Huge Lloyds bank charge

Degenerate

opinions4u wrote: »

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.

The OFT ruling was not a determination of any such thing. It was an interim limitation placed whilst awaiting court judgment. In the OFTs own words:

"Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12."

They were saying that the CC providers had to justify their charges, and that over £12 was so obviously unjustifiable that they would automatically intervene.

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.

Indeed. So why are you bringing such irrelevant nonsense up?

Since you did, I will point out that the cost offering any of those services is also tiny in comparison to the charges you quoted. The difference is that they are optional charges that one can take or leave, not penalty charges imposed when things go wrong.

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.

The FOS finds against the institution in the majority of cases. I believe they would in this circumstance because it fails the basic concept of fair and reasonable charges. I'm not wasting my time doing legal research for a debate on the internet, take it or leave it.

I believe they have shown that a typical speeding fine makes £24 profit (not verified, I take it from memory). Easily quantifiable.

Totally irrelevant, that's the profit on enforcement, not a measurement of the cost to society of speeding. If you're not able to differentiate between those two concepts then you have a real problem with your reasoning abilities.

Degenerate

masonic wrote: »

That's why it is called an 'unauthorised overdraft'. I don't understand why you are saying it is authorised.

They call it an "arranged" overdraft these days for that very reason. The banks have the ability to decline payments, by not doing so they authorize the unarranged overdraft.

Andystriker wrote: »

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.

The bank consented to the 34p overdraft when they paid the DD.

opinions4u

Degenerate wrote: »

The bank consented to the 34p overdraft when they paid the DD.

In the same way the customer consents to the charges by putting the bank in that position.

I do wish the OP would expand on the age 17 thing. It does sound to me like it's worth pointing this out to the bank if true, as any debt is totally unenforceable.

masonic

Degenerate wrote: »

They call it an "arranged" overdraft these days for that very reason. The banks have the ability to decline payments, by not doing so they authorize the unarranged overdraft.

Well ok, lets call it unarranged. I suppose these days we should also call those people expecting not to be charged for an unarranged overdraft "reality challenged".

Rupert_Bear

N9eav wrote: »

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

Sounds like the family is throwing their toys out of their prams. I have been with Lloyds for years and have always found them brilliant.

If you and your family are unable to keep within the terms and conditions then you are right to move on.

bengal-stripe

opinions4u wrote: »

I do wish the OP would expand on the age 17 thing. It does sound to me like it's worth pointing this out to the bank if true, as any debt is totally unenforceable.

Equally, how can the young man have a telephone on contract? He is under-age and cannot sign any contract involving debt.

Did he, or did mum tell porkies about his age?

jonesMUFCforever

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Equally, how can the young man have a telephone on contract? He is under-age and cannot sign any contract involving debt.

Did he, or did mum tell porkies about his age?

Of course they did but that spoils the saintly high and mighty attitude they appear to have.

Alpine_Star

opinions4u wrote: »

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.

The cost was never 'established' and the OFT have never claimed it was.

If I was a major shareholder in a credit card company who managed to spend a ridiculous 12 quid a time sending out letters I'd want the CEO's head on a plate.

opinions4u

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The cost was never 'established' and the OFT have never claimed it was.

If I was a major shareholder in a credit card company who managed to spend a ridiculous 12 quid a time sending out letters I'd want the CEO's head on a plate.

So another poster has pointed out.

Makes the OFT a bit toothless then, doesn't it?

Is it one of the QUANGOS for the bullet? I severely hope so if it's so useless.

N9eav

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Of course they did but that spoils the saintly high and mighty attitude they appear to have.

Some of you people are very quick to make assumptions about other people.

The whole point of this debate was that I felt £27 is an extortionate amount to charge someone for accidentally going overdrawn by 2 days. It was not a deliberate act of stealing the banks money.
It would have been cheaper for them to refuse to pay the direct debit as there was insufficient funds. But they authorized an overdraft without asking and then charged him for it.

Leaving Lloyds is far more complicated than throwing teddies out of a pram for this little thing.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2733117