XX/XX/XXXX statement shows the balance transfer of {$4000.00} + 30.77 interests for that month. I made two payments before the next statement -- - {$4000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and {$100.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. When the XX/XX/XXXX statement arrived it showed interest of {$5.00} and a balance subject to interest rate of {$680.00}. I called in to question this remaining balance AND to pay any residual interest to avoid revolving COMPOUND INTEREST ON INTEREST ONLY PAYMENTS! 

During the XX/XX/XXXX call, the service agent gave me the accounting necessary to pay off the remaining principle and interest. She agreed to suppress the minimum interest payment of {$1.00} as I was making the payment during the phone call, payment in full for all portions of debt, including interest, that were subject to interest. I rounded up her minimum figure to accomplish this goal and paid {$180.00}, far above the minimum monthly payment. 

Upon receiving the XX/XX/XXXX statement, I noticed a {$1.00} MINIMUM INTEREST CHARGE. The bank had used the partial month XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX to say this minimum fee was triggered ( although paid on XX/XX/XXXX according to their verbal accounting ) AND did not suppress the additional fee. Essentially, I end up paying {$1.00} on either {$5.00} during the six days it took the statement to arrive by mail OR I was paying {$1.00} on the partial accrual that occurred over the less than one day it takes the payment to process by website ( {$1.00} on less than a dollar interest, constructively this is XXXXsury and on a grand scale the bank gains unjust enrichment, particularly when customers actively attempt to pay forward to avoid this cycle ). 

In either scenario this amounts to excessive interest if for no other reason than because I explicitly stated my intention to pay off the balance and related interest during the XX/XX/XXXX call, made a payment above the banks stated figure, and we specifically discussed and agreed to the suppressed fee, in fact it was my understanding that was completed during the phone call directly after I posted my payment by website. 

The XX/XX/XXXX statement arrived on XX/XX/XXXX, again about a weeks delay. I called the service office and was told because the interest is residual we can not reverse the fee. I advise you to pay the {$1.00} before your next statement. I explained that the automated process creates a cycle of {$1.00} fees which the customer has no way to avoid UNLESS the bank manually suppresses the fee from appearing on the following months statement. The bank was non-cooperative. The bank is using this minimum fee clause to make unjust gains. 

The bank knows or should know that its automated processes create scenarios where the customers receive compound interests even when they pay interest totals up to the day, even when speaking to a service agent, and this occurs because of contract interpretations overly slanted, unfairly and excessively construed in light favorable to the bank. The result are scenarios where many customers are being charged unfairly for small sums that may only be noticed in cases such as mine where the total was paid early in the monthly cycle, no additional debts subject to interests were incurred during the same cycle, so that the fee stands out. Internal and/or government audits plus changes to procedures would be necessary to avoid systemic overcharging of customers. 

Again, my main contention is that in cases where a customer calls in with explicit intent to pay the balance to avoid this scenario, the bank is then obligated to deal fairly and take responsibility for its verbal accounting and manual procedures. I can not log into their system and suppress this for myself. By the same token, if they fail to complete those processes I should not bear the burden.