Can Santander Bank Legally be Stealing Money in Overdraft Charges from us by theft?

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

Going into unauthorised overdraft is closer to theft than them charging you for taking their money.

You can only go into unauthorised overdraft with the authorisation of the bank, so how can it be close to theft?

As for ''taking their money'', if you could simply ''take'' the bank's money it wouldn't be much of a bank. Would it?

Think about it.

Funkyfreddy

jamesd wrote: »

A week is a reasonably sensible time to allow between a payment coming in and drawing against that payment.

In this case, write a letter of complaint to Santander asking them to investigate why this payment was handled differently from the past and to refund the charges. Don't use words like steal or theft in your letter.

?? Unless I have the wrong end of a sticky stick "a week" has nothing to do with it.

The OP is relying on two third parties conducting transactions on the same day without enough funds being in the account to cover expected payments should the outbound one go before the inbound arrives.

Nobody at fault but the OP.

FF

FF

xyz123

another one with financial mismanagement blaming a bank for their misery...take some responsibility OP.....

dunstonh

You can only go into unauthorised overdraft with the authorisation of the bank, so how can it be close to theft?

The use of a debit card guarantees payment. The bank has no choice to honour the transaction.

Think about it.

I did. Now your turn

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

The use of a debit card guarantees payment. The bank has no choice to honour the transaction.



I did. Now your turn

By guaranteeing the payment and honouring the transaction (all in accordance with the terms & conditions) the bank clearly authorises it - regardless of whether in advance, at the point of sale or point of transaction.

blueberrypie

Alpine_Star wrote: »

You can only go into unauthorised overdraft with the authorisation of the bank, so how can it be close to theft?

You can go into unauthorised overdraft through transactions that were not authorised at the point of sale. The bank doesn't know anything about those transactions until they are processed.

Yes, at some point the bank has decided that the customer was worthy of a debit card which did not require full authorisation on every single transaction. But if that customer later goes into unauthorised overdraft and you claim that *isn't* theft (or close to it) - by that line of thinking, it wouldn't be theft if a cleaner/plumber/friend who came into your home (with your authorisation) and pocketed a £20 note that happened to be sitting around.

Alpine_Star

blueberrypie wrote: »

You can go into unauthorised overdraft through transactions that were not authorised at the point of sale. The bank doesn't know anything about those transactions until they are processed.

Yes, at some point the bank has decided that the customer was worthy of a debit card which did not require full authorisation on every single transaction. But if that customer later goes into unauthorised overdraft and you claim that *isn't* theft (or close to it) - by that line of thinking, it wouldn't be theft if a cleaner/plumber/friend who came into your home (with your authorisation) and pocketed a £20 note that happened to be sitting around.

In circumstances where a card doesn't require authorisation at the point of sale it is because the bank has already set the authorisation floor limit and therefore necessarily authorises the retailer and customer to conduct the transaction in advance.

This was all established in the bank charges test case where Justice Smith ruled that no breach of contract occurs because the customer is execising their contractual right. Any payment instruction made where there are insufficient funds to meet it is regarded by the bank as a deemed request for an overdraft.

This is how it stands in law and is the reason why people aren't charged with theft and why people who pocket £20 in cash are.

dunstonh

By guaranteeing the payment and honouring the transaction (all in accordance with the terms & conditions) the bank clearly authorises it - regardless of whether in advance, at the point of sale or point of transaction.

No they are not.

The bank issues facilities like debit cards and cheque books to people who it expects to use them in accordance with the terms and conditions. However, if someone goes on to use them to access funds they are not authorised to have, that does not mean the bank has automatically authorised them.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

No they are not.

The bank issues facilities like debit cards and cheque books to people who it expects to use them in accordance with the terms and conditions. However, if someone goes on to use them to access funds they are not authorised to have, that does not mean the bank has automatically authorised them.

The terms & conditions authorise them. If the terms & conditions didn't authorise them it would follow that a breach of contract occurs. It doesn't.

Emphasis supplied:

83. Andrew Smith J considered at paragraphs 295 to 324 whether the Relevant Charges were penalties at common law so as to be unenforceable for that reason. He held that they were not because a penalty at common law is a payment that becomes payable
upon a breach of contract. Liability to pay Relevant Charges is not contingent upon breaches by the customers of their contracts. It is not a breach of any of the standard form contracts under consideration to overdraw, or attempt to overdraw, on a current account.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/Supreme_Court_judgment.pdf

pqrdef

I've always been paid in such a way that the money is in my account and available to spend on a scheduled date. If it weren't, I'd be looking to hold somebody responsible. Money can't just go missing.