transaction at US bank, not 10. I feel your pain or at least 1/10th of it.
I think I will give that Washington Mutual a try. (If US Bank has finally
cleared me to open new accounts, they have been holding me hostage for the
last year with a black mark in Checke Systems that I cleared up over a year
ago)
--------------
Ian Skinner
Web Programmer
BloodSource
www.BloodSource.org
Sacramento, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: William H Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:46 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Banking Stupidity II
Ran into this just the other day.
USBank has a list of pending transactions. By their definition, pending
== not posted
granted, if all the transactions shown as pending had posted I would
have been short by a serious amount, *but* they didn't post and I got
charged anyway.
to the tune of $320 (10 x $32.00)
in the meantime I had deposited funds that would have covered the amount
due, but since it was a check they only "credited" $100 of the total
($400) to my acount until the check cleared the writer's account.
also, four of the charges that I had "overdrafted" did not clear until
two days *after* they had so elegantly bounced them for me.
New policy they apparently announced in August. I keep all
correspondence that I receive from my bank (They're quite the spammers
when it comes to Life insurance, big file). Hmmmm...couldn't find that
particular gem.
I'll be finding a new bank this weekend. According to Washington
Mutual's web site (where unlike USBank they actually post their account
and accounting policies) they only assess overdraft charges when an
account is overdrawn at the time of posting not authorization. Maybe
I'll give them a try.
Oh, and the guy on the phone at USBank actually said, "We cannot help it
if you are irresponsible with your finances, we are only collecting fees
which are rightfully owed to us due to your negligence." I asked if he
thought it was negligent that the bank allowed debit transactions to
"clear" when the bank knows there are pending transactions that
overdraft the account? He said. "It is the customer's responsibility to
know their own balance at all times." and I should just be thankful they
didn't return the charges "unpaid"
I also asked why it was that a merchant (i have a merchant account at
the same bank) could not rely on the funds being immediately available
upon deposit? He said that the funds are not transferred to the merchant
account until posting. So I asked, why is there a different policy then
regarding withdrawal of funds. He said there was no difference. Seems if
you authorize a charge you've as good as taken the money out of the
account though if you accept a charge you won't get full credit until
the account posts. Seems a bit hinky...
But that's just me. I apparently am woefully inadequate when it comes to
logic and mathematics.
will
Ian Skinner wrote:
> Here's the nut of my original complaint. The bank KNEW about the debit.
> That's why they charged me an overdraft, because, IF the POS debit
> from the
> day before had been cleared the same day as the ATM withdrawal, then I
> WOULD
> have had a negative balance. BUT, the POS was not actually posted
> until the
> next business day, where it was covered by a deposit. So the bank has
> charged me an overdraft charge even though my account never had a POSTED
> negative balance even with the overdraft chare. So I feel they should
> either not have charge me an overdraft because I never had a negative
> balance OR the ATM should have reflected an accurate Available balance
> based
> on all the transactions the bank does KNOW about.
>
> To use a previous example involving a check written to uncle
> Fred/Mike/whatever for garage repair. It would be like the bank knows you
> wrote that check and if you then write another check that would put
> you into
> a negative balance, but you cover it with a deposit before they both are
> cleared you still get charged for an overdraft, because you COULD have
> been
> negative, even though you weren't.
>
> It basically means that if you can't maintain a safe minimum balance on a
> joint account watch out! You can go spend money at the grocery store with
> POS, your wife can go get money at the ATM and if those two transactions
> cause your account to go negative, you get charged, whether you cover
> it or
> not once you balance your transactions.
>
> FUCU/HOFCU sounds like and interesting idea. I wonder how hard it would
> actually be to set up?
> --------------
> Ian Skinner
> Web Programmer
> BloodSource
> www.BloodSource.org
> Sacramento, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 7:15 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Banking Stupidity II
>
> And that's the common mistake people make. What is in the bank's
> accounting
> of your account does NOT accurately reflect your account. And to treat
> it as
> such is playing with make-believe money. You have to look at all
> outstanding
> debits and credits that the bank may not know about.
>
> The money that they are currently holding != your account.
>
> Yes, I agree that it's stupid that the various banking mechanisms
> don't all
> look at the same exact live data. I agree that it's stupid that they will
> show you conflicting information. But it is absolutely not possible
> for the
> bank to know how much money you actually have.
>
> -Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Skinner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:26 AM
> Subject: RE: Banking Stupidity II
>
> > EXACTLY.
> > --------------
> > Ian Skinner
> > Web Programmer
> > BloodSource
> > www.BloodSource.org
> > Sacramento, CA
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:43 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: Banking Stupidity II
> >
> >
> > I don't think the bank was saying we know when you write a check and
> > give it to you. But it *IS* and should be the authoritative source for
> > how much $$
> > is in the account at the EXACT time. Like the times when you look at the
> > atm and it tells you one thing, you call the phone system it tells you
> > another and you look on the internet and you see something different.
> > *Shrugs* its the problems you get when you try to do high tech things
> > with antiquated systems I suppose.
> >
> > --
> > Bill Wheatley
> > Senior Database Developer
> > eDiets.com, Inc.
> > (OTCBB: EDET)
> > 3801 W. Hillsboro Blvd.
> > Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
> > V: (954) 360-9022 ext. 159
> > F: (954) 360-9095
> > E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > W: <http://www.ediets.com/> www.ediets.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 5:26 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Banking Stupidity II
> >
> > Actually, your bank would probably tell you that you can't get an
> > accurate
> > balance through the Internet either. The bank has no way to know what
> > debit
> > transactions you've made that haven't yet been reported. But you can and
> > should know about them.
