E-payments initiated through BB & T have the funds held out of the account at around XXXX the day the payment is initiated, these funds are held unavailable until the day the payment processes, usually XXXX business days. On XXXX occasions, this has caused some other checks to overdraft. That is to be expected. On these occasions, however, when the e-payment finally posted, it also was charged an overdraft even though the funds to cover the payment had been held out of the account for several days. I understand incurring XXXX charge, but there is no reasonable explanation for charging an overdraft because funds were held to cover a specific payment and then again for the payment that had funds held for it. You can do XXXX, but not XXXX. 

Additionally, BB & T claims a check deposited on XXXX was not available to cover payments made. BB & T posted the check on XXXX, the account the check was written from cleared the check on XXXX, it shows on the ledger balance as there and the account with a positive balance. They still claim it was overdrawn but can not explain exactly which order the checks cleared or the times they hit the account. 

Finally, on Tuesday, several checks overdrew the account ( due to e-payments holds ), XXXX employees cashed multiple checks into their accounts and while one would think those checks would post together, they were posted by BB & T not in the groups they were cashed in but rather in order to maximize the number of overdrafts that could be charged. 
