A few years ago, I signed up for Bank of America's "Keep the Change" program. With Keep the Change, every charge to your debit card is rounded up to the nearest dollar, and the difference is automatically deposited in your savings account. The idea is that you save a small amount with each purchase without even thinking about it, which gradually adds up over time.

So far, so good. However, somewhere along the line, Bank of America started charging a $5 monthly maintenance fee on the account. I was never formally notified of this additional fee, and so I didn't even realize it until I noticed one month that my savings account balance had gone DOWN instead of up. It turns out that I wasn't even accruing $5 worth of change per month, so I was losing more money due to the maintenance fee than I was saving via Keep the Change!

I called Bank of America and they explained that I could avoid the maintenance fee either by making a minimum deposit of $25 into the account each month, or by maintaining a minimum balance of $300 (I had $250). Of course, these terms aren't detailed anywhere on their website (at least not that I could find); Keep the Change is described as a "free service," and the only stipulation is that your savings account has an initial $25 balance.

In summary, if you prop up your savings account by depositing more money into it than you'll ever realistically save with Keep the Change, you'll avoid the fees - but then you might as well not even bother with the program in the first place. And if you don't, you'll never even reach the $300 balance on a new account as the maintenance fee could well end up costing you more than what you're saving!

The easy solution: find out what you need to do to avoid maintenance fees on your savings account, and if you agree to the requirements, follow them every month.

In this case, scheduling a $25 transfer from checking to savings every month would suffice, but James never intended to use the service in that manner. Not every bank product is designed to eat up your money, but if you're not careful you can get hit with unnecessary fees, so always take the time to look for ways the bank can charge you and then make sure you're willing to do the opposite—or walk away from the offer.

Update: I failed to address James' real issue, which is that he says BofA never told him about the fee. If your bank institutes a new monthly fee and doesn't tell you about it, contact them and request a refund. If they refuse, tell them you plan on reporting them to the appropriate agencies, and then follow up on that threat. (You might also want to move your business elsewhere just on principal.) Banks do make mistakes whether they like to admit it or not, especially when they're "too big to fail" and running themselves ragged trying to find new ways to generate revenue.

(Photo: Nieve44/La Luz)

Over a week ago Bank of America canceled my debit card, saying it had been compromised. I am a woman traveling in India by myself and have absolutely no access to cash. This exact thing happened to me while traveling abroad 8 months ago so I made sure to notify the bank of my travel plans and was told it would not be a problem. I have been told that there is a computer system that is alerted to strange behavior (apparently withdrawing cash from a foreign country is strange) and the computer closes the card. I have also been told that there is no human, not even the president of the Bank of America himself, who can re-activate the card.

I have spent the last week on the phone with the Bank of America fraud department, customer service, Bank of America emergency dept and Visa 911. I have spent about $100 being hung up on and given incorrect information and hours of my vacation time trying to either get a new card rushed or cash sent via Western Union. I was told this morning that the bank will not send me the cash and when going through the security questionnaire for the 20th time I was hung up on. I was told by the fraud dept that the card would take 5-7 business days to reach me and now was told this morning (before being hung up on) that it will not arrive for 12 business days.

I am insanely frustrated by Bank of America's labrynthine bureaucracy and incompetence. I would love to re-enact a scene from fight club but instead I am here hoping that together we can rise up and demand accountability from our banks.

Bristol's terrible misadventures serve as a reminder to all travelers to never leave home without a backup source of funding, be it a credit card, other bank account, or traveler's checks.

RELATED:
BoA Strands Customer In Siberia With No Money
Update: BoA ATM Card Dispatched To Stranded Traveler After Return To U.S.
HSBC Cancels Traveler's Credit Card, Pays For Their Mistake
American Express Leaves Customer Stranded In Mumbai With No Money
WaMu Doesn't Care You Could Be Stranded In Himalayas With No Money

(Photo: mrkathika)

Here's the blog's argument for why Bank of America isn't honoring its promise to customers and to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). On October 6th the bank released a letter in which it pledged to stop re-pricing existing credit card accounts—but introducing an annual fee where none existed before sure sounds like re-pricing, doesn't it? BoA explained it like this: they only promised to not raise interest rates.

However, that's not true. WalletBlog points out that the bank made no such distinction in their October 6th letter. Here's the relevant excerpt:

"In light of the concerns expressed to us by our customers, Bank of America will not implement any change in terms (risk or economic based) re-pricing of consumer credit card accounts between now and the effective date of the CARD Act."

That language doesn't draw any distinctions between types of re-pricing, so it's kind of weird to retroactively define the term as only relating to interest rates.

But this is a moot point because the letter only promises that they won't practice re-pricing between now and the implementation of the CARD Act. After that goes into effect in February 2010, the promise no longer applies. I don't know why BoA's representative bothered to misrepresent the language of the letter when he could just as easily have pointed out that it was nothing more than a temporary pledge—and mostly an empty once, since they had already re-priced many accounts in the month leading up to the letter.

As far as implementing fees after the CARD Act goes into effect, well, that's where WalletBlog says that BoA may end up in violation of the law. BoA argues that the CARD Act prohibits raising interest rates but says nothing about implementing annual fees, but WalletBlog points out that the language of the CARD Act is ambiguous, and thanks to a 1996 Supreme Court case involving Citibank, the FDIC considers the term "interest" to include:

...among other things, the following fees connected with credit extension or availability: numerical periodic rates, late fees, not sufficient funds (NSF) fees, overlimit fees, annual fees, cash advance fees, and membership fees.

It sounds like BoA may be testing the boundaries of the CARD Act and seeing if it can get away with annual fees by arguing that they're not specifically prohibited.

Be sure to check out WalletBlog's full post on the matter.

"Bank of America Tries but Fails to Defend New Annual Fees" [WalletBlog]
"Bank of America Readies Itself to Break the Law" [WalletBlog]
(Photo: mrkathika)

From: Kelsey
Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Subject: Two important consumer issues
To: colleen.haggerty@bankofamerica.com, britney.w.sheehan@bankofamerica.com, nicole.nastacie@bankofamerica.com, joe.price@bankofamerica.com, keith.banks@bankofamerica.com, michael.jones@bankofamerica.com, brian.t.moynihan@bankofamerica.com, steele.alphin@bankofamerica.com, maryellen.baker@bankofamerica.com

Good afternoon,

My name is Kelsey. I have been a loyal B of A customer for years. I'm enrolled in Keep the Change, have two credit cards with BofA, and have my first savings account (I've been with BofA since college) and a checking account. I have recommended BofA to my boyfriend and my roommate, both of whom have switched and also enjoy keep the change and the Add it Up program. The online banking setup is superb, and your ATMs are everywhere...hard not to like BofA. However, in the past few weeks, there have been a few instances making me question my relationship with the bank:

/snip/

Recently, I left town for my grandfather's 90th birthday. My rent check cleared a few days before, but apparently the first purchase I made once I was in Connecticut overdrafted my account. Mea culpa. I was out of town and not checking my account balance, but was still, as mentioned before, under the impression that I was covered by overdraft protection. Apparently this was not the case. I got paid in the interim so the paycheck corrected the overdraft. I log in to find that there is a significant amount of money missing. I look at the statement. Eleven overdraft fees; one for each time I used my debit card while I was out of town or once I got back and needed to buy groceries. That's a total of $385. I was told on the phone that I could be refunded $140 as a courtesy, but since I believed I was enrolled in overdraft protection I don't really see how that is a courtesy.

