We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Huge Lloyds bank charge
Comments
-
My son accidentally went 34 pence overdrawn on his bank account for 2 days. (A slightly larger mobile bill than he expected).
lloyds bank charge £27
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
After a few phone calls they refunded him, but lost 6 customers as we are all moving elsewhere. The final straw in a series of bad customer service by what used to be a decent bank.....:o
That's an absolute scandal, the bank should be closed down.
Alternatively - what bit of the T&C's did your son or 6 family members not understand?
Also phone bills are issued in advance of DD payments - couldn't he read the bill either?0 -
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 matters because banking is government licensed and regulated business. With that comes the obligation to treat customers fairly.0 -
When the OFT forced the banks in to a corner on credit card fees, it was established that the cost was in the region of £12 a letter. One company was able to convince the OFT that it was £15. No profit involved - cost only.Degenerate wrote: »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.
Perhaps you would prefer that a bank charges personal customers £10 for an ATM card, £1 for an ATM withdrawal, £12.50 for a cheque book, £1 for a direct debit, £1.50 for a standing order, 50p for a cash deposit, 75p for a cheque deposit and 50p for a slap on the wrist letter. That's a debate for another thread.
In this case the OP is basically saying that this incidient is the straw that broke the camel's back. Fair enough and it's up to them what they do with their money. When my eldest breaches the terms of his bank account I give him a hard time. Not because I'm nasty, but because (1) I think he should learn to manage his money better; (2) I want him to build up a decent credit rating with them so that it's easier for him to move out when he's ready.
I'm not the one who made the claim. I suspect that the banks would be quite happy to pay £500 (plus VAT) to the FOS in order to get a clarity of ruling on the subject.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.
I believe they have shown that a typical speeding fine makes £24 profit (not verified, I take it from memory). Easily quantifiable.The speed camera example was a poor one. Speeding fines are punishments for offenses that are not easily quantifiable in financial terms.0 -
That's an absolute scandal, the bank should be closed down.
Alternatively - what bit of the T&C's did your son or 6 family members not understand?
Also phone bills are issued in advance of DD payments - couldn't he read the bill either?
We are talking about 34p by a lad of 17 who is a student and works PT in MCD's to get some pocket money. Kids don't always think that some payments might come out before pay day if there is a weekend etc.
We have no issues with terms and conditions.
I have issues with huge disproportionate bank charges that have been fought up and down the country. £15 for going OD and then £6 per day for everyday the account is in the red. That could be a heck of a lot of money.NO to pasty tax We won!!!! Just shows that people power works! Don't be apathetic to your cause!0 -
Well then it's good that he learns the lesson now while he's still under 18 and the charges are therefore unenforcable.We are talking about 34p by a lad of 17 who is a student and works PT in MCD's to get some pocket money. Kids don't always think that some payments might come out before pay day if there is a weekend etc.
We have no issues with terms and conditions.
I have issues with huge disproportionate bank charges that have been fought up and down the country. £15 for going OD and then £6 per day for everyday the account is in the red. That could be a heck of a lot of money.0 -
The bank shouldn't have charged for going overdrawn by this amount. They should have rejected the payment outright for not having sufficient funds, especially as he's under 18.
I do worry that defending of your son from these charges, you my accidentally be giving him the wrong message about managing money. I hope he understands that the bank are within their rights to make this charge and he needs to ensure he constantly has a buffer to cover these minor slips. The lesson of not just taking what you're told and arguing with banks is equally valid.
What I don't understand is why banks don't give an option when setting up accounts. If you attempt to make payment without sufficient funds do you want us to:
a) Reject payment and let you sort it out with the company (with small admin fee - say £5)
b) Make payment and charge you.Santander are awful - mission in life is to warn people since 17-Sep-10, 18-Sep-10 realised one of thousands.0 -
But a bank is a commercial service provider, not a law enforcement agency.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.
If people want to be punished for being naughty boys, I'm told there are places that provide that kind of service.
Banks are supposed to help people manage their money. Trying to charge customers for nothing isn't helpful.
Direct Debits aren't guaranteed payments. If you don't have the funds, they don't go through, unless the bank has already put a buffer in place, which they may or may not tell you about.
If they do, it's an authorised overdraft, maybe even a free one. If they don't, they'll call it an unauthorised overdraft, although of course it is actually authorised, and try to charge accordingly, unless you put yourself to the trouble of complaining, in which case they'll apply some policy they won't tell you about.
It's a very poor and shabby way for a service provider to try to run a relationship with a customer. Who do they think they are?"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Hang on, how did your son get a bill for a mobile phone? They are 17 and therefore can't enter into a mobile phone contract. Do you mean that the mobile bill that YOU are legally responsible for but your son is supposed to be paying?
There are laws to restrict under 18s entering into contracts for a reason, they aren't mature enough to be held accountable - before you say but my darling son is, read your own post, no he's not. And Mobile phone firms are notorious for being absolute gits.
Do you understand the damage to your credit rating you'll do if he mucks it up again and the bank rejects payment next time (will they be sympathetic to cover charges in future after you ranted down the line at them now)? You're looking at higher costs for borrowing or being rejected for credit if you need it, can imagine the post now - ":mad: Son missed phone payments now I can't get mortgage deal to reduce payments, I'm moving to different provider!".
Move the debit payment from your sons bank to yours and make him pay you. I'm all for teaching understanding of money to young adults and giving them responsibility, at the risk to your families financial well being is a bit far.
Anon
PS Yes I know this is a little dramatic and 1 payment is unlikely to have real damage but trying to make a point here people!Santander are awful - mission in life is to warn people since 17-Sep-10, 18-Sep-10 realised one of thousands.0 -
Are you saying that customers should take a charge like that on the chin and not ask for a refund, even knowing that if they ask they'll probably get one?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.
That's just masochism."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards