Monday morning XXXX/XXXX/2015 we had a disturbing experience while visiting the SunTrust XXXX VA branch. For over a year and a half, we have had a home mortgage with SunTrust. Several times we have received communications from the bank suggesting that we consider making biweekly payments instead of XXXX a month as we had been doing. This seemed like an interesting idea, and we tried to sign up, which necessitated several unhelpful trips to the branch. It finally started to happen with XXXX payments being taken out of our XXXX XXXX account on the XXXX and XXXX of XXXX, against a due date of XXXX XXXX. We were pleased to see this occur -- until we received a letter and XXXX phone calls telling us that we were overdue with our XXXX payment. 

Since we are on time with payments, and clearly STI had the money in hand for our XXXX payment, we did not understand why we were overdue. The gentleman at the branch was n't sure either, so he called the mortgage department. A lady on the call explained to us that the {$2400.00} STI had in its possession by XXXX XXXX XXXX and which could have been taken by XXXX XXXX ) remained unallocated against our loan and did not represent a XXXX payment, but was instead considered an advanced payment for XXXX, which was n't due until XXXX XXXX! Therefore, we still owed STI {$2400.00} for our XXXX payment. 

The net effect of this " unallocated '' collection is that STI perpetually has the free use of {$2400.00} of our money, since STI will always have our {$2400.00} a month ahead of the due date. To the extent that this is true, and that others have enrolled in the XXXX payment system, which STI bills as a better deal for the borrower, the real beneficiary would seem to be SunTrust itself, with an ever increasing unallocated float as more people sign up. 
We are enclosing a copy of an STI printout that clearly shows the unallocated funds in our account. Also enclosed is a copy of the letter we received dated XXXX XXXX, but mailed in an envelope dated XXXX XXXX, confirming that we were enrolled in the XXXX program. There is nothing in this letter that remotely suggests that the biweekly funds being withdrawn in XXXX did not constitute payment of that month 's installment. 
