Natwest bank chargers

So,
1) you borrowed money from the bank without permission,
2) got told you'd be charged for it on a statement
3) failed to ensure the balance was large enough to cover this charge, and didn't bother telling the bank about it, resulting in
4) you borrowing more money without permission so
5) goto 2.

For which part of this cycle is the bank to blame? Seriously - which part?

Possibly the first charge, but after that? I'm sure they didn't 'just charge you £1000' for going £20 overdrawn.

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The bank doesn't lend money without their permission. Ever.

Stop picking nits. You know exactly what I mean.


But, just in case I'm wrong on this:

You are told, by the bank, how much you can borrow 'with authorisation' (if anything) with the explicit knowledge (if you bother reading the T&C's of your account that is,) that if you go over, or attempt to go over, that limit you'll be charged fees.

Attempting to/actually going over that limit is colloquially known as "without authorisation" or even more colloquially "without permission."

At NatWest the terms are now formal and informal requests for an overdraft. Not authorised or unauthorised. tashnrick simply made an informal request for an unarranged overdraft that was accepted by NatWest, which charged its fee for reviewing and accepting an informal overdraft request.

"6.3 Unarranged overdrafts and unpaid items
6.3.1 If you issue instructions for a withdrawal or other payment which
would result in:
(a) your account becoming overdrawn, or further overdrawn, without prior arrangement ; or
(b) your overdraft limit being exceeded,
we will treat your instructions as an informal request for an unarranged overdraft."

There was no lack of authorisation or permission on NatWest's part involved, it simply decided to say yes to an informal request and charge the appropriate fee for doing so.

tashnrick may wish to check that the amounts charged are within the NatWest caps and perhaps to seek to come to some arrangement for reduction of the amount involve by eliminating all but the first batch of charges now the situation is understood by tashnrick. If it hasn't happened before NatWest may be willing.

The old idea that there was something wrong about this needs to go away now the banks have decided that they are being asked, as part of their ways of dealing with the OFT case. NatWest simply abandoned the idea of default by the consumer for exceeding a limit and now it's just a case of how you're asking for the service, not "naughty customer, we're going to punish you for defaulting on your agreement with us".

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The bank doesn't lend money without their permission. Ever.

Cheque guarantee card, 25 cheques, £200 guarantee each time, £1,000 overdraft facility, £999 used before the first cheque hits the account. The bank decided to accept the risk of that £5,000 of borrowing that it didn't agree to in advance but it's not so easy to argue that it actually granted permission because in this case it does not have an option about granting the overdraft, it has to.

"6.3.3 If we decide we are not willing to accept your request , but nonetheless accept it because we find that you have guaranteed payment by the use of a cheque guarantee card or debit card, we will make a charge known as a Guaranteed Card Payment Fee."

Unwilling... but obliged to pay anyway. Want to argue that this borrowing happened with their permission?

jamesd wrote: »

Unwilling... but obliged to pay anyway. Want to argue that this borrowing happened with their permission?

Clearly, if they honoured the payment, they by definition permitted it, unwillingly or otherwise and regardless of whether it was guaranteed by default or not.

We're talking about authorising payment requests.

If banks managed to lend money without authorising or permitting it, it wouldn't be much of a bank would it?

In 2006 1.5 million people incurred insufficient funds charges of £500+. Call it 'abuse' if you like but it is how banks make money - by making it possible.