Fifth Third: Still Raping!

I own a small business. This means I have a business banking account. That account is at 5/3 (Fifth Third) Bank. Overall, they're not any better or worse than any other bank. Basically, they'll try to turkey baster money out your rear any chance they get.

So in today's world of electronic files and internets and "Why not check your statements online?" it appears that this is yet another way to screw the customer. As it is past the end of the year, I was online downloading my banking records into Excel format to process the numbers more efficiently. But something weird was happening: I couldn't pull any numbers before July. Hrm?

Well, Fifth Third Bank only allows customers access to 6 months of records online. So I called customer service. What's their deal? Well, they can knock through 18 months over the phone no problem. But they'd be happy to print out and mail or fax the first six months of paper statements to me for the small fee of $8 per.

WTF?

So the rundown is: If you subscribe to the "green" method of checking your statements online and save Fifth Third a little extra moulah in materials and printing and postage, they will return the favor by making sure you have to pay them $50 at the end of the year. You're welcome!

Granted, you can just download or print out your information every month. But I didn't know that 6 months ago when the information would've helped.

No huge rage or surprise, just another way a bank can turn a little allotment that could increase service incredibly into a way to put a buck in their pocket and making you feel dirty.

Wachovia Bank - Bad Business, July 2005

This is looking like I'm bad at keeping books. Well, I can be, but have been much better about it since meeting my wife.

I wrote a check in March 2005 that I lost track of because it was not cashed until June 21, 2005. It, of course, hit the same day as our mortgage check, but I had deposited a freelance check for about $250 that same day. Unfortunately, the cashed check was a little more than that, and thinking I had several hundred dollars, did some shopping. All out, at the end of two days I had over $300 of overdraft fees.

I spoke with Wachovia when my card was denied and found out about the check. It was my mistake, but the only thing they could do was refund $60 as a courtesy. Could something be done to limit my card, give a denial if the funds weren't there? No. I was advised not to use my card because purchases under $10 or so might make it through. HOW? But that's how it works. I was advised to open a credit card for overdraft protection (again, fees going to Wachovia, of course). I began feeling like I was Wachovia's piggy bank. Multiple calls and time spent with supervisors confirmed that the $60 courtesy was pretty much a hard and fast rule without bank error.

I was frustrated, but was able to pull it together and see what I could do. The customer service rep told me that I would have 28 days to repay the negative balance in my account.

Fine. But as if the helplessness that banks can make you feel was not enough, on Friday, July 5th, Wachovia pulled $359 from my wife's account to zero out my balance. WHAT???

After speaking to a CSR and a Supervisor and bank personnel and a branch manager, I found that this is basic Wachovia practice. Because our accounts were linked, they reserved the right to "normalize" an account by any means necessary. Never mind that someone told me I had 28 days. (The Supervisor "made a note" for the manager of the employee. Think I'll hear back about that?) Never mind that Wachovia was going to get their money.

An unnamed employee of Wachovia even admitted "That's shady."

And after speaking to over half a dozen employees at Wachovia, this was the first I had ever heard of a process that was open to us: I could have initiated a setup wherin my account was an overdraft protector for my wife and vice versa. Why had they not mentioned this before? Again, the credit card interest fees. And because I had not done this (not that I had known), Wachovia was unable to pull funds from her account to cover an overdraft of about $40 that resulted in $330 going into their pocket.

Let me put it this way: Wachovia was not at liberty to pull money from my wife's account to cover an overdraft that resulted in a large profit in their favor because I had not expressed direct, written permission. However, when they were looking to collect on those fees, they had implied permission, by me simply opening an account, that they could pull that money from my wife's account without permission from or even notification of either of us. This is the most unethical business practice I have personally encountered to date.

Caveat Emptor: Banks are raising fees and changing procedures. You will be informed, but in a tiny pamphlet that looks unimportant in 5-point font. The little guy is their piggy bank, and we can't change the laws without big money for big lawyers against a big corporation who runs on our mistakes. That, or a huge public outcry. (Remember the car lease release on what's due at signing?) And who's got the money for a lawyer?

Email Wachovia and let them know that their practices are wrong.

Fifth Third Bank - Bad Business, February 2002

I, like many others in this country, play the check game. You know: my direct deposit hits tonight at midnight, so I can get gas this afternoon instead of coasting on fumes until early morning tomorrow.

It was just such an assumption that nailed me (appropriately), and gave us reason to mistrust the big 5/3.

Having made the exact decision concerning gas as noted above, I received a call from my landlord saying that the check he received that day couldn't be cashed against my account. "The bank says that your available balance is ..., and your ledger balance is ...."

My first thought was "Why the hell is my landlord cashing my check against my account?" My second thought was confirmed with a few clicks of the mouse: "How did he get the amounts, to the penny, that I have in my account?"

My landlord ended up cashing the check the next day, but said that he had received the numbers from the bank.

He went to the bank to see if the check could be cashed. The bank's computers were down, so they called the branch down the street to run the numbers.

I wrote a letter of complaint to the primary branch, the branch phoned, and the regional headquarters elucidating my disapproval at my landlord knowing exactly how much money was in my personal bank account. I received a letter of apology with some story about how my landlord must have overheard the teller repeating the numbers as she received them by phone. Sounds hokey to me.

After a few phone calls and some research, I had a copy of the federal statute that was violated in this case. Unfortunately, I had no recourse because the violation of personal privacy detailed in the statute had no fee attached to it, and no case history to back a fee. And a lawyer won't touch a virgin statute with a stack of law books.

Huntington Bank - Bad Business, April 2002

My sister had her ATM card stolen with some other items in her card. Being in college, no one was home to sign for the new card, so Huntington suggested that she change her address to the bank address. That way, she could just pick up the card from the bank itself at her convenience. After that time, she didn't use the account as she was moving out of town.

This was fine until a year later when she attempted to open an account at another bank. She was told that she had an outstanding collections account and had to deal with that. They could tell her nothing but that she had to talk to Huntington.

When she returned to Huntington, she was greeted with poor customer service to begin the encounter. She was told that many notices had been sent pertaining to overdraft fees, but no reply was made to the bank.

Remember the address switch mentioned above? The employee quickly disappeared into a cubicle and returned with a stack of mail addressed to my sister with the bank's address, all of it opened. My sister couldn't understand how they could get the letters, open them, and not alert her. Long story short: no deal, my sister was pinned for the cost, and Huntington didn't offer so much as an apology.

First off, it's bad enough to get the imaginary image of a group of employees opening my sister's mail and chuckling about the fees that their bank is receiving from her because no one picked up the phone to call her about the goof. Secondly, I'm not sure about the details of this, but I was under the impression that it was and is a Federal offense to open mail addressed to another person.