Clearly the only evidence you’re willing to accept is some type of financial benefit in terms of reduced fees.
Here’s your example:
It could be reasonable if the customer had exactly enough to clear the major check (this month’s rent), but not enough to clear anything over that. Then, paying the largest first probably works in the customer’s interest.
And I think it could have been more reasonable 30 (maybe?) years ago when people didn’t have debit cards, didn’t have ATMs, used cash for day-to-day purchases, and only used checks for things like rent, mortgage, car payment, utility bills. When that’s the case , yes, paying the biggest of those types of bills first makes sense.
But times changed, technology changed, customer spending habits changed, but banks pretend to have not. Many of the policies still seem to be as though the computers shut down at 5pm on Friday so they can have a weekend at home with their little circuit boards and come back refreshed on Monday at 10am. And that the costs to electronically handle transactions are the same as the costs were to have them physically handled by humans. And no, you can’t really vote with your feet, because it’s standard across the industry.
Not at all. But you keep failing give an illustration of a circumstance where clearing the big check is worth the extra $70 (likely at a minimum) in fees. You just keep claiming “it could happen”.
The bottom line is that the situation where it could happen is by far and away an exception. A very rare exception. Which means any claims by your or banks that this is for the “good of the consumer” is specious. It is nothing more than bank greed.
You have no problems with banks pouncing on mistakes to rake people over as long as it is documented. And once again, that is a defensible position. I don’t share it, but I understand it.
amarinth points out that if they had just enough for this month’s rent it would work to the consumer’s favor. But once again, I don’t see how. If the rent check bounces, the consumer would have to pay an NSF fee to the bank and probably a fee to the landlord (maybe a late fee and returned check fee). They wouldn’t get evicted for one bounced check. But those fees are probably not going to be as much as all the other fees they will face from all the other checks or debits that bounce as a result.
If they had just enough for the rent - the rent check would clear. Everything else would bounce. But rent would clear.
The people who make most of the ODs pay the most OD fees? Yep, seems fair to me.
On principle, I can’t really disagree with OD fees. However, they do seem rather predatory–there’s no difference between an OD of $500 or 73 cents. And as some people have reported experiencing, the way fees are processed can sometimes lead to a whole slew of fees beyond the original OD. It’s one thing to OD your account, it’s another to have the OD charge trigger other fees. That just seems wrong to me.
It’s amazing to me that so many people care so much about what happens to their money when it’s being taken from them – but not enough to pay attention to it when it’s theirs, or when they’re deciding what company to give it all to to take care of.
That said, I’m a big fan of “you opened the account, you agreed to the terms.” I just opened an account with U.S. Bank, mainly because I received a large check and didn’t want to send it, endorsed, through the mail to my ING account, and U.S. Bank is the most convenient in terms of distance. On reading my “Your Deposit Account Agreement” book, I see the following:
So they may or may not pay them in any order, and they might do something different next time than they did this time. Also, there’s a fee for each transaction. I can see from my Consumer Pricing Information booklet that the first time it’s overdrawn, they’ll charge me $19.00 (on each transaction, and NSFs are the same fees as overdrafts). The second through fourth times, they’ll charge me $35 on each transaction. After that it’s $37.50.
Is it really inconvenient for me that they won’t pick a policy on whether or how they’ll honor things that would cause me to overdraft? Of course it is.
But, they told me up front: This is how we do this. This is how much we’ll charge you if it happens.
If I don’t like it, I’ll take my business elsewhere. Because I don’t plan on overdrawing my account, it’s not a tremendously important factor in my decision. But they still told me up front.
I manage the money in my household. We haven’t bounced a check since 1992 when one of our friends rented out our house for a year while we lived in NY. His check bounced after I deposited it, which caused a few of our checks to bounce. That didn’t make me happy, but I was more mad at our tenant than the bank.
A few months ago I realized I hadn’t checked for due bills on our BillPay service in over a week. So I logged onto my online account and to my dismay saw that my pending balance was a negative! (Turns out that my husband paid for a large item out of our checking account and didn’t tell me. Argh!) Anywho, I immediately transferred money from our savings to our checking. Since it was done before the end of the business day, I avoided OD fees. I know have my checking account linked to my US Bank Visa, so that in the event of an OD, they will charge my credit card in increments of $100 to cover any negative balances should I ever have a situation like that again.
It’s amazing to me that this has been your grasp of what people have been saying.
The OP is “pissed” that two stickers cost a couple hundred bucks and thinks it’s “a bunch of crap” and hopes there’s a lawsuit against her bank for taking the overdraft fees from her.
Yet her husband didn’t care enough or forgot to write a significant-sized check in the register, and she forgot about it too.
Oh, and the fees for the overdraft are less than the amount of money they forgot about spending.
How you parse it is up to you.