Wells Fargo Fradulent Overdraft Fees
Sarah Miller
my goods friends had with them.
A friend of mine had never been overdrawn on their account. They are
retired. They recently made an error forgetting to deduct a $80.00
check from their balance in their checkbook. They also had forgotten
to make a sizeable deposit one day, but that was not the problem,
however, they always carried a large balance in their account before
what happened to them.
They had 6 checks come in one day in the following amounts.
$7.43
$11.44
$16.49
$49.80
$234.00
$421.00 - this is important because they were only overdrawn -$41.16
for the day..read on.
The account became overdrawn -41.16 that day.
If you don't know this, you better. Wells Fargo posts smaller amount
checks first to create excessive additional overdraft fees.
My friend got clobbered with not (1) overdraft fee, but (4) $33.00
overdraft fees, they took the first 4 checks posting, smaller ones and
slammed overdraft fees on them, their explanation to my friend was
they are entitled to collect fees on all of them since the account was
overdrawn that day.
Now you would think that my friends check for $49.80 and they were
overdrawn only $41.16, they would have only been charged one $33.00
fee, no, they were charged (4) $33.00, total $132.00 for being
overdrawn $41.16 on day. This is highway robbery, ethically and
morally wrong.
No wonder the CEO of Wells Fargo last year got a $2.4 million bonus on
top of his salary of $1.7 million, robbing from the retired and middle
income.
My friends has since closed their account after being at that bank for
over 20 years, it was previously a Northwest bank that Wells Fargo
bought out years ago. My friends are also seeking an attorney to sure
Wells Fargo for fraudulent business practices. I have also closed my
account and moved to another bank that does not do this deceptive
practice
I have read on other message boards that this thing is rampant
throughout Wells Fargo, ripping off people like this. Beware if you
get slighlty overdrawn like my friends were and have small checks come
in, you'll be fee to death.
Gordon Burditt
You go on to explain that they DID overdraw their account.
>retired. They recently made an error forgetting to deduct a $80.00
>check from their balance in their checkbook. They also had forgotten
>to make a sizeable deposit one day, but that was not the problem,
>however, they always carried a large balance in their account before
>what happened to them.
>
>They had 6 checks come in one day in the following amounts.
Are these DEPOSITS or WITHDRAWLS? I'm assuming they are
withdrawls.
>$7.43
>$11.44
>$16.49
>$49.80
>$234.00
>$421.00 - this is important because they were only overdrawn -$41.16
>for the day..read on.
>
>The account became overdrawn -41.16 that day.
Plus the overdraft fees.
>
>If you don't know this, you better. Wells Fargo posts smaller amount
>checks first to create excessive additional overdraft fees.
If they post the SMALLER checks first you would have gotten hit
with only one overdraft fee. If they post the LARGER checks first
you would have gotten hit with SIX overdraft fees. Maybe they
just posted them in the order they happened to come in? I don't
see how you ended up with 4 overdraft fees otherwise.
Doesn't their policy tell you what the fees are? Doesn't their
policy tell you that they can clear checks in any order? If so,
what they did is NOT fraudulent and NOT deceptive. You just didn't
read it. $33.00 is dirt cheap for an overdraft fee. It's not fraud
or deceptive if they charge you the overdraft fee they say they are
going to charge you. It's fraud if they say they are going to post
the smaller checks first to minimize overdraft fees and then they
do it the other way around.
If you don't want to pay high fees, don't bounce checks. One way
to do that is not to run your account so close to the edge that a
small error causes a check to bounce.
>My friend got clobbered with not (1) overdraft fee, but (4) $33.00
>overdraft fees, they took the first 4 checks posting, smaller ones and
>slammed overdraft fees on them, their explanation to my friend was
>they are entitled to collect fees on all of them since the account was
>overdrawn that day.
>
>Now you would think that my friends check for $49.80 and they were
>overdrawn only $41.16, they would have only been charged one $33.00
>fee, no, they were charged (4) $33.00, total $132.00 for being
>overdrawn $41.16 on day. This is highway robbery, ethically and
>morally wrong.
Bouncing a check is ethically and morally wrong. Even if it's by
your mistake.
Gordon L. Burditt
Todd Copeland
you also fail to mention _when_ the account was overdrawn. You state that
they process the smaller checks first. As Gordon mentioned, this would mean
only _1_ check was returned as NSF (if they were only overdrawn $41.16).
This order of processing check is _by far better_ then other banks, such as
Bank of America processes checks. BOA processes the largest check's first
(they claim that it's done like this to benefit the customer in that those
checks clearing is more important then smaller checks as larger checks are
usually for more important items, like rent, home payments, etc). Perhaps
there were also pending charges against the account at the time those checks
were presented, thereby limiting the available funds but upon review
afterward it appeared the funds were available.
You mention that your friend made _2_ errors that caused the account to have
insufficient funds and some how this it is Wells Fargo's fault for assessing
fees for return checks. At what point is it your friends fault for screwing
up... twice!
Now if you subject line have been "I don't like overdraft fees" perhaps
you'd get some empathy. But in that your clearing attempting to falsely
accuse Wells Fargo for your friends several mistakes, you get none from me.
"Sarah Miller" <sarah...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fa2f1eef.04021...@posting.google.com...
Shawn "Me" Hearn
sarah...@aol.com (Sarah Miller) wrote:
> Wells Fargo is a rip off artist I recently found out from an experince
> my goods friends had with them.
>
> A friend of mine had never been overdrawn on their account. They are
> retired. They recently made an error forgetting to deduct a $80.00
> check from their balance in their checkbook. They also had forgotten
> to make a sizeable deposit one day, but that was not the problem,
> however, they always carried a large balance in their account before
> what happened to them.
>
> They had 6 checks come in one day in the following amounts.
> $7.43
> $11.44
> $16.49
> $49.80
> $234.00
> $421.00 - this is important because they were only overdrawn -$41.16
> for the day..read on.
>
> The account became overdrawn -41.16 that day.
This is silly. In all likelihood, the checks were posted in the same
order they were cashed by the people who received the checks. You admit
your friend forgot to make a deposit. Mistakes happen, but as a result
of this mistake, your friend's account was overdrawn.
There's nothing dishonest about this, in terms of how the bank handled
the checks and the bounced check fees. Your friend might try asking
the manager of the branch were he does business if the overdraft fees
can be forgiven. If he's a long-time customer with a problem-free
history on his account, it is entirely possible the bank will forgive
the bounced check fees. He has nothing to lose by asking.
Also, you might want to suggest that your friend get a checking account
that includes an overdraft provision in it so that if this mistake
happens, the excess checks will simply be treated like a credit card
cash advance, which is much better than having checks bounce.
JAC
checks and "order" them by amount and then "figure out" the most
profitable way to post them. Give me a break.
The incident is unfortunate, but certainly not unexpected. Your
friend made an honest mistake - and there are consequences
unfortunately.
On 12 Feb 2004 14:27:25 -0800, sarah...@aol.com (Sarah Miller)
wrote:
Todd Copeland
news:puis209l897mq72iu...@4ax.com...
> All banks post checks in the order they receive them. They don't hold
> checks and "order" them by amount and then "figure out" the most
> profitable way to post them. Give me a break.
Actually, they do. I worked part time at Bank of America for 3 months for
some extra cash. Banks electronically batch process checks and other debits.
Bank of America's policy is to process the larger checks first (they were
actually sued over this.. and since the "cite master" of this group _will_
ask: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/chk/19991110.asp). To quote a portion
of the site:
"The suit arose over an increasingly common banking practice -- processing
the biggest checks first. Legally, banks can process checks in any order
they want -- first in, first out; check number sequence; smallest to
largest, or, like NationsBank, largest to smallest."
(BTW- NationsBank was bought out by Bank Of America...and BOA still uses
this practice)
Their reasoning was that the largest checks are most important so they
processed them first as the highest possible balance would be available. Of
course, that was what they said publicly. We all know this means that they
then get more checks to bounce and at $30 a pop... it's millions in revenue.
danny burstein
>All banks post checks in the order they receive them. They don't hold
>checks and "order" them by amount and then "figure out" the most
>profitable way to post them. Give me a break.
And get some facts before you waste keystrokes and electrons. One of the
national banks here in NYC, in fact, owned up to the practice of clearing
the largest check first because, they said, it was most likely to be more
important - i.e. the rent check.
Well, that's what they said.
Hmm, can't find that spefcific one at hand, but here's another useful
cite:
http://www.us-banker.com/usb/articles/usbnov00-2.shtml
Boatmen's Bank, like many others, had a policy of clearing checks
that came in on a given day from a given customer starting with
the check for the largest amount, and continuing in descending
order until reaching the check for the lowest amount. This
"highest-to-lowest" policy maximizes, as a mathematical matter,
the number of checks that will bounce in a given day.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Bill Rubin
>
> Wells Fargo is a rip off artist I recently found out from an experince
> my goods friends had with them.
>
> A friend of mine had never been overdrawn on their account. They are
> retired. They recently made an error forgetting to deduct a $80.00
> check from their balance in their checkbook. They also had forgotten
> to make a sizeable deposit one day, but that was not the problem,
> however, they always carried a large balance in their account before
> what happened to them.
I'm sorry this happened to your friend but I don't understand
why everyone doesn't have some sort of overdraft protection on
their checking accounts? I'm not sure what the charge is for
using it (at Citibank, they only charge me the interest from the
time it gets used until I pay it back, which I typically do as
soon as I see it's been used) but it has to be a better deal
than the hassle of a bounced check fee.
Bill
Rich Greenberg
Todd Copeland <to...@copelandhome.net> wrote:
>(BTW- NationsBank was bought out by Bank Of America...and BOA still uses
>this practice)
Its the other way around. NB bought BofA, but adopted the BofA name
because BofA had a much better customer service reputation than NB did.
--
Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com + 1 770 563 6656
N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507
Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT), Red & Shasta(Husky,(RIP)) Owner:Chinook-L
Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Todd Copeland
form Bank of America.
"Rich Greenberg" <ric...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c0mck6$ipg$1...@panix5.panix.com...
