Complaint Review: Wells Fargo Bank - Internet Internet

read that article. Then print a copy of that article out on your computer & make about 10 to 20 copies of it. Take those copies into your Wells Fargo branch & simply pass them out to all the EMPLOYEES that are working there. Simply tell them that you are concerned that they are working at a bank that would operate in this way, & let them know that you're a customer of the bank.

that doesn't change the fact that many of us believe some banks are using less then ethical tactics to encourage overdrafting...and can you blame these banks??? They have made billions of dollars off these fees..so of course they hope you trust your online statement..and of course they did not offer for you to opt out of overdraft protection when you opened your account...so correct..you do need to watch your account to the penny..and NOT trust the bank statements...they are specifically set up to encourage overdrafting.

Note the following info and see if it applies to your complaint as it is a little vague. As well if you feel that additional fees were charged to you by the bank that had the funds at the time of transaction..and any manipulation was done to any transactions which caused additional fees..you can if you would like participate in an investigation.

H.R. 946, introduced in the US House of Representatives on February 8, 2007, would increase regulation of overdraft loan programs. The proposed legislation would Amend the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) to clarify that overdraft fees are covered, require written consent before enrollment in the overdraft loan program, require financial institutions to warn the customer when an ATM withdrawal will trigger a fee, and prohibit financial institutions from changing the order of check clearing or delaying the posting of deposits solely to increase overdraft fees. This bill was referred to committee in April 2007 and died in committee. However, as of February 2009, the FDIC was taking comments on the issue.

Finkelstein Thompson LLP is currently investigating claims that several banking institutions are systematically re-sequencing their customer's checking and electronic debit transactions from the highest to lowest dollar amount instead of posting the transactions in the order in which they were actually received.  It is alleged that the practice of re-sequencing electronic debits from largest to smallest maximizes the bank's profits from overdraft fees by putting the customers' accounts into a negative balance as quickly as possible.  Many customers claim they had sufficient funds in their accounts to cover the transactions when they made the purchase and when the bank authorized the charges. 

If you wish to participate with the investigation google "Finkelstein Thompson LLP" and on their website you can find out their contact info.


It is alleged that some banks, are in violation of 12 U.S.C. 4303(b)(1) for their failure to disclose that the condition precedent of a pre-existing overdraft could cause the assessment of additional overdraft fees.  Instead, the banks have been lying to consumers that the condition precedent was insufficient funds.

  {The true reason why you were assessed the additional overdraft fees that you did NOT cause is because you actually had a pre-existing overdraft in your account that the bank used to manipulate your account to create additional overdraft fees by a creative accounting practice}.

{The bank then falsely accused you of being at fault for the additional overdrafts you didnt cause by lying to you about having insufficient funds in your account.  In fact, without the pre-existing overdraft(s) in your account (condition precedent), it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for the banks creative accounting practice to have assessed additional overdraft fees against you that you did not create}.

{That is why the bank engages in tactics to make you overdraft your account. For example, the bank will not immediately post your correct available balance or the bank will drop a hold on your account to only apply it later to make you believe you have more available funds in your account then you do. The bank will also split two pre-existing overdrafts created on the same date so it can create additional overdraft fees on two different posting dates instead of one}.

Going online twice a day to see your balance is a complete waste of time; if you keep an accurate check register - you could literally check ZERO times per day and your register would be more accurate.  In fact, looking online is an excellent to insure you WILL get overdraft fees every single time.  Take time and look through ROR for every bank here and you'll not only fin a lot of overdraft complaints, but a lot of people looking online in the hopes of avoiding overdrafts - thinking that would avoid the problem.  It amazes me every time.

If you want to prevent a bank from taking money from your account, stop using your debit card, stick to checks and cash, and keep an accurate check register.  Even our court system is making you keep a register in case you want to prevail against a bank for a lawsuit against the banks.  Don't complain about the register - just keep it.

From the OP:

     "I am twice daily monitoring our account online to avoid such fees."

You can't use online banking as a substitute for a check register. It isn't accurate enough for that purpose and it was never intended to be used that way.

     "The fees were for amounts as small as $2.00 to $25.00 and we were charged $35.00 for each item."

Yes, you agreed to pay the bank $35 for each of your overdrafts.

     " Something needs to be done to prevent banks from being able to charge such outrageous fees, and profit from its customers. "

There is something that you can do to prevent overdraft fees. Don't rely upon inaccurate tools such as online banking as a substitute for a check register. Stay within your available balance and wait for deposited funds to become fully available before using them.