Mountain Laurel F.C.U.

May 30, This is in response to the claim against Mountain Laurel Federal Credit UnionWe have again reviewed the account and the account was negative $The time of the transactions and the posting to the account may be different, which is the case on this accountThere were recurring debit card transactions on hold when other items were posted to the account which gave the account the negative status at the time of the postingsWhen adding the transactions up the amount comes to $and the balance at that time was $An individual here at the Credit Union has no way to determine which transactions post and whenThe debit card system is set up in real time, which means as soon as the transaction is authorized it takes it from the balanceThis does not mean that it posts to the account at that timeWe have programs in place to monitor the compliance and structure of our Courtesy Pay Pro gram Sincerely, MOUNTAIN LAUREL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION S MICHAEL ST

May 30, 2014
This is in response to the claim against Mountain Laurel Federal Credit Union. We have again reviewed the account
and the account was negative $1.47. The time of the transactions and the posting to the account may be different,
which is the case on this account. There were recurring debit card transactions on hold when other items were posted
to the account which gave the account the negative status at the time of the postings. When adding the transactions
up the amount comes to $138.95 and the balance at that time was $137.48. An individual here at the Credit Union
has no way to determine which transactions post and when. The debit card system is set up in real time, which
means as soon as the transaction is authorized it takes it from the balance. This does not mean that it posts to the
account at that time. We have programs in place to monitor the compliance and structure of our Courtesy Pay Pro
gram.
Sincerely,
MOUNTAIN LAUREL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
413 S MICHAEL ST

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I have read the banks response and again they neglect to acknowledge and take responsibility for the programming of their own computers software in regards to how it relates to basic accounting practices and conduct no matter how they want to sugar coat the issue they price gouged me by utilizing a system that takes the most expensive transaction first then charging a 25.00 fee for each lessor transaction that came through. Their statement says that the transactions are done in real time their words not mine, if that is in fact how it is done and all of the charges come through on the same date then they have utilized a software program that takes the largest amount first then each smaller one thus being able to price gouge for 25.00 per each lessor transaction, its common sense it's either a software program that has been set up by a human being (unless [redacted] has taken over their computers) OR it is a human being that works for the bank and oversees those transactions separately. It's common sense and if they choose to try and blow smoke in my direction then it's not working it may work for their other clients but it does not go over with me they owe me $100.00 and I want it back. If they choose not to resolve the issue I will have no other choice but to contact the Federal Trade Commission. It's pretty sad that a business has so little faith in itself when it comes to making a profit that they have to price gouge people in order to fill their wallets. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: Mountain Laurel F.C.U. charged my checking account with 100.00 in overdraft fees. I had enough money in my account to cover all transactions except for 1.47 they took the highest amount debited from my checking account first, even though all transactions were done on the same day. Then they charged my account for each smaller amount that would come in a total of 4 times totaling 100.00 in fees. One was for .50 if they would have paid the smaller ones first then the largest one last then there would have only been 1.47 that was over drafted which would have meant that I would have owed them 26.47 When I brought this to their attention they were snide the only explanation that was offered was that it wasn't their doing it was the way their computer works, then I was told that it was my responsibility to keep track of what I spend and yes it is my responsibility to keep track of what I spend but it is also the responsibility of the bank not to take advantage of their customers by overcharging in this manner, I miscalculated 1.47 not 126.47 they made no offer to make it right with me. And I dont know where 74.53 went missing? I would like an explanation of where that money is.Desired Settlement: I want a refund of 174.53 unless they can prove to me why I owed the 74.53 then I am only asking for the repeated overdraft charges of 100.00

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

(This is their response to the complaint)

Complaint date: 5/10/2014 10:12:20 PM ID # [redacted]

In response to the claim against the Mountain Laurel FCU, the member’s issue stemmed from 5 charges

by use of a debit card. Beginning on Friday, 4/25/14, the member had a balance of $194.54. The

member authorized a charge of $57.06 bringing the balance down to $137.48. The member then

authorized a transaction in the amount of $49.47 to their account (4/25/14 @ 13:12:36). This merchant

did not process their “plastic” transactions immediately, therefore, the $49.47 remained in a “hold”

status, unavailable to the member until the transaction settles or it becomes “stale-dated” and releases

back to the member’s account (usually on the 3~ business day - under the payment system rules).

Therefore, the member’s actual balance when this transaction is placed on “hold” now becomes $88.01.

The member also authorized another transaction of $7.84 (4/25/14 @ 13:43:07), which resulted in a

“hold” as the merchant did not process the transaction immediately, bringing the balance down to

$80.17. Over the course of the weekend, the member then authorized a transaction of $50.89 (4/26/14

@ 13:39:00) which was processed by that merchant that day and brings the balance down to $29.28.

The member then authorized a transaction of $12.25 (4/26/14 @ 10:06:54). This merchant did not

process immediately either, resulting in the funds being placed in the “hold” status which brought the

balance down to $17.03. The member then authorized another transaction in the amount of $8.01

(4/26/14 @ 12:30:00) which brought the balance down to $9.02.

