Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowRegards,
*** ***
Although I appreciate the reimbursement of fees to my account for the banks mistakes, I would like it be known that no such conversation took place between the bank and Mr *** about possibilities that the account might not close because of pending charges The *** charges were made with a *** debit card that was still liked to the account that was a mistake on *** part A simple phone call letting us know about the problems with the account closing would have solved everythingWe could have allowed the account to stay open and transfer funds if needed They're lack of communication caused this entire issue There unwillingness to work with me once "I" discovered the problem is the real issue and one I wish to be noted The way the handle the situation, and me as a customer, was in complete bad faith
In July 2016, our bank made the decision to no longer offer our No Minimum Checking account which included unlimited check writing. All No Minimum Checking customers were converted to our new Secure Checking account, which is also an unlimited check writing account. We also began...
offering our Basic Checking account which is a limited check writing account (5 free checks per month, 50 cents per check after 5). When we made these changes to our checking accounts, two letters were mailed to all of our No Minimum checking customers – one in mid-June 2016 and the other in early July 2016. The purpose of the letters was to inform all of our No Minimum customers that their accounts would be converted to our new Secure Checking account on August 1st. The letter explained all of the new benefits included with Secure Checking and that the account would have a $7 per month service charge. We also included information on our Basic Checking account for customers that were not interested in Secure Checking or wanted to avoid the $7 monthly fee. Mr. [redacted] is a long-time customer and we value his loyalty. He has three checking accounts that were impacted and converted to Secure Checking. We are confident that if Mr. [redacted] had been aware of the changes we made to his accounts, he would have either closed two of the accounts or converted at least two of the accounts to Basic Checking. Therefore, we are going to waive all fees incurred on two of the checking accounts. For the third account, we have waived one month of fees incurred. Even though Mr. [redacted] may have been unaware this account had been converting to Secure Checking, he automatically began receiving the benefits of identity theft protection/monitoring, fraud resolution services and cell phone protection for all three of his accounts. Thus far, Mr. [redacted] has incurred $63 in service charges for each of his three accounts (total of $189). We have refunded one fee for each of the accounts already ($21). We will refund all remaining fees on two of the accounts. After we’ve done this, a total of $133 will have been refunded to Mr. [redacted]. All three of Mr. [redacted]’s accounts have already been converted to Basic accounts. The only future fee he will incur is the check writing fee if he writes more than 5 checks per month, but he no longer has the identity theft, fraud resolution services, cell phone insurance or any of the other benefits included with our Secure Checking account.
From: [redacted]Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:15 AMSubject: Response to complaint #[redacted] RE: Consumer complaint[redacted]Complainant: [redacted] [redacted]Business: Stock Yards Bank & Trust Company To Whom it May Concern: On March 9, 2016,...
Stock Yards Bank & Trust Company (“SYB”) was served with a valid Notice of Garnishment Summons and Order to Answer Interrogatories, issued by the [redacted] Superior Court, in an action in which a third party creditor had received a judgment against Mr. [redacted], the complainant. Mr. [redacted] states he was made aware of the account freeze on the same day as the bank’s receipt of the Order, and visited a branch where he claims he received assurances from a bank employee that the bank would “refund any fees and pay all checks and debit transactions that come through up to the amount of the freeze.” Despite this contention, SYB’s investigation with its employees did not indicate that promises of any kind were made. Further, despite Mr. [redacted]’s suggestion that there was a verbal contract between he and the bank to cover these checks, the account terms are in fact controlled by “Terms and Conditions of Your Account,” which have been recently provided to Mr. [redacted] be separate correspondence, and which require any variation to the terms thereof to be in writing. These terms advise that “…we (SYB) will not have any liability to you if there are insufficient funds to pay your items because we have withdrawn funds from your account.” The garnishment order was in an amount sufficient to cause Mr. [redacted]’s account to immediately be overdrafted. Despite this, Mr. [redacted] failed to deposit further funds to cover the items that were presented, almost daily, against the account for the next month. It also appears that Mr. [redacted] made no efforts to prevent the items, such as recurring ACH drafts or checks, from being presented against his account for the next month, thus explaining why there were additional fees continuously assessed against the account, of which Mr. [redacted] now complains. SYB certainly has sympathy that Mr. [redacted] has incurred hardship pursuant to the garnishment issued by a third party judgment creditor against his account, but SYB steadfastly maintains that it has acted solely in compliance with the terms governing the account. SYB further notes that it has been working separately with counsel for Mr. [redacted] towards a mutual resolution. Sincerely,[redacted]Counsel for Stock Yards Bank & Trust Company [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] * [redacted] [redacted]
In this particular situation, the bank was unable to close Mr. & Mrs. [redacted]’s account on January 30, 20**, the day Mr. [redacted] came into our [redacted] branch to close the account due to an outstanding item attempting to clear the account the evening of January 30th. When Mr. [redacted]...
