This has TREND written all over it. People complaining in public on You Tube. It should spark more and more of these vids. Let them come!! What is interesting to me, as this video makes the rounds, are the a-holes who defend this and other usurious banks. I bank with a good honest bank and know the difference. Apparently the public doesn’t.
It should be noted that when the Bank saw the video, the PR mechanism went to work to get this woman her old interest rate back. This means the only way to get their attention is via public out-cry.
Has anyone heard of “pay as you go”?
Yea, I know it’s tough. I know that it means creating a budget. I know it means using a debit card instead of a credit card. I know it means putting off that new couch or car until I could actually afford it.
I also know it means freedom from just these types of problems.
Damn, all this effort and it doesn’t take any more effort than a quick call to Consolidated Credit and boom interest rates go down. WAY DOWN to less than 10%… plus monthly payments go to Consolidated Credit who negotiates on your behalf to the credit card companies.
Nothing bad ever shows up on your credit scores for this either… why don’t more people know about this awesome and cheap service.
It sure is a lot better than ruining your credit score, or facing fines, lawyer fees, court fees, among tons of other fees, just to pay off what you voluntarily spent. You can believe that as long as the banks get back their money and a small percentage on top of what you owe, they will take the deal. Just get the right people that know how to negotiate and manage this deal for you. Don’t be stupid and refuse to pay back what you legally owe, it will cost you more in the long run.
Lets not forget that all these banks and large companies have lawyers on retainers so they get paid regardless of if they have to take you to the courts or not. That means it doesn’t cost the company any more money to fight their system, in fact it only costs you more. Especially at 30% interest rates.
#55: Well, I can’t honestly say I expected a better argument, so at least I’m not disappointed.
In December of last year, my mortgage holder cashed my payment on December 30. The check was clearly made out for January 01, 2009. That caused me overdraft fees of $37.50 each for three purchases of less than $40; all of which occurred while visiting my sick mother-in-law in the hospital.
The mortgage holder will remain anonymous so I won’t mention Wells Fargo Home Mortgage by name. I’ll just refer to them as WFHM (random letters).
After some investigation I discovered my personal bank was well within its rights to charge me the overdraft. They had no opportunity to see the check as the withdrawal was done electronically.
WFHM, on the other hand, had no right to cash the check. Simply put, a check is not negotiable until the date it is written for.
When I called WFHM they simply told me it was my problem as 1) it is illegal to write a postdated check and 2) it is their policy to cash checks as soon as they get them. Well, postdated checks are not illegal and their policy does not trump the law.
This went on for a few months, getting no where, until I just deducted the money from my Mortgage payment. BUT, I noted on the check AND stapled it to a letter explaining in detail why the money was deducted. They could either accept the check as is for payment or return the check. I sent it by certified mail, addressed to the head of the mortgage department. They chose to cash the check.
Now they are threatening me with foreclosure for not paying my mortgage. Only, under the law here, when a check is noted and an explanation is attached, those become the terms of the check. The payee (WFHM) can not change those terms any more than they may change the amount or to whom the check is payable to. This is called the “Full Satisfaction Rule”. If they cash the check, they accept the terms as written.
Long story short, I did my homework and decided they were not going to put their mistake on my shoulders. My next stop is Small Claims Court where I will ask for triple damages for fraud. 🙂
And for those who think I should just change banks, uugh, not so fast. My mortgage was sold twice and I didn’t get an opportunity to vet the purchaser either time. They chose me, I didn’t chose them.
Some Guy – good luck. I hope it works out for you. I’ve used your anonymous mortgage lender before and had pretty good results with them, but you shouldn’t be shouldered with their stupidity.
On that note, it’s ridiculous what banks charge for NSF’s. I, personally, have never had one, but I know many who have ended up paying a lot of money for something, as in your case, wasn’t their fault to begin with. Hope you give it to them!
#46 for the win
“‘Credit’ is the cornerstone for INVESTMENTS, not ‘I want it now consumerism.'”
Bobbo hit on what smells about this.
Yes the banks are abusive, but the better question is why is no one able to live within their means?
I’d like to see this woman’s bills and see what kind of irresponsible purchases are in her spending.
More than likely, she won’t be paying the bill because she can’t instead of the supposed reason of “civil disobedience”.
Still .. she is on to a good thing about publicizing the bank’s bad business practices on YouTube. Transparency and debate is always a good thing.
Some Guy:
And now we see how these banks operate.
I know a bank manager who works for – you guessed it! – Wells Fargo. He says this overdraft fee is huge gravy and a substantial part of the business. It costs pennies for the interest to cover the overdraft, but they charge $30.00 and sometimes more for absolutely no work.
Now, here is the kicker.
They don’t care about you, me, or the horse we rode in on. They know that you cannot afford to take them on by yourself.
You will need to get the state banking commission or someone similar involved to push this forward for you.
Good luck.
BTW, Small claims normally doesn’t award “triple damages” for fraud or anything else. Small claims doesn’t do “pain and suffering” either. They are usually limited simply to restitution.
Liberals say the banks are evil for giving poor people loans they can’t afford.
Then they say they are evil for foreclosing on the houses when they don’t make payments.
Then they say they are evil for not giving out loans to people who want houses.
Canceling a credit card hurts your FICO, no?
It’s a lose/lose situation.
I had an oldoldOLD CapOne credit card w/a limit of $400 or something. Never used it. CapOne cancelled it, my FICO dropped with no other negative activity during that period. I inquired with the credit unions, and they responded that the bad-mark on my record was because of the CapOne cc account cancellation.
How sweet is that for a system?
Many many MANY *paper* letters to ALL THREE credit unions finally cleaned it up after 3 months.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no rube, and I love credit, but this system sucks.
# 73 Hugh Jorgan,
The 3 credit rating agencies are paid by the banks. No different then the wall street rating agencies that rated junk investments as AAA.
Because the 3 credit rating agencies are paid by the banks, the are inclined to find reasons to drop your score. The are constantly refining their ratings algorithms to do just that.
Banks would love it if 3 credit rating agencies could lower everyone’s score so that they could charge more interest.
You almost have to beyond perfect to get a reasonably high score.
I assume this new pedro (#75) is a different person than the other, since comment #75 was actually coherent.
The local people working at bank of America are nice folks. I grew up with some of them and have known them all my life.
The higher ups, in my opinion, are loan sharks and the scum of the earth. So far as I can tell their code of ethics would allow them to do _anything_ for a buck. They spam me trying to scam me into making bad choices and have give/sold email address and phone number to what I consider to be scam artists.
I’ve been tempted to move to a smaller local bank.
#75, ‘dro
Wrong. Argentina had a financial crises, partially brought on by the IMF. The IMF overstepped itself and decided they would only help Argentina IF they called the shots on reorganizing their government. As any country with any self pride, they declined and told the IMF where to put it. Argentina practiced their own belt tightening, basically told some gold diggers to take a hike, and got their country back in order.
BTW, it was the liberals that got the government back on track after the conservatives screwed it up. Sound familiar?
Other nations saw what happened in Argentina (and some other countries a little earlier) and questioned the IMF about their actions. This led to several changes in policy. Argentina got back on its feet when it got rid of foreign investors.
At least one country, Venezuela, tried to halt foreign ownership of not only its raw materials, but also the rest of the infrastructure. This local policy has won the condemnation of many outside Venezuelan but a lot of praise from local peoples. Again, the liberals got the country back after the conservatives screwed it up.