. All of the funds in question were fully available. The Unavailability Furthermore, You make the statement that a deposit made, but not yet cleared is Unavailable - hence the name Unavailable Funds. All of your references to Unavailable Funds point to pending deposits. Yes that is a true statement but that's only HALF the story. If you make a deposit, after that deposit does post, those funds are now FULLY available. But as you go spending, the HOLDS leave less and less Available Funds while they're ON HOLD. So if you keep spending and then EXCEED your Available Funds - that's where Unavailable Funds Fees are charged. It has nothing to do with a pending deposit. Here's a suggestion. Don't take my word for it and don't take your word for it, let's simply refer to the Deposit Agreement for the Undisputed, end all answer - Oh Wait! I forgot. It's not in the Deposit Agreement. That's the reason for all of the needless speculation. Is this information valuable enough for you?

What part of NSF/Unavailable funds fee don't you understand? If you make a deposit that is not readily available and in the process of clearing, what would you call those funds? UNAVAILABLE. Unavailable funds are funds that have not yet cleared the other bank and in fact unavailable funds fees are charged when you exceed the current AVAILABLE balance, hence the name UNAVAILABLE. I don't know where you get off telling anyone anything if you don't know what your talking about. So please keep BANKWORKER out of your comments unless you have something of value to add. Thanks

Jim of Anaheim, I think you now completely understand what Wachovia is doing with this practice, which you also agree 99% of the other banks are NOT using. There are several reasons why I emphasize the discrepancy of the Deposit Agreement. Irregardeless of what others say or think about myself and my views, I can now point to you as a witness - the wording DOES INDEED seem to be PURPOSELY written to be vague. Why else would this be done except for the sole purpose of RIPPING OFF customers - which you ALSO hint at, just like 'Edward the Bank Hater' has always hinted at. Jim, I understand what you're saying about charging fees based on the Available Balance, but frankly the way Wachovia is doing it is wrong and a RIPOFF. There are several issues here. Firstly, I wanted this to be clear for all of the numerous current and past posts from those who FREELY throw around insults to complaining customers - 'Read your Deposit Agreement', 'Read your Terms and Conditions', or 'Read your Disclosures'. These insults are wrongly meant to imply that if the customer cannot read, understand, and make sense of these SIMPLE documents, then they are IDIOTS who shouldn't have a bank account. Now, Jim of Anaheim, YOU have agreed that Wachovia's wording is undeniably open to interpretation and you correctly HINT at their ripoff motives behind it. Secondly - When a customer reads their Deposit Agreement at Bank #1 they understand they're charged ONE FEE, PER EACH transaction that overdraws their account. And when this happens to them, they receive their one fee, just like the agreement said. They move on to Bank #2, which has the same wording, and they witness the same result when they overdraw - no problem. This goes on and on at each bank, until they get to Wachovia which has the same wording but the results are DEVASTATINGLY DIFFERENT. It can't be called anything other than DOUBLE FEES - the way these all of these customers are describing them. Finally - Some customers CHOOSE to overdraw their accounts, sometimes out of LUXURY or preference for something they want or sometimes out of NECESSITY or EMERGENCY. The point is, these customers know there will be a fee and they accept it, based on that wording. At 99% of banks, the results fall in line with the Agreement wording and they receive ONE fee. At Wachovia, the results are no where close to what ANYONE would LOGICALLY conclude - reading that same wording. That's the INTENTIONAL ripoff here.

Edward, if the account agreement stipulates the bank can charge a fee when the account has insufficient funds, then the unavailable funds fee would be covered under such an umbrella. It's vague - yes there is no doubt. But as we've gone through this so many times, the agreements are made to be as vague as possible so that there are multiple interpretations, all favorable to the bank. Is it a rip-off? It's a bank, so again - I expect it, as all of us should. Jim, the reality of the situation is that when you thought you had a balance of $100 - the balance really was $0. Those funds are placed on hold for many days prior to the funds actually being disbursed. It's sort of like having a check mailed out 5-10 days before and having it clear later. When you spent the money over the weekend, you incurred BOTH the OD fee and an Unavailable Fee because you did nothing to replenish the account when the funds became unavailable. In reality, Wachovia seems to be the only bank that handles this transaction properly because I know other banks that don't seem to. The lesson here isn't of the big large bank bullying the small customer. Most CFA's will tell you that a cushion of $500 or more is needed if people plan on managing funds in the way you practice. In this way, you avoid having OD or Unavailable Funds Fees charged to your account.

