Chase Bank - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #1 05-24-2008, 01:44 PM

Learned something interesting about them today. Many banks we work with will do merchant verification. IOW, if you call them and say "I have a check with account number XXXXXXXXXX and for $YYYY.ZZ. Will it clear?", they will tell you that it will or will not.

The way I see it, with Chase Bank, they will tell you only that the account is active. IOW, if you have $1 in the account, it is active. So, you can write hundreds of bad checks but until they close it, it is active. Lulls the receiver into a false sense of security. All they will tell you is that they do not verify funds and you can accept the check at your own risk or words to that effect.

I questioned them and they turned to blame the federal govt. "Privacy Laws" they state. If so, how are other banks able to do it? When asked what statute, they cannot cite it. Sounds like a bank policy that they are blaming on the feds.

Anyone besides me see a huge loophole where they can be used to write bad checks?

G-Benz · #2 05-25-2008, 01:02 AM

I don't think banks really want to condone writing bad checks...but they DO like to initiate fees wherever they can! One technique is if several small transactions and one large one is posted against an insufficient balance, even if the smaller transactions will clear, they will post the large one first, causing an overdraft (and subsequent fee), then post the rest succcessively, so that they can collect fees on ALL of the transactions!

I had a part time bank job in during my high school days, and one of my tasks was to "man the phones" for check verification. We did exactly as you stated, only back then we had to scour a huge daily printout of all accounts and current balances...PCs didn't really exist then, and dumb terminals were abyssmal.

It was sometimes a sobering experience, as we had a particular business account that could never seem to meet payroll...and the employess would call often to see if their paychecks would clear! Usually (especially women) the sob stories of being "unable to obtain funds for several weeks" followed the queries when I stated the checks wouldn't clear. I was just doing my job, but felt like I had to play "phone pyschiatrist" as well.

That was over 30 years ago...I didn't realize banks still did that today!

aklim · #3 05-25-2008, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Benz

I don't think banks really want to condone writing bad checks...

I don't think they do unless they feel they can collect. However, what I am saying is that this sort of "check verification" will make someone think that they can do it especially if I don't care about the consequences.

Lets say I am a welfare queen. I can write them but you can't garnish my wages. Or if I am a purposely doing it, I could be in the next state by the time you figure out what I am doing. Sure, they may not think of it, but what I am saying is that someone could use that loophole to write NSF checks and the retailer would not know it, would they?

Jim B. · #4 05-25-2008, 01:20 AM

So far I think Chase Bank is great.

Whene I bought the Subaru Outback new, a couple of months ago, they offered me a Chase Bank "Subaru" Master card soon afterwards

Zero interest for the first six months, a Rewards program paying $3 for every $100 charged, redeemable in "Subaru Dollars" at the dealer for parts, service, even towards a new one. The Subaru Dollars have no expiry date on them.

Chase kicks in an extra $25 Subaru dollars when you get the card.

The website reviews said it was a great deal, no real downsides, and so since I pay in full every month, I went for it.

There is some limit to the number of Subaru dollars a year you can get, but if you can responsibly pay your bills, you can get around that by having four or five Subaru credit cards.

I saw people paying their bills in the Subaru dealer service department with Subaru credit cards when I was there yesterday

So it looks to me like others think they are a good deal too.

aklim · #5 05-25-2008, 01:24 AM

But do you think that if all they offered for merchant verification is just to tell you whether the account is active or not (active could be with $1), it might make others think of doing naughty things? After all, if I could think of it, don't you think there are others that would exploit that loophole?

Jim B. · #6 05-25-2008, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't think they do unless they feel they can collect. However, what I am saying is that this sort of "check verification" will make someone think that they can do it especially if I don't care about the consequences.

Lets say I am a welfare queen. I can write them but you can't garnish my wages. Or if I am a purposely doing it, I could be in the next state by the time you figure out what I am doing. Sure, they may not think of it, but what I am saying is that someone could use that loophole to write NSF checks and the retailer would not know it, would they?

So f***ing what, who the hell cares?

You think the BANK is going to eat the cost? They are going to find a way to pass the cost on to the consumer if they can.

It's how things work in America. Banks are not in business to take risks like that. They are in it to make money, as much as they can get away with.

aklim · #7 05-25-2008, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

So f***ing what, who the hell cares?

You think the BANK is going to eat the cost? They are going to find a way to pass the cost on to the consumer if they can.

You would if you were a retailer. If you find that your odds of getting stung by a Chase check, would you keep accepting it unless you really knew the customer? I wouldn't.

I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that if I do this and you see me do this and follow suit, won't it encourage a bunch of people to do it? Now, as a retailer, if you write a check on a bank I can't verify, sooner or later, I will get tired of it and your bank will be known as a "crook's bank". Sooner or later, I am going to refuse to take checks drawn from bank X. Is it worth that bad rep? Is the bad rep worth it? How much is getting out of a bad rep worth to you?

ramonajim · #8 05-25-2008, 09:50 AM

What guarantee would you have if Chase said "Sure thing Mr. Aklim, there is $10,245.87 in that account. More than enough to cover that $2.39 check Mr. Customer is offering in payment for his chicklets and pork rinds."

Rhetorical question. The answer is exactly NONE. No guarantee whatsoever.

How in the heck is Chase supposed to know that Mr. Customer just wrote a $10,244.50 check to cover his tab at the local boobie bar, and that is going to hit before the measly $2.39 check you just took?

If I had to guess at the motive behind Chase's change in policy (yeah, yeah, yeah - the motive is always profit - hear me out) it would be that their legal types decided that saying NOTHING other than "active/inactive" removes ALL chance of somebody coming back later (or a bunch of somebodies in a class action) and suing Chase for telling them that the check was good when, by the time it hit the books, it wasn't.

aklim · #9 05-25-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramonajim

What guarantee would you have if Chase said "Sure thing Mr. Aklim, there is $10,245.87 in that account. More than enough to cover that $2.39 check Mr. Customer is offering in payment for his chicklets and pork rinds."

