Huge Lloyds bank charge

Andystriker

I am a customer of Sainsburys.

If I go in and take a packet of sweets for 34p and not pay for them and get caught, then I may get away with it the first time, but I could not keep doing this.

To me this is the same thing.

Andy

Nara

I hate banks, I am with Lloyds also. I managed to get a charge back from my account when i went overdrawn by £7 but they said they wouldn't do it again for a year. What annoyed me was we used to have a £1000 overdraft and when my boyfriend lost his job they got rid of the overdraft wthout telling us! So how was i meant to know when i don't even get a letter explaining what or why they have done something. I told the guy on the phone this and he gave me a buffer of £10. I also asked where the £27 pound went? I'm sorry but it doesnt cost £27 to send me a letter to tell me I have been charged! He told me his boss didn't take a Xmas bonus this year when i said it went into his pocket :P I guess these guys on the helpdesk have a crib sheet for every question they might get asked lol.

I also said i felt upset that when we were earning good wages the letters to get loans and credit cards never stopped, they even sent my partner a credit card when he hadn't applied for one, which he cut up and sent bk, then they started writing asking why we didn't want it lol! But as soon as he lost his job and JSA was paid into our account, its like they have these alarm bells that start ringing and they stop everything, including our overdraft, which is fine, if they bothered to tell you ! Suddenly they don't want to give you anything or help you out.

I remember yrs ago the HSBC charged me a stupid amount for being overdrawn by a small amount, when i was a student, so i went into the bank and started crying...seemed to work Personally i hate banks, and if i could hide all my cash under my bed i would!

dfh

pqrdef wrote: »

But a bank is a commercial service provider, not a law enforcement agency.

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?

If you enter into a contract with them, you are expected to keep your side of the brgain.The fact is , if you are overdrawn , you are overdrawn and will incur charges. This will be with every bank. Where does the buck stop? 50p, £1 ?

dfh

pqrdef wrote: »

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?

That's just masochism.

Simple. Don't go overdrawn. And how is it the bank's fault if your son's mobile phone bill is high ? Tell him to take responsibility for his spending instead of blaming the " evil " banks.

JuicyJesus

masonic wrote: »

Can you explain this bit to me please? Are you saying that banks secretly agree overdrafts for this eventuality without telling people or reporting it to the CRAs?

Many banks will have an internal limit up to which they will let customers go overdrawn without or over a limit, mainly for cases such as Direct Debits to avoid having to have a person from a central team look at every single instance of a DD being potentially bounced or whatever. Because it's not been arranged by the customer or agreed with them, it can be said to be "authorised" but not "arranged" - the idea is the customer shouldn't have to use it.

Barclays' Personal Reserve thing is basically this except Barclays will tell you the amount.

eschaton

N9eav wrote: »

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.

34p - amount doesn't matter

Student and works in MD's - relevance ?

Son needs to learn more about banking quickly

Son needs to be more aware and control spending

No issue with T&C's yet you are complaining about charges that would be outlined in the T&C's

Mobile phone contract at 17yrs - how ?

masonic

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Many banks will have an internal limit up to which they will let customers go overdrawn without or over a limit, mainly for cases such as Direct Debits to avoid having to have a person from a central team look at every single instance of a DD being potentially bounced or whatever. Because it's not been arranged by the customer or agreed with them, it can be said to be "authorised" but not "arranged" - the idea is the customer shouldn't have to use it.

Barclays' Personal Reserve thing is basically this except Barclays will tell you the amount.

Surely if the bank has not written to the customer or otherwise let them know that they can borrow this money, the customer has not been authorised to borrow it, hence the term 'unauthorised overdraft'?

pqrdef

masonic wrote: »

Can you explain this bit to me please? Are you saying that banks secretly agree overdrafts for this eventuality without telling people or reporting it to the CRAs?

Yes. It's implicit in a cheque guarantee card or any scheme that guarantees payments, but they can also choose to honour payments that aren't guaranteed. And the days are gone when the manager had to approve. Nowadays the computer does it, up to a preset limit.

pqrdef

Andystriker wrote: »

If I go in and take a packet of sweets for 34p and not pay for them and get caught, then I may get away with it the first time, but I could not keep doing this.

To me this is the same thing.

It's not the same thing at all, because there's no intention of stealing the money. You're merely borrowing it, from a firm which is in the lending business, as it probably reminds you frequently. And they've already decided they're prepared to lend it to you (it's not that easy to make an overdraft happen if they actually don't want you to have it). The only point at issue is a reasonable charge for the service.

Andystriker

pqrdef wrote: »

It's not the same thing at all, because there's no intention of stealing the money. You're merely borrowing it, from a firm which is in the lending business, as it probably reminds you frequently. And they've already decided they're prepared to lend it to you (it's not that easy to make an overdraft happen if they actually don't want you to have it). The only point at issue is a reasonable charge for the service.

The Sweets are not mine.

The 34p is not the OP's son. It is exactly the same thing.

When the OP's son was liable for the mobile bill he should have made sure that there was enough money in his account to pay for it. Did he ask the bank if he could borrow it?


The OP, instead of getting 6 customers to move their account, should concentrate his efforts on explaining to his son that he cannot have something that he cannot pay for.

It may only be 34p, but the principle is just the same.

He is doing his son no favours.