Therefore, when we opened on Monday 4/28/14, the system began to process the transactions in the

order in which they were received. Beginning balance on 4/28/14 was $137.48. The process of

transactions is listed below. This method shows balance minus the transaction amount, minus the

“hold” amounts equals the balance.

$137.48 —50.89—49.47—7.84 = $29.28

$86.59 —8.01 —49.47 —7.84— 12.25 = $9.02

$78.58 —7.84—49.47—12.25—0.50—9.99 = ($1.47)

$70.74— 25.00 (courtesy pay charge) = $45.74

$45.74 —12.25—49.47—0.50—9.99 = ($26.47)

$33.49 —25.00 (courtesy pay charge) = $8.49

$8.49 —49.47—0.50—9.99 = ($51.47)

($40.98) —25.00 (courtesy pay charge) = ($65.98)

($65.98) —0.50— 9.99 = ($76.47)

($66.48) —25.00 (courtesy pay charge) = ($91.48)

($91.48) —9.99 = ($101.47)

Our system processed the transactions in the order in which they were received as it should. The 5

transactions were placed on hold by the merchants, and processed/(released) by the merchants at the

times listed below:

$7.84 on hold (4/25/14 @ 13:43:07) released (4/27/14 @ 20:40:52)

________________________________________________________________________________...⇄ />
This is my response back to the bank and to the Revdex.com as of 5/21/2014

According to the bank statement that I received this is how it reads:

4/25/14 Payroll 331.44 Balance 331.78

4/25/14 ATM W/D 100.00 231.78

4/25/14 ATM W/D 37.24 194.54

4/25/14 ATM W/D 57.06 137.48

4/28/14 ATM W/D 50.89 86.59

4/28/14 ATM W/D 8.01 78.58

4/28/14 ATM W/D 7.84 70.74

4/28/14 Courtesy Pay Fee 25.00 45.74

4/28/14 Subway 12.25 33.49

4/28/14 Courtesy Pay Fee 25.00 8.49

4/28/14 Straight Talk 49.47 -40.98

4/28/14 Courtesy Pay Fee 25.00 -65.98

4/28/14 MSFT .50 -66.48

4/28/14 Courtesy Pay Fee 25.00 -91.48

4/28/14 MSFT 9.99 -101.47

4/28/14 Courtesy Pay Fee 25.00 -126.47

If the bank would have done their accounting correctly and paid the smaller ones first then the only amount I would have been over drawn on would have been the 49.47 and I would have only been overdrawn by 1.47 the way they have their computer programs set up is ridiculous and it gouges the customers bank account and pays their "Courtesy fee" first, thus depleting the cash for true purchases. This business practice is unethical and it steals money out of the consumers account to feed the money making scheme they have going on. This isn't the only bank that has done this as cited below.

This is the web address for the following list of information I have pasted here, it is not a complete copy of the web page itself this is just to show that there is a pattern of (in my opinion) unethical and unfair business practices. Mountain Laurel F C U of St Marys Pa 15857 is not associated with this website nor have they been listed as being sued. This information is just being utilized as a reference to a pattern of some of the business practices among banks in general, I feel that what I have listed here in these examples is similar to what has happened to me. [redacted]

http://www.bank-overdraft.com/faq.htm#6

Excessive Bank Overdraft Fee Lawsuits

Lawsuits have been filed against the following banks in the bank overdraft litigation:

Associated Banc-Corp.

BancorpSouth Bank

Bank of America

Bank of Oklahoma, N.A.

Bank of the West

Capital One Financial Group, Inc.

Citibank

Citizens Financial Group, Inc.

Columbus Bank & Trust

Comerica Inc.

Commerce Bank, N.A.

Compass Bank

Great Western Bank

Harris Bank, N.A.

Iberiabank

JPMorgan Chase

Keybank

M&I Bank

M&T Bank

PNC Bank

RBC Bank

Susquehanna Bank

Synovus Bank

TD Bank

Union Bank

United Bank, Inc.

U.S. Bank

Wachovia

Wells Fargo Bank

Mountain Laurel F.C.U. charged my checking account with 100.00 in overdraft fees. I had enough money in my account to cover all transactions except for 1.47 they took the highest amount debited from my checking account first, even though all transactions were done on the same day. Then they charged my account for each smaller amount that would come in a total of 4 times totaling 100.00 in fees. One was for .50 if they would have paid the smaller ones first then the largest one last then there would have only been 1.47 that was over drafted which would have meant that I would have owed them 26.47 When I brought this to their attention they were snide the only explanation that was offered was that it wasn't their doing it was the way their computer works, then I was told that it was my responsibility to keep track of what I spend and yes it is my responsibility to keep track of what I spend but it is also the responsibility of the bank not to take advantage of their customers by overcharging in this manner, I miscalculated 1.47 not 126.47 they made no offer to make it right with me. And I dont know where 74.53 went missing? I would like an explanation of where that money is.