LAWSUITS NEWS & LEGAL INFORMATION
People's United Bank Excessive Overdraft Fees
Santa Clara, CA: In 2017, an excessive overdraft fees class action lawsuit was filed against People's United Bank (Case 3:17-cv-00304, Terriann Walker v. People's United Bank, US District Court for the District of Connecticut), over allegations it systematically assesses overdraft fees on transactions when there is enough money in the checking account to cover the transactions presented for payment.
Bank accounts go into overdraft when more money has been taken out of the account than was actually in it. It can happen quite easily: a bank account has $100 in it, but the customer makes a debit card purchase for $110, pushing the account $10 into overdraft. Overdraft fees are charged when customers attempt to conduct a transaction from their bank account that they do not have the financial means to cover.
According to the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit, People's United Bank breached its own contract signed in good faith by the plaintiff, which stipulated that overdraft fees would be charged when her account did not have enough money to cover pending transactions. The complaint alleges that despite the plaintiff having a positive account balance of $22.11 when she made a purchase for $4.76, leaving her with a positive balance of $17.35, she was assessed an overdraft fee of $37.
Further, the complaint also states that in November 2016, People's United Bank changed their Account Agreement to reflect the overdraft fees calculated from holds on pending transactions.
Last updated on
Bank accounts go into overdraft when more money has been taken out of the account than was actually in it. It can happen quite easily: a bank account has $100 in it, but the customer makes a debit card purchase for $110, pushing the account $10 into overdraft. Overdraft fees are charged when customers attempt to conduct a transaction from their bank account that they do not have the financial means to cover.
According to the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit, People's United Bank breached its own contract signed in good faith by the plaintiff, which stipulated that overdraft fees would be charged when her account did not have enough money to cover pending transactions. The complaint alleges that despite the plaintiff having a positive account balance of $22.11 when she made a purchase for $4.76, leaving her with a positive balance of $17.35, she was assessed an overdraft fee of $37.
Further, the complaint also states that in November 2016, People's United Bank changed their Account Agreement to reflect the overdraft fees calculated from holds on pending transactions.
Legal Help
If you or a loved one has suffered similar damages or injuries, please fill in our form and your complaint will be sent to a lawyer who may evaluate your claim at no cost or obligation.Last updated on
PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK EXCESSIVE OVERDRAFT FEES LEGAL ARTICLES AND INTERVIEWS
Disgruntled Connecticut Account Holder Sues People’s United Bank over Fees
September 3, 2017
Bridgeport, CT: An overdraft fees class action lawsuit appears to be breaking new ground, and creating even bigger waves in the pool of complaints over excessive bank fees; namely, re-ordering transactions in such a way as to force an account into overdraft, thereby affording the offending bank the opportunity to pocket additional fees. READ MORE
READER COMMENTS
Susan Lanzaro-Schroeder
on
I read about this case ~ a very brave woman did assert her rights.
Similarly On 1/24/2020, as Durable Power of Attorney/Agent, I filed an Application for Injunctive Relief naming Defendant People's United Bank in that they failed in their duty to protect an elder from financial exploitation once notified by the Agent, as per CT Statutes.
This is an open case; and, see AAN-CV-20-5018-725-S. In their Affidavits, the Defendants have already twice perjured themselves. So they are jumping hoops to get their Motion to Dismiss granted.
Well it was a last resort, it is not like I did not twice contact the branch and corporate to alert them via my visit of June 2019 and my certified letter of Dec 2019.
Evidentially the bank is unaware of CT Statutes and that they are a mandated reporter among other requirements. Pathetically, their damage control defense....they quickly scrambled to lure the Victim to sign a POA revocation on a scrap of paper. Too little too late since the suit was filed one week prior. The Seniors are vulnerable and CT was proactive with legislation to remedy the problem, not that the banks care.
Best,
Susan