Posts by Steven Rivera76

driftingtinker said:I’m fairly certain she spent more time relaxing than all you worried people did combined.

Who lost their mind and called someone stupid?

Update: Oh, I see where the issue lies now 😬

is 🙂 on a seven-day ban. I don't care about that personally, but from what I can see in this thread, she hasn't cooled off at all since I started following it—and I've been here a while. The fact that she can still post without facing any consequences is a joke. What kind of criteria are they even using here? It's nonsense.

Moving this over to the thread about Eric Adams.

Let's be clear: if a single female user spends weeks or even months explicitly insulting everyone on this board without facing any consequences, what does that actually say? Why are only Gingerin's posts being deleted while she continues to lash out at anyone who gets under her skin—calling people illiterate, stupid, ignorant, or whatever else comes to mind—without any sanctions? Why doesn't she get banned for calling someone an idiot? Are there different criteria at play here? Doesn't that count as "harassing other users"?

rowdypilot19 said:I mean, I’m just sitting here wondering... how does that even work? Like, how is it suddenly legal for a bank to just turn everyone away when they're trying to deal with a CHECKING ACCOUNT—and I am being very intentional about emphasizing that, by the way—just because they decided to pull some random rule out of thin air? It feels weird, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems like such a strange thing to happen all of a sudden.

I mean, I guess it’s fine if they handle things that way for savings accounts or whatever, but applying that to checking accounts? Man, I don't know. Like, look, checking accounts are... they're essential. They're a necessity. If you want to actually get paid—like, receive your actual paycheck from work—there really ought to be some kind of national consensus or maybe even federal legislation involved. There should be these set rules that everyone just follows, you know? Just so regular Americans can have access to basic checking accounts under totally normal, standard conditions. It just feels like it should be more settled than this.

So, look, it’s all well and good that everyone should have the freedom to pick whatever bank they want—really, it is—but I can't help but wonder... what if things go a step further? Like, what if everyone just collectively agrees that you need to provide your blood type just to open an account? It sounds crazy, I know, maybe I'm overthinking this, but would that just become the new normal? Just another thing on the list of requirements? I guess it's possible.

I don't know, I just feel like we’re swinging from one extreme to the other here. Like, sure, you have to follow the legal requirements and all that, obviously, but then there's also these internal bank policies for stuff that is... well, it's a basic necessity for any employee, right? I mean, if they don't follow those rules, people can't even get their paychecks, which is wild. It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels pretty illogical.

Exactly. Sure, we can switch banks if we aren't happy. But since using a bank is basically a legal necessity and we pay for the service, there should be some level of equality in the relationship. A bank shouldn't be allowed to implement internal rules that screw us over or bypass the law—like this whole nonsense regarding data collection in Zabiti.

Joe, for wiredlynx28, "proof" just means "because she said so and she knows best." We haven't seen anything more substantial than that on this thread. :/

James Rogers53 said:it’s basically just leverage—they slap you with a massive fine if you don't hand over the data, which gives them all the motivation they need to get it 😁 Once that's done, feel free to fly off to a different flock 🙂

James Rogers53, what kind of fine are we talking about if they don't know how many kids I have?

The law clearly outlines exactly what data a bank is required to collect and under what specific circumstances. What Zábank is doing right now is overstepping those bounds.

On another note, regarding "preferred clients," my impression is that banks actually prefer the very people being mocked here—I mean, who could be a better customer than someone drowning in debt, paying outrageous interest rates every single month? :/

neondriver5 said:Exactly. When you move from one institution to another, the new bank essentially inherits your debt by default; they don't even bother scrutinizing your creditworthiness or how tidy your finances are at first.

On top of that, every bank plays by its own set of rules. As I mentioned, some might offer an overdraft up to 300% of your net pay, while others cap it at 300% of whatever hits your checking account (usually those types already have several automated loan payments being deducted directly from their direct deposits). Some banks will factor every single debt visible on your credit report into your allowed overdraft limit... It’s entirely possible that this new bank will end up covering everything for our disgruntled friend here, and as a little bonus, they won't even ask for a single receipt, a credit score, or proof of marital status. After all, a client like this is too good to pass up.

No, it isn't automatic by default, but it's certainly possible.
As for the rest of your whining—what does any of that have to do with asking for tax returns or customer dissatisfaction? And what exactly makes him a "dream client"?

wiredlynx28 said:neondriver5
You hit the nail on the head. Plus, the loudest complainers are always the ones already underwater—think of them like those folks in Greece—claiming they’ll just jump ship to another bank. They conveniently forget they have to settle their current debts at 🤣
first.