Jim, the Bankworker is wrong: First incorrection - The Unavailable Funds Fee is NOT explained in Wachovia's Deposit Agreement, as you have probably discovered. Second incorrection - Wachovia is within the 0.001% of banks that use this RIPOFF fee - Unavailable Funds Fee. The other 99.99% of banks/credit unions DO NOT use this RIPOFF fee, for obvious reasons. It's nothing more than double fee charging for overdrafts, plain and simple, just as Jim has correctly indicated. That's the ripoff here.

Deposits are normally processed on "business days" which are M-F. Not Saturday, Sunday or holidays. If you make a deposit, normally most banks will allow for the first $100 or $200.00 for use (as a courtesy) until the entire deposit clears which depending on the bank can be anywhere from 1-8 business days. You are able to use your card but how much you use can be the factor. If for example you have 0 dollars in your account and you deposit $600, you may have $100.00 available to spend for 3 business days until the $500.00 clears. If you spend more than that initial $100.00 (checks presented, debit/credit card transactions, preauthorized debits) before the deposit clears then you'll overdraw your available balance and when the deposit clears you will be hit with unavailable funds fees because you should've waited for your deposit to clear. This is explained in the account agreement. It's really not a rip off because it is a practice that all banks/credit unions use.

Yes they are unavailible funds fees and not overdraft. Got hit with unavailble funds fees then the overdraft fees came later. Kinda double dipping if you ask me.

Jim, it is unfortunate that this happened to you. You have already discovered that you are not alone. The sad part is there have been many Wachovia customers long before you that have been SCREAMING about this ripoff and the rest of us never understood what you guys were complaining about. In the past, we simply passed these off as the same complaints about overdraft fees, similar to the overdraft fee complaints with other banks. What we didn't realize is that you Wachovia customers ARE NOT complaining about overdraft fees. You guys accept the OVERDRAFT FEES according to your own mistakes for THOSE transactions that OVERDRAW the account. But, instead you guys are complaining about the UNAVAILABLE FUNDS FEES. This is a totally SEPARATE and DIFFERENT fee, not disclosed to you in the Deposit Agreement. And these fees are charged against transactions that clear the Available Balance when they're made, and clear the Posted Balance when they post. But yet these CLEARED transactions are still charged fees. None of us understood what you guys were complaining about until now. And now that people like myself do understand and I simply try to clarify for everyone else's benefit, it's now called a 'CRUSADE' that I'm on. It's many customers like yourself that are posting all of these reports, understandably. But yet I'm the one a 'CRUSADE', simply because I try to clarify the THE TRUTH. How Funny! Even more - How Telling! Here's the important part. You've already acknowledged your mistake and had no problems with the single $35 overdraft fee you would get for that VERY LAST, and ONLY transaction that overdrew your account. So you're not ducking your responsibility and accept the fee for THIS TRANSACTION. What you don't accept is the new unavailable funds fees for the other transactions that CLEARED BOTH BALANCES! So, the lesson here - Had you been with 99.99% of the OTHER banks out there, you would have been charged ONLY ONE FEE as you acknowledge and accept. But with Wachovia, you're charged THREE ADDITIONAL fees, and this is on top of, and in addition to the overdraft fee that you still received for that one transaction anyway. Fortunately for you, you now realize this VERY COSTLY difference as you have indicated that you are searching for a new bank. Keep in mind that in no way do I condone irresponsible financial behavior and you acknowledge this as well. So at your NEW bank, if you were to make the same mistake here, you will still be charged a fee. The difference is, at your new bank that penalty will be ONLY ONE FEE instead of FOUR FEES. And Wachovia's defense, well if you don't overdraw your account, you don't give them a chance to RIP YOU OFF with these Unavailable Funds Fees for transactions that DID NOT overdraft the account. I repeat - How Funny and How Telling!