An overdraft by any other name

pqrdef

Letter and glossy from Lloyds TSB. Apparently, an overdraft facility is now called an "overdraft", and having an overdraft, i.e. being overdrawn, is called "using an overdraft".

Not in my dictionary. Can I make a formal complaint? Can I request that they write to me in English?

JuicyJesus

That is common language. Most people now refer to an overdraft facility as an overdraft.

It's not technically correct, no. And people used to "an overdraft" referring to an actual overdrawn balance might be initially shocked or confused. But it fits most peoples' expectations. It's certainly less irritating than other similar verbal tics (whoever first thought "well" is a synonym for "really" should be shot).

You can complain about anything you like, the only limit is whether you can be arsed or not.

callum9999

You can try writing an open letter to the English speaking world and demand that they stop changing the language? Perhaps suggest we all go back to using Old English as change is so horrific?

Catherine_Johnson_2

Of course, you could just get on with your life and not worry about it.

Gromitt

Catherine_Johnson wrote: »

Of course, you could just get on with your life and not worry about it.

Now where would the fun in that be?

http://xkcd.com/386/



Or, in other words, life is too short.

seriousDFW

Of course you can request. But they won't change their literature because of you requesting it. Using the word 'overdraft' in this way is now commonplace and accepted as standard. I'm afraid it's just an evolution of the language, and one which I don't think is a !!!!!!!isation of the language in the way many other changes are.

If it's any consolation, I think the initial adverse changes to the language due to new technologies (like texting) are slowly being reversed. For example, I don't think many people go to the effort of using abbreviations such as 'c u next tuesday' as opposed to 'see you next tuesday' anymore, as people tend to have contract phones and unlimited texts, so there's no need to limit texts to 160 characters like you did when each one cost 10p. Similarly using facebook and BBM means you don't have limits at all. And with smartphones having autocorrect on them, I actually find it easier to write properly than use txtspk.

So don't worry about overdraft. Language evolution does happen, and this is not that bad! It's probably because many decades ago, overdraft facilities weren't as commonplace, but now they are much more a feature of accounts, it makes more sense to change the usage of the word in this way? I don't know, I'm 30 so don't really know whether overdrafts were as commonplace a few decades ago.

pqrdef

So, if I've never had an overdraft in my life, this now means that no bank was ever prepared to lend me any money?

I'm all in favour of harmless improvements to the language, but this abuse creates confusion and misunderstanding. People are starting to think that when they get a 31000 "overdraft", this means £1000 is somehow credited to their account - especially as £1000 gets added to the "available" balance.

I hope people are as cheerful when they start being charged for their "unused overdrafts", i.e. for not being overdrawn. And don't think the banks haven't thought of that. HSBC are already sniffing around with "arrangement fees". And most banks tout an "overdraft" as one of the benefits of their packaged accounts.

seriousDFW

pqrdef wrote: »

So, if I've never had an overdraft in my life, this now means that no bank was ever prepared to lend me any money?

I'm all in favour of harmless improvements to the language, but this abuse creates confusion and misunderstanding. People are starting to think that when they get a 31000 "overdraft", this means £1000 is somehow credited to their account - especially as £1000 gets added to the "available" balance.

I hope people are as cheerful when they start being charged for their "unused overdrafts", i.e. for not being overdrawn. And don't think the banks haven't thought of that. HSBC are already sniffing around with "arrangement fees". And most banks tout an "overdraft" as one of the benefits of their packaged accounts.

I fail to see how this creates confusion. If my bank says to me "you have an overdraft of £1000", I know that doesn't mean I am £1000 overdrawn, because I know the balance of my account.

I think you need to give people more credit for knowing the balance of their account in relation to an overdraft/overdraft facility. And before you start saying that there are many people who are too stupid to know that, then if that is the case, they must surely also be too stupid to discern the difference between 'overdraft' and 'overdraft facility'?

callum9999

pqrdef wrote: »

So, if I've never had an overdraft in my life, this now means that no bank was ever prepared to lend me any money?

I'm all in favour of harmless improvements to the language, but this abuse creates confusion and misunderstanding. People are starting to think that when they get a 31000 "overdraft", this means £1000 is somehow credited to their account - especially as £1000 gets added to the "available" balance.

I hope people are as cheerful when they start being charged for their "unused overdrafts", i.e. for not being overdrawn. And don't think the banks haven't thought of that. HSBC are already sniffing around with "arrangement fees". And most banks tout an "overdraft" as one of the benefits of their packaged accounts.

I genuinely have no idea what you're going on about. If my bank tells me I have a £1000 overdraft, then I think I am able to go £1000 into the red should I want to. Who on earth thinks that that overdrafts mean banks credit you with £1000!

Lansdowne

This looks like another way to confuse customers into a state where they pay bank charges.

One way they already use is the "available balance" already mentioned. When the ATM or online bank says you have an "available balance" of £216, and you withdraw £40 cash, you would think you're OK. But actually your balance was £16 and the £200 was the "reserve tank" or overdraft facility. So now you will get charged for withdrawing money you didn't actually have.

Most people would like to stay out of debt. They know that their bank account is free if they remain in credit, but once overdrawn they will clock up charges and interest and it will be ever harder to become debt free again.

So most people do not want to ever have an overdraft (become overdrawn), even though they may be comfortable with the idea of an overdraft facility (which of course does not cost anything). If the bank can muddle the two concepts, then the distinction between being overdrawn (costs money) and having "an overdraft" in the newfangled sense (cost free) disappears and they can raise ever more charges from the confused section of the customer base.

RobTang

seriousDFW wrote: »

I think you need to give people more credit for knowing the balance of their account in relation to an overdraft/overdraft facility. And before you start saying that there are many people who are too stupid to know that, then if that is the case, they must surely also be too stupid to discern the difference between 'overdraft' and 'overdraft facility'?

one of my colleagues likes to go about the fact her bank changed "credit" and "debit" on her statements to "Money in" and "Money Out" ... at least one bank dones't consider their customers too highly...