Bank Fires Complaining Customer

Tim walked into his bank to deposit a check, but the bank told him to get lost.

As The Hook reports, the bank froze his account because it didn’t appreciate the extent to which he complained. Tim objected when the bank refused to accept a check made out to both him and his wife because the account was in his name only. A bank rep put Tim in his place by freezing his debit card and telling him he had 10 days to close his account.

“It kind of floored me and my wife, the way we were treated,” Tim said.

The bank’s motto is “We value relationships.”

‘Without cause’: Bank fires complaining client [The Hook]
(Thanks, Qbubbles!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. leoneomeo says:

    I am sure they do, just as much as he values his business with them in the future…

    • LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese says:

      Let me get the obligatory find-a-credit-union comment outta the way…

      Screw the bank, find a credit union.

      Okay, done.

      • LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese says:

        Also: ashamed to note that the bank is First Citizens, which is based in Raleigh. WTG, First Citizens Bank – thanks for making the Tarheel state look asinine.

        • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

          and that is why i love NC SECU!
          sadly wachovia was already making the state look bad

  2. Cicadymn says:

    I feel like we’re missing a lot of the details here.

    How did he act? Who did he talk to? Just the teller? Can the teller really do that? What has he done to remedy this other than run to the media?

    Mondays eh?

    • Browncoat says:

      The article provides details.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Actually, no, the article provides no details as to the reasoning for the bank’s decision.

        • DanRydell says:

          The article implies that they closed his account after he said he was going to take his business elsewhere. I’m not sure why it’s a such a big deal for them to close his account if he said he was going to close it. It could cause a minor inconvenience if he had to pay any bills before he transferred the money, but that’s about it.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            I didn’t see this inference you speak of.

            It seems some interaction with the teller and manager caused them too much heartache to allow him to remain a customer. Unless there’s a history of complaining which was implied but never explained.

            As usual, more information is needed.

            • Cicadymn says:

              But but but but! The articles are perfect! We should only have to read the article to know everything forever!

          • MMD says:

            If what you say is true, you’re still wrong. Stating one’s intention to take business elsewhere does not give the bank carte blanche to just close the account. As long as the OP was a customer in good standing, he has the right to decide *when* to take his business elsewhere.

            • George4478 says:

              It’s a “right” of the customer to decide when to close a bank account? The bank is forbidden from firing a customer since it’s now a “right” to keep a bank account?

              Please cite the appropriate federal statutes for the “right”.

            • DarthCoven says:

              According to the article, the “Deposit Account Agreement,” states that the account can be closed at anytime “with or without cause.”

      • Mom says:

        The article provides details from the guy’s side, not the bank’s. Something must have happened to make the bank decide that it wasn’t worth keeping him as a customer.

    • ames says:

      According to the linked article, he talked to the bank manager as well, who did deposit the check.

      From what I read, it sounds like the bank visit went kind of how it SHOULD go with a check like that. His wife’s name isn’t on the account, the teller who processed it didn’t know him personally so she didn’t know that he’d done it before, the manager called his wife to verify, and the check was deposited.

      Things seemed to go off the rails with the followup call, though – and that’s where I wonder what really happened. It would probably have been all-around easier if he’d just added his wife’s name to the account back when they set it up.

    • theycallmeGinger says:

      Yeah, right? It’s hard to RTFA on Mondays.

    • dg says:

      RTFA – he talked to tellers and the bank refused his request to speak with a supervisor, or someone over the branch manager. He basically had a check made out to “Joe and Jane Doe”. Joe Doe endorsed the back. Jane Doe endorsed the back. Joe went to deposit it into HIS account (Jane Doe wasn’t on the account as a primary, although we don’t know from TFA if she was a signer on the account).

      The bank said “Hey – Jane Doe has to make it payable to you or we can’t deposit it because you’re the only one on the account”. The guy had done this before with a different teller (it was an insurance check), but this teller wouldn’t budge.

      Whether requiring a “Payable to the order of” endorsement is valid for the bank to ask for or not, I don’t know – haven’t read that section of the UCC (or the adopted UCC for his State) yet. But honestly, most banks don’t care and just deposit the damn thing wihtout a bat of an eye.

