Product: Checking or savings account

Bank of America ( the Bank ) violated the federal Expedited Funds Availability Act Regulation CC ( also the Act ), by failing to make available the funds of a check made by XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( the Maker ) drawn on the Bank that I deposited in my own checking account at the Bank. The Bank failed to release the funds within the time periods required under the Act and failed to provide the notice required under the Act when the funds are not made available. 

The checks Maker and I each complained to the CFPB about the Banks law violation on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/2018. The Banks legal department responded to our complaints, but as the attached correspondence demonstrates, the Bank fails to recognize the clear law violations. 

Here are the facts : On XX/XX/2018, I deposited the Makers check in the amount of {$350.00} payable to me at the Banks branch in XXXX XXXX, Virginia. None of the funds from that check were made available to me on that day. The ATM notice stated : A hold was placed on your check ( s ) because check specific information indicates that the item may be  returned. The Notice also stated that the entire amount of the funds would be available by XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/18. However, none of the funds were available to me when I went to the Banks XXXX XXXX  branch in the morning of XX/XX/18. The branch personnel told me that the Bank needed to verify that the funds would be available from the Makers checking account. However, that was untrue because the Bank had already debited the Makers checking account on XX/XX/2018. ( See the attached check. ) The funds were not available to me until XX/XX/2018. Thus, the Bank extended the hold on my check funds for one week ( until XX/XX/2018 ) after the check was debited to the Makers checking account. 

In response to my complaint to the CFPB, the Bank sent the attached letter, dated XX/XX/2018 ( the XX/XX/XXXX letter ). This letter does not satisfy me or the Maker of this check for the following reasons : Because the check was written on the Makers checking account at Bank of America and there was no other financial institution involved, there was no reason for the Bank to place an extended hold on my check. In fact, the funds cleared the Makers checking account on the day that I deposited the check in the Banks ATM. 
Under the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Bank was required to make at least {$200.00} of the {$320.00} deposited check available for my withdrawal by the next business day following the day of deposit, which was XX/XX/2018. 12 CFR 229.10 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( vii ). When the Bank failed to do so on that date, it was subject to the Acts requirements for extended holds, under 12 CFR 229.13. That section states : Sections  229.10 ( c ) and 229.12 do not apply to a check deposited in an account at a depository bank if the depository bank has reasonable cause to believe that the check is uncollectible from the paying bank. Reasonable cause to believe a check is uncollectible requires the existence of facts that would cause a well-grounded belief in the mind of a reasonable person. Such belief shall not be based on the fact that the check is of a particular class or is deposited by a particular class of persons. The reason for the bank 's belief that the check is uncollectible shall be included in the notice required under paragraph ( g ) of  this section. 12 CFR 229.13 ( g ). However, because the funds had already been debited from the Makers checking account at the Bank, the Bank had no reasonable cause to believe that the funds would be unavailable. 

The Banks XX/XX/XXXX letter claims that a notice dated XX/XX/2018 was mailed to my home address informing me of the freeze on my deposit. The notice does not state when the freeze will be lifted and instructs me to contact the person who gave you this item to resolve this matter. Inasmuch as the funds had already be debited for the the person who gave you this item ( i.e., the Maker ), the Maker would have  been completely unable to resolve this matter. 

I never received this notice or any other written notice from the bank regarding the extended hold on my deposited check. However, this notice violates the Expedited Funds Availability Act in the following respects : It does not give the reason for the extended hold and it does not state the time period within which the funds will be available for withdrawal. 12 CFR 229.13 ( g ) ( 1 ). 

The Banks XX/XX/XXXX letter states that the extended freeze was placed on the check because the ATM reported that there was an issue reading the [ MICR ] line on the check, which indicated that it was possible that the check would be returned unpaid. This explanation makes no sense for the following reasons : ( 1 ) The funds had already been paid when the Bank debited the account of the Makers checking account at the Bank and ( 2 ) the copy of the check which was included in the Banks XX/XX/XXXX letter shows that the MICR is  completely readable. In any event that reason was never given to the Maker or to me. If we had had that reason, I could have shown the Bank personnel the copy of the cashed check, which the Maker gave to me. 

My experience and the Banks response to the complaint that the Maker and I submitted to the CFPB demonstrate that the Bank has a policy and practice of violating the Expedited Funds Availability Act.