I've recently wrote up a rant about the evil's of Chase Bank, also can be applied to any other large mega-corporate bank. And now I'm also catching on to a few, as they say on the streets 'scanless' things. In that rant, I told you how using a Non-Chase ATM for a $20 withdrawal, will cost you about $24.50 total at the end of the day.
Well, the other day I needed $200, and I couldn't find a Chase Bank nearby. I said, ah, fuck it, I'll stop at this Citibank. That's what I get for not going to the Chase branch by my house on Indian Hill. The only thing different I did this time was to 'check my account balance'. And guess what, there's a fee for that too. Here is the transaction:
NON-CHASE ATM WITHDRAW $203.00 (Including $3 fee Citibank Charges)
NON-CHASE ATM FEE-INQ $2.00
NON-CHASE ATM FEE-WITH $2.00
TOTAL: $207.00
What this means is that if you would've withdrawn $20 and also checked your account balance, it would've cost you $27 to get $20 of your own money!!!
Lesson learned and shared.
Another thing they LOVE to do... is to hold payments to make sure you're just missing enough money, so that they can put the transaction through and make your account go negative balance. Wallah! An easy $34 for each transaction after! You had a quick lunch at McDonalds for around $7? Well, it now cost you $41 for those nasty fries!
Yeah I know, the conservative side of me says, well, you should keep track of every penny in your checkbook register, you irresponsible twit! True, don't we all wish it was that simple for many of us.
No more are the days of, "I'll write a check today, or buy that now, I get paid tomorrow anyways."
Regardless, here are some examples I have experienced.
I had $1000 in my checking, but payday was tomorrow, enough to cover my $1500 mortgage and then some. I go into Bank of America at 4pm to pay my mortgage on Thursday. I check my Chase account on Friday, and the check went through the same day I paid it on Thursday, so guess what, yup, Friday I covered but they made an extra $34.
No biggie right? Remember how Bush ok'd the banks to allow checks through instantly instead of like 3 days or so? anyways...
well, same scenario. This time I have $3000 in my account on Thursday. I am paying once more by check my mortgage of $1500 at B of A at 4pm on a Thursday. What do you think happens next? The damn check does not clear the next day, but until next week on a Tuesday!! They must have figured, hopefully theyll spend most of their balance over the weekend.
Bastards!
It amazes me how they get away with this stuff.
Also, I made an online car payment a couple of weeks ago for $650 on a Wednesday. I had around $1200 in that account that night. I called to check my balance 2 days later, said I have $550 available. Simple math tells you the $650 is on the pending or has gone through. Cool... well, weekend comes and I have a few expenses, I tried to stay on top of it. But then I noticed I spent about $552 by Tuesday when I checked my account.
Now check this out, that transaction for the car payment, whether pending or whatever, WAS NOT THERE when I checked online that following Tueday! No sign of it anywhere, but it showed I had a balance of $648. Hmm, pretty obvious they're holding it to put the $650 car payment through that was paid the previous Wednsday and get their free $34 from me. Why would you show the transaction by Friday and the weekend, but wait til I had a couple dollars less Tuesday?
So I transferred $100 from my savings, hahaha.... f*ck them! They ended up putting the transaction through on Wednesday and never got their fee.
So good people of Los Angeles to Pomona, watch these bastards, they're screwing you with every chance they get! Courtesy of your tax dollars!
Great points about banks "holding" things for days, when in our electronic age with quite literally EVERYTHING being instantly instantaneous, them "holding" something like a deposit sounds like just a slow archaic way for themselves to make money. They are a business that is supposedly trying to make money though --- their particular ass f*cking is just a bit more archaically apparent.
ReplyDelete