Connect with us

Finance

Closed Your Chime Account? You May Be Owed $150

Published

on

Closed Your Chime Account? You May Be Owed 0

If you closed a Chime checking or savings account since Jan. 1, 2018, and didn’t get your account balance within 14 days, the fintech company may owe you money — up to $150.

Chime customers who closed accounts waited three months or longer to get their refund, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bureau issued an order that San Francisco-based Chime pay $3.25 million to the CFPB victim’s relief fund as a penalty and at least $1.3 million to affected customers — totaling over $4.5 million.

“Chime’s customers had to wait weeks or months for access to their own money and were forced to use alternative funds to cover their essential expenses,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a press release.

Here’s what the violation means for you and what one of our CNET Money experts wants you to know.

What did Chime do wrong?

According to the CFPB, Chime was supposed to automatically refund money from closed checking and savings accounts by check if the remaining balance was more than $1. However, in thousands of instances, Chime failed to refund customers within 14 days and sometimes as long as 90 days.

Advertisement

A Chime spokesperson said that “the majority of the delayed refunds were caused by a configuration error with a third-party vendor during 2020 and 2021.”

Those delays could’ve created a critical financial hardship if someone needed the money in the account to pay for basic living expenses like groceries and housing, the CFPB noted. For some folks, the only alternative might’ve been to rely on payday loans or to carry a credit card balance, both of which can involve exorbitantly high interest rates. 

How much does Chime owe you?

If you had a balance less than or equal to $10 and you didn’t receive your refund within 14 days of closing the account, Chime will refund you $25. If you had a balance of more than $10, your refund will be calculated at a 30% annual rate for the time between your refund’s due date and the day you actually received your refund, or $150.

Chime has 10 days to set up a $1.3 million fund for issuing the refunds. You should expect to receive a letter in the mail from Chime if you qualify.

If you’ve moved since closing your Chime checking or savings account and believe you qualify for a payout, it’s best to update your mailing address by contacting Chime’s customer service at 844-244-6363. Within the next seven days, the company is required to publish a telephone number, email and postal addresses specifically to field questions regarding the refund.

Advertisement

It’s worth noting that Chime isn’t a bank; instead, it partners with other banks to offer its products and services. However, its accounts are held by one of two partner banks covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. 

How to protect yourself from future banking woes

“To mediate risk like the one that has occurred with Chime, I would definitely advise people to consider having emergency savings at a separate bank from where they do their day-to-day banking,” said Bola Sokunbi, a Certified Financial Education Instructor and member of CNET Money’s Expert Review Board.

You may also consider having some money on a preloaded or prepaid card to have access to funds in case of a banking mishap or emergency, she added.

If you haven’t already started saving for the unforeseen, try to start now. Sokunbi recommends creating a line item in your budget to put money toward savings each time you get paid. “Ideally, you want to aim to save at least three to six months of your core or essential living expenses,” she said. That should include housing, transportation, core utilities and medication for you and your household.

Even saving a small amount can help bridge the gap if there’s a temporary issue with your current bank. To be on the safe side, consider keeping this money at a separate high-yield savings account that lets you earn interest and offers easy access to your money.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Finance

UK cities where families ‘losing significant cash in the bin due to food waste’

Published

on

UK cities where families ‘losing significant cash in the bin due to food waste’

Families in Glasgow, Liverpool and Nottingham are particularly likely to be wasting high amounts of money on food that goes uneaten, a survey indicates.

The survey of more than 2,000 UK parents of children aged four to 12 found that 60% said their children refuse to eat a meal they are served at least once a week.

The average amount that parents estimated their family wasted annually on uneaten food was £283 – with families in Glasgow estimating they waste £369 on average, according to the research for Bernard Matthews.

Liverpool was another food waste hotspot in the survey, with an estimated £316 wasted annually typically by families, while in Nottingham, the average annual food waste bill was found to be £315.

In London and Belfast, families were also found to be wasting more than £300 per year on average on uneaten food, according to the research, carried out by Censuswide in May.

