Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

Anyone see this? While this is great news, and those who are with WF as a bank know EXACTLY what the judge is talking about - not just in overdraft fees, but in the order at which fees show up, I am a bit confused though. From what I can tell here, the judge basically reversed every overdraft fee ever made to their customers between 2004-2008? It seems almost too good to be true. It says "as a result of the policy" which I think most people's situations are a result of when you think about it. AMIRITE?

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

That estimated $203M is a pittance for WF, and they'll drag out an appeal for years before ever paying it.

The practice preyed on the most vulnerable customers -- those who live life close to the $0 mark. It's crazy that they could even think of doing two of these practices: rearranging transactions and allowing debit cards to be approved when there was no money to back them up.

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

You mean the way Wal-mart has spent absurd amounts of money on lawyers to fight a couple thousand dollars in fines to OSHA because an employee got trampled on Black Friday?

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

IMHO, it is an objectionable business practice. I understand it, but it's a great way to piss off your customers.

WRT WF, in 2008 they were a $41.9 billion company with profits of $2.7 billion. As TL says, this is a drop (albeit a big one) in the bucket.

The ripples are what I think will be interesting. If WF did this to me several years ago and caused me to default on my nearly-paid car loan, and that car was repossessed, would I have cause to go back to WF to seek compensation, since what they did was "unfair and deceptive"? How about that house that was foreclosed on? The appliances that were repossessed? The apartment I couldn't get into because I couldn't afford the deposit, since WF absconded with so much of my money?

And of course, extend that to other financial institutions. They've *got* to be examining this for how it will impact them.

We haven't heard the last of this, I'm thinking.

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

Yeah it sure does piss you off. I think it hurt their rep. in the way slamming people with illegal charges hurt SBC's rep. Shortly after, they merged with AT&T and dumped the SBC title so people would think this is a new company.

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

I don't think the ruling would call for a refund of every overdraft fee. WF is supposed to refund the OD fees that were a result of this policy--so if one day, a person got hit by 4 OD charges because they were ordered biggest to smallest, they would have been hit by at least on OD fee regardless of what order they were processed. And if the test to see which OD fees to refund is to reorder the charges in chronological order, that customer might still be hit with 2 or 3 of the 4 OD charges.

So on any given day that OD charges were triggered, the customer would still owe at least one of them (otherwise there would have been no OD in the first place), and possibly more.

What I don't understand is why a bank that is pulling in over a billion in profit is being so aggressive with a policy that most customers and potential customers will be outraged by when they find out about it--especially if it only brought in 203M over 4 years. Why risk the PR hit for 50M/year when you're pulling in 2B overall?

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

It's all about the short term gains these days. Goldman Sach's policy used to be called "long term greedy" -- meaning they were investing smartly for the long haul. These days though it's all about the quick buck: get in, sell the watermelon you're pushing out the window, get out before it hits the pavement.

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

Yes, see, any OD fees I have ever had to pay were indeed a direct result of this. I even bitched about it once or twice on IW....how deceptive my bank is. It almost feels like It's out to get you rather than there to help you save money. And I have two houses with them not to mention credit card lines so I daren't leave. I have called them in the past, demanding they remove some OD fees that had no business being there. They complied for the most part.

And of course, people say to me, "Oh, you should write everything down". But in this day and age of quick lunches and card swiping for almost every purchase, it is just not practical. WF knows this and saw an opportunity to profit from it. Their online banking system creates the illusion informative real-time tracking, only to barrage you with charges on Tuesdays that you had completely forgotten about. I have had charges show up weeks late that stores confirmed were already processed. I mean, you will see the old ladies at the grocery store in front of you, with their chequebooks in hand and holding up the queue as they document it all. I am sure they never incur such fees. But I don't have the time, I admit it, but because of that should my own bank be able to screw me so badly just because I like to make use of it?

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

<font color=plum>You do have the time to write your purchases down. You may not take the time, but that is a personal choice. The time is available if you choose to use it.</font>

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

Which, I just said. Do you write every purchase you ever made down?

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

For me, the answer to that question is in a request: receipt, please. I collect receipts from all electronic transactions and dump them when they're no longer needed. To make life easier, I have two transaction receipt folders: current year and prior year. Every January PY gets shredded and CY moves to PY. If ever I need anything, it's in there.

I made the switch to a credit union years ago, prompted by my bank and fees.