requested to close the account, he was asked if there were any outstanding items on the account that could be presented for payment. His reply was ‘no’. This is important because the language in our Terms & Conditions clearly states: “When you close your account, you are responsible for leaving enough money in the account to cover any outstanding items to be paid from the account.”
The balance in the account as of the account closure request was $22.81. This amount was given to Mr. [redacted] on January 30th to get the balance to zero and close the account. Had no other presentments hit the account, the account would have closed that day and none of the other events listed in the complaint would have occurred.
On the morning of February 2nd, the online bill payment that was presented the night of January 30th cleared the account, creating a negative account balance. With the balance no longer at $0.00, our system would not allow the account to close. Five subsequent transactions, including four ACH transactions from [redacted], posted to the account. We were unable to prevent these items from posting to the account (we couldn’t close the account completely due to the pending items and subsequent negative balance).
Had we known about the six items that were still outstanding at the time the account closure was requested, we would have advised the customer to deposit additional funds in the account to cover all payments and wait until all six items cleared to close the account. All NSF fees incurred have now been refunded to the customer.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowRegards,
*** ***
Although I appreciate the reimbursement of fees to my account for the banks mistakes, I would like it be known that no such conversation took place between the bank and Mr *** about possibilities that the account might not close because of pending charges The *** charges were made with a *** debit card that was still liked to the account that was a mistake on *** part A simple phone call letting us know about the problems with the account closing would have solved everythingWe could have allowed the account to stay open and transfer funds if needed They're lack of communication caused this entire issue There unwillingness to work with me once "I" discovered the problem is the real issue and one I wish to be noted The way the handle the situation, and me as a customer, was in complete bad faith
In July 2016, our bank made the decision to no longer offer our No Minimum Checking account which included unlimited check writing. All No Minimum Checking customers were converted to our new Secure Checking account, which is also an unlimited check writing account. We also began...
offering our Basic Checking account which is a limited check writing account (5 free checks per month, 50 cents per check after 5). When we made these changes to our checking accounts, two letters were mailed to all of our No Minimum checking customers – one in mid-June 2016 and the other in early July 2016. The purpose of the letters was to inform all of our No Minimum customers that their accounts would be converted to our new Secure Checking account on August 1st. The letter explained all of the new benefits included with Secure Checking and that the account would have a $7 per month service charge. We also included information on our Basic Checking account for customers that were not interested in Secure Checking or wanted to avoid the $7 monthly fee. Mr. [redacted] is a long-time customer and we value his loyalty. He has three checking accounts that were impacted and converted to Secure Checking. We are confident that if Mr. [redacted] had been aware of the changes we made to his accounts, he would have either closed two of the accounts or converted at least two of the accounts to Basic Checking. Therefore, we are going to waive all fees incurred on two of the checking accounts. For the third account, we have waived one month of fees incurred. Even though Mr. [redacted] may have been unaware this account had been converting to Secure Checking, he automatically began receiving the benefits of identity theft protection/monitoring, fraud resolution services and cell phone protection for all three of his accounts. Thus far, Mr. [redacted] has incurred $63 in service charges for each of his three accounts (total of $189). We have refunded one fee for each of the accounts already ($21). We will refund all remaining fees on two of the accounts. After we’ve done this, a total of $133 will have been refunded to Mr. [redacted]. All three of Mr. [redacted]’s accounts have already been converted to Basic accounts. The only future fee he will incur is the check writing fee if he writes more than 5 checks per month, but he no longer has the identity theft, fraud resolution services, cell phone insurance or any of the other benefits included with our Secure Checking account.