I told the customer service woman I spoke with (who to her credit was very nice despite my tears/frustration) that I thought I was enrolled in overdraft protection. She told me several things: First, that if I were enrolled, it would say that on my statement. How do I look for something on my statement that I have never seen on another one of my statements and don't know to look for? Second, she told me that since I had overdrawn recently, and didn't say anything about overdraft protection at the time, she really couldn't believe my claim that I requested it when I opened the account. I'm sorry, but this seems ridiculous to me. One fee is easy for me to overlook, slap myself on the wrist and move on...11 is off-the-charts and warranted an immediate call to customer service. I have no recourse here: it's my word against your computer system, which "has no notation" that I requested overdraft protection. How am I supposed to prove that, when the person I asked to set me up with it undoubtedly doesn't even work at that branch anymore? Basically, what she is telling me is that because someone messed up on B of A's end four years ago, I am out $245.

I'm a reasonable person, and I can admit a mistake, but 11 fees is something I cannot afford. With the $245 that has still been deducted, I could pay off half of my Komen Visa balance (a card I gladly and PURPOSEFULLY opened with B of A), but these two events have me contemplating moving my money elsewhere. I may not have millions in the bank, but I think that my loyalty, especially during some of these more trying times, should count for something.

Best,

Kelsey

Two hours later, Kelsey got a call from someone who said she would investigate the checking account complaint. Two days later, all the overdrafts fees were refunded.

"Although at the time I believed it was 11 overdraft fees total, it was actually 15, totaling $525 of my hard-earned money...The woman from the executive office thanked me for reaching out, and being polite and proactive, and told me that by looking at my accounts she could tell this was a one-time thing and that I am a responsible banking customer," writes Kelsey.

"I never expected that response, especially from BofA, but plus one to Consumerist for teaching us all that a level head and a fair request can help the consumer come out on top."

Christopher mentioned that there had been a $4.50 debit that had never posted, so I asked him to elaborate:

The 4.50 never posted and would have been dated before on 10/21 depending on if it had been a legitimate charge. The charge was there on the 21st but cleared without posting (temporary hold due to a broken credit machine). It was dated on the 21st.

So if that charge was not a real charge—it doesn't even show up on the 10/22 section of transactions, as you can see above, and it didn't seem to impact the balance—how again did BoA justify the overdraft?

Christopher says Bank of America won't actually investigate the issue and give him a real answer. Instead, they're just keeping him in a "web support" loop that's growing smaller and smaller:

I also find it highly difficult to continue a thread with them as it is limited to 10,000 characters but each time includes the previous message(s) in an un-editable quote in that 10,000 character limit. So after three messages that is full, and I must start a new thread, which then gets the same chain letters, in order.

Update: Several commenters made good suggestions below. To help Christopher and future readers, I'm highlighting some of them here:

lankysob says this is how BoA's Overdraft Protection works:

When BoA approved the Overdraft Protection (which was tied to my BoA Amex card I set up long ago as backup to save me from paying the stupid $35 O/D fees per transaction), it moved $100 from my Amex to my checking account and considered everything cool. When I called to complain and ask why would an account that has more than $0.00 in it ever need Overdraft Protection, I was told that BoA "goes ahead and determines a dollar amount ABOVE $0.00 based on the credit/debit history of the last few credit/debits applied to your checking account, and then uses that number as it's '0 Point' as to when to kick Overdraft Protection into effect for you." I was, understandably, outraged by this and asked "Ok, well where is this magic number you've chosen for me so I know to treat that as my $0.00 amount?" "We can't/aren't able to give you that information because it's not an exact number that stays the same."

Both Hobart007 and MedicallyNeedy suggest that you go into a local branch and speak to the branch manager in person. If it's a first time issue or you can convince the manager it's BoA's mistake, he or she might waive it.

And trillium points out a helpful feature on the BoA website:

A little known of (I know I didn't know about it ) feature on the B of A website is on the left hand side titled "Available Balance History". Unlike the default view this shows the order of which charges have hit as well as holds on the account.

(Photo: P/\UL)

Affected companies are Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, GM, and Chrysler. Executives from the latter two companies' financing arms are also included.

The program will lead to pay cuts of up to fifty percent for each firm's top twenty-five earners.

The plan will hit executives at some companies harder than others. At the financial products division of A.I.G., the locus of problems that plagued the insurer and forced its rescue with more than $180 billion in taxpayer assistance, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, and officials in that unit will not receive any other compensation, like stocks or stock options. Some bonuses previously promised will be paid in the coming year, and it is not clear how much of those will be awarded.

But at other companies, the cuts may mean less. Many executives at Bank of America and Citigroup are expected to reap multimillion-dollar pay packages.

For executives at all seven companies, new restraints will also be imposed on perks. Any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks - like country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company-issued cars - will have to apply to the government for permission.

Yes, a Washington bureaucrat will be rationing executive limousines. The horror!

U.S. to Order Pay Cuts at Firms That Got Most Aid [NY Times]

RELATED:

Judge To BoA: "I'm Glad You Think $91,000 Is Not A Lot Of Money"
Welcome To The New Gilded Age, Fueled By Your Money

(Photo: suburbandollar / CC BY 2.0)

The Bank of America accounts that will be charged fees were selected based on "risk and profitability," Riess said. That means customers in good standing who never carried a balance - and never incurred interest charges or late fees - could be among those getting notices.

"BofA to charge annual fees on some credit cards" [Associated Press]
(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

It's not exactly a high point for Ken Lewis to go out on, and it might be why Lewis agreed to forfeit the $1.5 million salary he earned in 2009.

"Bank of America Posts a Loss and Misses Forecast" [New York Times]
"Czar Blocks BofA Chief's Pay " [Wall Street Journal]
(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

When you factor in additional goodies offered by the bank, Lewis' retirement package may total over $125 million. And the the labor group, the Service Employees International Union, wants to see some government action on that, requesting that Lewis' pension be withheld until BofA agrees to a list of reforms, including stopping foreclosures, offering affordable loans to local governments, and lowering interest rates on credit cards. The letter to Feinberg from the Union's Secretary-Treasurer, says, in part:

I ask that you take immediate action on the multimillion-dollar retirement package being offered to one of the chief architects of the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis. ...

The housing crisis created by Bank of America and other banks has created severe budget crises for state and local governments-and even though they continue to receive taxpayer support, Bank of America and other large banks' lending decisions have forced states and cities to lay-off workers and cut critical public services. ...

Taxpayers have already provided nearly $200 billion in bailouts and backstops to Bank of America. This enormous public investment entitles taxpayers to have a say in the bank's executive compensation practices. ...

Immediate action by your office will set a precedent that no bank executive will receive compensation packages until they put policies in place to create jobs, allow homeowners to retain their homes and support state and local governments.

Although Feinberg has the authority to issue "advisory opinions" about executive compensation, it's not clear whether he actually has any say over Lewis' retirement package. Hold on, focusing, focusing. There. Yeah, it's clear. Congrats, Ken. Sweet deal.

Tell Feinberg: Stop Payment on the Ken Lewis Bailout [SEIU.org]
PREVIOUSLY: Rich Dudes: Soon-To-Be-Ex Bank Of America CEO Has $53 Million Pension

Craig writes: "I read consumerist on and off over the years, but never had to use any of the advice.  I recently got my first debt card from Bank of America . Shortly after I incurred my first overdraft fee. I assumed canceling over-draft protection would just cancel the transaction if I did not have enough money. I first followed my Dads advice and tried to get the fees at the bank, in person, but was unsuccessful.  After a quick search of consumerist.com, I got the number for Executive Customer Relations and got all the fees waived. So a very big thank you, from a teenager with their first debit card."

That was probably good advice when banks weren't staffed with the modern equivalent of the eunuchs who tended the harems of old, but we're in modern times, baby, and the 3-ring binder says no.

p.s. I love Craig's Freudian slip of calling it a "debt card."

(Photo: emuphoto)

The story says:

Since most Bank of America customers have variable rate cards, however, they could still see their interest rates go up. The interest on variable-rate cards is tied to the rise and fall of the prime rate.

The move is a reaction to lawmakers' efforts to bump up the date credit card reform laws — which limit banks' abilities to raise fees and interest rates and force them to disclose hidden fees — from going into effect on Feb. 1 to Dec. 1. The story says the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on the date-changing legislation Thursday.

Bank of America pledges halt on credit card rate hikes [AP via USA Today]
(Photo: e. wilder)
(Thanks, Jeff!)

Fortune magazine got a little snarky about it:

That should give him about $3.5 million a year in pension payouts for the rest of his life — at a time when people who bought the stock when he took the reins in 2001 are underwater on their investments.

Although the bank swore off employment contracts and eliminated golden parachutes seven years ago, Lewis can thank a pension plan that dates back decades for his rich retirement rewards.

While this plan was open, certain top executives were eligible to accrue benefits they would receive following retirement in the form of annuity payments.

The article also mentions that Lewis has manged to rake in about $64 million over the past three years. So he's pretty much set.

The stockholders, however, currently are stuck with investments that are worth less than half their year-ago price and remain below the level when Lewis took over in April 2001.

BofA CEO: $53 million retirement score [Fortune]

Lewis Resigns After Betting Bank of America on America When America Broke
RELATED: Frontline Examines The Bank Of America/ Merrill Lynch Merger (Photo: CBS)

Reuters notes that the amount he's seeking is larger than the world's 2008 gross domestic product, which is only $60 trillion, which might be partly why the judge has given Chiscolm until October 23 to explain his claims.

"Man sues BofA for '1,784 billion, trillion dollars'" [Reuters] (Thanks to Trung!)
(Photo: TheTruthAbout...)

A BoA executive contacted Minch to talk about her situation, her video, and her debts, and negotiated a 12.99% interest rate. The executive explained to her that her interest rate was hiked up to over 30% because of one missed payment. In 2008.

Interestingly, the bank has not asked her to stop her Internet activities or to take the video down. She plans further "debtors' revolt" activities in the future, and hopes to help other Americans in similar situations. As banks tighten their lending standards and are generally more cautious, this is a good thing for all credit card customers to keep in mind.

Minch's success came once she was able to make her case, rationally and calmly, to a person in a position of actual power. Minus the quarter million YouTube views, this is exactly what we encourage consumers who have been wronged to do. Don't sit and refuse to pay back your debts - fight back.

PREVIOUSLY: Customer Tells Bank of America To Stick Her Debt "In Your Bailout Pipe And Smoke It"

DEBTORS UPDATE: BANK OF AMERICA RESPONDS!!! [YouTube]
Red Bluff woman prevails in bank protest [Record Searchlight] (Thanks, Joe!)

Starting Oct. 19, BofA will no longer charge fees if the overdraft puts the account less than $10 in the red, and will lower the maximum number of charges it levies per day from 10 to four. And next year Chase will let customers opt out of overdraft "protection," will let customers slide if their account is less than $5 in the red, and will lower its maximum amount of daily charges from six to three.

The Washington Post interviewed Dodd, who isn't satsified:

"Bank of America is taking a step in the right direction, but we need legislation to protect every American with a bank account from these unfair fees," Dodd said. "We wouldn't need legislation if the industry acted responsibly in the first place."

Even if Dodd's proposed bill gets stuck in the Washington muck, he can rest assured that he's already sparked some positive changes.

Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase to Further Limit Overdraft Fees
[Washington Post]
(Photo: donbuciak)

"People out there are getting whacked," Dodd said. "They should have the right to say, 'Deny me the transaction.'

The Federal Reserve periodically threatens to add regulations that would make overdraft fees "opt-in," but mysteriously never seems to actually do it.

Is it time for Congress to step in?

Democrats Target Bank Overdraft Charges [WaPo]
(Photo:flygraphix)

Credit card experts said card issuers are clearly trying to improve their images after months of defending themselves for raising interest rates and cutting credit lines for even their most creditworthy customers. Consumers have been increasingly turning away from credit cards. Revolving credit, mainly credit card debt that consumers do not pay off in full each month, fell $6.1 billion in July, according to the Federal Reserve.

"It's stiff competition in terms of trying to regain consumer trust," said Curtis Arnold, founder of CardRatings.com, which compares credit cards, "and trying to regain loyalty among cardholders."

The Chase Blueprint program applies to existing cards. It allows customers to choose categories of spending to pay off every month, and helps calculate ways to pay off balances more quickly. Meanwhile, the Bank of America Basic card has no overlimit fees, and charges the same interest rate, fourteen percentage points above the prime rate, for all transactions.

It's a sad commentary on the current state and reputation of the industry that when credit card companies introduce features designed to help and not confuse customers, it's newsworthy.

Credit Card Firms Offering Simpler Deals Ahead of Law [Washington Post]

(Photo: frankieleon)

When BoA's CEO Kenneth Lewis fired Merrill Lynch's CEO John Thain this past January, it was because Thain had allegedly fast-tracked bonuses for employees without BoA's knowledge or approval, and had withheld the true amount of losses that Merrill Lynch faced for 2008 (a record $27.6 billion ultimately). Thain, who spoke yesterday at Wharton Business School in Pennsylvania, says that wasn't true at all:

Thain said he didn't speed up the bonuses and Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America shouldn't have been surprised by the fourth-quarter loss .

"When I got fired in January and they said ‘John Thain secretly accelerated these bonuses,' they were lying," Thain said. "And that has now trapped them into a lot of trouble, because there is a document that says yes, in fact, they agreed to this in September."

Thain also joked that if he had to redecorate that office again, he would have gone with IKEA, which would have been genuinely funny if he at all meant it.

Cuomo's office is also investigating whether federal regulators pressured BoA into completing the deal whether they knew about Merrill Lynch's huge losses or not, which is what BoA executives have said.