> >
> > For instance: You have $500 in the bank. You buy $100 worth of groceries
> > on
> > a debit card and you send that $200 check in the mail to your uncle
> > Kenny
> > for rebuilding your engine. If you check your account on the Internet
> > later
> > that day, you'll see that you have a $500 balance. Check it again the
> > next
> > day, and you'll see that you have a $400 balance. The debit card
> > transaction
> > went through, but uncle Kenny is sitting on the check. He might sit on
> > it
> > for a couple weeks. So do you have a balance of $400? No, because you
> > have
> > outstanding debits that haven't been reported to the bank your _real_
> > balance is $200.
> >
> > I apologize if that's overly pedantic and possibly patronizing, but I'm
> > constantly amazed at how many people think the bank is the authoritative
> > source of information about their finances.
> >
> > -Kevin
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ian Skinner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 3:26 PM
> > Subject: RE: Banking Stupidity II
> >
> > > I might agree with you more Ben, accept that I can get the Accurate
> > balance
> > > including what is available and unavailable though the Internet (when
> > I
> > have
> > > access to a computer connected to said internet). If the information
> > is
> > > available on the internet, why not through the ATM?
> > >
> > > --------------
> > > Ian Skinner
> > > Web Programmer
> > > BloodSource
> > > www.BloodSource.org
> > > Sacramento, CA
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ben Braver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:21 PM
> > > To: CF-Community
> > > Subject: Re:Banking Stupidity II
> > >
> > >
> > > No, you should *NOT* rely on the ATM balance - it might not be
> > real-time.
> > > POS items and e-deposits don't always show up right away.
> > >
> > > -Ben
> > >
> > > >OK, when I'm a little calmer I might try going up the chain of
> > command.
> > > >
> > > >But I got the very strong impression from the first level person I
> > talked
> > > >with today, that this is exactly inline with this bank's policy. I
> > was
> > > told
> > > >that I "Should not rely on the balance reported by the ATM. That is
> > what
> > > >the checkbook registry is for!"
> > > >
> > > >I should not rely on the balance reported by the ATM. Why the heck
> > not?
> > > >The ATM can't report an accurate balance of "Available Funds"? The
> > whole
> > > >reason I checked the balance, was I wasn't exactly sure how much I
> > had
> > left
> > > >after the previous day's purchase.
> > > >
> > > >I don't know if this story will change at any higher level or not.
> > But
> > I'm
> > > >not in a good and reasonable argument presenting frame of mind at
> > this
> > > >moment.
> > > >
> > > >--------------
> > > >Ian Skinner
> > > >Web Programmer
> > > >BloodSource
> > > >www.BloodSource.org
> > > >Sacramento, CA
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:02 PM
> > > >To: CF-Community
> > > >Subject: Re: Banking Stupidity II
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I know for a fact that a bank person can easily fix the situation -
> > my
> > > >former roommate is a VP at a Credit Union and this exact situation
> > happened
> > > >to me, and he just typed a couple of things into the computer and BAM
> > it
> > > was
> > > >fixed. Just keep going up the chain of command until somebody fixes
> > it
> > for
> > > >you. A good bank will do this.
> > > >
> > > >- Matt Small
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >
> > > > From: Ian Skinner
> > > > To: CF-Community
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 3:46 PM
> > > > Subject: Banking Stupidity II
> > > >
> > > > Since it seems to be a venting type day.
> > > >
> > > > <cfvent>
> > > > I just found out my bank charged me a $25.00 overdraft fee even
> > though
> > my
> > > > account never OFFICIALLY had a negative balance. Very early Friday
> > > >morning
> > > > I went to an ATM, checked my balance and took out $40 of the
> > reported
> > > >$56.30
> > > > balance. But that apparently included $30.11 of "UNAVAILABLE"
> > funds
> > from
> > > >a
> > > > POS purchase the day before that had not officially been posted,
> > and
> > > would
> > > > not be posted until yesterday. Where it was easily covered by a
> > deposit
> > > >of
> > > > $510 made in an ATM on Sunday. Thus on Friday I had some kind of
> > pseudo
> > > > negative balance that they have charged me for, even though my
> > > transaction
> > > > history never shows it.
> > > >
> > > > Now of course, if the car repair check I wrote on Saturday, that
> > was
> > > > supposed to be covered by the deposit on Sunday but now isn't
> > because
> > of
> > > >the
> > > > $25 dollars I did not know about until today comes through before
> > my
> > > > paycheck this Friday, I will get dinged for either $36.00 or
> > $25.00
> > and
> > > a
> > > > bounced check back to the garage for their charges.....
> > > >
> > > > I'm really hating banks. And I am seriously considering going back
> > to
> > a
> > > > cash only existence. Except that people, like my apartment
> > managers,
> > > > actually don't accept cash anymore!!! ERRRRRRR.
> > > > </cfvent>
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for letting me vent, I feels somewhat better.
> > > >
> > > > --------------
> > > > Ian Skinner
> > > > Web Programmer
> > > > BloodSource
> > > > www.BloodSource.org
> > > > Sacramento, CA
> > > >
> > > > Confidentiality Notice: This message including any
> > > > attachments is for the sole use of the intended
> > > > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> > > > information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> > > > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> > > > intended recipient, please contact the sender and
> > > > delete any copies of this message.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _____
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> >
> _____
>
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