From: [redacted]Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:15 AMSubject: Response to complaint #[redacted] RE: Consumer complaint[redacted]Complainant: [redacted] [redacted]Business: Stock Yards Bank & Trust Company To Whom it May Concern: On March 9, 2016,...
Stock Yards Bank & Trust Company (“SYB”) was served with a valid Notice of Garnishment Summons and Order to Answer Interrogatories, issued by the [redacted] Superior Court, in an action in which a third party creditor had received a judgment against Mr. [redacted], the complainant. Mr. [redacted] states he was made aware of the account freeze on the same day as the bank’s receipt of the Order, and visited a branch where he claims he received assurances from a bank employee that the bank would “refund any fees and pay all checks and debit transactions that come through up to the amount of the freeze.” Despite this contention, SYB’s investigation with its employees did not indicate that promises of any kind were made. Further, despite Mr. [redacted]’s suggestion that there was a verbal contract between he and the bank to cover these checks, the account terms are in fact controlled by “Terms and Conditions of Your Account,” which have been recently provided to Mr. [redacted] be separate correspondence, and which require any variation to the terms thereof to be in writing. These terms advise that “…we (SYB) will not have any liability to you if there are insufficient funds to pay your items because we have withdrawn funds from your account.” The garnishment order was in an amount sufficient to cause Mr. [redacted]’s account to immediately be overdrafted. Despite this, Mr. [redacted] failed to deposit further funds to cover the items that were presented, almost daily, against the account for the next month. It also appears that Mr. [redacted] made no efforts to prevent the items, such as recurring ACH drafts or checks, from being presented against his account for the next month, thus explaining why there were additional fees continuously assessed against the account, of which Mr. [redacted] now complains. SYB certainly has sympathy that Mr. [redacted] has incurred hardship pursuant to the garnishment issued by a third party judgment creditor against his account, but SYB steadfastly maintains that it has acted solely in compliance with the terms governing the account. SYB further notes that it has been working separately with counsel for Mr. [redacted] towards a mutual resolution. Sincerely,[redacted]Counsel for Stock Yards Bank & Trust Company [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] * [redacted] [redacted]
In this particular situation, the bank was unable to close Mr. & Mrs. [redacted]’s account on January 30, 20**, the day Mr. [redacted] came into our [redacted] branch to close the account due to an outstanding item attempting to clear the account the evening of January 30th. When Mr. [redacted]...
requested to close the account, he was asked if there were any outstanding items on the account that could be presented for payment. His reply was ‘no’. This is important because the language in our Terms & Conditions clearly states: “When you close your account, you are responsible for leaving enough money in the account to cover any outstanding items to be paid from the account.”
The balance in the account as of the account closure request was $22.81. This amount was given to Mr. [redacted] on January 30th to get the balance to zero and close the account. Had no other presentments hit the account, the account would have closed that day and none of the other events listed in the complaint would have occurred.
On the morning of February 2nd, the online bill payment that was presented the night of January 30th cleared the account, creating a negative account balance. With the balance no longer at $0.00, our system would not allow the account to close. Five subsequent transactions, including four ACH transactions from [redacted], posted to the account. We were unable to prevent these items from posting to the account (we couldn’t close the account completely due to the pending items and subsequent negative balance).
Had we known about the six items that were still outstanding at the time the account closure was requested, we would have advised the customer to deposit additional funds in the account to cover all payments and wait until all six items cleared to close the account. All NSF fees incurred have now been refunded to the customer.