Wachovia - Deceitful Practices / Unconscionable Attitude and Application of Policy

Legal actions are currently being explored regarding this complaint. I have yet to hear any response from a responsible party at

Wachovia. I have been thoroughly ignored.

Dealing with Wachovia has got to be one of the most aggravating and insulting experiences I have ever had. Rest assured, after

my latest experience with Wachovia, which forced me to close my account, I was mad as hell. Thoroughly livid. I still seek what

was taken from me, I will not quietly concede my hard earned money to policies which are at best deceitful, and at worst malicious,

in both design and impact. I am currently demanding a full refund of my overdraft fees, totaling more than $500 over my year being

a Wachovia "customer". If this does not occur, legal action will certainly be taken, and likely for a far greater amount. I have

retained all written documentation of these incidences.

Wachovia has shown unconscionable conduct in applying their overdraft policy. They have also misled me concerning the

balance displayed at ATM machines upon my daily inquiry. As I have done without problems at many other banks, my preferred

method is to monitor my balance by checking it daily. In my previous experience, the balance displayed is always accurate. The

ATM at Wachovia shows the customer an inaccurate balance, and this is chiefly to the bank's advantage. Wachovia does not

show pending charges as subtracted from the balance total- yet, the bank is quite aware of pending charges (holds), and still

deducts overdraft fees based on them. (Wachovia then applies any overdraft fees, which of course immediately show up in the

balance!)

Wachovia demands that the customer precisely use a small blue ledger book, conveniently blaming any missteps on improper use

of this medium, or even for using anything other than that blue ledger book. They also blame the customer for not knowing this,

among the other fine inner workings of the bank. Firstly, it is not Wachovia's business to dictate the precise type of paper medium

for keeping track of spending. I have employed different methods without error in the past, so long as I am provided honest,

accurate information. What I typically do works just fine. The balance displayed on any ATM must directly reflect what is

available to spend, otherwise it is deceitful. Interestingly, I was not informed that I had to "ignore what my account balance says"

(that is a direct quote from a bank employee!) until after a costly series of overdrafts. I am inclined to believe this is a deliberate

obfuscation, designed to confuse and take advantage of customers not in the know. This opinion is further emphasized by my

difficulty in obtaining any overdraft protection throughout my duration as a Wachovia customer.

When I first opened an account with Wachovia in early 2007, I discussed my financial position with an executive. I was very

specific about my recent unforeseen health complications and mortgage markups which had put me in a position where I must walk

a very fine line financially. There is nothing I could do about this, it was simply my situation at the time. I insisted that overdrafts

were likely, as I struggle to afford medicines on a monthly basis, and that this important stipulation had to be addressed. I was led

to think by this employee, whose conduct and responses were very optimistic and reassuring, that obtaining overdraft protection

would not be an issue for me as my credit was in good standing. I had overdraft protection for many years at a competing bank,

and I even presented this competing bank's credit card, which I still possess. I was comfortably told that getting one at Wachovia

would not be an issue. This did not turn out to be true, as my application from that day was rejected. Shortly thereafter, I absorbed

a set of 2 or 3 overdrafts, and subsequently attempted again to get protection. This second time I received a rejection letter stating

I was not eligible for a credit card because I had a record of "overdrafts on my account." That was the printed reason. Seriously.

In November of 2007, I experienced a series of 7 overdrafts (due partially to a late direct deposit from work), all placed on very small

amounts of spending (53 cents, 3 dollars, 7 dollars). I was outraged at the abhorrent figures being freely siphoned from my hard-

earned money. It was an insult because I had led to think I could easily get overdraft protection, but had then been denied for a

redundant reason once my money was direct-depositing into their bank. Explanation of this yielded no cooperation from anyone at

the bank, none of whom could provide a clear answer about the reason for my initial denial. Obviously, I tried for awhile to get my

money back, always being told robotically and indifferently "if it is not a bank error, there is nothing we can do," an immensely

convenient policy which punishes the customer no matter the circumstances. Later during a visit to discuss these issues the bank

had been causing, while patiently disputing their practices, I was personally belittled by a passing Wachovia employee who had

apparently been eavesdropping. While discussing the unrealistic absurd, obtuse nature of the whole situation, I was curtly

informed that banks have "high standards" concerning who they grant credit cards to- thereby insinuating that someone such as

me, who works retail and experiences overdrafts, must obviously possess a low credit score (this is not the case). Despite their

compulsory tone of understanding, when it was convenient, other employees routinely failed to make any distinction between

being financially irresponsible and being strapped for cash; i.e. poor. There is a huge difference- as any reasonable person knows.

Despite my patient inquiries, explanations, and objections I was constantly relegated -labeled- into some social category of being

"financially inept."

"Wachovia is perfect, if we made no error, obviously the customer is wrong to involve us" "This customer doesn't have $100,000

account, so we don't have to do anything significant for him." "He's not rich, we're not interested. Poor customers are plentiful, and

expendable." That, in a nutshell, represents the attitude displayed through Wachovia's policies. It is basically a crime not to have

loads of money. You will be brutally fined for every cent that you don't have, whether you can help it or not. This innate

consideration drove my frustrations into a deeper and more personal anger. Hence this letter.

I went back a different day. I again patiently discussed with a different bank employee my precarious financial circumstances. I was

informed by this particular employee that I could "opt out" of the overdraft problem altogether (which is, in retrospect, like adding

insult to injury). In an empathetic tone, they assured me it was "something they did not normally do." Despite my reservations

about even remaining a customer at Wachovia, I reluctantly decided it was too much hassle at that moment to switch banks. I

"withdrew" from the overdraft program, once again being calmly reassured that finally this should resolve any future issues with

the bank. Again they told me I ought to re-apply for a credit card.

A few months after, I unexpectedly endured 4 more overdrafts. I received the notices in the mail, days after the first event.

Additional overdrafts may have been prevented by the simple courtesy of an automated phone call, or e-mail... but that sort of thing doesn't buy the marble

flooring for their banks. This time, I was forced to borrow money to pay the mortgage, and even to prevent further arrogation of

funds from my account. Initially, there was anger and disbelief at the realization that Wachovia had again liberally helped itself to

my bank account. Reluctantly, I went back into the local branch and patiently endured another vaguely evasive response (trotted

out in a matter-of-fact tone) of "processing credit versus debit," and the same responsibility-shrugging platitudes: if I had

"balanced everything correctly," and that if it is: "not a bank error..." Honestly, at that point, I could have cared less about these

redundant technicalities, all of which clearly act in a moral vacuum, as they are essentially oriented toward ransacking the customer

in a predatory fashion under the guise of policy. A line was crossed, and my anger has become absolute. That day it was very

difficult for me not to create a scene. Can you imagine.

Let it be known that I absolutely will not be fined as though I am a criminal, merely for being in a certain social circumstance. Being

in a financial corner is not akin to crime; I cannot help being occasionally broke through events not of my doing. I will not allow my

money to be arrogated by those I entrust merely to hold it. I will not be repeatedly led to believe my money is secure when it clearly

is not. I am a hard working person, who per hour makes only a few dollars more than minimum wage. Yet beneath insurance costs,

utility bills, mortgage, and the constantly rising cost of everything, the ends do not always meet. I now work more than full time,

out of sheer necessity, 6-7 days a week. I had to work even more to make up for these exorbitant fees. Furthermore, I do not spend

money on luxuries. I do not drink or smoke, I do not spend any money needlessly. Every overdraft fee represents 3 squandered

hours of my life. Wachovia has taken more than $500, an enormous sum of money representing nearly a week and a half of my life.

If a Wachovia employee is reading this: imagine losing nearly two paychecks yourself- just imagine the impact that would have on

you. This money became Wachovia's through a confusing architecture, and a unilateral application of harsh policies. Regardless

of any hardships. Regardless of verbal promises and intentions. I was coaxed, by Wachovia, directly into a trap where they could

somehow legally "mug" me. I have the feeling these overdraft fees are precisely how they make much of their money.

This is a bad debt, which absolutely consider as still owed. Such high penalties are more than the mere loss of money, these fees

exemplify an egregious trespass upon otherwise commonsense respect for human beings. They also demonstrate a huge social

prejudice. Therefore, they are very much a gesture of ill will toward those faced with hardship and meager existences. Wachovia

cannot legally place a sign in its windows that "no poor people," yet it can construct and deploy devices and policies designed to

exploit and deter the financially challenged. These sorts of overdraft policies have no place in today's ever more difficult financial

climate. No bank has the right to take a $35 penalty for a $1, $2, or $3 transaction, let alone several times over. It is unconscionable.

But somehow... I think you already know that.

Be prepared for a serious lawsuit, Wachovia.

Timothy Lane

Englewood, FL 34224