Fortunately, clearing old debt is usually straightforward because the banks people move to often offer ways out (overdrafts, consolidation loans, etc.). Honestly, that 🤣 idea of yours is just
.

wiredlynx28 said:Willie, be a gentleman and tell me exactly what official evidence supports your claim. I'm not just speaking because I want to be right; I'm speaking from direct experience.👍

Unfortunately, the American mindset is built this way, and I completely agree with everything James Rogers53 is saying. People who cause a scene in a branch and then act shocked when security escorts them out and calls the cops are the exact type of people who blame external factors—like low wages or being broke—for their own behavior.
And those claiming banks are untouchable? Regardless of what rowdypilot19 is saying, you can bet foreign banks aren't exactly lining up to court clients coming in with tiny American paychecks and a few measly bucks in savings.🤣
At the end of the day, just as you can switch banks, you can choose a different state if you think things work better elsewhere. In the US, the market is free.

The same tired arguments from this user again. Why don't you try backing up your talk with some actual official proof? We haven't seen any of it yet.

Nathan Morris3 said:Steven Rivera76, don't let it get you down, I think it's really important for citizens to start standing up for their rights. Actually, I'll tell you what—I'd be happy to cover your initial consultation costs with a lawyer. I can send you the cash ahead of time via Western Union, which I assume would be around $50 (though maybe check first so you don't bankrupt me 🙂 ). At least that way you can get some basic info from a pro.

Look, if they freeze my accounts, any help would be welcome.😁

wiredlynx28 said:It might sound harsh, but let's be real: an individual standing up against a giant like Bank of America is an uphill battle.
Especially when dealing with matters like this.
Honestly, you're better off just paying for a vacation or something similar rather than sinking money into legal fees and wasting precious time on a fight where the person suing the bank usually ends up losing everything.

Actually, if you want some good news, the whole "individual versus the bank" dynamic has shifted drastically. 👍 I see things moving quite a bit in favor of that individual. 👍

I'm not even talking about a lawsuit yet—just starting with a report to the Federal Reserve.

Nathan Morris3 said:What are you complaining about exactly? I got an "answer" to a complaint once about them asking for info outside of a Legal Obligation, but I think I already posted about that.
What would you specifically complain or report about?

I suppose my writing is incredibly unclear. ☕

I want to file a report against JP Morgan Chase because of a circular letter stating the following:

If you do not update your legally required information shortly, we will be forced to limit your business relationship, which means you will be unable to conduct transactions through your accounts. The suspension of transaction execution includes, for example, cash withdrawals at ATMs and branches, transferring funds from accounts, and using the Bank's debit and credit cards.

Naturally, I sent a formal complaint to JP Morgan Chase as well, but they haven't responded.

Michael Morgan5 said:And why would that be an issue?
The woman is just giving you the lowdown on what the bank’s official policy is without making you wait in some endless line at Chase.

So what, we shouldn't even discuss banks anymore? Should we just report them immediately?

Nobody is answering my question: has anyone actually received a response from the bank regarding their complaint? I was planning on waiting for their reply before filing further reports. Does that make any sense?

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

wiredlynx28 said:What does Chase have to do with this? 🤣

Explain to me how, why, and based on what specific reasoning my previous point is incorrect. Argue your position. I know exactly where my facts are coming from, so I'm genuinely curious about the basis for your claim that I'm wrong.👍

Hostess, what am I even supposed to say to you? You’re asking for an argument, yet your only argument is that you "know" why you are right. 😵

We are discussing the fact that JP Morgan Chase is threatening to freeze access to account funds. Your position is this:

Regarding data updates, if a client repeatedly ignores requests, the bank simply closes the account for failure to meet operating requirements. If there are available funds, they instruct the client to withdraw them minus any fees; if there are outstanding loans or debts, they simply call the entire amount due at once. If the client fails to pay, forced collection begins.
What JP Morgan Chase is doing by disabling withdrawals is just a step prior to closing the account.

I asked if this had ever happened at your bank, which you can't answer (though I see you are perfectly capable of predicting what will happen at JP Morgan Chase 😉).

I looked up those banks you mentioned in a previous post (I don't follow the banking sector closely, so I had to Google it), and half of what you wrote isn't even true. (On a side note, I noticed JP Morgan Chase won some award for private banking late last year; doesn't that seem somewhat contrary to what you've been posting? 🍿)

By the way, has anyone actually received a response from the bank regarding their complaint?

Nathan Morris3 said:Hey guys, maybe we should just stick to being constructive. It looks like wiredlynx28 might be an insider or something, so she probably has better questions to ask anyway.

This is a critical question. I hope wiredlynx28 provides an answer.

