home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!public!public.btr.com!timlee
- From: timlee@public.btr.com
- Newsgroups: misc.consumers
- Subject: Re: Service charge on returned check....
- Message-ID: <7861@public.BTR.COM>
- Date: 30 Aug 92 20:21:23 GMT
- Sender: timlee@public.BTR.COM
- Distribution: usa
- Lines: 29
-
- tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Henderson) writes:
- |schwartz@nynexst.com (S. H. Schwartz) writes:
- |
- |>Charges for unsuccessful deposits are the standard in NY, NJ and Mass. for
- |>as long as I can remember. $4 - 10 is the usual fee range.
- |
- |I've always wondered how banks can get away with this considering, as the
- |first postered indicated, the person depositing the check has no way of
- |knowing it might not go thru! If they pass a charge along to the other
- |bank who then passes it along to the individual, I could see that, but
- |why should I get charged for trying to deposit a check?
- |
- |I think banks are getting way out of hand in this country!
-
- The reason why banks (and S&Ls and even credit unions) get away with
- this kind of stuff is that consumers generally don't shop around for
- banking services. Look around the banks in your local area -- it is
- likely that the largest ones have the highest fees and worst deposit
- interest rates (it's generally true around where I live, with the
- exception of a few small banks that appear to cater to the upscale
- looking for personalized service). Yet people still put their money
- in them. Perverse, isn't it? Unfortunately, those who do shop around
- have a harder time, since only a few banks and S&Ls cater to the price
- conscious consumer.
-
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Timothy J. Lee timlee@btr.com ...!decwrl!btr!timlee
- This message comes with no warranty, not even an implied warranty of
- fitness for any particular purpose.
-