Todd Copeland
CitiBank. Most banks offer a "back-up" account for overdraft protection. But
if your like me, all my money goes into my checking account. When it's
gone... I have nothing else. Would not make sense to keep some of it in a
savings account as back-up. Just another joy of living paycheck to paycheck
(though, some of my check does go into my 401K. Much better return then a
savings account).
"Bill Rubin" <bill...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:402E8A84...@prodigy.net...
Todd Copeland
<avoi...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:ocht20599uaq85pr3...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Feb 2004 18:56:54 -0500, ric...@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Its the other way around. NB bought BofA, but adopted the BofA name
> >because BofA had a much better customer service reputation than NB did.
>
>
> Another factor was that the "Nations Bank" name had only been in use
> for a short period of time, taken after it was thought that the NBNC
> name they shortened from the previous National Bank of North Carolina
> name was too "provincial".
Bill Rubin
balance in my checking account hits $zero. Some banks (including
Citibank) can link a savings account and automatically draw from
it if you bounce a check, but I read an article a few months ago
saying how they were charging comparable charges to bounced
check fees for using it, and how they were ripping customers off
after encouraging them to use it.
Bill
John Gilmer
"Todd Copeland" <to...@copelandhome.net> wrote in message
news:RUyXb.4081$tL3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Technically it was a merger with BankAmerica merging with NationsBank to
> form Bank of America.
We had the same thing in the SouthEast. A very nice bank based in NC
(Wachovia) was effectively bought out by a much bigger bank based around DC.
Technically, it was a merger. But it wasn't a merger of equals and the
people in charge (PIC) after the merger were the officials of the larger
bank. But the MERGED bank is call Wachovia beause it is a "cooler" name.
>
Bob Ward
I hope you got SOME of your "facts" correct... Bank of America was
bought out by NationsBank, who chose to use the Bank of America name
for the overall conglomerate. Best evidence of that is the current
location of their world headquarters. Hint: It's not in San
Francisco any more.
Bob Ward
>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:50:51 -0500, "John Gilmer"
><gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>We had the same thing in the SouthEast. A very nice bank based in NC
>>(Wachovia) was effectively bought out by a much bigger bank based around DC.
>
>
>When was "Walk over you" Bank ever a nice bank? I don't call a bank
>that charges its customers to make a deposits to their accounts a
>"nice" bank!
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
doubter
>
>I hope you got SOME of your "facts" correct... Bank of America was
>bought out by NationsBank, who chose to use the Bank of America name
>for the overall conglomerate. Best evidence of that is the current
>location of their world headquarters. Hint: It's not in San
>Francisco any more.
(In support of what Bob said) From the Jan 1, 1999 San Francisco Business
Times:
Dealmaker of the year: Hugh McColl takes control
Mark Calvey
Business Times Staff Writer
The Bay Area deal of the year -- perhaps the deal of the century -- was
the acquisition of BankAmerica Corp. by NationsBank Corp.
Despite its billing as a mega-merger of equals, it's clear that former
NationsBank boss, and now BankAmerica CEO, Hugh McColl Jr. pulled off a
dealmaking bank heist:
He acquired the strongest banking franchise west of the Mississippi -- at
no premium for BofA shareholders.
He gained agreement that the merged bank would be based in NationsBank's
hometown of Charlotte, N.C., rather than San Francisco.
He constructed a board where former NationsBank directors hold a clear
majority.
And he placed himself so firmly in control that he was able to direct the
resignation of David Coulter, the former BofA Chairman CEO and McColl's
erstwhile merger partner, less than a month after the deal closed.
Todd Copeland
which is the _official_ situation)
I'm wonder which one likes seeing their name more in usenet, you or y6g11.
You obviously post just for th delight of seeing your name. Your comments in
this thread have not added _anything_ to the discusssion.
"Bob Ward" <bob...@email.com> wrote in message
news:hd0avv0nd6oulpu88...@4ax.com...
Tracey
> checks first to create excessive additional overdraft fees.
Are you sure? I had a few overdrafts on one day last year. I asked my bank
about it, and I found out that my bank clears checks in numerical order,
regardless of the amount of the check. In other words, check #101 will
always get posted before check #102 if they are presented on the same day.
No One
"Tracey" <RedHe...@Prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:pgPXb.22571$rk1....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Probably depends on the bank -- I do recall several TV news stories about
this practice within the last year or two, it does exist, and IIRC, Wells
was one of the banks mentioned.
Curtis CCR
> No, it is linked to a link of credit which is used when the
> balance in my checking account hits $zero. Some banks (including
> Citibank) can link a savings account and automatically draw from
> it if you bounce a check, but I read an article a few months ago
> saying how they were charging comparable charges to bounced
> check fees for using it, and how they were ripping customers off
> after encouraging them to use it.
My credit union will cover from a savings or credit account without
charge. They do it automatically unless you tell them not to. When
they notify you that they have done so, they inlcude a notice claiming
there is limited number of times that banks ar allowed to
automatically transfer funds from savings accounts to checking account
to cover checks without penalty. Some federal banking reg. I haven't
received one of these notices in a while - anyone know about such a
regulation?