charges on charges - therefor NOT unauthorised !!!

RoyalBlues

My partner had an electron card (EC) which supposedly didn't let her go overdrawn. Back in 2001 the bank allowed her to use her EC on 12 occasions whilst overdrawn. She received 12 charges of £30 for "unauthorised overdraft"

The £360 which was taken from her account by the bank meant that during the following month she incurred another 10 lots of £30 fees, again for transactions whilst overdrawn. DDs and SOs going through whilst overdrawn etc.

This continued for many months. At no point however did she go more that £360 overdrawn.

She was only overdrawn because of the initial £360 of fees. The fees then snowballed from there until they totalled in excess of £2,500

Surely the unauthorised overdraft charges were not actually that. Did the bank not authorise the overdraft by way of debiting the account ???

They knew that she would be overdrawn............so did they not authorise it ???

Could she not fight for the charges back on this front ?

She's not actually questioning the fairness or legality of the initial £360 but the subsequent charges and specifically the description of "unauthorised"

Presumably this avenue has already been explored ????

Or maybe not.......................?

natweststaffmember

RoyalBlues wrote: »

My partner had an electron card (EC) which supposedly didn't let her go overdrawn. Back in 2001 the bank allowed her to use her EC on 12 occasions whilst overdrawn. She received 12 charges of £30 for "unauthorised overdraft"

The £360 which was taken from her account by the bank meant that during the following month she incurred another 10 lots of £30 fees, again for transactions whilst overdrawn. DDs and SOs going through whilst overdrawn etc.

This continued for many months. At no point however did she go more that £360 overdrawn.

She was only overdrawn because of the initial £360 of fees. The fees then snowballed from there until they totalled in excess of £2,500

Surely the unauthorised overdraft charges were not actually that. Did the bank not authorise the overdraft by way of debiting the account ???

They knew that she would be overdrawn............so did they not authorise it ???

Could she not fight for the charges back on this front ?

She's not actually questioning the fairness or legality of the initial £360 but the subsequent charges and specifically the description of "unauthorised"

Presumably this avenue has already been explored ????

Or maybe not.......................?

I do completely agree with you on the argument that "unauthorised overdraft" is a nonsense since they would have to authorise it to be that way but your argument is still UTCCR 1999 since there would be no case law to argue that because of two letters being wrong that you should be refunded on that basis. I hope that made sense?

pingchris

after reading many posts and gathering all of the information i can about this case from television, radio,contact with my bank over a period of 8 months, on the telephone,letters and emails i have come to the firm conclusion like millions of people in britain,that this case has smoke cast all over it and a web of intricacy that is being slowly untangled,im finding this case very strange in the fact that at every turn another strand of silence shows its head,only to further my intrique.