New Chase Bank policy

[citizen72]

We just received a mailing in which Chase Bank was announcing their new banking policies. One of these policies dealt with the checks submitted to Chase for payment. They tell us they will not be responsible for anything but the amount to be paid and the person or business it is to be paid for. I called them for clarification and they told me the signature on the check will not be check visually or electronically.

In other words anyone can write a check on our account and it will go through with no verification. We really dislike large banks.

[cannon_fodder]

lol,  that pretty well goes against the definition of a check.  A check is a demand note for your institution to hand over money.  Your signature is the proof that you authorized the transaction.

If you don't have to sign your check, then feel free to claim any check you write as a fraud.  There will be no ready proof that you authorized the payment and you can claim they authorized funds without your permission.  More than anything, the signature is there so the bank can go back and say "see?  We distributed funds in good faith, here is the authorization."

Seems to be shooting themselves in the foot.  Not that they have actually checked signatures in decades, but they required them for verification.  Perhaps they are just being honest and still require the signature so they can call BS later if need be.

I bet that's the case.  No one actually checks the signature anymore, at least not in a meaningful way.

[Michael71]

Really?  Who writes checks any more?  Go to Chase online site & setup your payees...then pay whenever you want without having to write a single check.

[TheArtist]

Had a bad incedent with Bank of America a while back. Was coming up on my next draw on this big project I am working on so was low on funds. Had done some work for another client on the side to tide me over. Well the check bounced, the client called me to let me know and said they could pay me cash or whatever to clear it up as soon as possible. I was out of town so wouldnt be back in for a couple days. Needless to say some automatic bills came in during the time the check had bounced. So had some negative numbers. Then when I got back into town everything had cleared and was in the black. But THEN it was back negative again. I called the client, they said they checked their account and the money had been withdrawn. I checked with my bank and they said that when the money had been deposited (obviously the second time) my account had a negative balance so they put a hold on the deposited check. I asked why, they said it was to protect me from the check bouncing again, it would be held up to 11 days to make sure the funds were really there. I said well I needed the funds to be there because I have bills that will be coming due and every time something doesnt clear I am being charged 35 dollars. I asked if they could cancel the check, if the person who wrote it could cancel the check or whatever cause then I could get cash from the client and get the money in there. They said no. I said, "you have to have the money, I dont have it in my account, the client doesnt have it in their account, so YOU have to have it. They repeated that they have the right to hold a check from 2-11 business days. So there I was in the meantime raking up piles of 35dollar fees! I fiiinally got ahold of someone who agreed with me that it wasnt right and they put the funds into the account. The one guy on the phone had said it couldnt be done, kept saying they had the legal right to hold it. I was like "you have the right to hold it, but why?!" its not helping me like you claim the reasoning behind the policy is."  It was a big mess. Needless to say I keep running into the screwiest policies at that bank. Its usually some policy thats set up just so, so that when they get ya, they reeeeeally get ya. The lady at the bank said I could come back and talk to a person who could probably get the fees undone, but I am so frustrated with them I just think I want to take my business elsewhere. Who knows how much it cost me money and time wise fighting with them.

[TURobY]

I hated working at the bank, purely for the fact that there are usually legal reasons why things are done in such a way. Despite this, customers are always angry, even when you try to explain the situation.

In your case, Artist, it sounds like it was a Regulation CC issue. Regulation CC would suggest holding the check because the issuing bank could not verify funds would be available and because you presented a copy of an item already returned for insufficient funds.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it sucks, but I think there is far less malice than you would wish.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by citizen72

We just received a mailing in which Chase Bank was announcing their new banking policies. One of these policies dealt with the checks submitted to Chase for payment. They tell us they will not be responsible for anything but the amount to be paid and the person or business it is to be paid for. I called them for clarification and they told me the signature on the check will not be check visually or electronically.

In other words anyone can write a check on our account and it will go through with no verification. We really dislike large banks.

If they have your check they can use your routing number and acct# online at dozens of sites without any verification so checking it only for paper copies seems a bit lopsided.

Trust me. I lost my checking account June 17th to online fraudland.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

I hated working at the bank, purely for the fact that there are usually legal reasons why things are done in such a way. Despite this, customers are always angry, even when you try to explain the situation.

