Consumer complaint received 09/16/2017 about Checking or savings account (Checking account) with BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (TX).
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Fee problem

Complaint: Seemingly out of the blue, Bank of America began charging my checking account monthly maintenance fees. It began as {$25.00} fees in XXXX and XXXX XXXX, which they reversed when I called to inquire about them. Beginning in XXXX XXXX and continuing to date, Bank of America assessed a $ XXXX  monthly maintenance fee. 

When I called today to inquire about the fees, representatives told me that the fees were assessed because they had changed my account type and that my original account type no longer existed. Importantly, when I opened the checking account in the year XXXX, the terms of service were that a monthly fees were waived in the case of a direct deposit of some nominal amount. For some reason, they have changed my account type several times and with the account type change the terms change. The Bank of America representative explained that, due to my " new '' account type, the fees were accurate and due to a average daily balance below the minimum threshold of {$1500.00}. What is particularly confusing and concerning is that the terms on the " new '' checking account type are such that the fee is waived with a minimum average daily balance in the savings account of {$2000.00} or a combined average daily balance of {$5000.00} across accounts. I met these conditions. 

When I reminded them that my savings account has had an average daily balance over {$5000.00} for longer than the fees have been assessed. They told me that the fees were assessed properly because because my accounts were n't " linked. '' When asked to define a " link '' between accounts, the representative indicated it is essentially a designation or flag on the account indicating to the bank that the accounts are owned by the same person and " linked. '' Because according to their records I opened the checking account in year XXXX and the savings account at a different time ( in XXXX ), the bank did not automatically link the accounts ( but would have had the accounts been opened at the same time ). It is unclear to me why two accounts that I own would not automatically be linked except for the purpose of being able to assess fees. I had assumed that because I own both accounts that they would naturally be linked. I have funds automatically transferred between them on a monthly basis and both appear when I login to Bank of America online, so I would assume that the accounts are linked. Certainly, had I been clearly told that the accounts needed this nominal " link '' to help avoid fees, I would have linked the accounts. However, I was not told in a clear manner and the bank 's decision to place burden on the consumer to officially " link '' accounts certainly seems to their advantage and not customer-centered if not predatory. I am concerned that other consumers who may not have the confidence, gumption, time, or resources to argue with the bank about such a nominal issue are being assessed fees needlessly. It took an hour of haggling with a representative and then his supervisor to finally get the bank to credit back the fees and link the accounts. I 'm glad they did the right thing. But I hope something might be done to ensure that other consumers are n't losing money to fees due to unclear and counter-intuitive guidelines. Solutions could include : Clearer and more attention-grabbing communications about behind-the-scenes changes to account types, clearer and more attention-grabbing communications about the bank 's definitions of such things as " linked accounts '' and instructions on how to put such provisions in place or the automatic linking of accounts owned by the same individual would be a basic start. Even better would be regulations to prevent such practices. I appreciate your time and attention to this.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation