I question Bank of America 's practice of putting extended " holds '' on funds deposited from another institution. Specifically, check proceeds are paid by the bank issuing the checks, but Bank of America does not make the funds available to their own banking customer until days later. The following is the most recent example. 
On XXXX, I deposited a check for {$600.00} at the Bank of America branch in XXXX, Texas. On XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX transferred that amount to Bank of America. The {$600.00} was credited to my Bank of America account on XXXX and removed from my funds on XXXX. 
I am a signatory to both accounts. On XXXX my on-line access revealed the funds had been subtracted from the XXXX account. On-line access to my Bank of America said a notice was sent via U.S. mail explaining the hold and when funds would be available. An on-line chat with a Bank of America representative defined the problem : XXXX informed Bank of America there was a risk the funds might not be available in the account and the earliest Bank of America would make the {$600.00} available would be XXXX. How could this be when XXXX had already transferred the funds to Bank of America? 
A trip to the XXXX branch explained Bank of America 's position ; Their risk management department had flagged the account as a " risk ''. Bank of America considers any check they receive from this XXXX account a risk, even after XXXX honors the check. The representative confirmed that anyone or any organization using Bank of America for regular banking and deposits a check from this XXXX account will experience the same " hold '' and delayed payment. This includes checks to physicians, grocery stores and other merchants. Funds will be held for an unspecified time. I am told there is no way to correct the " risk '' flag. 
Bank of America 's reason for the " risk '' flag : last month a check was written on the wrong XXXX account, resulting in insufficient funds. That error was corrected within twenty-four hours. 
I can not write this off as a snafu because it is not an isolated occurrence. On previous occasions Bank of America delayed credit to my accounts for funds deposited from an array of financial institutions including XXXX XXXX and the Texas State Comptroller. The funds are unavailable well beyond two or three business days. 
I am further confounded by the inaccuracies reflected on my monthly account. Now, there is no evidence the funds were removed on XXXX. This is the same pattern as previous deposits put on " hold. '' Bank of America 's practice of delaying access to funds is harmful to consumers for the following reasons : ( 1 ) the consumer has no money, while Bank of America is using the consumer 's deposit for their own gain ( 2 ) lack of access to funds is costly for consumers -- late payments and fees, increased interest rates, ruined credit scores ( 3 ) if a consumer is unaware of Bank of America 's " hold '' on their funds, they are at risk of having checks and payments returned as insufficient funds : my notification letter did not arrive until XXXX -- seven days after the " hold '' was initiated ( 4 ) resources needed to resolve missing funds is an additional cost to consumers -- the above experience cost me : six hours time at minimum wage= {$46.00}, mileage expenses to the bank -- XXXX miles roundtrip= {$20.00}. 
The issue of funds availability has been resolved for only XXXX incident. After being informed that future checks Bank of America receives from this XXXX account will be placed on " hold '' for days, we closed the XXXX account. 
Is it possible to assure Bank of America 's practice of keeping funds unavailable can be changed? Why ca n't funds be available in personal accounts as soon as drafts or checks are honored by the issuing bank?