Nsf fees have gotten way out of line.How can a bank justify charging 37.00 on a 5.00 gas charge.There should be a law against such high charges for such small overdrafts.Imagine being charged 37.00 because you were a day late returning a movie you rented.Late fees,overlimit fees and nsf fees are the biggest ripoff on the american consumer and something should be done about it.The politicians need to pass some sort of law that sets limits on these ripoff charges.How high must these fees continue to rise before there is an outcry by the american consumer?
How can an overdraft be the action of the financial institution? I still do not see how you equate the "information provided by the financial institution" with your account balance(?).
Bizwiz: I look at it as a correlation to the FCRA. They have an obligation to provide 100% complete, accurate, and verifiable information. Yes, if the transaction is a $1.00 pre-auth for a $50.00 gas purchase it's one thing. But when the transactions are pre-authed for the EXACT purchase amount, and the transactions are TAKEN into account in the 'available balance' until MIDNIGHT, then are placed back as falsely available; when the standard turn-around for EFTs is 3-5 business days; that is another. Pre-authorized transactions are by definition unavailable. The bank has officially certified their availability for the specific use of the merchant to whom the pre-authorization has been provided to.
As an added defense of the correlation between a bank providing 100% complete, accurate and verifiable account information, and the FCRA. Cushman, and a number of other suits show that a CRA, MUST consider the reliability of a data furnisher in determining whether a tradeline's reporting is legitimate. You can not be reliable in one aspect of your operations, if you are not reliable in your other operations, especially when their REPORTING OPERATIONS are directly related to their ACCOUNTING OPERATIONS. They are reporting what they're accounting aren't they, supposedly? Can reporting be 100% complete, accurate and verifiable, if they can't provide 100% complete, accurate and verifiable account information? BTW: Until sometime THIS YEAR, there was no discrepancy with the available balance. SOME sort of unannounced change had to have been implemented between January, and February.
In all this discussion regarding 100% accurate information for "available balances", no one seems to stand behind this for deposits. Technically, your deposits are not (true) "available funds" until they've fully cleared the Federal Reserve System, which can take up to two weeks. Banks make funds available much sooner then they have to. I do believe that banking institutions should report as accurately as possible, but due to the nature of transactions done by the average person, I still maintain it is the responsibility of each person to know what is in their account (based upon their register). Let's face it, almost all "NSF" charges come from "cutting it too close". Either you are playing the float game, or you are not sure what is in your account, or you simply forgot to register transactions. I also feel that the average NSF fees are outlandish, all the more reason to make sure you do not overdraft. I personally feel that overdraft protection is also a waste of money. Banks are in the business of making money, they will take advantage of any "opportunity" to make more money. All banks publish their terms and conditions well in advance of changes also. I simply maintain that it is each person's responsibility to manage their checkbook, and more importantly, to not spend more than what is their checkbook.
Banks will get as much money as they can from you. Even Bank Of America is hurting. We have seen over 900 dollars in NSF fees. It is not uncommon! AMG Consulting Group Inc.
