Huge Lloyds bank charge

N9eav

Degenerate wrote: »

All of you declaring your lack of sympathy ought to consider that, breach of conditions or not, it's an unreasonably high fee for a trivial misdemeanor. And no, not all banks would impose the charge in such a case, and any with sense would refund it when challenged, because if such a case came before the ombudsman it would certainly be found to be unjustified.

Thank you Degenerate.

The point I was trying to make was that £27 is rather extortionate for a small misdemenour of 34 pence.

I hope the next time you lot get a speeding ticket for a few mile per hour over the limit you will suck it up and say " Well I knew the law and I am happy to pay the fine"

As I said this was the final straw in a series of issues by LLoyds that were not our fault as that misdemeanour was

opinions4u

Degenerate wrote: »

All of you declaring your lack of sympathy ought to consider that, breach of conditions or not, it's an unreasonably high fee for a trivial misdemeanor.

34p or £50, the costs involved are the same.

And no, not all banks would impose the charge in such a case, and any with sense would refund it when challenged, because if such a case came before the ombudsman it would certainly be found to be unjustified.

Can you find a single case where the FOS has ruled against a bank on the size of the charge in relation to the amount involved? I am referring specifically to current account charges in these circumstances.

Feel free to post the links - I don't know if they exist or not, but I'd be surprised if they do.

N9eav wrote: »

I hope the next time you lot get a speeding ticket for a few mile per hour over the limit you will suck it up and say " Well I knew the law and I am happy to pay the fine"

Twice I have found myself in that situation.

Annoyed. With myself. Not the speed camera.

pqrdef

partyprincess wrote: »

When it was reviewed Lloyds obviously realised that it would be an unreasonable charge for such a trivial amount.

It would have been just as unreasonable if nobody had complained, but they would have kept the £27. We don't think they'd have reviewed the charge and refunded it without being chased.

Making a charge that they'll routinely refund for the asking is just a try-on.

But life's complicated enough as it is. Anybody who's in business to provide a service needs to understand that their function is to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

There's no need for a bank to make its presence felt over 34p. Who needs the nuisance of having to chase them to get a refund of a try-on?

zppp

pqrdef wrote: »

It would have been just as unreasonable if nobody had complained, but they would have kept the £27. We don't think they'd have reviewed the charge and refunded it without being chased.

Making a charge that they'll routinely refund for the asking is just a try-on.

But life's complicated enough as it is. Anybody who's in business to provide a service needs to understand that their function is to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

There's no need for a bank to make its presence felt over 34p. Who needs the nuisance of having to chase them to get a refund of a try-on?

I suppose the problem is though, where should they draw the line, 50p? £1, £5? There is always going to be someone who over whatever level they set. At least is is clear that as soon as you go overdrawn, you incur X fee and everyone knows (or should know) where they stand.

dfh

The have clearly stated it. If you go overdrawn, then you incur the fine. It gets added automatically . Hence, it does not matter if someone goes overdrawn by 1p or 100 pounds, the charges will apply.I maintain it is the customer's responsibility to ensure they don't get overdrawn.

dfh

N9eav wrote: »

Thank you Degenerate.

The point I was trying to make was that £27 is rather extortionate for a small misdemenour of 34 pence.

I hope the next time you lot get a speeding ticket for a few mile per hour over the limit you will suck it up and say " Well I knew the law and I am happy to pay the fine"

As I said this was the final straw in a series of issues by LLoyds that were not our fault as that misdemeanour was

I got three points and a fine for doing 35 in a 30 mile zone. It was my fault for going over the limit. I paid the fine took the three points.

bengal-stripe

Degenerate wrote: »

......it's an unreasonably high fee for a trivial misdemeanor.

N9eav wrote: »

.....that £27 is rather extortionate for a small misdemenour of 34 pence.

zppp wrote: »

I suppose the problem is though, where should they draw the line, 50p? £1, £5? There is always going to be someone who over whatever level they set.

exel1966 wrote: »

Seems a pointless move though as from 02 Dec 10 Lloyds are introducing a £10 fee free/interest free overdraft buffer.

Once the bank has introduced that buffer of £ 10.00, soon someone will go over his/her buffer by 34 pence.
In this case, is this still a ‘small misdemeanour’ (only 34 pence)?

Degenerate

opinions4u wrote: »

34p or £50, the costs involved are the same.

The costs could be said to be zero in both cases as it's all just bits ticking on microprocessors. The bank only directly incur a cost if they send a letter, and with that process being automated you're talking bulk postage rates plus a few pence.

On the other hand, one could consider the effect of these things on the bank's balance sheet position, in either case it is trivial, but clearly it is in direct proportion to the size of the transgression and not the same.

Can you find a single case where the FOS has ruled against a bank on the size of the charge in relation to the amount involved? I am referring specifically to current account charges in these circumstances.

Feel free to post the links - I don't know if they exist or not, but I'd be surprised if they do.

Frankly I can't be bothered to do the research, such cases may exist, OTOH they may never have got that far as they fail an obvious "reasonableness" test and the ombudsman costs the banks £500 for starters.

Twice I have found myself in that situation.

Annoyed. With myself. Not the speed camera.

The speed camera example was a poor one. Speeding fines are punishments for offenses that are not easily quantifiable in financial terms.

Foggster

dfh wrote: »

I got three points and a fine for doing 35 in a 30 mile zone. It was my fault for going over the limit. I paid the fine took the three points.

*sob* the exact same thing happened to me very recently, the brown envelope dropped on the mat the other morning. 34 in a 30 which I thought was a 40 - no it said 30 all along the road!!

I have taken the same approach, suck it up, my fault and my first 3 points ever in 20 years of driving and averaging 25k miles a year........

This has nothing to do with the OP but I feel better for getting it off my chest.:rotfl:

Lokolo

I don't understand why it matters what the cost is. They are explained fully in T&Cs for customers to look at. They should know what the cost would be if they went overdrawn, and therefore can't complain when it does happen.

It's like saying if I had to claim on my car insurance, and complaining about the high excess cost....