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

wiredlynx28 said:They actually send out trained professionals, unlike some other banks.
A banker and their institution have to truly grasp what a client needs—something Citigroup emphasizes heavily—rather than just tossing a private banker at someone randomly.
At Citigroup, staff are assigned based on specific requirements. You’ve got personal bankers for those making up to $10k, relationship managers for anything over $10k, and then private bankers who handle high-net-worth assets like large deposits and stocks.
Each tier undergoes specialized training tailored to their specific demographic because, let’s face it, everyone doesn't have the same level of purchasing power or financial goals.
Take JPMorgan Chase, for example; they often assign a basic personal banker to everyone, and then you see the frustration unfold during the actual service process.

And do you count yourself among the "educated" ones?

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

feraljackal2 said:Is it really such a huge ordeal to lose a few minutes and just fill out that survey—even with all its silly questions? Is it truly easier to spend hours venting and taking it out on a forum, bragging about how much you can lash out at an innocent customer service rep who isn't even allowed to argue back? Then that employee goes home and vents to her husband—who then takes it out on his subordinate at work—and that colleague eventually snaps at a teller at Chase. We end up with this endless cycle of bitter, frustrated Americans making life in this country feel just a little more unbearable every day.

I don't personally believe the bank is going to close a client's account (though, let's face it, anything is possible), but there is a very real chance they'll just label us as idiots. Most idiots in this country won't even care—since they aren't planning on ever using major US banks or doing business with them anyway—because, for them, the real thrill is just being able to trash a service worker.

Just bark, act like an idiot, and complain. That's our specialty.

Wait, I missed that—who exactly was being a jerk to the clerk?

Sent from my iPhone using Reddit

neondriver5 said:They called her because they had to verify if she actually intended to buy that stuff. Transactions like that are often flagged because they look like cybercrime or unauthorized withdrawals.

Either that, or her $100 $0.00 messed up their balance so badly they'll have to sell off some real estate just to break even. 😁

Quentin Tarantino:

I’ve already told you this before. I'm just waiting for them to block my hundred bucks so I can tear them a new one.

People like you have been handed scripted answers long ago.
"Due to non-compliance with regulation X, we were forced to terminate your checking account agreement..."

There are so many idiots on this forum. Me? I’ll tell them exactly what’s on my mind and see how they like it.

If they have these scripted replies, why haven't they sent them yet? They're dragging their feet. And let me be clear—we aren't talking about a simple notice to close a checking account. We are talking about a bank threatening to seize assets.

Sent from my iPhone using Twitter

wiredlynx28 said:So much noise and drama over just a few extra questions?
If it’s such a big deal, why haven't you switched banks yet instead of just sitting there waiting?
Look, if this irritates you this much—if you truly believe they're violating your rights or breaking the law—then just close the account and move on, or file a lawsuit. Simple as that.

And like someone else already pointed out, let's look at the big picture regarding banks. They aren't going to lose sleep if a handful of people with average or below-average incomes walk away. Of course, if you were a VIP client with massive assets, you'd be having a completely different conversation. 👍

Does JPMorgan Chase even realize what kind of customer service approach you're promoting? I wouldn't say it's their official policy, but we could always ask them directly. ☕

wiredlynx28 said:You still haven't answered my previous question, so let's see who the real idiot is here. 👍

Which question?

electriccanyon2 said:This👍
People around here generally have this habit where they complain a ton but rarely actually do anything about it. I got hit with a massive questionnaire and basically "threats" when I went to Citigroup to update my ID info. So, I just shut my account down right there on the spot and switched to Violet. And wouldn't you know it? No interrogation, no threats about freezing my money, nothing when I opened the new account...

That isn't quite right. Like I said, I sent an inquiry to Kill regarding the letter itself and the process of closing the account. I am closing it and moving to a different bank. I haven't picked one yet, but it certainly won't be JP Morgan Chase—I have no desire to deal with idiots like manager1 again. :-)
But does that mean these threats about making my funds inaccessible should just go unremarked and unreported?

wiredlynx28 said:If they freeze your account, you lose all access to those funds while the block is active. Once they finally close everything out, they'll notify you about the next steps.
Keep in mind that closing an account means severing ties with the entire bank—not just the one account, but every single product you have with them. And like I mentioned before, if there are any outstanding debts, the bank will demand immediate full payment.

That’s incorrect and completely off-topic.

Laura Chavez93 said:So, what is the ultimate reality regarding my funds over at JPMorgan Chase—will they actually refuse me access entirely, or am I simply going to walk into a branch and collect the full amount...

Here is the actual wording:

Failure to update your legally required information shortly will result in us being forced to restrict your account access. This means you will be unable to conduct any transactions. Such restrictions include, for example, cash withdrawals via ATMs or at a local branch, transferring funds between accounts, and using the Bank’s debit or credit cards.

In plain English: you won't be able to touch your money at all. No withdrawals, no transfers, no payments. Nothing.

unspecified