Bank's Check Cashing Fee

[Questioner]

All you people griping of a $5 fee obviously do not understand that banks are in business to be profitable. The fee is a disincentive to non-paying-customers utilizing the banks services (which cost a lot of money to provide) for free. It is very expensive to monitor/transport/secure cash. You people are thinking of only yourself cashing a $100 check. Well, the reality is that easily happens 20 times a day per branch. If the banks didn't provide a disincentive then people would regularly do this and the bank would have a difficult time figuring out how much money to have on hand at their branches and would also have to pay to have a larger amount on hand only to give it away for free. The bottom line... if you owned a business and had mulitple people always trying to use your service for free- thus costing you money, you'd change the way you did business and figure out a way to charge them.

You are full of Horseshot. When you cash a check at the bank on which the check is drawn, you are NOT demanding a free service. The person who wrote the check has the account and has the right to pay with a check. If I knew somebody's bank charged a $5.00 fee for me to cash their check, I would charge them an extra $5.00 to pay me with their check instead of with cash. Paying via check instead of with cash is a convenience for the bank's customer, not for me. When people start charging the $5.00 to take somebody's check, then the bank's customers will get up in arms and this foolishness will stop.

[Liv]

You just made "banks" sound like bumbling idiots who can't count. LOL.

Business or not, If the bank is the non-issuing bank I can understand the fee, but if it's a check from their bank then it's nothing short of lunacy. What's to stop them from charging $50 on every $100? Plain and simply it's capitalism gone amok. Personally the above statement sounds like it was written by a lazy bank teller who simply uses the fee as an excuse not to do her job when customers come in.

[Questioner]

You just made "banks" sound like bumbling idiots who can't count. LOL.

Business or not, If the bank is the non-issuing bank I can understand the fee, but if it's a check from their bank then it's nothing short of lunacy. What's to stop them from charging $50 on every $100? Plain and simply it's capitalism gone amok. Personally the above statement sounds like it was written by a lazy bank teller who simply uses the fee as an excuse not to do her job when customers come in.

How DARE we lazy folk actually ask the bank to honor its own customer's check by actually giving the money to the holder of the IOU. I mean really!

Another factor here is that this is a hidden charge on the poor who, for whatever reason, do not have a bank account. Their only way to get their money is to go to the issuing bank to cash the check. Not to mention that if the person who writes the check doesn't have sufficient funds in the bank, the person who tries to cash that check at his/her own bank is likely to get stuck with very high fees for the bounced check. This functions as a way to charge the person who was paid with a check for the cost of the bad check.

The whole system is a ripoff

[Questioner]

Oh, here is another interesting twist. I received a $4,000 check for consulting services from a client I was not absolutely sure of. So rather than take a chance on having to pay a bunch of bounced check charges on the check if it didn't go through, I took it directly to the client's bank. The bank refused to give me the money,
even though they said there were sufficient funds in the account to pay the check!

They said I had to drive 20 miles to the main office because only the main office would cash checks that large. Now I don't know about the world most people live in, but in my world, $4,000.00 isn't all that much money that a bank shouldn't have it on hand on a Saturday morning. It was just a way to refuse to pay the check and force me to take the risk that the check would be insufficient when it did come through if I deposited it at my bank.

Had I known the bank was going to do that, I would have demanded a postal money order, which would have been a great inconvenience and an extra cost for that bank's customer.

I know electronic processing is cheaper for the bank, but they are getting ridiculous. No wonder so many places don't want to accept checks anymore.

[A Person]

I wrote one check last year, none this year so far. I do however bank at least two checks a month from clients - but since I have full admin access to their accounting systems, if they stiffed me I'd just have to cut myself another check

[Liv]

Isn't the mere concept America still has checks and doesn't adopt new technologies simply because as a capitalistic society we exploit every bit of America's pocket book until it's no longer profitable? Doesn't that stand in the way of progress?

[JAM]

The idea that this bank is not making money and has to charge the "non customer" a fee to cash a check written on their bak.Is nuts.. First the bank as ALREADY CHARGED THEIR customers a monthly service fee. The money is THERE it belongs to the customer that has an account there. If they want to write a check and give it to a "non customer" then why should the bank care? THE BANK IS no better than the check cashing companies that charge to cash checks. And Bank of American is now charging a fee of $7.00 not $5.00 to cash a check over $150.00. Si I just ask my customers to write me a check for $149.99. Or to write me 2 checks. Sure the "friendly teller" gives me a go to hell look. But hey I am going by THEIR rules.

