Consumer complaint received 2018-07-12 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Bank of America provided no notice that taxpayer refund checks would endure a 7 day hold to me, or my husband, in no uncertain terms. If we had been alerted to this policy change, we would have walked into the bank and cashed our taxpayer refund check. Since when are checks issued by the U.S. Department of Treasury -the department that guaranteed Bank of America 's losses up to {$110.00} XXXX and loaned {$20.00} XXXX dollars outright to this company with TAXPAYER money, no longer any good. I'm sure there was no hold when they took the money to ensure their greed on our backs. 

The Bank of America location in XXXX, Texas ; Bank of America customer service representatives and supervisors, but especially the corporation 's policies need to be investigated. 

Situation : We deposited a {$34000.00} IRS TAXPAYER refund check into our bank account. It wasn't until the deposit had been completed that we learned that we would not be able to access roughly {$30000.00} of our money until 7 days later -as they make interest for their shareholders, while we suffer. 

Inside the branch a conversation ensued with an -unprofessional in appearance, Bank Manager who misrepresented the way in which he could assist us and also spewed the policy that we believe unnecessarily and adversely affects consumers. We tried to arrange to have our check returned to us so that we could take it to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX -as soon as it could be retrieved from the ATM. The manager claimed it was impossible. Not true. We encountered a situation in the past in which a deposited check at B.O.A was not properly endorsed, by my husband and myself, and the bank presented us with the check not too long afterwards for proper endorsement. So, it -the endeavor, can be achieved. Either he was misinformed or it wasn't to their advantage and he outright lied. He also rudely misrepresented the average daily balance on our account as a reason the check wouldn't be cleared. Over {$250000.00} had come through the account up to one year from the date of his loud, embarrassing misrepresentation. 

The first phone representative from Bank of America, XXXX, parroted the policy with a total lack of empathy for our, the consumer 's, situation. In addition to presenting not one option, she also put us in the " penalty box, '' which means placing a customer on mute -rather than hold, for an extended period of time. XXXX misrepresented Regulation C that dictates clearing policies on checks for all financial institutions. Stating that the hold is regulatory meaning the government implemented a policy dictating holds on its own checks. The supervisor, XXXX, also tried misrepresenting Regulation C in the exact same manner. I would argue that the legal department should be investigated by the US Department of Justice because that many people in an organization misrepresenting information in the same fashion is collusive in nature. They also stated that they couldn't be for sure whether the bank would have cashed a check from the IRS inside the branch, even after validation because of Average Daily Balances, etc. etc. There is no excuse for a bank to validate a check, yet refuse to cash it if the funds could be verified. They claimed that the IRS could call back a check and this adds to this policy. The banks are supposed to apply their policies, uniformly, without prejudice and this means that all customers are suffering due to this greed or they're not treating fairly. 

The bottom line is that the greed that has dictated this company 's policy for years, now makes me wonder about the strength of the US economy if Bank of America refuses to cash/deposit their checks in  a machine that validates bills with numerous security features regularly, but no checks.

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