Advertisement

At the other end of the spectrum, families in Bristol estimated they were wasting £198 per year typically.

Half (50%) of parents surveyed felt that encouraging their child to play with food would help to reduce the pressure.

Laurence Hinton, head of marketing at Bernard Matthews, said: “Parents agree that playing with your food can take some of the pressure out of mealtimes, encouraging children to engage positively with food and ultimately making family meals more enjoyable and less wasteful.”

Here are the average amounts parents estimate they waste on food annually across various UK cities, according to the survey:

Glasgow, £369

Advertisement

Liverpool, £316

Nottingham, £315

London, £312

Belfast, £306

Leeds, £299

Advertisement

Edinburgh, £291

Newcastle, £286

Cardiff, £285

Birmingham, £277`

Manchester, £252

Advertisement

Sheffield, £251

Plymouth, £250

Brighton, £243

Southampton, £240

Norwich, £235

Advertisement

Bristol, £198

Continue Reading

Finance

Personal Finance: New housing affordability law has promising provisions | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Published

on

Personal Finance: New housing affordability law has promising provisions | Chattanooga Times Free Press

On June 23, members of Congress did something commendable and all too rare: They came together to pass legislation in a broadly bipartisan move to address the housing affordability crisis in the U.S. The new law, designated the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, includes an expansive compilation of 56 separate provisions aimed at increasing the supply of housing, improving access to financing and limiting ownership by large financial institutions.

The act is more evolutionary than revolutionary, since many of the barriers are down to state and local zoning and building codes that are beyond the reach of the federal government. Still, the measure creates a framework for streamlining local permitting, removes several obstacles to expansion of manufactured homes and includes many incremental incentives that should materially improve the supply of residential housing units over time.

Housing affordability has emerged as a public policy priority in recent years, as costs have accelerated faster than incomes since the COVID pandemic. The median price of a single-family home today is $440,000, up 50% over the past six years according to the National Association of Realtors. Zillow reports that the cost to rent a single-family home has risen by 45% over the same period, while apartment rents are up 28%. Meanwhile, median nominal household income has risen by just 25% since 2020.

The housing bill cleared the House of Representatives on a vote of 358 to 32 and passed in the U.S. Senate by a margin of 85 to 5, a commendable accomplishment. However, on June 24, the president abruptly cancelled a scheduled signing ceremony in reaction to the Senate’s unwillingness to pass new voter restrictions, calling the housing act a “big yawn.” Legislators from both parties were blindsided, having anticipated a high-profile bipartisan victory to tout in advance of the approaching midterm elections.

The president’s action did provide Americans with an interesting constitutional lesson. When Congress passes a bill, the president may either sign it into law or veto the bill, challenging Congress to muster a 2/3 majority to override the veto. However, the president can also simply refuse to sign, in which case the bill becomes law after 10 calendar days, excluding Sundays, if Congress is in session. The 21st Century Road to Housing Act therefore went into effect automatically at midnight on July 11.

Advertisement

Among the numerous provisions in the law, a few stand out as particularly promising.

Manufactured housing. In what may be the most impactful action, the act eliminates one of the biggest impediments to expanding manufactured housing: the permanent chassis requirement. Since 1976, thanks to lobbying from traditional homebuilding interests, the federal government has forbidden the removal of the heavy steel trailer on which the unit was built even though 90% are never moved, and many are set on permanent foundations. This rule is risibly applied even in cases where an additional unit was stacked to form a second story. As I wrote in this space in October, factory-built homes can be produced more efficiently and therefore more affordably through mass production techniques. Eliminating the useless chassis after delivery could save a typical buyer an additional 5% and 10% of the purchase price as well as qualifying for more traditional mortgage financing.

Financial incentives to cities. Although the act does not include any additional federal funding, it directs a significant reallocation of existing incentives. The 1970s-era Community Development Block Grant program is reimagined, providing extra grant funding to high-cost metro areas that move aggressively to build affordable housing. The program is cost neutral, transferring funds from other cities that continue to discourage new unit construction through restrictive local policies.