"NY AG Subpoenas 5 BofA Board Members" [ABC News]
"Thain Says He Should Have Picked Ikea Furniture for Merrill" [Bloomberg]

RELATED
"Judge: BoA SEC Deal Violates 'Most Elementary Notions Of Justice And Morality'"
"Thain's $35,000 Commode On Legs Actually Chest Of Drawers"
(Photo: mrkathicka)

Most of the bailed out banks, as well as auto manufacturers Chrysler and GM, will still allow top execs to use private planes for at least some business trips, and some, like Bank of America, seem to encourage it, with policies that authorize "reasonable usage of the aircraft and other upgraded transportation services for conducting the business of Bank of America." Private use of company planes is now mostly off limits, and Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit, who had an exemption from that company's no-private-use policy, has said he'll honor it regardless.

Other companies seem to have only now realized that unfettered personal use of private jets might be a bad thing. As New York Magazine points out:

PNC just changed their rules to stipulate that senior executives get permission before using company aircraft for personal use, and repay the company from now on, which only serves to give us a horrible picture of what things might've looked like there before.

At least Bank of America is working to exorcise the memory of John Thain's excesses. The bank's new policies ban "antique furniture, customized finishes, and construction of non-standard office sizes or private restrooms." That policy should cover any future exec with ideas about picking up a $35,000 antique commode — whether it's considered housing for a chamberpot, or just a really fancy side table.

TARP-Supported Companies Outline Conditions Under Which They Can Still Use Private Jets [NY Mag]
Pandit Shuns Corporate Jet as TARP Recipients Address Luxuries [Bloomberg]

Rakoff — who had earlier warned that he wouldn't let the proposed settlement go through — had plenty of choice words for both BofA and the SEC. The deal would have forced shareholders to foot the bill to settle a case involving $3.6 billion in bonuses awarded to top Merrill brass at the same time that the company was crying poverty and begging for a savior.

The judge said the settlement plan:

... suggests a rather cynical relationship between the parties: the S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger; the bank's management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators. And all this is done at the expense, not only of the shareholders, but also of the truth.

Of course, this isn't Rakoff's first run-in with Bank of America over the Merrill bonuses. Just last month, scolded BofA lawyers who tried to cast bonuses averaging about $91,000 per employee as chump change. "I'm glad you think that $91,000 is not a lot of money," the judge said. "I wish the average American was making $91,000."

We can only hope that after Rakoff is done taking care of all of Wall Street's excesses, he goes into broadcasting. TV and radio might be filled with angry old men, but we can't imagine any of them using Oscar Wilde to slam the SEC, as Rakoff did today, when he compared the agency to a cynic who "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Judge Rejects Settlement Over Merrill Bonuses [NYT]

Previously: Judge Attacks Merrill Pre-Merger Bonuses

"When I finally made my decision about what I needed to do, it was scary," she told the Huffington Post. "I knew I was probably going to ruin my credit."

The video has 97,000+ views on YouTube so far, and the rant seems to be growing in popularity despite the fact that she confuses Ken Lewis with "Ken Lay." (We suppose that sort of mix-up has been happening to Mr. Lewis with increasing regularity over the past year.)

"Had you left well enough alone," she says in the clip, "I would have continued to make my payments in good faith, but no, you had to bend me over for no good reason other than papering over your mega-screw-up."

Guess that's the risk BoA takes when jacking up interest rates. We're sure they've got "people who refuse to pay on principle" figured into the plan somehow. We wish her luck dealing with the debt collectors that BoA will sell her account to.

Debtor's Revolt [Huffington Post] (Thanks, Sherwood!)

Unfortunately, he may be stuck with the debt. First, because he didn't notice the charges and kept paying the usual amount month after month — then because Bank of America demanded $2,500 that he didn't have — so he transferred some of the debt to another credit card.

"So, to avoid the $2,500 which I did not have in cash at the time, I just...I talked to (Chase) and I said I want to transfer this amount of money from another card over," said Godding.
He transferred the balance to a Chase account with a high credit line. That proved to be the second critical error. An attorney told Godding that because he transferred the balance, the debt is likely now his.
"I made the total payoff when I switched. I shouldn't have paid it," said Godding.
Now, he's stuck paying a $500 minimum monthly payment.

Bank of America says its looking into the situation, and the man, who was retired but now has gone back to work part-time job to pay off the debt, says he only blames himself.

"Pay attention. Observe. Watch what you're doing," he told ABC7 in Denver.

We hope Bank of America helps him out.

Retiree Forced To Pay $11,000 In Fraudulent Credit Card Charges [The Denver Channel] (Thanks, Kensey!)
Fair Credit Billing [FTC]
Your Liability for Unauthorized Credit and Debit Card Charges [NOLO]
(Photo:epicharmus)

WTSP has the story of Steve Valdez, who tried to cash a Bank of America check written by his wife to him. He took the check to a BoA branch, presented two forms of picture ID, and was prevented from cashing the check because he couldn't provide a thumbprint. The manager refused to accommodate Valdez, suggesting that he open an account if he wanted to cash the check.

We've written before about consumers' discomfort about having to provide fingerprints for business transactions. Some readers have pointed out to their banks that there's nothing in the Uniform Commercial Code about requiring a thumbprint for negotiable instruments. In this case, Valdez also told the bank that they might be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Also, there's this: In July, Bank of America admitted that they keep a database of the thumbprinted checks. Wonderful.

Bank wants thumbprint from man with no hands [WTSP]

(Photo: fazen)Thanks, Sara!

From the WSJ:

The bank isn't offering to repay all of its $45 billion in aid from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as several other banks have done. Instead, BofA is suggesting it could start with the $20 billion of additional aid supplied in January when the bank was hesitating to complete its takeover of loss-ridden Merrill.

Repaying this would mean BofA would no longer be considered an "exceptional" aid recipient — a designation that has put it under a microscope by Congress and regulators, with its pay packages subject to review by the federal "pay czar."

In a somewhat ironic twist, Bank of America is also trying to get out of a loss-sharing agreement it has with the government, but according to the WSJ, there is a dispute about... well... it sounds like an early termination fee to us:

In addition to giving Bank of America extra TARP money, the government agreed in January to absorb a chunk of losses on a $118 billion pool of assets owned by BofA and Merrill. The bank would be on the hook for the first $10 billion in losses, and the U.S. would cover 90% of the remainder....

If the bank wanted to end the arrangement, an "appropriate fee" was required. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve are asking the bank to pay between $300 million and $500 million to end this plan and pushing executives to consider a number on the high end of that spectrum, said a person close to the situation. The bank is now considering the request.

What's the word for this? Oh yes, schadenfreude.

BofA Seeks to Repay a Portion of Bailout [WSJ]
(Photo:e. wilder)

I went to my local Bank of America branch to cash some savings bonds for to pay for tuition. I knew that they were over 15 years old so I assumed that they matured although I wasn't certain exactly how much they were worth. I had 3 $5,000 EE bonds all purchased within a year of each other and needed to get $12,500 out of them.

