Consumer complaint received 2018-01-09 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
My checking account has been open with Bank of America since XXXX. My monthly balance averages over {$400.00} or more at the end of each month, and I have never bounced a check. 

Retired 2.5 years ago on low fixed income with every month deposits of ; 2 pension direct deposits, Social Security direct deposit and 1 US Postal Money Order deposit from ex-spouse ( ex-spouse  deposit has been monthly US Postal Money Order for the past 20 years ). Almost always my US Postal Money Order was deposited through a BofA  ATM and has always been processed with {$300.00} made available ( depending on day of deposit ), that business day or the first business day following and the balance available on the second business day. 

On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, deposited US Postal Money Order through BofA ATM and a hold was placed for 12 days ( 9 business days ). Reason stated ... because specific information indicates item may be returned. Called Customer Service and was told this happened due to some spot checking ( my term ), which is done to 1 % of the deposits and would not happen again. They could not release the hold. This caused great financial hardship for which I had to borrow money to cover my expenses over the following 12 days. 

On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, I went into the bank to deposit the US Postal Money Order over the counter and spoke  with them at the bank. I was assured I could use the ATM and not have a hold placed on my deposit. And that deposit was made fully available on the spot over the counter. 

On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, again deposited the US Postal Money Order at the ATM with {$300.00} immediately available and the balance available the next business day. 

On XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, again deposited US Postal Money Order at the ATM and a hold was placed for 11 days ( 9 business days ), again for the same vague  reason as stated previously on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. Called Customer Service immediately and was told to call back the next morning and they could release the hold. Called the next morning and was told they could not release the hold and now their explanation was it was bank policy. When I asked when that policy was established I was informed it has always been the policy, which I vehemently disputed. 

You will also note, from the online bank statements included with this complaint, BofA alters the statements to cover up their actions. You see all their notations removed from the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX incident and even on the more recent XXXX/XXXX/XXXX incident you see the alterations made from the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX printout and the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX printout, and they do not accurately reflect when they actually release the funds deposited. This altering of the records is unacceptable and reflects negatively when BofA removes incriminating evidence on their own improper actions. 

Looked into what would be involved in withdrawing funds from my IRA to cover short term expenses, only to discover I am an investor in BAC ( BofA ). I  am not only angry as an account holder, but also as an investor. 

Called a retired friend, former VP with BofA, who led me to the Federal Reserve Board and the CC Regulations. 

Went to the bank and met with Branch Manager who has escalated my complaint ( copy of BofA complaint receipt attached ), knowing full well I would file a complaint with CFPB, and she had no ability to release the hold. Again I am forced into a financial hardship situation, and have to choose between paying my bills or get my prescription refilled. 

Included with this complaint is a copy of the BofA policy, which they do not appear to be in compliance with either. Their policy is written very poorly, is vague and would suggest also, that I should have NOT had a hold placed on the deposit of a US Postal Money Order, which they did, not just once, but twice in a short 4 months.

CC Regulations Section 229 et seq seems to be quite clear with regard to the Funds Availability Regulations on US Postal Money Orders,. General Rules 229.10 ( a ) -229.10 Cash, electronic  payments, and certain check deposits, must generally be made available for withdrawal the business day after the banking day on which they were received. Among the covered check deposits are cashiers, certified, and tellers checks, government checks ( including U.S. Treasury checks, US Postal Service money orders, state and local government checks, and checks drawn on a Federal Reserve Bank or a Federal Home Loan Bank ) ; and certain on-us checks ( checks drawn on the same bank, or a branch thereof ). 

Generally, to qualify for next day availability, the deposit must be both, 1 ) made at a staffed teller station and 2 ) deposited into an account held by the payee of the check.

Exceptions are the US Treasury checks and on-us checks which must receive next day availability even if the deposit is not made at a staffed teller station. Cash and other next day deposits ( such as Postal Service money orders, cashiers checks, certified checks, checks drawn on a state or local government, and checks drawn on a Reserve Bank or a Federal Home Loan Bank ) that are not made at a staffed teller station must be available for withdrawal on the second business day after the day of deposit. 

The above regulations resemble in no way the actions taken by BofA. Their actions are nothing less than callous disregard for their customers, cause financial hardship, and can even jeopardize the health, safety and well being of individuals, especially those who face serious medical conditions. One would be hard pressed to believe that what has happened to me is some kind of glitch and/or isolated incidents. BofA is abusive and using a vague excuse, which they can not articulate to the customer, nor justify their actions, and withholding funds from some of the most vulnerable customers for their own financial benefit. Their actions appear to be discriminatory in nature. After all, the whole purpose of using a US Postal Money Order is to specifically avoid a hold on funds that would be applicable and reasonable with some personal check from an unknown maker at another banking facility and which might actually be returned NSF, which is highly unlikely to occur with a US Postal Money Order.

Better yet, according to the US Postal Service, they are unaware of any issues with their money orders that necessitate concern or the need for a hold. Further more, if there really were a concern, there is a free number ( XXXX ) XXXX to call the US Postal Service where the money order can be verified in a matter of minutes. This calls into question, why is the bank taking such a discriminatory attitude toward US Postal Money Orders. Perhaps I will forward my complaint to the Postal Inspector General for their review of this disparaging action toward their services. 

I am inclined to believe a class action against BofA may be in order, and compensation to the harmed parties. At a minimum, significant fines should be imposed on BofA for their deliberate and oppressive violations. 
I have included with this complaint my deposit slips going back to XXXX, XXXX. I can provide more deposit slips, if necessary, going back many years. 

Added note - the new ATMs of BofA, with screens so high, many people have to exit their cars, lean out their open doors, or pull so close and risk hitting the poles, just to reach the screen. Those may be more accessible to Trucks and SUVs but not cars. At least there should be one lane for larger vehicles and one for cars with differing height levels. These new ATMs are putting customers at greater risk of crime and/or injury when they must exit or lean out open doors. I have seen this every time I use an ATM so the frequency has greatly increased with the new machines. Just more disregard for customers on the part of BofA. As seniors age they become more dependent upon the use of ATMs and their vulnerabilities increase.

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