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
-
Who said anything about it being the bank's fault? Where does this sort of twisted thinking come from?And how is it the bank's fault if your son's mobile phone bill is high ?
If I accidentally break something and send for a repair man, I'm not saying it's his fault. But nor am I expecting him to punish me for my sins.
Life's too short for keeping track of exactly how much money there is in the bank. Nor should it be necessary, if the account is regularly funded and rarely overdrawn. And anybody can make a mistake. Since there's no harm done, and no discernible cost involved, a £27 charge is just profiteering."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 -
Life's too short for keeping track of exactly how much money there is in the bank.
Then, as has been suggested before numerous times on this forum, keep a buffer amount in the account of £50/£100.
If people can't be bothered to do this then they really should not moan when the banks charge them for taking money that does not belong to them.
It's about taking responsibilty for your actions.0 -
I tend to find I can get more out of my life by doing exactly that. Each to his own.Life's too short for keeping track of exactly how much money there is in the bank.
And for what reason do banks exist?Nor should it be necessary, if the account is regularly funded and rarely overdrawn. And anybody can make a mistake. Since there's no harm done, and no discernible cost involved, a £27 charge is just profiteering.0 -
Most obviously, it's not the same thing because there's no deception or dishonesty involved. It's not like he's helped himself to 34p of the bank's money hoping they'll never know.Andystriker wrote: »The Sweets are not mine.
The 34p is not the OP's son. It is exactly the same thing.
Yes. He will have given them permission to invade his privacy to check out his credit-worthiness, and he'll be funding his account, and on that basis they've decided he can be trusted with 34p till pay-day. If they'd refused the payment, that would have been a different issue. As it is, the only issue is the justification for the charge. The financial Puritans seem to think people should be scourged for the cardinal sin of borrowing. (I don't know where they get that from - it's usury that the Bible condemns, not borrowing.)Andystriker wrote: »Did he ask the bank if he could borrow it?
It's this thing called credit.Andystriker wrote: »he cannot have something that he cannot pay for."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 -
That's why it is called an 'unauthorised overdraft'. I don't understand why you are saying it is authorised. If the OPs son really had been authorised by the bank to go 34p into the red, then this sequence of events would not have happened.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.0 -
-
What happens if you stay under limit then lloyds take the monthly charge and it goes over as you cannot afford the monthly charge?0
-
Most obviously, it's not the same thing because there's no deception or dishonesty involved. It's not like he's helped himself to 34p of the bank's money hoping they'll never know.
And how do you, or the bank, know that there is no deception or dishonesty involved. How do you, or the bank know, that he will pay it back.
Simple thing is you don't.
If he wanted an overdraft he should have arranged an agreed one with the bank. He did not do this, so the money is not his to take.0 -
The Iranians have ways of dealing with people like you!Andystriker wrote: »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.0 -
Er, because the bank knew all about it?Andystriker wrote: »And how do you, or the bank, know that there is no deception or dishonesty involved.
It was the bank's judgement that he would, since they had already applied an overdraft limit to his account, unasked. They can bounce Direct Debits if they want to, and they often do. They charge for that as well, but they don't get to add on an extra £6 for every day overdrawn.Andystriker wrote: »How do you, or the bank know, that he will pay it back."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
- 351.7K 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