Bank of Stockton-Main Office

Review: Failure to make monthly payments to charity as agreed.

Bank was slow to acknowledge there was a problem. Much analysis on my part was necessary before they got down to business and sent me the primary documentation they had re: the problem. Their email system does not permit a normally punctuated letter. Due to that, and their foot-dragging, I have concluded that this is the best forum to air the problem. My analysis follows:

The Poor Clares received their intended monthly gifts as follows:

Gift month/day: Oct 1, Oct 3rd (2012)

Gift month/day: Nov 2, Nov 7 5 days late

Gift month/day: Dec 1, Dec 7 5 days late

Gift month/day: Jan 1, Jan 4

Gift month/day: Feb 1, March 1 One month late

Gift month/day: March 1, March 27 One month late

Gift month/day: April 1, April 3

Gift month/day: May 1, May 10 10 days late

Gift month/day: June 1, June 5

Gift month/day: July 1, July 12 10 days late

Gift month/day: Aug 1, Aug 29 One month late

Gift month/day: Sept 1, Oct 2 One month late

Gift month/day: Oct 1, Oct 2



On 10 Oct 13 I received a note from the Poor Clares thanking me for "your most recent donations plural to us". That would have been the Sept and Oct gifts which were received and cashed on the same day, Oct 2.

The Feb 1 gift was received in March, the March 1 gift was received 3 days before the end of March, the August 1 gift was received a day or two before September, the September 1 gift was received 2 days into October.

Poor Clares missed intended timely payments in Feb, March, Aug, and Sept 2013. The sisters caught up a payment when they received a double payment Oct 2 (resulting in their thank you note), which no doubt surprised and confused them. The sisters must be wondering what I am doing, which causes me some embarrassment. It was never my intention to make these monthly gifts in such a helter-skelter manner. I wanted them to receive the gifts in a regular, timely, and dignified manner.

Perhaps you could explain how a bank, which is expected to handle money carefully, could make so many mistakes. Thank you, Mr. [redacted].Desired Settlement: Explanation for the repeated mishandling of these payments, specific assurances as to how the errors will not be repeated.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response

The bank has thoroughly reviewed the supporting data concerning complaint case#[redacted]. Based on our review, we have determined that the customer has set up an automatic recurring online bill payment. The payment is a $25 payment to "Poor Clares for Jessie Soden" to be remitted on the first of each month (the payment is remitted the previous business day if the first falls on a non-business day). All payments reviewed were remitted on the appropriate day. Evidence on the back of bill payment items indicate the date the item was deposited. We do not possess knowledge of the charity's normal process for making deposits nor do we have any control over that process. However, evidence indicates the charity collects checks and deposits at a later date.

Final Consumer Response

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

The response lacks enough specificity. But I gather from the brief response that the bank maintains that the tardy payments were due to the charity depositing the checks late. This is very unlikely. I have spent far too much time researching the issues to accept this offhand response. If you look at the research I did on the dates and payments, and the charity's "thank you letter," the evidence is clear that the payments were received and deposited late. Otherwise you would have to believe that the charity held checks for a month before depositing them. Highly unlikely, and not consistent with the clear pattern documented. For example, the two payments referenced in the thank you note described in the complaint were deposited on the same date. The late one and the timely one. Showing that the charity deposited donations as they were received. By the way, a bank employee mentioned bank "mistakes" in a conversation with me. That slipped out and would of course have been a reference to late payments. This response is in the nature of stonewalling.

Final Business Response

The bank utilizes a third party vendor for processing online bill-pay payments. The vendor processes all customer bill payment requests utilizing an automated process. This process includes the creation of a check that is prepared in advance of the requested date to assure the payment, which is sent through the mail, arrives to the intended recipient on the requested date. The bank has had no previous issues with this process working as intended. In relation to this complaint, the customer had established a monthly bill payment request of $25 for delivery at the end of each month. Based on our review, we are confident that all payments were processed and delivered as requested.

Review: On June 18th I contacted the Rio Vista branch of Bank of Stockton and speaking with [redacted]. Each time I was trying to ask a particular question she would anticipate the question I was going to ask and interrupt me and start answering it. The third time she interrupted me I requested her and rather loud voice to not interrupt me to allow me to finish the question she then hung up I called back got her again attempted to ask a question and again was interrupted and again I'm not fun I called back at third time and attempted to as,,k the question and I thought she hung up on me for a third time but she had not. because I thought she had hung up on me for a third time I used a couple four letter words at my phone and then I heard a voice say I heard that I'm going to tell the bank president or something to that effect since then they have told me they are going to close my account in 30 days. This is fine with me I can bank elsewhere but I made a deposit today at 3 a.m. And it does not reflect the monies I deposit nor do I have access to the first $200 I deposit as required by federal law. I made two deposits $120 and was surprised to see available balance so I pulled 60 more dollars out of my wallet and deposited these additional funds within minutes of the first deposit both showed the same available balance on the receipts with no ledger balance and I have not have access to these funds, and since the deposit took place on a saturday there is nobody available to speak to at Bank of Stockton until Monday morning leaving me without access to my money.Desired Settlement: Well since federal law requires the banks to allow access to the first 200 deposited via ATM immediately upon deposit I think that they should be fine for breaking this federal law. I feel this was an intentional act due to the issues discussed in the above complaint. I have contacted their fraud department and they said they have never seen anything like it before they have no idea what could cause this to happen. So the only conclusion I can come too is that it was an intentional act.

