Using BofA
@sjdubya2 please clarify the Quicken version you are using. Your profile indicates Q2017. Q2017 ceased downloading transactions in April 2020. Are you actually using Quicken subscription version?
If you are using Quicken subscription version, please tell us more about the issue. When did the check numbers stop being included in transaction downloads? Was there any program version update around that same time? Did you have to reset or reauthorize the online access around that same time?
For me, the Check# field stopped auto populating for downloaded Bank of America transactions sometime between 4/22 and 5/18/26.
The Downloaded Payee for checks has been "Check <check number>" since 2012, so the check number is available in the data from BoA.
(Edit: Added clarification and current status for US Bank….in italics.)
This also started happening with US Bank when they migrated from EWC to EWC+. (This issue only lasted for a few weeks post EWC+ migration. Since then it has not been an issue and the check numbers now download correctly.)
Does the date range you mentioned correlate to an EWC+ migration at BofA?
So, does this mean that BofA (and USB) started downloading the check number as the Payee instead of in the check number field as a result of the EWC+ migration? This would make some sense since unless Bank Bill Pay is used then BofA might not know who the actual Payee is.
Or does it mean that Intuit or Quicken are applying the check number to the wrong transaction field?
With customer-written checks, BoA has never included the actual payee in the Downloaded Payee, until 2009 it was Check NNNN, and the Check # field was also populated with the number. Then until 2022, it was just Check with the check # field populated.
Starting in mid 2023, probably with the EWC+ transition, it went back to Check NNNN with Check # still populated.
Earlier this year they stopped populating the Check # field.
So no, this change was not related to the EWC+
Hello @sjdubya2, @Boatnmaniac, and @Jim_Harman,
Thank you for letting us know you're experiencing this issue! Is this happening only with Bank of America and US Bank? If you are seeing this behavior with any other financial institutions, please let me know which financial institution and how it connects in Quicken (Direct Connect, Express Web Connect, Express Web Connect+, or Web Connect).
I forwarded this issue to the proper channels for further investigation and resolution. To help our teams investigate it, please navigate to Help>Report a Problem and send a problem report with log files attached.
In addition to the log files, our teams also require the following:
Note: A problem report allows a maximum of 10 attachments. If you need to send more than 10, you can unselect any log file with OLD in the filename, or you can send a second problem report with the additional attachments.
Please let me know once you've sent the problem report!
Thank you!
(CBT-1300)
Until 4/20/26 our B of A checking account downloaded the check number in the Check # field, and also as Check #### in the Payee field. We only do handwritten checks in this account so the Payee field is always blank. Starting 4/30/26 it stopped populating the Check # field but still shows it in the Payee field.
Sorry, I should have clarified that this issue with US Bank occurred only for a short time (maybe a month?) after they migrated to EWC+. Then the issue went away and the check numbers have been downloading correctly ever since. (I've updated my post above to clarify this.)
Exactly. Why is it so difficult for Quicken or power support to answer the simple question? Is this a Quicken bug to be fixed, or is it BofA, and it's done and won't work, as it has forever? Quicken Classic subscription. Thank you.
[Edited - Readability]
Hello @Toolworker,
Thank you for letting us know you're seeing this also! To contribute to the investigation, please provide the logs and information requested in my earlier post:
Thank you for your reply @sjdubya2,
We do not yet have enough data to answer that question. Please provide the logs and information requested in my earlier post so that our teams can investigate the problem.