I walk into the bank and ask the teller if she could look up how much they are worth. She says "In order to look them up, I have to process them which means that I have to deposit them for you." I agreed knowing that that I needed to cash at least two of them and possibly all three. When she process the first one, she said that it was worth ~$4,900. I responded that that was odd because I would have assumed that it would have matured already. She said that it did mature, it was just worth less than face value as the point of the face value is to just let you know how much they were purchased for, in this case $2,500. I told her that I didn't think that bonds worked that way, so she asked around and said that nobody there really knew how savings bonds work.

At this point I wasn't too happy, but had a tuition bill to pay so I proceded to cash the remaining two. It turns out that those were worth ~6,500 each, enough to pay my tuition. But by the time I knew that, all three were already cashed and I had no recourse.

When I got home, I did a quick Google and found out that bonds are guaranteed to double in value (mature) in 20 years. (The person at Bank of America thought 15 or under). I also found that had I held onto the bond that was only worth $4,900, it would have increased in value by $70 by the time the payment for next semester is due.

I am not happy that A) BofA made me cash the bonds when I wanted to check the value first and B) was so unknowledgeable about series EE (which I think are the most common) savings bonds.

The only reason why I still have a BofA account is so that I have a branch to walk into when I have things like bonds. I didn't think that I would have to research the bonds because I assumed that the bank would know.

Government savings bonds usually take 18 to 20 years to mature. You'd expect bankers to be aware of that and advise customers accordingly. Thankfully, you don't need to rely on a banker for help. The US Treasury has a great website full of information about savings bonds, and a calculator that will help you figure out what your bond is worth. We know this advice comes too late for you, but maybe your story can save someone else from a similar fate.

Previously: How To Redeem Government Bonds.

(Photo: blitzcat)

It would be interesting to research this, but I would estimate that they constitute far more than 20% of the complaints about banks received by Consumerist. How does this affect you? As banks have fewer viable competitors, it becomes less likely that disgruntled customers will switch their banking to one of those competitors. This means less friendly customer service, stricter policies, and higher deposit-related fees. The Washington Post took a look at the current state of the nation's largest banks and how they've changed in the last year.

In Santa Cruz, Calif., Wells Fargo, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase hold three-quarters of the deposit market. Each firm was given tens of billions of dollars in bailout funds to help it swallow other banks.

The rest of the market, which consists of a handful of tiny community banks, cannot match the marketing power of the bigger banks. Instead, presidents of the smaller companies said, they must offer more personalized service and adapt to technological changes more quickly to entice customers. Some acknowledged it can be a tough fight.

Wells Fargo is "really, really good at the way they cross-sell and get their tentacles around you," said Richard Hofstetter, president of Lighthouse Bank, whose only branch is in Santa Cruz. "Their customers have multiple areas of their financial life involved with Wells Fargo. If you have a checking account and an ATM and a credit card and a home-equity line and automatic bill payments . . . to change that is a major undertaking."

Have you been forced to change banks due to a merger or failure? Do you feel that you could easily change your banking to a different institution if you experienced problems where you are now?

Banks 'Too Big to Fail' Have Grown Even Bigger [Washington Post]

(Photo: Earth2Kim)

Corporate sponsorship of art shows is nothing new, of course, but we're talking about entire exhibits put together by banks, using works from their own collections. Traditionally, museums have two main duties: to select artwork and to display it. The banks are thus assuming one of the primary functions of museums, effectively providing the art world with a franchising model.

What do the museums get out of it? Zero shipping costs and top tier artists - an Andy Warhol here, a Robert Rauschenberg there - that they otherwise could never afford.

And the banks? Rena DeSisto, head of global arts marketing for Bank of America, told the New York Times:

"The income we have generated through increased business is superior to any income we could generate from selling the collection... Attracting even one individual client can cover the entire cost of lending a turnkey exhibition."

The bank also benefits by "associating the bank with arts patronage and charitable giving, providing access to prospective clients in museum trustees and donors, offering opportunities for client entertainment."

There is, however, a downside to all this for museum-goers. Exhibiting artworks increases their value, so banks are likely to choose works based on their profit potential rather than their aesthetic or historic values. (Many museums, for example, will only show corporate collections when the work has been donated.) And, after all, those non-pecuniary values are the reason most people visit museums in the first place.

And Now, an Exhibition From Our Sponsor [New York Times]

(Photo: mrkathika)

I am writing to tell you the results of my complaint to Bank of America about having my ATM card shut down in Irkutsk, Russia, despite informing the bank of my travel plans. Bank of America has sent me an apology letter and a $100 Amazon gift card. I consider myself pacified as far as my U.S. bank transactions go. However, I will probably open an account at a more globally-oriented bank like Citibank or HSBC the next time I travel abroad.

I would rate the customer service I received about a 5.5 on a scale of 1-10. I was contacted the same day I e-mailed my complaint, but the representative who initially contacted me was unsympathetic and unpleasant to deal with. She may have sounded unsympathetic, though, because she was clearly being coached through my complaint call by a third party on the line whose comments I could not hear.

My experience with Darrell Esch, the Senior VP who contacted me after I complained about my initial conversation, was more productive. Mr. Esch took time to listen, or convincingly pretended to listen, to my complaints well after the close of the business day. Mr. Esch was attentive, apologetic and professional, which I appreciated.

Also, BofA rushed me a new ATM card, but neglected to also rush the accompanying pin number, which arrived five days after the card did. As a result I was unable to activate my card in a BofA ATM, as a sticker on the new card instructed me to. I ended up having to speak with a rep at a local BofA branch, but between the fact that she spoke English combined with my somewhat diminished expectations of BofA, I was able to handle it without further issue. The $100 doesn't hurt either.

So an international incident was avoided, and Shannon received an apology and was compensated for her inconvenience. What do you think?

PREVIOUSLY: BoA Strands Customer In Siberia With No Money

Yes, that Bank of America is actually allowing credit card, loan, and banking customers to file lawsuits. They aren't doing it due to a sudden change of heart, of course. National Arbitration Forum, which handled their disputes, is leaving the credit card business entirely after being punched in the face sued by the Minnesota Attorney General. Consumers are not terribly fond of arbitration.

Consumer advocates have faulted the arbitration process, saying it is biased in favor of companies and that consumers often do not realize they are waiving their right to sue when they accept services. Supporters of arbitration say the process can be faster and less costly than going to court.

"While the bank thinks arbitration is a very fair way to go, customers do not," Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton said. "It is in everyone's best interest to change it. We're hoping we'll be able to resolve more disputes directly with our customers."

Norton said the bank will review consumer cases already in arbitration on a case-by-case basis.

That's one more big company down...maybe now even more will follow their lead.

Bank of America ends arbitration of card disputes [Reuters] (Thanks, Phil!)

PREVIOUSLY:
Arbitration May Be Dead, But Courts Offer Imperfect Alternative
Credit Card Arbitration Cabal Implodes
Another Arbitration Firm Pulls Out Of Credit Card Arbitration
Minnesota Attorney General Punches National Arbitration Forum In The Face

(Photos: PJLewis and mrkathika)

For example, when Bank of America's lawyer (who at one point during the hearing exclaimed: "My God! Bonuses on Wall Street? It is not a matter of surprise,") explained that the majority of the $3.6 billion was shared among 39,000 employees who received an average of $91,000 each, the judge replied:

"I'm glad you think that $91,000 is not a lot of money," the judge said. "I wish the average American was making $91,000."

When Bank of America argued that it hadn't used bailout money specifically to pay bonuses, the judge was similarly unimpressed:

"Money is money, the last time I checked," Judge Rakoff responded.

Judge Attacks Merrill Pre-Merger Bonuses [NYT]
(Photo:tagurity)

A place where the postal systems are so unreliable that "many Russian offices have their mail sent to Finland, where it is then privately couriered to Russia." Shannon attempted an EECB on Bank of America and had her mother, who is listed on the account, call BoA as well, to no avail. Anyone know how to say "I haven't yet booked a stay at your hostel but would like to have a package sent there, can you hold it for me" in Russian?

Here's her letters:

"Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM

To Whom it may concern:

Bank of America on July 28, soon after I arrived in Irkutsk, Russia, for a 2-week trans-Siberian vacation, deactivated my debit card after I withdrew about $400 from an Irkutsk ATM. This was quite unexpected since I had called Bank of America before my vacation to inform them that I would be in Russia. My boyfriend, who banks with Citibank, used every ATM I did and experienced no problems. I am very thankful that he is a Citibank customer and had access to his money, because Bank of America literally stranded me in the middle of Siberia with no access to cash and a limited window of time to get out of the country before my visa expired and I became subject to enormous fines.

Being in Irkutsk, Russia (I have included a map for your convenience) and having had trouble communicating to hostel management that I needed to call Bank of America's toll-free number, I e-mailed my mother, Valerie O., to ask that she call BoA and have my debit card reactivated. My mother, who spent several hours on the phone with various representatives, was told that my account was "compromised," and the only option for me was to have Bank of America mail a new ATM card to a hostel in Russia where we were staying. At this point it became glaringly apparent to me that Bank of America does not often do business in Russia. The Russian postal system is famously unreliable, as are courier services there. In fact, many Russian offices have their mail sent to Finland, where it is then privately couriered to
Russia. Also, we had not booked many of our hostels and hotels in advance, and explaining the situation to a hostel or hotel over the phone with my 30 words of Russian would have proven frustrating indeed.

In closing, I would like to know why I should continue to bank with Bank of America after it has proven completely incompetent at handling my affairs while I am abroad. This is not the kind of account "protection" I signed up for. I would like to be compensated for my extreme inconvenience, and the inconvenience my distraught mother went through while futilely attempting to right the situation on the phone. If Bank of America does not rectify the situation to my satisfaction
within two weeks, I will close all three of my accounts and move my money to Citibank, and urge my parents to do the same.

Sincerely,
Shannon O."

2nd email:

"Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Hello, I spoke with Max White concerning the incident below, in which I was literally stranded in the middle of Siberia with no cash flow because Bank of America did not heed my notification that I would be abroad for two weeks. Ms. White informed me that there was nothing Bank of America could do for me because I myself was in error for not contacting Bank of America from Russia, upon receiving an e-mail notifying me of my account being frozen. This despite the fact that my mother, whose name is on my account, called to try to rectify the problem from the U.S. I was told that because my mother had called, the situation had actually become *more* suspicious; apparently Bank of America thinks my own mother was trying to defraud me.

I insist that my complaint can be escalated further, because I am quite outraged over being stranded in Siberia with no money and for the rude treatment I received upon escalating my complaint. How was Bank of America supposed to help me even if I had reached them from Russia? More offers to send me a new card through the infallible Russian postal service? I was told repeatedly throughout the episode that the card in my possession *must* be closed.

Sincerely,
Shannon O."

Bank of America has used super-science security technology and policy-making to determine the following: not reactivating a card used in Russia prevents fraud, but sending a new debit card to an unverified address is A-OK! Luckily it turns out that Shannon has a backup credit card she can use. But what if she hadn't? Future international travelers take heed of this tale and protect yourself accordingly.

From the Financial Times:

The most cash-strapped customers are the hardest hit by such fees, with 90 per cent of overdraft revenues coming from 10 per cent of the 130m checking accounts in the US. Regular use of overdrafts is most common among consumers with low credit scores, Moebs discovered.

Banks say that the fees compensate for the risk they incur when they pay on behalf of customers who do not have enough money in their accounts. "Overdraft fees are there for a reason, we take on a lot of risk," a senior banker said. "It's a service to our customers, they want us to pay their overdrafts."

We're not so sure about that last part. Sure, we're probably biased by the fact that we read heartbreaking emails for a living, but we've never had someone write us saying, "Oh thank god Bank of America paid my overdraft and charged me a $35 fee! What would I have done without them?!"

Banks make $38bn from overdraft fees [Financial Times via Raw Story] (Thanks, Annitra)!
(Photo:stuartpilbrow)

BofA made good on the screw-up, but those with BofA credit cards may want to be aware of the possible repercussions of actually making a late payment. R Turner writes:

Not only did I learn I had a late payment due to a bank error, but I've just learned BoA offered to "help" me out by automatically charging my credit card for the full amount of the late payment— *without* my prior approval or authorization. They didn't bother to call me in advance to clarify the matter or ask what I wanted to do, they simply ran a charge through for that past due payment— jacking up, if not negating any payments I made by also tacking on additional fees in the process.

When I promptly called BoA Customer Service, and they said they had no idea how such a thing could possibly have happened without my express approval but they would try to resolve it once the late payment comes in. They apologized, and also said they would waive the late fees attached for this month, due to the error.

When your own credit card company — which already gets away with obscenely high rates and fees — can now practice the very things you're supposed to report when other parties unlawfully engage in, what are you supposed to?

Desperately looking for any/all options to escape their grasp...

Judging from R Turner's customer service experience, the unauthorized cash advance thing doesn't appear to be bank policy. But if something like this can happen once, it can happen other times. So keep an eye on those credit card statements.

(Photo: epicharmus)

The report says that combined, these three firms earned $9.6 billion, paid bonuses of nearly $18 billion, and received TARP taxpayer funds worth $45 billion. Why did this happen? Because, according to Cuomo, when times were good the bankers rewarded themselves based on performance. When the economy started to sour — they decoupled the bonus structure from reality and kept rewarding themselves.

From the report:

As one would expect, in describing their compensation programs, most banks emphasize the importance of tying pay to performance. Indeed, one senior bank executive noted recently that individual compensation should not be set without taking into strong consideration the performance of the business unit and the overall firm. As this executive put it, "employees should share in the upside when overall performance is strong and they should all share in the downside when overall performance is weak."

But despite such claims, one thing is clear from this investigation to date: there is no clear rhyme or reason to the way banks compensate and reward their employees. In many ways, the past three years have provided a virtual laboratory in which to test the hypothesis that compensation in the financial industry was performance-based.

But even a cursory examination of the data suggests that in these challenging economic times, compensation for bank employees has become unmoored from the banks' financial performance. Thus, when the banks did well, their employees were paid well. When the banks did poorly, their employees were paid well. And when the banks did very poorly, they were bailed out by taxpayers and their employees were still paid well. Bonuses and overall compensation did not vary significantly as profits diminished.

So, how was this allowed to happen? Why did the bankers feel justified in rewarding themselves as the ship sank?

In some senses, large payouts became a cultural expectation at banks and a source of competition among the firms. For example, as Merrill Lynch's performance plummeted, Merrill severed the tie between paying based on performance and set its bonus pool based on what it expected its competitors would do. Accordingly, Merrill paid out close to $16 billion in 2007 while losing more than $7 billion and paid close to $15 billion in 2008 while facing near collapse. Moreover, Merrill's losses in 2007 and 2008 more than erased Merrill's earnings between 2003 and 2006. Clearly, the compensation structures in the boom years did not account for long-term risk, and huge paydays continued while the firm faced extinction.

The AG says that the bankers explained the need to do this by claiming that they had to pay bonuses to individuals working in divisions that were still making money for the firm. The trouble with this rationalization is that banks continued paying bonuses to people in losing divisions.

We recognize, of course, that there can be situations where the distribution of profits to employees who created real profits would be appropriate even though the overall firm may have lost money. This might be the case, for example, where one division of a firm earned large profits but another division lost profits. A principled and consistent approach would, however, balance the need to reward and retain those who created profits with the need for bonuses to reflect the overall performance of the firm. In any event, our investigations have shown numerous instances where large bonuses were paid to individuals in money-losing divisions at firms who saw either substantially reduced profits or losses in 2008.

The entire report can be downloaded from the AG's website, here. (PDF)

The New Hampshire House of Representatives recently introduced a bill that would ban the practice. The Nashua Telegraph took a look at the origins of and potential problems with the practice.

As part of the program, non-account holders who want to cash a check drawn on Bank of America must provide two pieces of identification, along with a thumbprint on the check. If the person refuses, the bank won't cash the check.

The bank says the practice is a deterrent to would-be fraudsters - proof that the person presenting the check is who he or she claims to be. It's also a resource for law enforcement to identify a person if the check turns out to be fraudulent, the bank said.

Some people have privacy concerns with this practice due to the storage of thumbprints. Storage? Yes, the banks maintain a digital image of checks, which for non-customers includes the thumbprint. They're not building a massive database of thumbprints for use in a massive government biometric ID program, but some people find it troubling that the bank has their thumbprint on record.

RELATED:
BofA Throws Out Customer Who Refuses To Give Thumbprint
Chase Refuses To Cash Check Without Thumbprint

Thumbing their noses: Customers take umbrage over bank policy requiring thumbprints [Nashua Telegraph]

(Photo: stelladiver)

Josh Muszynski was one of the many people hit yesterday by a VISA system error that charged them exactly $23,148,855,308,184,500.00. In his case, it was a pack of cigarettes at a gas station. He later spent a couple of hours on the phone with Bank of America unravelling the charge and the $15 fee. I don't know what's more absurd, the fact that the transaction was approved or that it took two hours to get the $15 overdraft fee removed. Reports the AP, "Bank of America tells WMUR-TV only the card issuer, Visa, could answer questions. Visa, in turn, referred questions to the bank."

NH man charged 23 quadrillion dollars for smokes [AP] (Photo: TheGlassPeople)
PREVIOUSLY: Unruly Teen Charges $23 Quadrillion At Drugstore

Here's how ChexSystems works, courtesy of an Assistant Vice President at a "large regional bank" who contacted us:

We have had to close out accounts in the past due to a negative report from ChexSystems which shows that the customer had a charged off account with money owed. To keep using ChexSystems we have to not open accounts that have money owed to other banks. That is usually the only way [for those banks] to collect.

Of course, BoA could have explained everything a lot better. Just because someone has a negative ChexSystems report, it doesn't mean they are blackballed forever. It's kind of like bankruptcy, as you come off their records after 7 years.

Although that's probably why most customers denied a new account at any bank are rejected, it doesn't sound like it applies to Jesse's case based on what he told us:

They said it "may have something to do with an unpaid account." The only problem is that I am young, have good credit, and had never had any account with Bank Of America. Their claim was impossible.

ChexSystems doesn't care where the old account was—in fact, the whole point of it is to catch people with bad accounts at unrelated banks. But if what Jesse told us was true then we doubt he has an unpaid account with a former bank.

We contacted him and asked him to spill more secrets about his financial history for the benefit of the community. Here's his response:

I had 2 accounts with a local branch in Massachusetts, the first was a savings account which I closed when I switched over to a checking account.

I waited to close this account until I had received my new one. After receiving my TD Bank card I closed the account with this bank over the phone and they had no issues with me.

I barely ever use checks and have never bounced one.

I have only one credit card, which I got only a few months before applying for BOA. I have yet to be late on a payment.

I have no idea how ChexSystems works, but the only debt I have is from student loans which are actually still in a grace period.

My best guess is that I was denied due to some sort of issue identifying my residential address because I had just moved. Of course that doesn't explain why they sent me the cards in the first place.

Who knows, maybe it was ChexSystems who caused the problem and not BOA. Still, is it really means to ban a customer for life?

We received so many stories from other readers telling us how BoA screwed up their new accounts that we had to spin them off into another post. After reading those stories, you may begin to feel that Jesse dodged a bullet by having been turned away immediately. At least that way BoA couldn't charge him overdraft fees, "research" fees, or other penalties without explanation.

Continue reading: "Bank Of America: 'That's Why You Don't Open New Accounts Online'"

RELATED
"Bank Of America Bans Customer For Life"
(Photo: TheTruthAbout)

If you don't have time to read all three stories, skip to the bottom to see what Edward found out after sending an EECB to Bank of America.

First, Wayne's story. It's long, but it illustrates that even when Bank of America attempts to fix the problem, they can cause more harm than good.

I recently moved to a new state and opened a checking account with BoA online (my local bank in Ohio didn't exist where I moved outside Philadelphia). It was a Sunday when I filled out the application online and I had considered just waiting until the next day and walking into the bank and opening one. After talking to an online customer service rep via their chat window I was assured it was smarter to open the account online because the free checking account offer I was signing up for was ONLY available online.

I transferred my balance (around $400 I think) over from my old bank to my new BoA account. The online rep explained to me that until I received my debit card in the mail I could just walk into my local BoA and take money out of my account, which was fine with me. Wednesday rolls around and I do just that. The bank teller lets me take $200 out of my account and sends me on my way. So far so good. A couple of days later I come back to take another $100 out of my account and I am told there is a problem.

First, the new bank teller says she can't understand how they let me take any money out of my account the previous time because there is a flag on my account and it says I don't have any money in the account. In fact, it shows that I came in on the date of my previous date and withdrew money, and that they charged me a fee for having insufficient funds. At this point I am totally confused...and slightly pissed.

She explains to me that she doesn't understand what is going on either and that I need to call their customer service center because they are the only ones that can handle my problem. I am on my lunch break from work so I hop back in my car, start heading back to work (hungry), and dial up the number the teller had given me. The customer service rep that answers my call confirms that there is a flag on my account because they could not verify my new address. I explained to her that I just moved not even a week ago and since I moved into my cousin's apartment, I didn't sign a lease or anything. I told her I had to sign some paperwork to move in with the leasing office however so that they knew who was going to be living there. She asked if I had any utility bills in my name there and I said no, I don't, but I did have a new cell phone from a provider in the area where the bill was sent to my new address with my cousin.