Business

Response:

The bank has reviewed the complaint #[redacted] claiming a violation of regulation cc rules regarding the availability of the first $200 of a deposit. The bank is following the rules as outlined below:

(c) Certain check deposits--(1) General rule. A depositary bank shall make funds deposited in an account by check available for withdrawal not later than the business day after the banking day on which the funds are deposited, in the case of--

(vii) The lesser of--

(A) $200, or

(B) The aggregate amount deposited on any one banking day to all accounts of the customer by check or checks not subject to next-day availability under paragraphs (c)(1) (i) through (vi) of this section.

In addition, the bank’s Disclosure Statement provides the availability of funds in the Funds Availability Section. A review of the transactions involve reflects the bank followed the rules as prescribed in Regulation CC.

Review: I used the online bill pay to pay my rent and the rent check showed up four days late. I wish to rectify this by sending out my bill payment four days earlier next time.

Unfortunately I cannot do this because the Bank of Stockton is withdrawing the funds from my bank account the day the check is to be received by my landlord, whether or not the landlord has cashed the check.

I asked the Bank of Stockton why this was being done in this manner, and they told me that all check payments are done in that way. I told them, no, that is not correct, because I pay my water bill directly through bill pay every month, and a check is sent out, and the funds are not taken from my account until the actual check clears.

At which time I was then told that this was the decision of the third party bill pay department. So I asked for the number of the third party bill pay department.

I then spent the next ten minutes on the phone with an incredibly rude person from the bill pay department, who, even though I told him the above story three separate times, failed to tell me till the very end that he could not help me cause I had been sent to the bill pay COLLECTIONS department.

I then asked the rude person if he could please transfer me to a department at the third party bill pay that could help fix this problem. And instead he transferred me back to the Bank of Stockton.....aarrrgggghhhh!

This is ridiculous! It's my money, and I should be able to dictate that I want my rent check to go out as a draft check, just like my water bill check does. I should be able to reach a live person that can make this happen or tell me why it cannot happen. My landlord specifically puts in their contract that they will NOT accept online payments, only draft checks.Desired Settlement: I want the Bank of Stockton to contact the appropriate person in the company that they hired to use for their bill pay services and find out how to set it up so that my rent check goes out as a draft check so that the funds for said rent payment are not deducted until the draft check clears my bank account.

Business

Response:

The bank's call center has been in contact with our customer. Based on those discussions, we contacted our third party bill pay provider and communicated our concern with this customer's experience. We requested and have received confirmation that the customers payment will be processed as a draft check, as requested by the customer. We appreciate the customer's patience in this manner and hope the situation has been satisfied to our customer's satisfaction.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Review: 1/12/2012 Violation of Sec. 207. [42 U.S.C. 407] (a) The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.31 CFR 212.5(a) requires Bank to perform an account review within two business days and 212.5(e) Priority of account review states that Bank will may not freeze until an account review has been performed to determine the presence of Federal Protected Benefits. Under 212.3 definitions Under 212.3 Definitions a Benefit payment means a Federal benefit payment referred to in 212.2(b)- paid by direct deposit to an account with the character XX encoded in positions 54 and 55 of the Company Entry Description field of the Batch Header Record of the direct deposit. These benefits are clearly identifiable and in my statement every month the bank tells me that they are exempt like this: XXSOCSEC XXVABENE XXCIVSERV. The Order to Withhold issued by CA FTB for personal income tax is not legal. FTB knows it and they even tell the bank in the instructions. Further they have this part 2 questionnaire that shows them how to identify Federal Benefits that should never be frozen. SS Benefits have been 100 per cent exempt from garnishment since 1936. The bank says that the levy is not a garnishment order and that is because they are not looking at the underlying statute. 31 CFR 212 cannot exist without authority from a permanent federal statute. The Bank is wrapped up with the definitions but they fail to realize that Tax levies may not be used against SS Benefits. Only the IRS can actually levy SS Benefits. But they prefer not to as it is considered cruel as SS Benefits are for the aged, disabled and blind and are not for payment of old debt. There was no due process because Supremacy Clause violatedDesired Settlement: 1 . Constitution 2. Federal Statutes, treaties, and court rules3. Federal administrative agency rules4. Federal common law case law5. State Constitutions6. State statutes and court rules7. State agency8. State common law case lawI do not have the space to do this effectively but I am seeking 15 thousand dollars for all the trouble and I am a disabled Veteran with mild autism and nervous disorders and the banks attorney is not in good faith trying to resolve this.

Business

Response:

The bank has responded to the customer multiple times addressing this same issue. The bank followed the law in place at the time of the levy, which was issued by a state agency. Our conclusion has been supported by our attorney and subsequently by the FDIC in letter dated April 10, 2014 to our customer. In addition, the Federal Register – Garnishments of Accounts Containing Federal Benefit Payments states the following under Definition of Garnishment Order (§ 212.3):

The Agencies received many requests for clarification on the definition of “garnishment order” and some commenters indicated that confusion regarding the definition is resulting in compliance difficulties. Consumer advocacy groups, financial institutions, and banking associations recommend that the Agencies revise the definition of “garnishment order” so that it is clear exactly what kinds of documents are considered garnishment orders. The interim final rule includes a broad definition of “garnishment,” which closely tracks the definition in the Agencies' statutes. However, the rule's requirements are triggered only by the receipt of a “garnishment order,” which was defined more narrowly in the interim final rule as “a writ, order, notice, summons, judgment, or similar written instruction issued by a court or a State child support enforcement agency. . .” (emphasis supplied). Under this wording, levies issued directly by a State agency such as a State revenue department would not be subject to the rule.

The Federal Register clearly states that the customer’s levy issued by a state agency was not covered by the law at the time the levy was received by the bank.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because the bank is not in compliance and thats what the FDIC assumed to. The FDIC wrote and told me that they were going to ask the bank to prove that they were in compliance and that will be finally the end because my bank account has no co mingled funds and all are clearly marked with XX meaning exempt. The Bank effective 5/1/2011 was/is required to do many things. I honestly have worked for the feds for 34 years and thought I had seen it all as I have had many situatons where I found myself saddled with Federal rules that seem so much of a pain but when 911 occured and the FAA turned the security volume up the federal policy was very difficult to implement at the local level because of some conflicting requirementgs that were not in place. I had to write the local procedures for an anthrax attack from federal laws.

Review: While checking my personal credit report, which I acquired from Experian, I notice an inquiry made by your organization. Since I have not, to the best of my knowledge, authorized anyone employed by your organization to make an inquiry, you are not legally entitled to make the inquiry. Therefore, I request that you contact the concerned credit bureau and remove the unauthorized hard inquiry immediately, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 1681b(c): Transactions Not Initiated by Consumer. I also request that you remove my personal information from your records. Please send me a written confirmation that you have complied with my requests. If you believe that you posses sufficient documentation that supports your authorization to make the inquiry, please send me a copy to my current address so that I may verify its validity.

QUESTIONED INQUIRY: EXPERIAN

Date = May 27, 2013

Company making the inquiry = BANK OF STOCKTON

Reason = Doesnt say the reasonDesired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation)

contact the concerned credit bureau and remove the unauthorized hard inquiry immediately

Business

Response:

Business' Initial Response

The bank has thoroughly reviewed the supporting data concerning complaint #XXXXXXXX. Based on our review, we have determined that the consumer initiated the credit bureau inquiry when applying for a loan to purchase an automobile with [redacted] The standard process when a consumer applies for an automobile loan at a dealer is for the dealer to submit that application electronically to various lenders. [redacted] submitted this consumer's application to Bank of Stockton. The Bank's first step is to obtain a credit report on the applicant to determine the creditworthiness of the applicant, which the bank did in this case. As a result, the consumer's credit report reflects that inquiry. The consumer's credit report most likely reflects inquiries from several banks. In addition, regulations require the bank maintain the information for that application for two years.

Consumer's Final Response

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

I did not apply for any loan with any automobile. And I want you to send me proof that you had my authorization to inquire into my credit report.

Business' Final Response

We contacted the dealer associated with this credit request, [redacted] to request the documentation they obtained to initiate the credit report request. They could not provide such documentation. Therefore, we have removed the inquiry form the consumer's credit report. We believe the consumer should contact [redacted] regarding the credit request received at that dealer.

Review: I had out a load with bank of Stockton when I was younger and I have mad all payments on TIME and paid off my auto loan with them. I recently check my credit report and it still shows that I have a open account with them with zero balance. I tried calling them to ask them to close the account but they told me that it needs to go through my credit agency. I am very upset because its affecting my credit. The auto loan was for a 1997 [redacted] which as I said I PAID off. I just need them to close down the account and have my them take it off my credit report.Desired Settlement: I just need them to close down the account and have my them take it off my credit report.

Business

Response:

The bank has reviewed the complaint #[redacted] claiming an error on his credit report. The bank has determined customer had an auto loan with the bank that was paid in full in 2005 with no delinquencies. The bank reviewed its four credit bureaus for this customer and found the following: