Consumer complaint received 2016-02-14 00:00:00
Product: Bank account or service — Checking account
Issue: Problems caused by my funds being low — 
Company: SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
At the end of business on XXXX/XXXX/2016, my commercial business account had an available balance of {$31.00}. The bank indicates that a transaction from LawDepot.com in the amount of {$33.00} placed the account in an overdraft status of $ ( XXXX ). Subsequently, all other transactions ( XXXX XXXX transactions of {$1.00} each, and a XXXX 's transaction of {$9.00} for a total of {$20.00} ) were paid, with associated overdraft fees of {$38.00} per transaction. The preceding produced an account overdraft status of $ ( XXXX ). However, based on bank, cash management, and merchants ' date and time stamps, the transactions should have proceeded as follows : On Saturday XXXX/XXXX/2016 XXXX presented XXXX transactions of {$1.00} each for a total of {$11.00}, and a XXXX 's charge of {$9.00}. The account should have reflected a hold amount of {$20.00} and an available balance of {$11.00} until the first day of business on XXXX/XXXX/2016. The {$33.00} transaction from LawDepot.com was not held against the account until XXXX/XXXX/2016, was not posted until XXXX/XXXX/2016, and should have produced an account balance of $ ( XXXX ). The associated overdraft fee of {$38.00} should have resulted in an account balance of $ XXXX XXXX ). As of XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/2016 all holds should have dropped and transactions posted in accordance with placed holds on funds. This process would have resulted in XXXX overdraft, as opposed to XXXX. However, each of the {$1.00} charges and the {$9.00} were transacted on XXXX/XXXX/2016 with an associated overdraft fee of {$38.00} each, resulting in an account balance of $ ( XXXX ). Service providers ( e.g. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, etc. ) offering immediate access to their products will electronically look at the provided accounts ' " available balance '' prior to releasing the product, placing hold on the funds as an assurance to payment. Service providers ( e.g. XXXX, XXXX XXXX, etc. ) offering a " test drive '' of their product line will give the prospective subscriber a " grace period '' before any charge is made to the provided account. In this particular case the " grace period ' was 7 days, to conclude on XXXX/XXXX/2016, thereby transacting against the account on XXXX/XXXX/2016, which for the bank is XXXX XXXX/XXXX/2016. Nonetheless, all other transactions should had been posted prior to the XXXX transaction. This has occurred on 2 previous occasions, with no satisfactory explanation, other than the refunding of all associated fees. Further, on XXXX/XXXX/2016 I made a visit to my branch of record, where the new manager refunded a total of {$120.00} in fees, with no satisfactory explanation, other than, " this is a courtesy! '' On XXXX/XXXX/2016, I made a visit to another branch, where I had the CSR give me a printout of the transaction history on my account. It is clearly evident from this printout that the " order of events '' is not in keeping with the produced results. I asked the CSR if he would put me in touch with the responsible department. I spoke with a very pleasant lady named XXXX, who was unable to provide me with a " reasonable explanation in line with the indicated date and time stamps ''. After I thanked her for her time and patience, I asked if she would transfer me to a supervisor for further assistance. I was transferred to an equally pleasant lady named XXXX, who proceeded to give me the same explanation. I asked XXXX to please notate on the account that the amounts were in dispute, and that I would be referring the matter to the CFPB. Your anticipated involvement in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation