Consumer complaint: Because I 've had a history of making small purchases with my debit card ( like a {$2.00} cup of coffee ) that later ends up costing me more than XXXX the amount paid XXXX when a check posts but the small purchase " bounces '' despite having been authorized at the point of sale XXXX, I decided a few years back to decouple my accounts. Now, I have XXXX checking accounts, XXXX with the same bank. XXXX account is linked to the debit card I use regularly to make purchases and is also the account that my paycheck is deposited into. The other account I use to write checks from. Every XXXX weeks when I get paid, automatic transfers kick over into the XXXX account the exact amount for each check I write. For example, if I 'm writing a check for {$70.00}, then {$70.00} is transferred into that account. When it hits XXXX every other week, I 'm happy because it means everything balanced. But a few weeks ago my account went under by a penny. Sometime ago I enrolled my " check-paying '' checking account in for the bank 's keep the change program. ( I had also requested a XXXX debit card for this XXXX checking account to pay recurring bills each month like XXXX ; despite being processed with a visa card number, the bank treats them like checks. If they bounce a fee is assessed. ) {$7.00} for XXXX posted and the bank transferred {$0.00} into my savings account. I do n't ever recall this being a problem in the past, but this time a " penny saved '' meant I was a " penny short. '' My account did n't have enough funds to cover a check for {$40.00}. The bank honored the check anyway, but socked me with a {$35.00} fee because my account was {$0.00} short. XXXX cent! 

I was charged {$35.00} because I was a penny short. This is grossly disproportionate. 

I called to speak with customer service. The gentleman I spoke with agreed that it seemed unfair but was unable to have the fee refunded. He put me on hold while he spoke with a supervisor. After about XXXX minutes, the line went dead. I did n't have time to call back and thought ( XXXX ) that the bank would follow-up internally and refund the fee. I was wrong because the {$35.00} then had a domino effect because of the automatic transfer system I set up. I transferred more money to cover some of the costs, but two weeks later another check two weeks later was short by {$2.00}. The bank again honored that check but again assessed an insufficient funds fee of {$35.00}. When a week passed ( I get paid every XXXX weeks and live outside the XXXX so depositing money into my account requires either mailing a money order or sending it via XXXX XXXX XXXX but the red was not brought out of the black, the bank charged a {$35.00} extended overdrawn balance charge. So, in a sense, being a penny short cost me {$100.00}. 

This will probably happen again because despite being a XXXX I live paycheck as a government employee. I am crippled with debt : student loan debt, remaining balances on closed credit cards, tax debt from my once-upon-a-time XXXX gig, as well as day-to-day expenses. So that light, I appreciate that the bank honored checks I wrote when it could have just refused them. But I do n't understand why a bank has the right to make this choice. If there is n't enough money in the account, then the check should be refused. Or, if the bank does decide to honor a check for which there is n't sufficient funds at that moment, it should just honor it : trust that ( based on the account 's history or account holder 's history XXXX the funds will be there shortly. But a bank should not be permitted to have the choice if the choice means they get to sock their customers with multiple fees. And even if a bank is permitted to honor a check and then assess a fee for being nice, so to speak, the fee should at least be proportionate. I was short a penny and was charged {$35.00} XXXX {$100.00} was the total effect ). That is a grossly disproportionate ratio. 

Company response: Company chooses not to provide a public response