They hit me with a bunch of fees one month, the month we were looking to buy our first house. There was a timing issue that I hadn't realized that resulted in both my checking and savings accounts being below the bank's minimums at one point during the month. I called them to task on it, and they went through and explained some of the fees.

There was some amount of fee left un-explained, and I remember that it ended in a nickel -- 4.95, 10.15... I don't know. But the last digit was a five.

And they did not have a *SINGLE* fee that ended in a 5! Everything ended in dimes... so there was no mathematical way they could have created that fee!

And when the VP dumbly asked "Would you like us to refund that", I said "Yes".... of course. And then left the bank to go open an account at the credit union our company was affiliated with. Last time I used a bank.

My boss said I should have responded, "No. Refund them all, or I'll move my business elsewhere". Don't know if it would have helped, but it would have gotten the message across.

So what does this support in this thread? Nothing, I'm sure... other than the same type of attitude. And voting with your feet... just because you have mortgages or credit cards with them doesn't mean you have to stay. Even today, credit cards are easily available... even at your local credit union ;)

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

No, I don't have to stay. But I want to. Because with them, I can handle my mortages via instant online transfers, and they handle my cards, and my statements all in the same place. The fact that I have all these things with the same bank in good standing allows me to get more credit, or if I needed a loan etc. All these things put me in good standing with my bank and show me as a loyal and trusted customer with no guesswork involved as I have built up a good rep. with them.

Yet, at times, they have not done me the same courtesy. I want to stay, but I don't want to be fucked because I wanna use their services. I keep receipts of important purchases, and (I like to think) recent small ones are in the house somewhere, but not for every single time I swipe a card, no. Some places don't give you receipts on small items. They look at you in horror if you ask for one. It's just not practical. I ain't saying it's not right , I'm saying it just doesn't work like that. I know what I could do, but I just think it sux, is all. Either ways, it's not like WF is the only bank that screws their customers over. I could go and start fresh elsewhere only to discover the same practices - or even worse, new ones.

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

It's a trade-off of convenience. And for reference, I've got accounts at two credit unions (one personal, one business), two different credit cards (affiliated with neither CU), a mortgage (originated at a CU, but owned by someone else), and two vehicle loans (with one of the CUs).

I can also handle everything on-line with these financial institutions. I can check balances, move money, pay bills, see history... the works. It does require multiple web sites, but that's my trade-off for convenience. Neither right nor wrong... just a trade-off.

I will say, however, that the CU is much more likely, IMHO, to recognize me as an individual than a bank is. When I went to sell my first house after moving out here, my boss had a $2000 money order that he loaned to me to complete the payment. How and why he had it, I have no clue :) However, my CU allowed me to cash it, even though according to "regulations", it should have sat for a couple of days so they could make sure the funds cleared.

With a bank, I would have expected a "Sorry... we have to follow the rules".

With my CU, it was evaluating the transaction, evaluating me, and bending.

I don't believe I'd get the same "bend" with a bank unless I had a substantial (as in well more than $100,000) amount of assets with them. And "assets" would be cash and perhaps mortgages, I'm thinking... credit cards are not noteworthy enough for them to considering bending the rules.

Bending the *customer*, in a different way... well, that's what the OP is about, isn't it? :D

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

<font color=plum>Yes, I do. I still use my checkbook for most purchases and record the transaction as I make it. If I use me debit card, I always ask for a receipt so I can record it in the checkbook when I get home. I don't care if the cashier gives me a dirty look for making him/her do their job. Asking for a receipt is a very reasonable request and very easy for them to do. It is also part of their job.

I am courteous of others, but I don't let cashiers intimidate me into not asking for receipt and I don't let other customers intimidate me into NOT taking the few seconds required to write the transaction in my checkbook.

Saying it isn't practical is just an excuse. The only thing that isn't practical is leaving the responsibility of recording transactions to your financial institution.</font>

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

Well, a CU seems to work for you. CU's are more of a smaller, personable business anyways. But then, deceptive practices can seep into any business at any time. I am not really looking to move to a CU, I am just bitching about something a judge happend to finally recognize. Apparently, I was not the only one. I'm glad you found something that works for you.

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

So you still have your own self-made paper-trail from say, a soda you purchased this time last year at a store when you were thirsty? Or let's say if you needed milk for a baby at 4am while half asleep and had to run out in the middle of the night, you have all these documented and retained?

But, see, that's what I'm saying. You are one of those people I mentioned earlier, who use chequebooks at the supermarket, writing the whole thing down as you do so and likely holding up the line as I tap my feet in frustration because I am ready to swipe my card and get out of the endless crowds ASAP. This old woman I saw recently was meticulously documenting her finances at the till, as five of us queued behind her and sighed in unison. I thought "Shit, why did I have to pick this line?". She was the only one there when I arrived, yet by the time she had finished another 5 other people at the cashout next to me had already gone through and were in their cars.

But, given the above example I just mentioned with the old lady, you can clearly see it is NOT practical. Don't get me wrong, it is not her fault. And btw it's is not your fault. Hell, you will both have a better handle on your money than most people, because you take the time to do so. You also say you don't care if the cashier gives you dirty looks, and I am assuming that extends to whether the people behind you do. And, I agree with you, I think you are right to not care because I wouldn't either. But doesn't it suck that the very nature of banking and stores etc. are based around such a fast pace? You have to come off as annoying to others in order to keep a handle on your cash. Or, in worst cases, assert yourself just because you don't want to lose count of where your money is going?

So I disagree on the fact that saying it isn't practical is an excuse. It is not practical. It may be cautious. It may be wise. But it ain't practical given the world we live in now. And again, it ain't your fault a better way cannot be achieved.

Overall, what I am bitching about is if I trust these people with my money, as so many millions do, why should I always be second guessing them and keeping my own tabs on it to the penny? I'm not being naive. I know I must do the best I can - and from the sounds of it you take more time on it than I do, but again...doesn't it just suck that we have to be so vigilant to the point where our methods delay us and rub people the wrong way?

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

<font color=plum>I don't keep a record of cash transactions unless it's an item I might have to return (like a shirt, pair of shoes, DVD, etc). In that case, I WILL make sure I get a receipt for the purchase and keep the receipt until I know the item will work for me. Trivial purchases made with cash (the coke at the store or the milk at 4am), I do NOT write down, because I can look in my wallet to see how much money I have left.

So perhaps I should clarify that I write down all non-cash transactions, because whether I write a check or use my debit card, the funds come from the same account and I want to make sure I don't "spend" more than I have left. With cash, I can't spend more than I have left, so I don't need to record every transaction.

However, I DO have ALL the receipts for almost every purchase I've made (especially regarding the boys) since my divorce 4 years ago. I keep them in envelopes for each month.</font>

<font color=plum>We just have a different perspective on this. Just because our society tries to IMPLY it isn't practical doesn't mean it isn't. I noticed commercials several years ago using the same basic logic you're describing, showing a line of people *sighing* in frustration as the person in front of them used cash (which means the cashier actually has to make change) or a check (which means the person has to record the transaction in their checkbook). VISA did a series of commercials where everything is flowing smoothly and rapidly until that one person does NOT use their debit card and literally (in the ad) brings everything to a screeching halt. The person then has to endure the glares the cashier and other customers as the process creeeeeeeeps along, until the next person (thankfully) gets things back on track by taking out their debit card and getting everything moving again.

Sorry, but the implied guilt-trip mentality simply does not work on me. As you said, it is NOT my fault you are in a hurry to get somewhere else. If you're in that big of a hurry, you should have left the house sooner. I'm not going to risk forgetting to write a transaction down (and possible incur fees from my bank) because the people in line are too impatient to wait the 20-30 seconds it takes for me to do that.

It may seem callous, but your frustration is NOT my problem. ("you" meaning other customers in general, not you specifically)

Does it suck that I have to be so vigilant about how much money I have in the bank? No. It's MY responsibility to keep up with it. After all, nobody is going to care how much money I have left NEARLY as much as I will.

Several years ago, I discovered my insurance company had mistakenly charged an accident to my policy that I never had and I had been paying increased premiums for almost 3 years because of it. I didn't notice it earlier because I HAD gotten several traffic tickets in a two-year span that also increased my premium, so I thought it was because of the tickets.

When I discovered the mistake, I had to go back myself to provide "proof" I never had the accident being charged against me. This was before the internet, so it took some legwork and a number of phone calls, but I DID provide the documentation and received a retroactive refund for the full amount I had overpaid. (actually, they just applied the resulting credit against my next premium payment, but it was the same thing).

I understand how busy life can get and, despite my diligence, I DO forget to write down a check every now and then. Therefore, I always use carbon checks so I have a copy in hand, just in case.</font>

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

I would certainly write down every cent of money into and out of my bank account. Now, I certainly do not record all my transactions. But I also don't swipe a card tied to my bank account. Try using a credit card for your daily swipe transactions and then paying that off with one check every month. In this way, you will account for all money coming out of your bank account -- which is something you need to do.

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

Heh... holy war, take two...

I don't disagree with your decisions or perspective, SW. What works for you works for you, simply put. Being a different person, I sometimes make different decisions. When I switched to my credit union years ago, they had a policy where they would automatically take money from savings and put it into checking if you had an overdraft. At no charge :D

It took me a while, but a friend explained that's why she *never* kept money in checking... all in savings, and the CU would take it out when needed.

They've changed over the years... they now charge $3 for each adjustment they need to make. But it's one adjustment per day... if I have ten checks, they add 'em up and charge me $3. So I no longer keep everything in savings... but don't get dinged badly if there's less in checking than is needed.

Noting your location stating Ireland, I have no clue if there are CUs over there. S'pose I could google it to find out, but I'm lazy right now :) So like I said... choices that work for you... just fine.

As for the lady taking forever to balance her checkbook, I have an issue with that as well. And there are ways around it (of course ;) ).

I confess I haven't written in a check register for years... at least a decade, and almost two. When I started using Quicken (and its predecessors) for finances, I realized I was doing the same thing in two places... and making *more* mistakes in the checkbook. I stopped writing in the checkbook, switching over to duplicate checks so I don't have to remember what was written.

BTW, when I first started using accounting software (Moneycounts, way before Quicken), I found a mistake in the first three months. My bank at the time had not cleared a deposit I made. First reconciliation, no big deal. After the second, when it was still outstanding... big question.

Brought my receipt to them and in essence, they said, "We had this deposit and couldn't figure out who it belonged to. So we kept it over here, waiting for someone to ask for it."

I did. Finally. Had I not known, they would have kept it forever. Yet another reason it pays to get and keep those receipts, annoying though it might be. At the time, that was only a $40 deposit. But based on my bank account at that time, that $40 could have been the difference between a dozen checks bouncing (or not).

Sounds like Cerek has to take it up a notch, just to be sure he's armed and prepared for anything with his ex. Sad to say, evidence is sometimes weighed, and not actually read. In either case, he would be covered ;)

And finally, I'm like TL. Cash purchases... meh. Don't care, unless I might need to return it. Credit cards and checks... yep.

Onward! No one's right, no one's wrong... and everyone has a take on it :D

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

Okay, see this sounds a bit more realistic. While I don't keep every single receipt ever of something returnable, I have and do keep most.

Although sometimes I don't have cash on me if I need something in an emergency - even if it's a bottle of water - and I will use my cards or w/e. I also feel it is safer to keep a card on me rather than notes or coins, not because of crime but more so because of a fear of losing/leaving it. With my cards I can just cancel them as soon as I realize and I don't lose any cash. If I lose $100 I can retrace my steps but if I can't find it it's gone forever in the wind. If someone even used my cards fraudulantly I can file a claim and get the charges waivered. If I lose mine I can get another one and a temp. one while I wait for the other to come in. So security, is another big one.


Yes we do have a different view on this. I think it's more than an implication of impracticality. When it is a daily reality, it becomes something more than a hypothetical and I feel, by practice it becomes impractical. *Shrug* Who cares? We both know where we're coming from here regardless.

Let me rephrase then, because I am not endorsing lack of personal responsibility but rather a little less paranoia in our lives. Wouldn't it be nice if your financial instituition was on your side, and trustworthy to the point where you could have the piece of mind to not monitor your bank and transactions like a hawk for fear that they will find a way to almost "cheat" your money away like we saw in the OP? Just a dream, of course but it would be nice.

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

<font color=plum>I belong to a credit union as well and I've never had any problems with my accounts or their practices. I keep up with my transactions for my benefit, not because I feel I have to watch the institute closely (although it helps do that as well).</font>

Re: Judge orders Wells Fargo to pay back $203M in fees
 

Well, given the story in the OP, it may be prudent to do both from now on, as I know such issues are not exclusive to WF alone, but this case may serve as a cookie-cutter set of regulations and standards for all.