Improving access to financing. Nearly half of the surge in housing costs is due to sharply higher mortgage interest rates since 2020. The housing act cannot impact rates, but it does provide additional access to financing. Small dollar loans of $100,000 or less will now be eligible for Federal Housing Administration guarantees, providing more access to lower-income buyers. The act also more than doubles the Federal Housing Administration loan limit for multifamily housing units.

Promoting rental homebuilding. The role of large institutions in purchasing single-family homes since the 2008 financial crisis has garnered significant public attention. The housing bill strikes a constructive balance.

Advertisement

“Large institutional investors”, defined in the bill as investors holding 350 or more single-family residences, are now prohibited from acquiring additional homes subject to specific exemptions. For instance, homes purchased for the specific purpose of renovation for rental are excluded. These institutional investors are also not required to divest their existing holdings.

Importantly, the restrictions do not apply to so-called build-to-rent acquisitions wherein large investors purchase newly constructed homes specifically for rental. Economic research generally finds that large investor ownership tends to push up home purchase prices to buyers but reduces pressure on rent costs by adding to supply, just what the doctor ordered.

Local zoning and permitting reforms. As mentioned above, states and municipalities retain jurisdiction for their own local building and zoning codes, many of which have served to hinder the construction of more affordable residential units. The new housing act directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to create a template incorporating best practices for modernizing zoning and land use policies to support more housing construction and renovation.

A curiously unrelated addition to the bill forbids the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital cryptocurrency version of the U.S. dollar, called a stablecoin, until 2030. The crypto industry has vigorously opposed an official U.S. stablecoin and accounted for nearly half of all corporate political contributions to federal election candidates in 2024. The president himself has amassed $1.4 billion in profits from his various crypto ventures since taking office in 2025.

Additional elements include a variety of incremental pilot projects, regulatory reforms and tweaks to existing federal housing programs that, taken together, could also have a meaningful impact and set the stage for further progress based upon the results. And perhaps most important: bipartisan cooperation, compromise and agreement.

Advertisement

Christopher A. Hopkins, CFA, is a co-founder of Apogee Wealth Partners in Chattanooga.

Continue Reading

Finance

Former Bank chief financial officer sentenced to three years for $4.3 million loan fraud

Published

on

Former Bank chief financial officer sentenced to three years for .3 million loan fraud

LINCOLN, Neb. (KOLN) – A former bank chief financial officer was sentenced to three years in prison for a bank fraud scheme involving a car wash and undisclosed debts in a $4.3 million loan scheme.

The Department of Justice said Aaron T. Luneke, 44, of Columbus, was sentenced after being convicted of committing bank fraud and attempted bank fraud in connection with loans he sought to build and operate a Legacy Express Wash, a car wash in Columbus.

According to the DOJ, Luneke was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system.

After his release from prison, Luneke will begin a five-year term of supervised release. Luneke was also ordered to pay a $10,000 fine.

The jury found that Luneke attempted to defraud Stearns Bank, located in St. Cloud, Minnesota, by using fraudulent and inflated contractor invoices to artificially inflate the valuation of the car wash property in pursuit of a $3.5 million refinancing loan. Further evidence at trial established that Luneke failed to reveal significant personal debts owed to family members in connection with the Stearns Bank loan application.

Advertisement

The jury also found that Luneke defrauded Bank of the Valley by submitting fraudulent and inflated invoices from contractors as the basis for additional construction loan proceeds, obtaining two loans totaling approximately $4,320,000.

At the sentencing, the judge found that Luneke’s abuse of his position as chief financial officer at Bank of the Valley significantly allowed for the fraud against the victim bank to occur, and helped to conceal the crime.

The DOJ said the court further determined that Luneke employed sophisticated means to carry out the scheme, and that he served an aggravating role by organizing, leading, managing, or supervising others in executing aspects of the fraud.

Luneke also obstructed justice by providing false testimony during trial and caused a victim to suffer substantial financial hardship.

Click here to subscribe to our 10/11 NOW daily digest and breaking news alerts delivered straight to your email inbox.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 KOLN. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending