Citizens Bank setting up customers
seeker
in good faith as a result and had them honored by Citizens but hefty
fees taken. Then they have been tricked by tellers at the window into
giving false balances,making a deposit, then having the fees
withdrawn. I have seen people have their whole paychecks taken in this
manner.
seeker
Rick Evans
>i know several people who have gotten bad account info., drawn checks
> in good faith as a result and had them honored by Citizens but hefty
> fees taken.
This is not unique to Citizens. There is a growing trend where banks
process the biggest checks fast and first while deposited checks are
still clearing. The result is an overdraft fee. Banks justify these as
"conveniences" to customers who don't want to be troubled with maintaining
sufficient balance or balance their checking accounts.
--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35"
Lat +42° 11' 07"
David Chesler
Trust.
I sent Citizens a letter telling them that it was not a service to me
to allow overdrafts at ATMs and please not do it. They said they
couldn't stop it because the ATM couldn't know how much money was in
the account.
I changed my direct deposit. Payroll said it wouldn't take effect for
two weeks so I made a withdrawal; but it had gone into effect early.
The ATM let me take out one withdrawal, but not another (so it surely
knew how much was in my account.)
When I saw it was overdrawn I repaid the overdraft.
Citizens wanted fees. I told them I didn't agree to fees. They made
harassing "courtesy" calls threatening me that if I didn't pay the
money they would "arrange" things with their banks that I wouldn't be
able to open an account. I deposited more money in the account.
I closed the account. Citizens sent me a check that was about $100
short, for the "fees".
When I get around to it I will make a series of "courtesy" calls to
them making similarly vague threats about the bad things that will
happen to them if they don't give me my money.
I've had other calls with Citizens where they wouldn't give me
information about my joint account unless someone with a woman's voice
gave them her social security number. I asked "What good does that
do? What if I call you and claim to be she and have that
information?" The squeaky-voiced CSR said "Oh, that wouldn't work,
becauth I've put a hold on your account tho you can't do that." Sigh.
Of course the biggest loss I had with Citizens was when I moved an IRA
from a CD to an investment account, as a favor to a banker who was
getting pressure to get accounts into that end. I made it absolutely
clear that I wasn't interested in a quick buck, just stability. I
rode it out for 3 years, and they managed to turn $15,000 into $9,000.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Free Cory Maye
Cheryl Isaak
keep a buffer amount in the account.
BUT - you do make me leery of using them for the kids as they set up their
own checking accounts.
C
Dick Margulis
I use People's Bank (now People's United Bank) in Connecticut. They
recently acquired Chittenden Bank, which, if I'm not mistaken, is up in
your direction. I've found People's quite reasonable to deal with, and
if they apply the same policies to the acquired operation, you might do
better there than at Citizens. I've had an occasional disagreement with
them, but they've been good about working it out to my satisfaction.
It's a small enough company that you can reach actual human beings by
phone--including vice presidents with the authority to make bogus fees
disappear, waive stupid paperwork requirements, etc.--without much
trouble.
John S
> In article <hpFvj.12$O64.0@trndny03>,
> "Rick Evans" <h1ELt0...@ver1z0n.net> wrote:
>
>> This is not unique to Citizens. There is a growing trend where banks
>> process the biggest checks fast and first while deposited checks are
>> still clearing. The result is an overdraft fee. Banks justify these as
>> "conveniences" to customers who don't want to be troubled with maintaining
>> sufficient balance or balance their checking accounts.
>>
>
>
>
> an account there because a family associate sometimes sends me a check
> or I allow that person to deposit cash. They have Citizens and that
> is conveinent to the process from a time perspective.
>
> In theory, they should not be holding deposits of cash. That should
> be immediately liquid. However I was seeing cash deposits being held
> 24-48 hrs for now reason.
>
> It has to do with the instructions tellers are given at branches and
> how they enter the data into the computer. it IS possible to make
> cash immediately liquid but an increasing number of branches are
> requiring bank administrative permissions for that. In other words
> you have to go to the service desk to get it made liquid.
>
> Allegedly in-state checks drawn on Citizens should also be all-but
> immediate as that is an in-bank transfer of funds but some are being
> held 24 hrs. Out-of-bank or out of state checks tend to languish for
> the full 3 days.
Holding polices are set by law and Federal Reserve regulations. They
are either too short or too long, depending on your perspective. If
they are too short, you can withdraw money that hasn't cleared yet,
meaning that you are stuck with a major problem if you deposited a bad
heck and wired the money elsewhere. (See bank check fraud). If they
are too long, you can't withdraw your money fast enough. If they are
holding cash, check the truth in savings and funds availability policies
and politely ask them to stop. I have never had anyone hold cash at
anywhere I've banked at.
>
> Keep in mind that Citizens was recently sold to the Bank of Scotland
> which may or may not have anything to do with this.
If you consider 1988 to be "recently."
Cheryl Isaak
Margulis" <marg...@comcast.net> wrote:
A while back when we had TB BankNorth, we transferred, via check, a large
sum from our brokerage account to our local account. Their clerk made a
mistake - actually several, but the brokerage account honored the check and
wired the monies in a few days. But TDBN decided to not honor the
transaction until 20 days had passed because of "irregularities" and because
they wanted the "government" to investigate. And did NOT contact us.
Well, the car we were paying cash for arrived. But after 15 days, the funds
weren't.
So, we check with the brokerage house - funds released 14 days ago and they
have the handshake back from our bank.
So, visit with TDBN front counter - "the DEA is checking you out" because
of the large transaction. I point out that we have several brokerage
accounts and some how I doubted that they would be seriously interested the
one time money transfer to a Podunk band by a pair of middle aged Jews.
Go visit an "account manager" - go through the BS again.
Fine - lets call XXX - I have a fax of the entire transfer, but that doesn't
seem good enough for you.
Oh - we need a more senior person to do that.
Fine - get him/her. No one "senior enough" on site. First we are closing
this account today. Secondly- we're contacting our lawyer and the state
attorney generals office for fraud on your part. I'm sure I can get XXX
involved on the fraud complaint too. A VP of the bank showed up in half an
hour, spoke to my XXX rep, who pointed out the errors on the bank's part and
the XXX will recommend that New England clients ditch this bank.
Money was released post haste, no fee for the cashiers check, free checks
for ever (like that really matters) - couldn't kiss my rosy checks enough.
We still pulled the account in 6 weeks and did contact the state's AG.
Turns out there were numerous complaints of holding funds over 10 days - not
that much ever happened.
---
Honestly, as much as I'm a small government person, they never should have
deregulated the banks.
C
Cheryl Isaak
nowhere-B3AE7A...@news.verizon.net, "Tin Man Alley"
<now...@wouldntyouliketoknow.com> wrote:
> In article <hpFvj.12$O64.0@trndny03>,
> "Rick Evans" <h1ELt0...@ver1z0n.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> This is not unique to Citizens. There is a growing trend where banks
>> process the biggest checks fast and first while deposited checks are
>> still clearing. The result is an overdraft fee. Banks justify these as
>> "conveniences" to customers who don't want to be troubled with
>> maintaining
>> sufficient balance or balance their checking accounts.
>>
>
>
>
> I bailed from Citizens - sort of. I went to a Credit Union. I keep
> an account there because a family associate sometimes sends me a check
> or I allow that person to deposit cash. They have Citizens and that
> is conveinent to the process from a time perspective.
>
> In theory, they should not be holding deposits of cash. That should
> be immediately liquid. However I was seeing cash deposits being held
> 24-48 hrs for now reason.
Wait until you read my last post.
>
> It has to do with the instructions tellers are given at branches and
> how they enter the data into the computer. it IS possible to make
> cash immediately liquid but an increasing number of branches are
> requiring bank administrative permissions for that. In other words
> you have to go to the service desk to get it made liquid.
>
> Allegedly in-state checks drawn on Citizens should also be all-but
> immediate as that is an in-bank transfer of funds but some are being
> held 24 hrs. Out-of-bank or out of state checks tend to languish for
> the full 3 days.
>
> Keep in mind that Citizens was recently sold to the Bank of Scotland
> which may or may not have anything to do with this.
>
> In my case my account when about $2 negative after one of the problems
> with theways they process the deposits and withdrawls. While there
> were deposits to cover the withdrawls the way they processed the paper
> made the account go negative before the deposits to cover were also
> cleared. In theory, all deposits and withdrawls should be allowed to
> reconcile as was the case in the past. That does not seem to be
> happening now.
>
> The result was that I was whacked with some $100 in fees. I argued
> the point with their service people and managed to get about $60 of
> the fees removed but that was all.
>
> The next day I went to a Credit Union and opened an account and have
> had no problems since.
>
> Here's another post-9/11 thing. You cannot go to a bank with a
> handful of cash to get a money order anymore. You have to deposit it
> then draw the money order on your account. They need the paper trail.
>
> So I go to the local gas station and get a Western Union money order.
> Same thing. No laws against that. Works just as well. The draft
> costs less too. Most supermarkets offer this as well.
Personally, I prefer the postal money orders - the Western Union isn't
everywhere I am.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Holding polices are set by law and Federal Reserve regulations.
I was going to open an account at Bank of America based upon my ex-bank's
poor service and policies. I was told that the (in-state) checks would be
held for ten days before the cash would be available for withdrawal. I
opened the account elsewhere.
I asked about the holding period specifically, thank goodness. The more
complete policy is that they hold all checks for at least (I forgot, but
it was excessive) and that thy hve the optio to hold them for ten days.
Given that this was a new account, the ten days policy ruled.
I did't think that they could do that, but my guess is that BofA complies
with Federal Law.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
John S
> In ne.general John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>
>> Holding polices are set by law and Federal Reserve regulations.
>
> I was going to open an account at Bank of America based upon my ex-bank's
> poor service and policies. I was told that the (in-state) checks would be
> held for ten days before the cash would be available for withdrawal. I
> opened the account elsewhere.
>
> I asked about the holding period specifically, thank goodness. The more
> complete policy is that they hold all checks for at least (I forgot, but
> it was excessive) and that thy hve the optio to hold them for ten days.
> Given that this was a new account, the ten days policy ruled.
>
> I did't think that they could do that, but my guess is that BofA complies
> with Federal Law.
Special rules apply for new accounts (first 30 days or so). I never
plan on making withdrawals from a bank account in the first 30 days and
don't deposit very much in that time period either. (Unless of course
there is a promotion for making a higher deposit).
Even my credit union has some holding ( a few business days) on all
checks over $100 now, previously there were no holds for funds less than
$5,000. They can remove that upon request. Holds do protect you too,
against withdrawing funds that may not be valid. That's why crooks are
turning to phony bank checks, as banks are required to make these funds
available faster (even if they can't clear them from the other bank
faster).
Example of a popular scam:
You advertise something for sale. (e.g. car, computer, etc)
You receive an offer to offer to pay more via a certified bank check,
with the expectation that you will refund the difference (return the
change so to speak). They might even throw more in for the trouble or
for wire fees.
You deposit the "bank check," hand over the item (maybe), and find
the funds are available now, since it is a bank check.
You write a check (or often a wire) and "return" the excess money.
A few days (or even weeks) later your bank informs you that the bank
check is no good, and they have removed the funds from your account, and
charged you a bad deposit item fee. If your balance is now below zero
after removing the funds, they make a demand for you to repay them (plus
interest).
Don't fall victim to this! Various versions of the Nigerian 419
scams are doing similar things. The phony bank checks are getting very
realistic looking.
Jack McGann
"Credit Union"..
"seeker" <mothman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c07230a0-48b8-46c7...@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
David Chesler
> Holds do protect you too,
> against withdrawing funds that may not be valid.
This is a protection I don't need. If I have doubts about the check
I can wait for it to clear. If it's a personal check from a friend, I
can take his word that the check is good.
> Example of a popular scam:
...
> A few days (or even weeks) later your bank informs you that the bank
> check is no good, and they have removed the funds from your account, and
> charged you a bad deposit item fee. If your balance is now below zero
> after removing the funds, they make a demand for you to repay them (plus
> interest).
So the hold isn't a safe harbor, and it hasn't protected you then
either. It gives the bank some protection because most of the time
they'll catch a bad check before the hold.
In this electronic age, I don't understand why the bank can't clear
and transfer funds instantly -- under Check21 they can sure empty my
account that fast.
John S
> On Feb 24, 3:46 pm, John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>> Holds do protect you too,
>> against withdrawing funds that may not be valid.
>
> This is a protection I don't need. If I have doubts about the check
> I can wait for it to clear. If it's a personal check from a friend, I
> can take his word that the check is good.
That's one problem, there is no time limit to wait for. I believe under
the UCC that a check can be declared bad for up to three years and sent
back to the depositing bank. Regardless of what you need, banks don't
want to be stuck with a fly-by-night depositor dropping off a rubber
check either.
>> Example of a popular scam:
> ...
>> A few days (or even weeks) later your bank informs you that the bank
>> check is no good, and they have removed the funds from your account, and
>> charged you a bad deposit item fee. If your balance is now below zero
>> after removing the funds, they make a demand for you to repay them (plus
>> interest).
>
> So the hold isn't a safe harbor, and it hasn't protected you then
> either. It gives the bank some protection because most of the time
> they'll catch a bad check before the hold.
>
> In this electronic age, I don't understand why the bank can't clear
> and transfer funds instantly -- under Check21 they can sure empty my
> account that fast.
Not all check issuing financial institutions are capable of processing
that fast at the current time. Some are, but it's not practical to
differentiate them in a policy, especially since different rules apply
for state institutions in each state, federal commercial banks,
brokerage houses, savings banks/thrifts, credit unions, etc.
Cheryl Isaak
"John S" <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
Yep - happened to my neighbor while trying to sell a band saw, with the
twist that the buyer was deaf and using TTD. They took the check to the
police station, told it was a scam and sold the band saw to the officer
taking the report.
C
David Chesler
> David Chesler wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 3:46 pm, John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>>> Holds do protect
>>> you too,
>> This is a protection I don't need.
>
> That's one problem, there is no time limit to wait for. I believe under
> the UCC that a check can be declared bad for up to three years and sent
> back to the depositing bank. Regardless of what you need, banks don't
> want to be stuck with a fly-by-night depositor dropping off a rubber
> check either.
So why do you say it protects me?
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Newsgroup usage is reset on the 25th of each month.
John S
> John S wrote:
>> David Chesler wrote:
>>> On Feb 24, 3:46 pm, John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>>>> Holds do protect
>>>> you too,
>
>>> This is a protection I don't need.
>>
>> That's one problem, there is no time limit to wait for. I believe
>> under the UCC that a check can be declared bad for up to three years
>> and sent back to the depositing bank. Regardless of what you need,
>> banks don't want to be stuck with a fly-by-night depositor dropping
>> off a rubber check either.
>
> So why do you say it protects me?
I think it is fair to say that reducing some risk protects you. I do
not think it eliminates risk, and it would be foolish to think that the
financial institution does not wish to protect itself as well.
John Levine
>I think it is fair to say that reducing some risk protects you.
It's even fairer to say that a bank that never let me get my money
back at all would have zero risk, and I would never face even the
merest possibility of having to pay back an overdraft. Whoopee.
In this case the protection is 100% for the bank who might otherwise
be unable to get back what turned out to be a free loan to the
customer. A bank that actually wanted to offer, you know, customer
service would pay more attention to iffy deposits and take more time
to validate them when presented.
R's,
John
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> I became a Citizens customer when they bought my account from US
> Trust.
I now use a tiny little local bank, the Benjamin Franklin Bank. They
credit most checks on midnight of the day of deposit. Checks marked
"Payroll" or the equivalent are made available immediately. They have
free internet banking and bill payment, and free checking accounts. Fewer
ATMs are available than with big banks, but cash ain't what it used to be.
David Chesler
> I now use a tiny little local bank, the Benjamin Franklin Bank. They
> credit most checks on midnight of the day of deposit. Checks marked
> "Payroll" or the equivalent are made available immediately. They have
> free internet banking and bill payment, and free checking accounts. Fewer
> ATMs are available than with big banks, but cash ain't what it used to be.
Yup, I've got the same at my credit union. (Hanscom -- unlike Digital
they haven't opened up quite as wide.) Ironically the most convenient
ATM for me is at Citizens. Their web site makes it easy to find ATMs
where it is free to withdraw (mostly that means members of the SUM
network), and to find the less common ATMs where I can make a deposit.
Now that I know where they are, I plan around it.
I hardly use cash, and I hardly use paper checks either, except at a
few small medical offices and for some reasons for taxes. They've got a
nice web billpay system.
The real branches aren't too bad, and they've got free coin-counting
machines. (I see that my local Stop&Shop apparently redeems coins for
100% if used to buy merchandise; OTOH if I had more coins than the few
odd items and loss leaders I buy at Stop&Ship I might be better off
paying the CoinStar percentage and buying the stuff cheaper at Market
Bssket.)
John S
>>>>> This is a protection I don't need.
>
>> I think it is fair to say that reducing some risk protects you.
>
> It's even fairer to say that a bank that never let me get my money
> back at all would have zero risk, and I would never face even the
> merest possibility of having to pay back an overdraft. Whoopee.
Sure, it would have plenty of risk: lost revenue due to customers
fleeing, and penalties to boot.
>
> In this case the protection is 100% for the bank who might otherwise
> be unable to get back what turned out to be a free loan to the
> customer. A bank that actually wanted to offer, you know, customer
> service would pay more attention to iffy deposits and take more time
> to validate them when presented.
Except the depositing bank cannot do this. My credit union explained
that they cannot validate my checks, that is my job, and regulations
limit what they can do. In short, if you don't know that a check you
are depositing is good, don't take it to the bank.
Even if a bank did pay more attention to "iffy deposits," they would
probably get sued for profiling or discrimination.
John Levine
>Except the depositing bank cannot do this. My credit union explained
>that they cannot validate my checks, that is my job, and regulations
>limit what they can do.
I would be most interested to find out what these "regulations" are
that prevent credit unions from doing their job.
R's,
John
David Chesler
> The real [HFCU] branches aren't too bad, and they've got free coin-counting
> machines.
I should have made it clear that the machines are free to members;
there is a percentage charge for non-members to use them.
Cheryl Isaak
"John S" <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
>>>>>> This is a protection I don't need.
>>
>>> I think it is fair to say that reducing some risk protects you.
>>
>> It's even fairer to say that a bank that never let me get my money
>> back at all would have zero risk, and I would never face even the
>> merest possibility of having to pay back an overdraft. Whoopee.
>
> Sure, it would have plenty of risk: lost revenue due to customers
> fleeing, and penalties to boot.
>
>>
>> In this case the protection is 100% for the bank who might otherwise
>> be unable to get back what turned out to be a free loan to the
>> customer. A bank that actually wanted to offer, you know, customer
>> service would pay more attention to iffy deposits and take more time
>> to validate them when presented.
>
> Except the depositing bank cannot do this. My credit union explained
> that they cannot validate my checks, that is my job, and regulations
> limit what they can do. In short, if you don't know that a check you
> are depositing is good, don't take it to the bank.
No, no don't take it your bank - take it to the issuing bank.
A hint I got while dealing with a crappy tenant (who fortunately bunked in
the dead of night rather than having to evict him) - take the check to be
cashed at the issuing bank. The guy get paper for issuing a bad check, I
don't get the fees.
>
> Even if a bank did pay more attention to "iffy deposits," they would
> probably get sued for profiling or discrimination.
>
No doubt
John S
It's not the job of the FI where you are depositing to, it is the job of
the FI upon which the check is written. That is who you should verify
funds with if you are not sure the check is good *before* depositing.