Hat tip: Bruen/Bensley blog:
An article about three phantom overdraft fees on the Consumerist has generated a firestorm of discussion. As of today, June 4, this May 28th, 2008 posting has generated 156 comments, and has been viewed 19,773 times. Here is the beginning of the story:
Bank of America charged Jason three overdraft fees for the hell of it, even though his account balance never approached $0. Jason called the bank for an explanation, and was told that due to some mathematical wormhole controlled exclusively by Bank of America, he now owed $105. Tired of the bank’s nonsensical jibber-jabber, Jason printed out his statement and headed to the local branch…
The offending bank, Bank of America, is blasted repeatedly. Surprisingly, credit unions don’t appear to be the saviors, as certain CUs are accused of doing the same type of thing. Other banks do get heat, as is the consumer in this case, for running his account so close to zero.
The emotional outpouring over how the bank is trying to screw over the consumer is truly amazing. It’s well worth the read. About half way through the first hundred comments, a reader points out 5/3 Bank’s new overdraft scheme reported on the Consumerist on May 2, 2008. Here’s the beginning of that story, which generated 49 comments and 9,756 views:
5/3 Bank decided to rape customers for more fees by changing their policy for handling transactions.
They’re now counting pending debit card transactions against the ledger balance. Following up on a reader complaint, here’s what Doug Grieme, 5/3 customer service rep, told us how the new “system” works:
“Start with the Account balance from the previous day. Minus Pending debit card transactions made before 7pm. Minus the posted transactions from the Statement activity from the day of overdraft.”
What conclusions do you draw from this article and its ensuing response?