      Given that this guy had a debit card – I’d have told the teller “Sure, let me get that for you, I’ll be right back.” then march over to the ATM, and do the deposit at the ATM. Chances are no one’s going to look at anything deposited at the ATM that carefully – is it signed? Yeah, great. Let’s get going, I want to go home! ….

      The bank telling him to get lost is bullshit. If they told me I had 10 days to close the account, I’d have said “Really, that long? It’s not going to take me 10 seconds. Give me ALL my money – in singles. And I want you to count them. If you don’t have enough, then get it. I’ll wait right here.” Fuck them.

    • NYGuy1976 says:

      He probably cursed the teller out for not doing what he wanted. Most large banks have a policy that if you a individual account and a check is made out to you and someone else, the other person has to appear in person with you to cash or deposit the check. No bank would close your account for complaining about a policy. Many banks will close your account for abuse towards an employee unless you keep a few hundred thousand with them they let abuse slide sometimes.

  3. JlGomez says:

    Banks are garbage but I have a feeling there is more to this than his version.. I can just feel it…

  4. NeverLetMeDown says:

    Um, why is this news? Anyone who’s ever run a business knows there are customers who are more trouble than they’re worth.

    • infinityspiral says:


    • jayde_drag0n says:

      that may be so, however “FREEZING” an account disables the customer from access to their own money. And I don’t care how bitchy a customer is, when it comes to money that is not yours and is not under a criminal investigation.. you CANNOT stop them from accessing their OWN money.

      sure, close their account and give them all their money back.. but i don’t care how bitchy i’ve been .. you do not steal money from me (and yes i consider freezing my account and denying me access to money that is not theirs and i do not owe, stealing)

      • BigSlowTarget says:

        Freezing the account would be akin to theft. Canceling the debit card (which is what they did) is not. It would take him a few hours to withdraw the account in a cashier’s check and open an account elsewhere or he could split it into a prepaid card and a deposit if it were absolutely necessary to have a card in less than 10 business days or so.

        I think there’s more going on here. Perhaps it got loud in the lobby?

      • Mom says:

        They didn’t freeze the account. They just deactivated his debit card, and told him to come pick up his money. He still had access to the money, just not the ATM. Weird, but not stealing.

  5. anime_runs_my_life says:

    So rather than make it easier on himself by adding his wife to the check, or even taking his wife down with him to the bank to verify her signature (which is the other way the check could have been deposited), he’d rather complain about a policy that’s a federal regulation.

    I do believe that the manager and supervisor were a bit snarky in not at least producing the regulation for him to see when asked. It doesn’t take too long to find it and they should know where it is anyway.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      I’ve noticed this – no one wants to give you access to warranty documents or Plan Specific Documents like this until after purchase. It’s absolutely your right to see the legal documents pertaining to you. There shouldn’t be a problem, ever, for you to ask the business to see these documents at point of sale (or the banking situation equivalent).

      So if the bank refuses a check due to “policy” you should have every right to ask to see that policy in writing.

    • anime_runs_my_life says:

      Okay, Consumerist, this has been asked before. How many times will we have to ask until it’s done – GIVE US AN EDIT BUTTON!!!!!!!!!!!

      That should read “add her to the checking account”.

  6. FeelinFroggy says:

    Totally missing details…BUT freezing your account and forcing you to close it?

  7. MartinFeardie says:

    Well, I’m sure there oughtta be a law requiring the bank to retain him as a customer. At least something about not allowing them to discriminate against whiny people.

  8. Hoss says:

    It’s better to give him the boot than to face charges from tellers about allowing continued exposure to harassment

  9. Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

    1. Tim should have not told the bank he was going to close his account.
    BAD TIM.

    2. The bank should have showed him their policy regarding 2 signee checks. I am sure they have one, ie, “If two payees are on the check and it is being deposited into a single ownership account where one payee matches the account ownership, the non-member payee must be present and must endorse the check “Pay to the order of (the member)” in the presence of the bank employee.

    • MMD says:

      I agree with #2…but why is Tim “bad” for stating his intention? How is this any different from telling any other kind of business that you’re going to take your business elsewhere if a problem isn’t rectified?

  10. rpm773 says:

    Bank’s motto: We assign values to relationships.

  11. HoJu says:

    from the article:
    “Unfortunately I’m not going to be able to say anything because this speaks to a specific client matter,”

    Can someone please tell me when we started using the term “speak to” when referring to situations? When did “talk to” and “speak to” replace “talk about???”

    One of those corporate cliché’s that hurt my ears.

    • DanRydell says:

      I first noticed it about 10 years ago, and it has always bothered me.

    • BuyerOfGoods3 says:

      “say about” wouldn’t be proper business language. Go to college, they’ll teach it it basic Business Document Formatting and editing.

      She spoke proper English for a banker. Deal with it.

      • BuyerOfGoods3 says:

        “because this is about a client matter..”: is about, sorry. It would not have been correct.

      • Megalomania says:

        “is in regards to”
        “deals with”

        Lots of ways that don’t make you sound like you’re reading off an index card of prepped phrases.

      • HoJu says:

        I apologize if, in the interest of brevity, I neglected to be incredibly specific in my complaint. I assumed that any 8th grade graduate could extrapolate the appropriate term to be used based on my generalization.

        No where in any business class did they say to use pointless corporate clichés.

      • HoJu says:

        I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that you probably wear a bluetooth earpiece whenever you’re out and about even if you’re not actively using your phone.

        Yeah. I thought so.

    • Bativac says:

      Maybe “this involves a specific client matter.”

      I, too, hate corporate speak. “Speaks to.” “High level overview.” “Allocate resources.”

  12. qbubbles says:

    Hay look! Its one of mine!!

    • Nighthawke says:

      ‘Gratz bubbles! Several of mine made it to the front page awhile back, mainly postings from the business sector.

  13. Nighthawke says:

    You guys ought to read the comments after the article. There’s one sizzling post that I believe came from a regional manager of a competing bank and that person is outright FURIOUS with the branch manager. I think that particular manager is going to get a visit from their regional chief and some backtracking is going to happen soon. Look for the posting by “a banker”.

    It’s not over yet folks.

    • pop top says:

      I found it in case others are interested:

      “Listen, first and foremost, i too work in banking. Obviously, higher up the food chain than yourself. The issues at hand are numerous. You did outline one, however in this area banking needs to be a hometown venture. Its clear that these folks knew Mr Kendrick as their neighbor and friend, at least one teller did. He should be treated as such. You cannot accomadate the mans request and then decide to simply shut it down. If the call needed to be made, (which it didnt) it should have been done immediately and not been told he couldnt make the deposit. The Managers behavior is inexcusable, she needs to be fired immediately. For there, lies the real problem. Uneducated employees acting as if they have control…..the area operations manager i can promise you will suffer severely from this as well. The finanical markets and industry are struggling, folks bank with you because they k now you. THey know you treat them well and can offer them peace of mind and friendly service. Not because of your policies. So, “Listen” please spare me the company jargon because i wrote that book. Instead, understand that the requirements for being a teller are basically breathing and that in the grand scheme of thins, as harsh as this sounds, the customer IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU. (ps, the customer is also always right. You might not be able to reach agreements but they need to be treated with respect and their requests accomadated)”

      • Nighthawke says:

        Thanks. I didn’t know if the buffer could take a paragraph that big.

      • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

        I would think that someone “in banking…higher up the food chain than yourself” would be able to spell “accommodate” and be versed in the use of apostrophes.

      • Chaosium says:

        “ps, the customer is also always right”

        Anyone who uses this phrase I have very little respect for, and doubt they’re very high up.

        I believe in a customer-centric support system, but that phrase is so easily abused that it should be banned.

  14. Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

    “Tim objected when the bank refused to accept a check made out to both him and his wife because the account was in his name only.”

    Isn’t that how things are supposed to work? If a check is made out to ‘Joe and Sarah Smith’ then it needs to go into a joint account or if it goes into an individual account, both spouses need to sign off on it.

    If it’s made out to Joe OR Sarah Smith, then it can go into a personal account with no issues and only a single signature.

    • DanRydell says:

      Yes, though actual experiences vary. I deposited all of the checks from our wedding into my individual account without issues, but I had to actually bring my wife to the bank branch to deposit a single $1000 check from our insurance company.

    • pop top says:

      From the article: “and had deposited three or four similar checks already this summer with a teller who knew him, he says.”

      The bank should have made an exception this time since it did every other time he went in there. If they want to enforce that kind of policy, they are free to, but it should be enforced across the board, no matter if you know the teller or not. They can’t get mad at him for not knowing the specific policy when they never told it to him to begin with.

      • AustinTXProgrammer says:

        Just like with customer service. I had an insurance check that was stale. The insurance company told me to deposit it anyways, and the teller wouldn’t let me. I went to another branch and had no problems.

    • Raekwon says:

      Read the article. It had both signatures. The bank just decided that for this instance he need a separate phrase from the wife saying to deposit to just his account. In the past they’ve accepted similar checks without this phrase.

      • NYGuy1976 says:

        The reason banks do this is because he could have forged her signature. Later on, she could come to the bank and say she never signed that check, it was fraud, and I want my money back. Banks do not like to get involved in situations like this so thats why they make policies like this.

  15. rookie says:

    I bank at my local (redacted)Bank. So does my girlfriend. We have separate accounts, and one joint account. It was a sticky thing for her to deposit checks for me, in my account, and, or, for me to deposit checks made to her, endorsed by her, into HER account, until we acquiesced to the bank’s need for us both to be named signatories on each others accounts. I never did ask to see the written policy, I really do not care about the bank’s written policy, any of them.

    Folks, we’re dealing with corporations who see us as their meal ticket. It is damn near impossible to live without interaction with a bank, and they know. Threaten to close an account???

    Look, Bob, here comes another sheep now…

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      In some states, that could have been construed as a common law marriage.

      Fortunately, they usually require you to declare each other married as well.

    • Hoss says:

      Are you saying that you’ve had checks payable to your girlfriend and endorsed by her and the bank rejected her deposit because she was not present? If that’s the case, that’s crazy. Couriers handle deposits all the time.

      But if you;re saying that she endorsed her check and gave it to you to deposit in your account, she needs to write “Pay to (account name)” as part of the endorsement

      • Powerlurker says:

        No, he’s talking about his attempting to deposit a check written to and endorsed by his girlfriend into her account without her being present.

      • rookie says:

        Sorry for the late reply.
        One of the checks that they refused, initially, was her paycheck, from the private school where she works, endorsed by her for deposit. Now that I’ve brought this up, it occurs to me that she also indicated on the deposit slip that she wanted some cash back. The teller at the drive thru has seen us both many times, and, I thought, we were all good. When the fiasco went down, I got the distinct impression I was profiled as a dirtbag, scum sucking hippie who only had about $500 in his accounts. Needless to say I was very relieved to find out that this was not true, and that the teller only thought I was a low-life, pot-smoking, gun-toting, sex addict that looks like David Crosby…

        Which iz appropriately accurate…

    • magus_melchior says:

      Meal ticket? More like early retirement account…

  16. razz4901 says:

    What is the “rest” of the story…??

  17. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    Depends how it went down. He deposited a $2000 check then announced his intent to close all his accounts before it cleared. The bank may have thought there was some risk they had to cover.

  18. dougp26364 says:

    And the next bank isn’t going to let him deposit a check in both his and his wife’s name without her signature into an account that has only his name on it. There’s one to many disfunctional families where I can see the wife complaining to the bank that they shouldn’t have allowed that check to be deposited into an account in which she didn’t have access.

  19. jimmyhl says:

    This is some whacked out story. If the details are as reported the bank came on way too strong. Refusing to accept further deposits is one thing–refusing to honor drafts against the account is another. If the bank wants to get him out of its hair, it tells the customer that its terminating the relationship, tells him it will no longer take his deposits, but it does not lock down his money and impair his ability to meet his obligations without first creating a new account at another institution. The AG/state banking commission should probably know about this. With that said, the depositor must be from another solar system (or is 90 years old) if he thinks the bank should have accepted a dual-payee check without a valid endorsement from both payees.

  20. patrick says:

    it didn’t cross his mind to have his wife verify some info on his cellphone about the check and the account, thus making the matter irrelevant?

    – I agree with other posters, not enough info. Sounds like mudslinging – the consumerist needs to do their homework.

  21. frank64 says:

    “The manager called Natalie to confirm her signature on the check, according to Kindrick, and then deposited it. “To me, the accusation is I forged her name and tried to steal the money,” he says.”

    Just being asked to verify something and having safeguard procedures in place does not mean you are being accused of being a thief. Come on. This sort of mentality says a lot about someone and the attitude they have.

    From what I read, the bank did deposit the check, but the client wanted to pursue the matter further. He should have let it go. I don’t think the bank was wrong. It looks like the client was going to be upset no matter how the bank handled the issue, short of violating the procedure.

    • patrick says:

      Is there not such a thing as check fraud? the bank was completely justified in asking to verify it. It’s what an intelligent business with intelligent people would do. Verify information. We all can’t live in your perfect trusting world.

    • patrick says:

      Frank, sorry bro. Misread your post. I thought you were saying that they were accusing the bank of calling them a thief. Totally wrong on my part. Sorry.

    • MaarekElets says:

      The customer felt accused because someone followed the proper procedure for depositing this kind of check. He had his needs met (the check was deposited) but decided that he wanted to push on it more (perhaps he thought he could get the policy changed?) and ended up speaking on the phone to a higher up. The higher up didn’t give him what he wanted either so he kept pushing and threatened to leave the bank…. at this point the higher up decided that the bank no longer wanted to hold his money.

      To me the only thing the bank did wrong was being inconsistent and letting him deposit those checks the first few times. Other than that, I would agree with them…. this guy sounds like he is not worth keeping as a customer (based only on the information from the article… he may save kittens in his spare time for all I know). They don’t have to keep your money, and there are plenty of options…. most will have the exact same policies as well.

  22. DoktorH says:

    I work for a bank, and have seen accounts frozen due to the customer’s behavior. Typically, this means a LOT of abusive language towards bank staff (profanity and insults), shouting and throwing things in the branch, and behaving in a threatening way towards the staff. Being the customer of a bank does not give you the right to create a hostile environment for the staff and other customers.

    • MMD says:

      Being a bank employee – even a mistreated bank employee – does not give you the right to deny customers access to their money.

      • mmartinek says:

        Yeah they do. If you are violating policy, generally accepted standards of society, causing a scene and making other customers feel unsafe then you should lose your account. They haven’t lost full access to their money; they can and were instructed to withdrawal it all and close their account.

      • MaarekElets says:

        Canceling a Debit card and telling them to come get their money != denying access to their money.

        I love it when I hear about companies firing customers who seem to think they are entitled to walk over policies because these customers make the experience worse for customers like myself who just want to do business according to the policies and don’t expect special treatment.

      • dantsea says:

        Yeah, actually, it does.

        But good luck with that argument about your “rights” as the person behind the counter is nodding and making with the clickety-click to close your account and print out your deposit check.

      • DoktorH says:

        from what I’ve seen, it’s not an individual making an off-the-cuff decision on whether or not to close a customer’s account because of the customer’s behavior. The account may be temporarily frozen, some kind of security/risk/incident-management department makes a decision, and then they proceed from there.

        Generally speaking, though, if the situation is bad enough to get security/risk/incident-management people involved, this means it is far worse than the average upset customer, and that the customer involved was threatening the staff and scaring other customers.

  23. Missing in Vlissingen says:

    I have an assortment of jokes about this incident that I can’t bring myself to post.

    Bottom line: anyone who responds to a non-violent provocation with violence frightens me. Either the newspaper story is incomplete, or this employee is a psychopath.

  24. Macgyver says:

    So a guy walks into a bank, trying to deposit a check into his account that’s made out to him and his wife, the his wife signed the check, and the teller(who doesn’t know him) wouldn’t deposit it.
    Then he went to the manager, she called the wife to confirm it was her who signed it, and then deposited it. Sounds to me like they were just doing their job following policy.
    It should have ended right there.
    He followed up with a call saying he needed a new bank.

    His wife name wasn’t on his account, so they didn’t have to deposit it.
    He said he wanted a new bank, so they just took his word, and frozed his account.
    And this doesn’t make sense
    “Kindrick had to drive to the bank to get money until he opened a new account.”
    If it was frozen, then how can he take money out?

    I think they’s more to this story, and he just blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

    • mmartinek says:

      It was frozen for use– so that he couldn’t make deposits and continue using his debit card as though nothing happened. It was frozen so that he was forced to go into a branch and withdrawal all the money.

      And the way they make it sound is that he has to carry cash around until he can open an account with another bank. They can close out the account and give a money order– cash is not his only option.

  25. Macgyver says:

    Are these cops f’ing stupid. The guy admitted to beating him, but yet he wasn’t arrested.
    These cops should be retrained, or get fired for not doing they jobs.

  26. Buddha says:

    Good for the bank. As a former customer service rep from company X, I’m sick and tired of people thinking they can be rude to everyone just because they are are customer. I hope more companies follow suit on this.

  27. Trick says:

    Even if this guys story is 100% accurate with no missing details, move on! The bank probably did you a favor. Yeah you might find yourself at a bank that is just as bad or then again, you might find yourself at a new bank that is far better.

    Any person who is reasonable with their finances can make the bank change fairly quickly and with little pain. Why the hell would you want to stay at a bank that treats you this way? Vote with your cash in the bank and take it elsewhere.

  28. vastrightwing says:

    I like it because people are too slow to leave banks on their own. But now that banks are actively kicking out the “bad” customers, this will make things much better. Soon, they won’t have any customers. Because bad customer are any customers who complain and don’t play by their rules. I tell you this is great news! The OP probably din’t like this bank too much anyway, and like many others, was very willing to let the bank dictate how he did business with them.

  29. unimus says:

    Fair enough. As consumers we have our rights to ditch a bank, and vice versa.

    The “friendly” teller deposits a few checks with two payees into an account with one of those names, but since she’s his wife so it’s ok, right? In another word, the teller made a few exceptions. Guess what? Now the customer thinks this is the rule.

    • evnmorlo says:

      I’m pretty sure it is the universally accepted rule. The teller denying the deposit was the one making an exception, i.e. a violation.

  30. notfromaroundhere says:

    I have an account at First Citizens. I’ve never been treated anything less than perfectly politely. Then again, I’m the only one on the account. This story is kinda odd.
    That being said, I think the branch should have pulled out the written federal regulation(s) for this guy.

  31. Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

    Reminds me of the old joke: How do you improve employee morale? Fire all the complaining employees.

  32. snowmentality says:

    If you read the linked article, what happened is that he said he was going to close his account over this issue, and they said “Fine, we’ll close it. Your debit card is shut down as of now and you have 10 days to close it out completely.”

    Kindrick decided he needed a new bank, and when he told Cox, he says the bank rep immediately froze his debit card and said he had 10 days to close his account.

    Yes, kind of a jerk move on the bank’s part, but they didn’t do this completely out of nowhere.

  33. evnmorlo says:

    Since the government takes care of all their needs, banks don’t really require customers anymore.

  34. Villnius says:

    Good for the bank. The old saying is that “Good customers are like gold. You hang on to them”

    However, bad customers are like diseases. They’re bad for your health, and hard to get rid of.

  35. flip says:

    Yeah, definitely going to side with the bank on this one.

  36. BeFrugalNotCheap says:

    Hey when I worked at a bank we closed his account because he was a lunatic that would call in and freak out at the reps. He would call to complain that he got banned from the local Albertsons grocery store, he would scream when we would mis-pronounce his last name. Screw that guy. I was glad when they “fired” his ass.

    • BeFrugalNotCheap says:

      CORRECTION TO PREVIOUS POST: “We closed A person’s account, who is not related nor connected to the person mentioned in this article”

  37. Froggmann says:

    Yea, this is a pretty common policy. Except for the whole closing the account part. Had something similar happen to me when I tried to deposit my wife’s and I state return check into my (our) savings account. Long story short the wife doesn’t have access to it because of her money control issues. I tried to deposit the check, and the teller wouldn’t, so I went across the street to my old big bank and deposited it into the ATM, waited for it to clear then deposited it into the savings.

    Sometimes a big bank’s lax security measures do come in handy.

  38. nallanos says:

    he was probably a huge fucking douche to the teller and the manager. they wouldn’t just freeze his account for no reason. lame story.

  39. Mclick says:

    Some customers can’t be pleased and bitch about everything. This guy obviously went way too far over something so minor. At some point the cord has to be cut and I am sure the bank looked at this legally before getting rid of this piece of crap. It makes you feel so good when you refuse and really nasty customer service.

    There are plenty of banks out there and I am sure he will find another. I might set up an account at this bank just because it sounds like they follow policy and actually care about what they do and how they go about doing it.

  40. The cake is a lie! says:

    I don’t think Phil is a real person. I think ‘Phil’ is just another spelling and short for “filler”. Nothing posted from Phil ever seems to be very relevant, useful, or even partially thought through.

  41. FrugalFreak says:

    His only mistake was entering a bank and letting them control his money!

  42. LazloToth says:

    Anyone who has ever run a business will understand that a few laws hold true for practically ANY industry.

    For example, the rule of 80/20 says that, typically, 80% of a business’s profits will come from 20 percent of its customers.

    By the same token, about 10% of any business’s customers simply aren’t worth keeping. They lower morale, take too much time, are too demanding, return merchandise for not reason, etc.

    During hard times, one effective way to increase profitability or efficiency is to get rid of these customers.

    I don’t know if this bank did it in the correct manner. But those of you who are among the 90% of worthwhile customers need to realize that 10% of customers simply aren’t worth keeping.

    And no, I am not affiliated with this bank. I’ve simply owned a business where I had to make the business decision to shed a few detrimental clients from time to time.

  43. j says:

    I won’t jump to conclusions in regard to either side.

    HOWEVER, about 3 years ago, a bank I had to deal with inadvertently revealed just how customarily they violated banking laws. I got the confession because I could prove that shenanigans had happened and I simply stated that if someone would come into the office and be honest, no further action would ever be taken by me to draw the practices into the light.

    It was sobering to also discover that banks generally follow the same trends.

  44. almightytora says:

    It’s a small bank and it’s in a small state. He should move his funds out of that bank. It’ll probably be eaten up by a larger bank soon anyway.

  45. sopmodm14 says:

    all those bank’s customers should fire their banks….problem is, the customer’s won’t get golden parachutes

    isn’t capitalism great ?

  46. Amy Alkon says:

    Bank of America fired me as a customer when I complained that their tellers, on SEVEN separate occasions, gave my money to thieves with ONLY a fake driver’s license in my name, and with the wrong expiration date. In places I have never been and probably will never go. When I would only get my money out in three banks — one in a city I travel to often, and the other two in Los Angeles. And I never go to a teller window and I always take out the exact same small amount (not thousands of dollars at a time in cash).

    I later had one of their employees tell me that their bank is not connected by a single computer system. I’ve been reporting this to the Comptroller of the Currency (the bank watchdog — well, supposedly) for years. Not because I need them to help me — I got my money back. But, because there are perhaps millions of people who have no idea that they are at great risk for identity theft by banking at BofA. Just write your dry cleaner a check and they have your account number — and in half an hour, at Los Angeles’ Macarthur Park, somebody can make themselves a fake driver’s license in your name and run over to a B of A teller and probably clean out your account.

  47. dilbert69 says:

    This seems perfectly legitimate to me. If the check is made payable to PAYEE1 AND PAYEE2, both have to sign it. If it’s made payable to PAYEE1 OR PAYEE2, one signature will suffice. Normal banking procedure.

  48. gparlett says:

    A few years ago my sister was going through a messy divorce. She and her husband had filed their taxes jointly and the refund (which was substantial) was mailed to his address. His bank allowed him to deposit the check that was made out jointly to them into an account that only had his name on it and that she had no access to, even though my sister’s lawyer had guaranteed her that this was illegal and that no bank would ever allow it. Luckily she got her half of the money, but it was scary there for a bit.

    All that to say the bank had good reason to not deposit the check.