The rep told me to take something from the leasing office acknowledging that I was living there and my cell phone bill into my local branch and they could take care of it. I said that's fine, but shouldn't my social security card and ID be enough to verify I am who I am? She says that would help but take at least a copy of my cell phone bill or a letter from my cousin and instructs me to go back the branch. I turn my car around (still on my lunch break (and still hungry) and go back to the bank that I had just left.

I walk in and talk to the same teller and explain to her what the lady said. The teller seems even more confused. She tells me that there is no way they handle anything like that and gets the manager. The male manager confirms the same thing. At this point I am pretty frustrated and just want to close my account and take my money and get something to eat so I can get back to work and on with my day (and life...without BoA). The teller and manager at this point take me to a tabel on the side and have me call their customer service line again right there from the branch.

This time I get a male customer service rep who confirms there is a flag on my account because they couldn't verify my new address. Nothing shocking there. I clue him in on what the previous customer service rep and he seems incredibly confused stating he has no idea why the other rep would have said that and said that in fact they had already closed on my account out completely. He said I would be banned from ever opening an account with Bank of America again. I ask him when I can have my money back (since Christmas was less than 10 days away) and he tells me 6-8 weeks. I hang up the phone, tell the manager what he said and they seemed just as baffled as me. I leave the branch pissed off.

Now...the best part. I had around $100 left in my account at BoA when they closed it. Around 6 weeks later I receive a check in the mail from BoA for around $20 with another letter explaining an overdraft fee of $75, apparently from when I took the original $200 out of the account. The kicker is that THEY SENT THE CHECK TO MY NEW ADDRESS THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T CONFIRM. As far as I am concerned not only did BoA waste my time and screw me over for doing nothing other than signing up for one of their accounts online (under the guidance of one of their own online reps), but they also flat out stole money from my pocket by charging me for it and for taking my own money out of the account...after telling me that I could.

I wouldn't wish a BoA account upon my worst enemy. At least when my car was broken into and robbed the thief ran off and tried to hide. When BoA stole from me they sent me a letter to brag.

Here's Chris's email about the duplicate checking account and how BoA tried to charge him penalties for not noticing he'd been given a second, fake account.

I was just reading the Bank of America article and experienced the same thing this past year. I received a set of checks in the mail that were registered to a second account under my name, that I never knew existed. The account was registered to a bank in a town that I have never actually been to. Because I did not know about the second account I proceeded to use the checks and the checks got returned because the account did not have any money in it. Once I discovered what happened I was on the phone with Bank of America reps all day working my way up the food-chain. No one would listen to me until I said that Bank of America is a scam and that they were trying to con me. Once I threatened them with those words I finally got them to reimburse any charges that I received for checks bouncing and had them cancel the account. They tried to tell me I applied for this second account, even though it was at a Bank of America in a town that I have never been to. Bank of America is a screwy company at best.

Finally, here's a copy of the EECB Edward sent to Bank of America after his account was closed without explanation and dinged $60 for an unexplained "research fee":

On May 7, 2009 I applied online for a MyAccess checking account. I chose the Debit card funding option and had $100 withdrawn from my Chase bank account to fund the Bank of America checking account. I received confirmation of submission of my application. Shortly after, I receive notification my account was approved. On May 11, 2009 my Chase checking account was debited for $100.

On May 13, 2009 I received two seperate mailings: one included information regarding my temporary password for my online account and the other contained bank disclosures. I proceeded to enroll in online banking and was notified that a call to customer service was required. I called customer service and they informed me that my account was closed — they could not provide any reason and said I would need to contact their Risk Department at 877-240-6886. I called them that night, but they were closed — apparently they close at 4PM PST.

On May 14, 2009 I called the Risk Department around 1PM. Once the representative verified my information, she began reading to me what sounded like a prepared script. She went on to state that when opening the account online, I agreed to a disclosure that stated Bank of America reserves the right to close my account for any reason and at any time. She goes on to tell me that the account is closed and that I will never be able to open an account at Bank of America. I asked them what was the reason behind my account closure. The representative then repeats that Bank of America reserves the right to close my account for any reason and at any time. I ask again, "But why was it closed?". She repeats the same statement for the third time and then states, "That is the reason why." She said they will be sending me a cashier's check for $40. I inform her that my initial deposit was for $100 and it has already been debited from my bank account. She states that there was a research charge for $60. I respond saying that it is hard for me to comprehend how Bank of America can close my account, without giving any valid reason AND charges me $60 (60% of my account balance). She tells me for the fourth time that Bank of America reserves the right to close my account at any time for any reason and then disconnects me.

Immediately after this phone call, I walk into my local Bank of America branch. I am eventually directed to a personal banker. I explain the situation. After telling my story, she comments, "That's why you don't open up accounts online." She lets me know that the online departments are seperate from the retail branches, but says she will try to find any additional information. She asks for my social security number and tries to look up my account history. She cannot find any information. She lets me know all she can see is that the account is closed. She tells me there's no use in her calling the Risk Department as they will only tell her the same thing they told me. She gives me a card to Customer Solutions. She tells me to call the number as it is my best bet at getting this issue resolved.

I call Customer Solutions at 1-800-831-4419. I explain my story. They put me on hold as they contact the Risk Department. They come back on the line and give me the exact statement the Risk Department told me. I let the representative that it is completely absurd that they cannot even give me a valid reason, let alone charge me $60. She says Bank of America will not refund the fee. I ask her if I have ANY other options to get this issue resolved. She responds, "No." At this point, I want to start recording names and record the shady nature of these business transactions. I ask her for her name and extension or any other information in which I can identify her. The line goes silent for a minute and then disconnects.

I look online to see whether this has happened to other individuals. Apparently it has.

http://www.raisedguidance.com/2008/10/banned-from-bank-of-america-fo.html
http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/banking/bankofamerica-risk-assessment.html
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/checking-account-scam-c92924.html
http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=41155
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090312090401AAcoGUA

This has been absolutely my worst experience in dealing with a bank. It bewilders me to see how Bank of America treats its customers. I expect at the very least, a full justified explanation for my account closure along with a refund of my full $100 deposit. Assuming that Bank of America charges $20/hour for research, please let me know what exactly took three hours and what research they found because apparently I haven't heard it.

Edward notes that the EECB appeared to do the trick. He even finally got an answer as to what triggered the closure:

I was also sure to copy the comptroller of the currency who regulates these financial institutions. Long story short, someone from the "executive offices" of Bank of America gives me a call letting me know that Bank of America is sorry and that they will refund the fee they charged me. They sent me my entire balance back along with a $50 Home Depot gift card for my inconvenience. I also finally got a real answer in regards to why they closed my account — my mailing address was not the same as my legal address (note that despite this, they had no problem taking funds from my Chase bank account).

Anyways, thought you might want to share this with your readers. Obviously Bank of America has some serious procedural issues in regards to how they handle what they determine as "fraud".

RELATED
"Bank Of America Bans Customer For Life"
"Update: Banned Bank Of America Customer Says His Credit Is Clear"
(Photo: jonathan mcintosh)