[Pundit]

I have been a customer of Wachovia (or Walk-All-Over-Ya to some...) since the mid 1960's when I married a Guilford County girl whose family had banked with Wachovia for decades before that. My needs were pretty pedestrian: just checking (with overdraft protection) and savings (which I never put much into).

Now I want to get out of Wachovia as fast as I can. I've seen them become one of those "monster mega-banks" that consumer finance guru Clark Howard always talks about. They want to "fee" me to death, and I've decided that I won't take it anymore.

Some time ago, I cut many of the apron strings to the bank. They started imposing a fee every time you had money advanced into your checking account from your automatic overdraft protection. It wasn't enough that they were getting interest on the money they advanced you, they wanted a fee for EACH advance. You could avoid the fee by moving the money into your checking account using their online system, but if the computer moved that money for you automatically to cover an overdraft, you got the fee.

The minute I heard about the fee, I marched into a local branch and said, "Exempt my account from the fee, or I'm moving my business." Instead, they made me a Crown account holder, as they are exempt. That was fine with me, but I pity the poor folks who couldn't get the Crown accounts. I know the fee has increased for overdrafts, so it's even worse than when I jumped all over them.

Now Wachovia has been bought by Wells Fargo, and they want to charge an annual fee to have an overdraft account, even if you don't use it. That's the last straw. I have no objection in principle to charging a fee for a service that bears some realistic relationship to the cost of providing that service. But I'm NOT paying fees for services when the service has no cost to provide and is just a way to get customers to pony up more money. And worse still, some customers will begin to see the fees as a fact of life and accept them as the price you pay to get banking "services".

Not me, I'm moving my accounts to the State Employees Credit Union (thanks to my wife, who works in the UNC system). With SECU offices popping up all over the Triad, and even more CashPoints ATM machines around, I won't miss Wachovia and their fees one bit. Good riddance!

The Pundit

[Liv]

I'm with SECU, and absolutely love it... though they do have a horrible debit card with your picture on it, and it says "DEBIT" like 10 times on the front.... but get a credit card skin and you won't have to look at yourself.

[Jocondeus]

Hmmm..Wachovia..Wachovia, I am just happy that finally someone started questioning things. IIn a matter of two months Wachovia charged me about $700 in fees. Fees included for example the use of their own ATM: YES Wachovia ATM, I was also charged $2 TO CHECK MY BALANCE IN THEIR OWN ATM!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY TIME! if that is not theft then what is???? But as every big institution in America, wachovia exercises the right of legal raquetering, from none other but us the "PEDESTRIANS" . I was so disgusted and shocked that I didnt even want to think about it after the customer service at the branch casually explained to me the charges. (it was going to make me sick) I just closed both my accounts there. Besides it is not only Wachovia that does IT: Steal consistently and regularly in small amounts, you are forgetting your water company, power company, phone company and any other institution that rose to power...it really reminds me of tancient NY and its Mafia system. Aaaaah ..America America

[John Lunsford]

I must say I had this happen to me today. I found it horible. Unlike the rest of the people though I walked out. I was not about to buy a banker free lunch for no reason. This type of charge undermines the entire banking system. If it's another banks check it's understandible. It also sould be mentioned that check cashing buisnesses are charging less than the fee the banks are charging by a lot. I found it very nice that a bank would be willing to waste that much of my time for no reason. I wasn't asking them to do something for free at all. I was asking them to do the job that the person who wrote me the check pays them to do. This happend with union bank of california. I will no longer accept any checks from thier bank!

This is also a nice form of discrimination on behalf of the banks. When another bank asks for the money it's sent with no charge and I'm sure those banks don't have active checking accounts with the other bank. A corporation is supose to have equal rights to an indivdual not great rights. We as a people need to start writting in to our state officals about such theft. These fees can not be justified by cost as stated before they are gouging even on that level. It will not be enough to just not bank or take checks from certain banks as they are all in on this stuff together, it's just a matter of time before they all do this. Instead take your money away from them and bank only with credit unions that do not have such fees. Also do not pay this fee and make sure to cause a huge sceen inside there bank for them causing you the problem.

I did not cash the check. I wrote them a nasty e-mail. I advised the check writter I will not be accepting thier check and to give me cash instead as thier check is no longer valid as a legitmate IOU. I also put in a complaint with the state of california. Finally I came online to make more people aware of this problem and how to help stop this. I suggest you all do the same.

I have lost a lot of faith in the banking system over this. Add this to the way they scam the population into paying for others peoples conveniences with atm and crecdit cards and I'm ready to see the banks gone. Even when you pay cash the banks steal your money. Stores are charged a fee for your transaction. That fee is then added to the price of goods of which cash customers have to pay. If we all had to pay our own fees instead of the store passing on the cost to all other customers I'm sure we would see a huge decline in card usage. It's a 3% tax on the entire economy for conveniences we would not pay for ourselves. How convenient.

It gets worse too. The richer people of our country get cards that have an even higher % taken from the stores and if you want rich people to shop at your location you have to take the card. This card then gives back some of the money to the purcasher in order to get the guy who makes lots of purchases help them in this scam and bring their buisness to them. Prices again go up due to this even for cash customers. So we have a great steal from the poor and give to the rich system all setup. Who would need a check cashed instead of deposited at thier own bank? The poor / working class. Atleast the banks get to have big articles written up about how much they try to help the poor by moving into their areas. thirty dollar overdraft fee on 5 bucks? Again targeting the poor. Why is this stuff not % based? Because they are looking to screw those that can't fight back.

Now why was I written this check that got me started on this today? Because the buisness that wrote me the check had already accidently charged my bank account 3 times for the same purchase. Now the charges are pending so I can't get them removed yet. The time to credit it back takes many days instead of the instant hold on money they posted to my account. I asked for a check purely so I could get cash to get by until my bank account was were it should be. So with no money in my pocket, less gas in my car then when I started, and 40 mins of my life that I won't get back just to find and wait forever in thier long line; I told them I won't be cashing this check purely on princible. They wanted five dollars for 2 mins of work on a $60 dollar check. I could have just gone to check cashing place and paid under $2. This stuff is theft pure and simple.

[Career Banker]

So let me get this straight, you feel as though a business should service you even if you have no relationship with them? Why in the world should they be obligated to do something free for someone in which does not bank with them? Pick up your panties and open a checking account there or go to your own bank and deposit it. If you want the convinience of recieving the funds as cash and not wait for the check to clear, then there might be a charge. This is America and in America we have the right to make money as long as we obey the law, which Wachovia clearly does. Educate yourself or jump in front of a car and end it.

[A Person]

So let me get this straight, you feel as though a business should service you even if you have no relationship with them? Why in the world should they be obligated to do something free for someone in which does not bank with them?

You do have a relationship with them. You have a check drawn against their bank. A check is an order by the account holder to the bank to pay the funds identified on the front to the bearer. It says "Pay to the order of .............. the sum of ...................." and it doesn't say "less any fees or charges may feel like adding".

[KAT2010]

YOU can not be serious!
BANKS make tons of money, off customers,bus. customers + most of all the FEDERAL GOVT.
These banks have enough CASH on HAND + it wouldnt "confuse" them. OBviously you are a coporate guy, Saying "You People " is Telling also. (plus WE People Bailed out YOUR BANKS)
Who are we we? WE are Blue+ white collar professionals- educated . EDUCATED enough to see when the banks are scammming or screwing us over.They have tons of accounts with Big business, so dont you think they Make plenty of money to pay the tellers there lowly wages yes, Its the Execs who get paid way too much who want to decide on this UNSEEMLY New PRACTICE.
My husband works for a STATE agency + thus went to this CITIZENS BANK his check was Drawn on- yet they tried to make him pay $5 fee- he refused , then they said they would cash if he was FINGERPRINTED??!!it but he refused+ THEY still CASHED it! This fingerprinting has to be Absolutley ILLEGAL!
Never do that - that is against our constitution. SPEAK UP + DONT PAY

[Liv]

Hell Yeah!!! DOWN WITH BANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vpolite]

Banks are in a business to be profitable. This makes perfect sense. However, if in fact, a bank is charging a consumer a fee, but not applying that same fee across the board for all of its transactions, it's specifically discriminatory towards the poor. By not charging a percentage, they skirt the laws specifically designed to attack check cashing institutions, but then it has the same impact as a flat tax; it escalates on a percentage basis for smaller checks.

My particular situation a $6 service charge on a $500 check is annoying. And I could've sworn that it was illegal, but apparently based on rulings the only thing the consumer has gotten are findings and settlements.

This is unfortunate, and why I will be shifting all of my business to a credit union and out of a national bank.

[Geno Ferri]

I cannot understand how they can charge a non-customer for cashing a DEMAND INSTRUMENT drawn on their bank. If there is a fee, then it should be on the maker of the check.

THE BEST SOLUTION IS TO REFUSE CHECKS AND ONLY AND ONLY EXCEPT CASH.

Banks are re-covering all their expenses off of fees. One branch I know of of Soveriegn Bank in Market Square, Lynn, Mass. and this came from a former manager of that branch, " All our expenses, salaries, utilities, etc of this branch are completely covered by fees such as overdraft charges."

[Serendipitous]

Banks are in a business to be profitable.

This is exactly why I quit my job in the banking industry and moved to the health-related industry. Even though my company also is "all about making money" at least the services we provide are for diagnosing diseases or improving health/patientcare.

[Weis]

All you people griping of a $5 fee obviously do not understand that banks are in business to be profitable. The fee is a disincentive to non-paying-customers utilizing the banks services (which cost a lot of money to provide) for free. It is very expensive to monitor/transport/secure cash. You people are thinking of only yourself cashing a $100 check. Well, the reality is that easily happens 20 times a day per branch. If the banks didn't provide a disincentive then people would regularly do this and the bank would have a difficult time figuring out how much money to have on hand at their branches and would also have to pay to have a larger amount on hand only to give it away for free. The bottom line... if you owned a business and had mulitple people always trying to use your service for free- thus costing you money, you'd change the way you did business and figure out a way to charge them.

But whomever wrote the check was a paying customer. The bank is obligated to make good on that person's promise to pay.

[[email protected]]

Banks have always and will always make money. Think about it, they charge you interest when you have a loan of any kind. That interest that they make is quite profitable! In addition, they are reinvesting your savings and checking account money, i.e. MORE money for them. So even if they never charged any of us another fee of any kind, they are still huge moneymakers; because as we all know the lowly tellers are not making those big bucks! Don't be fooled Americans!! That is also why we have traditionally hated tax collectors, IRS, timeshare salesmen,etc., because we know we can't trust any of them. Pay attention the next time and see how many of these people are wearing the big rings on their hand! Those rings are to hypnotize us and make us feel like the they are smarter and more successful than we are! Stand up and defend your rights. If you can afford to pay these fees, pay them and support your local bankers! I cannot afford them, and will not pay them; and I urge you to find a bank or credit union that views you as an important person and really wants to serve you and who can bank with you without the fees; you're already paying them to serve you and they are being paid handsomely!! We all deserve so much more, including the guy who doesn't have an account and wants to cash a check. The banker should be doing everything he can to get that guys business!

[BecauseHeLives]

Banks are in a business to be profitable.

This is exactly why I quit my job in the banking industry and moved to the health-related industry. Even though my company also is "all about making money" at least the services we provide are for diagnosing diseases or improving health/patientcare.

I wouln't want to work for a company that wasn't "all about making money". I would think job security would not be very high there. Even non-profits have to "make money" to survive.

[A Person]

Ah the bi-polar mind at work again

There is a world of difference between a company that is profitable and one that is 'all about making money'

The enlightened 19th century British reformers like Cadbury, Lever and Wedgewood put social responsibility first, looking after their workers and maximising profits somewhere much further down the list. You may have read 'A Christmas Carol'

Bah Humbug to your philosophy of profits above all



Screw Tiny Tim.

[BecauseHeLives]

If you don't make a profit you can't take care of your employees. You just can't put the horse before the buggy AP no matter what weird logic you try to use.

[A Person]

Jacob Marley: In life, my spirit never rose beyond the limits of our money-changing holes! Now I am doomed to wander without rest or peace, incessant torture and remorse!
Ebenezer: But it was only that you were a good man of business, Jacob!
Jacob Marley: BUSINESS? Mankind was my business! Their common welfare was my business! And it is at this time of the rolling year that I suffer most!
...

Spirit of Christmas Present: So! Is your heart still unmoved towards us, then?
Ebenezer: I'm too old and beyond hope! Go and redeem some younger, more promising creature, and leave me to keep Christmas in my own way!
Spirit of Christmas Present: Mortal! We Spirits of Christmas do not live only one day of our year. We live the whole three-hundred and sixty-five. So is it true of the Child born in Bethlehem. He does not live in men's hearts one day of the year, but in all days of the year. You have chosen not to seek Him in your heart. Therefore, you will come with me and seek Him in the hearts of men of good will.

Or not it seems

[BecauseHeLives]

huh???