🚀 go-pugleaf

Fingerprinting non-account holders who present checks for encashment has
become STANDARD PRACTICE at virtually every bank I know here in Miami (in
addition, of course, to a 2-ID policy, and presumably a security videotape
being made of all persons in the bank lobby).

But the banks down here don't stop there at treating non-customers like
pariahs and criminals: 

1) Barnett Bank in Miami Beach (just purchased by the odious monopolist
Hugh McColl of NationsBank) hs installed large signs at its drive-through
saying non-account holders must present checks for cashing in the bank
lobby and not to a drive-through teller. For YEARS, the bank had no
problem accomodating non-account holders who presented their account
holders' check for payment. This is FLORIDA and most folks drive to the
bank.

2) SunTrust Bank here in Miami Beach (SunTrust is reputed to be a takeover
target of Wachovia) has BARRED NON-CUSTOMERS FROM ITS INDOOR LOBBY BANKING
FLOOR ENTIRELY! Big signs and and a newly-installed security desk direct
non-account holders to an outside walk-up window, where on Fridays long
lines of (mostly well dressed) non-customers wait on the sidewalk to have
their SunTrust checks honored. With fingerprinting, of course.

Now, hearing reports that some banks are now charging non-customers to
honor checks, I wonder if a group of affected consumers could mount some
kind of legal action against the offending banks. Presumably, a bank has
an obligation [CITATION, EXCERPTS PLEASE!] under the Uniform Commerical
Code to honor valid checks and drafts presented to it. What legal theories
are being used to justify the imposition of fees on the payee?

Morally, I would also think that a bank is paying a check as a service to
the drawer. Now, it seems to me that a bank, as an agent of a payee, is
morally obliged to fulfill its customer's payment order (i.e., a check) in
a professional manner that is not degrading or insulting to the payee --
considering that the payee is also in a commerical relationship of one
sort or another with the principal (the drawer).

If course, it would follow that a bank has a vested interest of its own
(aside from fraud prevention) in detering payees from presenting their
checks for immediate encashment. A depository institution profits on the
float when a check is deposited to a payee's own account in another bank
(or a check cashing firm's account). Thus, a bank has a very good reason
to do all it can to deter payees from seeking immediate, in-person
payment. Fingerprinting and other sundry inconveniences probably go far in
accomplishing this goal, I would think. 

Now, where are all the consumers federations, Ralph Naders and Public
Citizens organizations on an issue like this? I personally think banks
that refuse to pleasantly and in a dignified manner honor their
depositors' checks are really doing harm to the depositors by devaluating
in the minds of third parties the value of their checks. In other words,
service people, maids, babysitters -- perhaps even retailers -- may become
less likely to accept checks, fearing a time-consuming and undignified
wait at the bank.

But given the quasi-public nature of a bank (it receives a government
charter and is allowed to participate in the Federal Reserve System), I
would also think it is more exposed to regulatory and political action
than most businesses. Thus, were public interest organizations and
concerned citizens to make more noise to regulators, banks would have no
choice but to back down, fearing greater regulation. In theory, anyway.

So when you folks encounter these indignities, by all means issue a
sheaf-full of complaints (by snail mail, certified mail if you can afford
it) to state and federal banking regulators, consumer affairs agencies and
your state and federal legislators -- making sure to cc the bank's
president and the branch manager.

And if you are really peeved, try to put your regulatory complaints in the
form of an official filing under the state or federal Administrative
Procedures Acts. This means your complaint will be dealt with at a level
considerably higher than a customer relations drone. Don't get too
technical about issues like "standing." Just allege what you need to and
let the chips fall where they may. Even if summarily rejected by a hearing
officer, the complaint will definitely be noticed.

A fundamental right (they never tell you how in civics classes!) is the
ability to petition the government.

 Dealing with regulatory complaints and inquires costs lots of money [bank
lawyers and well paid regulatory compliance staff] for financial
institutions. So at least you can have the satisfaction of getting back,
even if your efforts do not lead to regulatory or legislative
intervention.

 Any thoughts?