In your case, Artist, it sounds like it was a Regulation CC issue. Regulation CC would suggest holding the check because the issuing bank could not verify funds would be available and because you presented a copy of an item already returned for insufficient funds.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it sucks, but I think there is far less malice than you would wish.

I never got the check back, so I wasnt presenting it to them. Bank of America was the only one that could verify the funds because the client didnt have the funds in their account, the client checked the account several days in a row and it showed a withdrawal for that amount after it "went through" the second time.  So, it wasnt in the clients account (if they had had it they would have gone ahead and given me cash), and it wasnt in mine, so the only place it could have been was with Bank of America, but they didnt want to release it to me or back to the client. The Bank of America had to have known the "funds were available" because THEY had them.

[FOTD]

The devil has written checks without signing and they went through. OMG!

Anyone notice BAC stock is down %60 ytd?
Could be worse. You could own Dollar Thrifty....

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I never got the check back, so I wasnt presenting it to them.

I apologize, that was my misunderstanding.

quote:
Bank of America was the only one that could verify the funds because the client didnt have the funds in their account, the client checked the account several days in a row and it showed a withdrawal for that amount after it "went through" the second time.  So, it wasnt in the clients account (if they had had it they would have gone ahead and given me cash), and it wasnt in mine, so the only place it could have been was with Bank of America, but they didnt want to release it to me or back to the client.

Not necessarily. You'll have to forgive me if I'm a little fuzzy, because it has been about five years since I was in the retail banking industry, but it's possible that the other bank had placed a pending hold on the transaction. Therefore, the client wouldn't see the funds, yet Bank of America wouldn't have received the funds either. I'm doubting that is the case, because a pending transaction hold can only be on the account for two business days maximum, before releasing the funds back to the client or on to the payee.

Again, I'm not saying this is what happened, because I was not privy to your financial information. I'm just offering another idea, because misunderstandings due to the banking laws happen all the time.

If you want some interesting information (or maybe some further insight into what might have happened), you can take a look here (Wikipedia - Regulation CC). It's definately interesting to know why your money is handled in the way that it is... []

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I never got the check back, so I wasnt presenting it to them.

I apologize, that was my misunderstanding.

quote:
Bank of America was the only one that could verify the funds because the client didnt have the funds in their account, the client checked the account several days in a row and it showed a withdrawal for that amount after it "went through" the second time.  So, it wasnt in the clients account (if they had had it they would have gone ahead and given me cash), and it wasnt in mine, so the only place it could have been was with Bank of America, but they didnt want to release it to me or back to the client.

Not necessarily. You'll have to forgive me if I'm a little fuzzy, because it has been about five years since I was in the retail banking industry, but it's possible that the other bank had placed a pending hold on the transaction. Therefore, the client wouldn't see the funds, yet Bank of America wouldn't have received the funds either. I'm doubting that is the case, because a pending transaction hold can only be on the account for two business days maximum, before releasing the funds back to the client or on to the payee.

Again, I'm not saying this is what happened, because I was not privy to your financial information. I'm just offering another idea, because misunderstandings due to the banking laws happen all the time.

If you want some interesting information (or maybe some further insight into what might have happened), you can take a look here (Wikipedia - Regulation CC). It's definately interesting to know why your money is handled in the way that it is... []

Well they did go ahead and put it into my account after I griped at them and offered to refund me the fees they charged me. It was waaaay after 2 days. I can understand 2 days but this was like day 7 or 8, after the REdeposit. What was odd too was being out of town and watching my account do this odd, it was in, it was out, it was back in, then back out again thing, then it stayed out lol. I was like, do I have any money or not? My savings and IRA's and such are at TTCU so couldnt figure out how to shuffle any funds from there either. My friend tells me I need to get a credit card for emergencies and such. I am usually not in this type of situation, it was just bad timing on lots of fronts. But I dont like the idea of having a credit card, dont trust myself, [xx(] so haven't had one in decades.  

 

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by citizen72

We just received a mailing in which Chase Bank was announcing their new banking policies. One of these policies dealt with the checks submitted to Chase for payment. They tell us they will not be responsible for anything but the amount to be paid and the person or business it is to be paid for. I called them for clarification and they told me the signature on the check will not be check visually or electronically.

