Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Seems a bit loopy

They hightlight the changes and then ask you to read about 20 screens of text, the legalese that usually comes on thin folded paper with a credit card statement, and I sort of started reading because there is an "I agree" button at the bottom.

This seems rather unfair:

C.  Waiver of requirement for two or more signatures
You recognize that any requirement of verifying two or more signatures on checks, if such a requirement exists, does not apply to electronic or telephone transfers, and release us from liability when making these kind of transfers. This means that any person who is an authorized signer on your account is authorized by you to individually make electronic or telephone transfers, even though that person's authority to transfer or withdraw funds from your account by some other means (e.g., by check) must be exercised jointly with one or more other persons. This provision controls and takes precedence over any conflicting provision in any other agreements you have with us.
Electronic law has not kept up?  I recall talking to a credit card company on behalf of cardholder spouse and the rep's wanting to have him in the call too … until there was an authorization, perhaps.  That authorization did not include my SS#.

What's the point of double-signature checks if the provision can be overridden so easily using a phone or e-transfer.

Thank you, mortgage bank.

Thank you, too, Federal Mutual Bank that used to be a Credit Union that made us vote on the switch that supposedly would free it up to open more branches, etc., for closing the one and only local branch and only bank within walking distance of my house — as well as the lovely 24-hour ATM your study says is hardly ever used … I really appreciated the letter you sent that said you were sorry for no longer being able to offer live services in the Chicago area and therefore were depositing $25 into our account … I'm thrilled about the prospect online-only banking and mailing deposits in to Minnesota or wherever you're based.  So much so that I will be seeking out another bank shortly. Inconvenient?  Indeed.  Necessary, though.

I hate getting swished around by financial institutions for doing nothing wrong.

I am going to incorporate this phrase into as many conversations tomorrow as possible:  "This provision controls and takes precedence over any conflicting provision in any other agreements you have with me."

1 comment:

Applecart T. said...

This part seems o.k.:

If we do not properly complete a bill payment on time or in the correct amount, we will pay any related late fees or finance charges that you reasonably incur as a result, as long as your account was in good standing with the payee prior to this incident. We will also be liable to you if we fail to stop a payment according to your order, so long as your order describes the payment with reasonable certainty and is received at a time and in a manner that affords us a reasonable opportunity to act on it before the payment is sent or is in process. Except as stated in this Agreement, any stop payment provisions of the agreement governing your Eligible Account that apply to checks will also apply to Bill Pay.