How in the heck is Chase supposed to know that Mr. Customer just wrote a $10,244.50 check to cover his tab at the local boobie bar, and that is going to hit before the measly $2.39 check you just took?

their legal types decided that saying NOTHING other than "active/inactive" removes ALL chance of somebody coming back later (or a bunch of somebodies in a class action) and suing Chase for telling them that the check was good when, by the time it hit the books, it wasn't.

Certainty? No. But it is a damn sight better than them saying that "The check for $250 will not clear.". I'm not wanting to know how much is in that account but just whether that check, at this time will clear. IOW, if you wrote me a $250 check for the lawnmower, can I go to the bank right now and cash it. If I wait 3 days, it might not clear but if I ran down to the bank, I want to know it clears. The way they do it, they will not even tell you if the check will clear unless you are physically in front of them

They don't know. However, if you are the retailer, what would you rather hear? "This check will not clear at this moment" or "At this moment, the check is good."?

It probably does. However, why are other banks able to do it and they cannot? Either they are having a different take on the law or the other banks are breaking the law.

I don't bank with them for other reasons but I'm just wondering if somebody could use this "feature" to write bad checks with impunity. I have seen retailers do a "merchant verification" and refused the check because it would not clear. Will that catch every bad check? Probably not. But it does catch some.

Hatterasguy · #10 05-25-2008, 11:25 AM

At the grocery store they run the checks through right their. So they are like paper debit cards. A lot of them don't clear.

aklim · #11 05-25-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

At the grocery store they run the checks through right their. So they are like paper debit cards. A lot of them don't clear.

Problem is that it costs money to do that. My friends who own a chinese food restaurant (small) can't afford to rent the equipment and they seem to have quite a few checks from Chase. The PDQ by me doesn't have an issue since they have that device which they rent and pay a percentage of the take.

ramonajim · #12 05-25-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Certainty? No. But it is a damn sight better than them saying that "The check for $250 will not clear.". I'm not wanting to know how much is in that account but just whether that check, at this time will clear. IOW, if you wrote me a $250 check for the lawnmower, can I go to the bank right now and cash it. If I wait 3 days, it might not clear but if I ran down to the bank, I want to know it clears. The way they do it, they will not even tell you if the check will clear unless you are physically in front of them

They don't know. However, if you are the retailer, what would you rather hear? "This check will not clear at this moment" or "At this moment, the check is good."?

It probably does. However, why are other banks able to do it and they cannot? Either they are having a different take on the law or the other banks are breaking the law.

I don't bank with them for other reasons but I'm just wondering if somebody could use this "feature" to write bad checks with impunity. I have seen retailers do a "merchant verification" and refused the check because it would not clear. Will that catch every bad check? Probably not. But it does catch some.

If I were still a retailer (well, I wasn't exactly a retailer - used to have my own antique restoration and refinishing business back in the dark ages - when I was in high school/college) I wouldn't assume that Wells Fargo or BofA or any other bank telling me that the check in my hand is good right now means ANYTHING.

As others have pointed out, lots of places in the US (and most all of the UK, much of EU) have gone to electronic presentation - i.e. your check at Barnes and Noble is gonna process RIGHT NOW. Which may well happen between the time you hang up with BofA and the time you can get your rushing self off to the local branch to cash that $250 check.

On the flip side, 'mericans have long been in the (bad) habit of floating themselves a two or three day loan by writing a check today against tomorrow's payday direct deposit. That "No Mr. Aklim, that check will not clear" may not be valid two hours from now when that deposit posts.

If I were a retailer, I'd weigh the missed opportunity cost of not accepting checks (not a whole lot of smaller operations seem to be taking them anymore; I personally never bother carrying a check book) against the run rate of returned checks in my type of business/geographic area/perceived clientèle base against the cost of owning/renting/operating one of the electronic presentation accounts. My guess is that the numbers would come down pretty strongly supporting the notion of either accepting no checks or electronic presentation.

I'd give zero weight to what ANY bank told me about the ability of a given check to clear at a specific moment in time. In today's instant transaction world, that 'moment' is just to damn short to be meaningful.

Hatterasguy · #13 05-25-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Problem is that it costs money to do that. My friends who own a chinese food restaurant (small) can't afford to rent the equipment and they seem to have quite a few checks from Chase. The PDQ by me doesn't have an issue since they have that device which they rent and pay a percentage of the take.

Than don't accept checks. I go to a lot of little places that are cash only, or only let you charge like $10 or more.

The little package store I use down the street only takes cash or Visa and Mastercard on big purchases, thats it. She is a one women operation and because of her location does a booming business.

mgburg · #14 05-25-2008, 01:08 PM

M&I (Marshall & Isley) will not take a check, written on their own bank and cash it unless they get an upfront fee of $5.00/check.

I wrote the wifey a $550.00 check, she took it to the very branch where I originally opened my accounts (I had MORE than enough to cash the check many times over...

) and she was told she needed to pay/deduct $5.00 in order to cash the check.

It was my bank.
I had enough money in the account, MONTHS before this incident.
She had ID to prove who she was.
She didn't have an account there...her's was at Associated Bank.

Simply because SHE wasn't an M&I account-holder (everything else was M&I-related), she was being penalized...

So...not only does the money have to be in the account, you better be an account-holder if the check, in your hand, needs to be cashed.

It's about time the banks start getting a bit more friendly with any customer again, and the LEAs (Law Enforcement Agencies) start doing their GD-jobs...

I'm starting to get REALLY SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING TO PAY MONEY JUST TO HAVE MONEY...