In other words anyone can write a check on our account and it will go through with no verification. We really dislike large banks.

If they have your check they can use your routing number and acct# online at dozens of sites without any verification so checking it only for paper copies seems a bit lopsided.

Trust me. I lost my checking account June 17th to online fraudland.

That's why you should use a credit card to pay for your Spanktravision account, not direct debit. [}:)]

I've banked at IBC since they were still "Local Oklahoma" and many branches smaller.  I dislike banking conglomerates, but I still get very good personal service at the branch level.  

My situation wasn't much different than Artist's five years ago when I was self-employed.  I'd get onto a large project, focus on it and cash-flow would suffer, so I'd do some smaller projects to fill in.  When I'd get a progress payment or final payment on a large project, that usually took some heat off and I could get back to more quick turn-around projects which were quick cash.  This project though pretty much enveloped all my time the last month I was on it.

The final payment on the project was pretty substantial to me at the time and did not clear.  I was counting on a fair amount of funds to pay bills and pay my vendors on the project. I'd already written utility payments, paid vendor invoices, etc.

Sure, partly my fault for spending money which was not "officially" in the account yet and running at such a tight "time margin" at the time.  What had happened was the client had gotten a large deposit themself.  BOA put an arbitrary hold (arbitrary to me, they have their "justifications") on the funds deposited in the client's account and therefore did not honor the check written to me when it came through.  IBC was pretty good working with me on it, but as I recall, I still got stuck with about half the NSF charges.  BOA was very un-yielding in working with my client to straighten out the carnage in their own account.

I asked not long after that how IBC managed to promote their "Freebie Checking".  A branch manager told me that NSF fees are a substantial source of non-lending income for a bank.

I'm not much a conspiracy theorist, but truth is, banks don't stand to gain a whole lot when they jump in the way on clearing up NSF issues.  They stand to gain quite a bit at $28 to $35 a heater.

[Red Arrow]

I am very uncomfortable with any automatic withdrawls. Years ago, my father took a trial subscription to the Wall Street Journal with automatic payments from his American Express Card. The subscription was for 6 months.  He decided he didn't want to continue it.  It took another year to get WSJ to stop sending papers and charging his account. AM Ex said it was an authorized withdrawl so they could not stop paying.  This was all in spite of many phone calls and the required written notices to both WSJ and AM Ex.

The only thing I allow as automatic is my Pike Pass. I expect the OTA doesn't care if I have a Pass or pay cash so there is less incentive for them to try to cheat me.

[Wilbur]

Sorry to say, but most banks do the same thing.  About the only time the signature is looked at by the bank is if the check is in dispute, then the bank will compare the signature on the check to the signatures they have on file.  Credit cards pretty much do the same thing.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

I am very uncomfortable with any automatic withdrawls. Years ago, my father took a trial subscription to the Wall Street Journal with automatic payments from his American Express Card. The subscription was for 6 months.  He decided he didn't want to continue it.  It took another year to get WSJ to stop sending papers and charging his account. AM Ex said it was an authorized withdrawl so they could not stop paying.  This was all in spite of many phone calls and the required written notices to both WSJ and AM Ex.

The only thing I allow as automatic is my Pike Pass. I expect the OTA doesn't care if I have a Pass or pay cash so there is less incentive for them to try to cheat me.

I can understand things like that and imagine the hassle. But I find that for your basic bills, automatic withdrawal is great. PSO, ONG, COX, City of Tulsa, State Farm, etc. etc. Especially for a scatter brain like me that hates dealing with money or paying bills to begin with. It all just happens and I dont think about it. Plus I have never had any problem when I moved or changed policies. All been very easy and convenient.

[cannon_fodder]

FOTD:

Banking stocks in general are taking a big hit.  BOA has a PE of 8.5.  BOKF is down some 25% ytd with a PE of 12 something.

If you can identify the ones that are getting dragged down from the ones that deserve it, a bunch of money could be made.  I think my IRA contribution this year will be largely going into banking stocks.  Spread it around a little and I think it's a fairly safe bet.