Advice for friend re Benefit/Charges/Overdraft

crazyworld_2

Sorry, just a quick question i've just remembered I wanted to ask you natweststaffmember, completely unrelated of course.

In relation to unauthorised overdrafts, are you aware of pre-determined limits, or shadow overdrafts?

Could they be challenged legally, as these shadow overdrafts or predetermined limits are not known to the customer, the customer has no control over how much of their balance enters such a zone, or even a limit they may wish to set themselves dependant upon their own financial circumstances, and this certainly doesn't appear to be a fair term in the contract, in fact it is completely hidden isn't it?

In a case where the legality of the unauthorised overdraft is in itself questionable, wouldn't it be wise if a person were in the unfortunate position of having been forced into this non optional debt, and being in such a position when the claim begins, that firstly the legality of that pre-determined limit or shadow overdraft should be challeneged? And then once that is established having the charges credited to the account based on what a court decides about the legality of the unauthorised overdraft?

I hope the above is clear natweststaffmember.

LozBingley

crazyworld wrote: »

Yes, thank you Loz, I understand that completely. And the above is exactly what i've done.

I hope that you'd agree that the way i'd worked things out was a genuine error, and not some sort of attempt to con the banks out of extra money?

As that was a genuine mistake on my part I would hope you'd agree anyway(actually, scrub that after reading Natweststaffmembers post, whether you agree or not is not what matters, it's the truth!), and, yes, this is all sorted out now, as I stated in my previous post.

Like I say, nothing suprises me! Some people and Numbers just do not mix. Its the same with me and words (believe it or not).

I have seen lots of people do lots of silly things when it comes to nuimbers but I could see from the start that your figures were not adding up and I wanted to correct you before you went to far.

Right thats all I'm going to say on the subject now, other than Good Luck with your claim

crazyworld_2

LozBingley wrote: »

Right thats all I'm going to say on the subject now, other than Good Luck with your claim

Thank you. I will keep the board updated as to my own case, and indeed my friend's case.

natweststaffmember

You asked the same question on consumeraction group and my alter ego soon to be deleted, Meldrew answered the question with regards to predeterminied limits, which are variable. There is a multitude of reasons and it is not as simplistic to simply say yes which is what I did on the thread on that site. Pre determined limits per se do not exist but limits in which an account will go overdrawn prior to be dealt with by another department are. As I said it is a complicated thing to explain.

crazyworld_2

Hi natweststaffmember, if as you say it is "a complicated thing to explain", then wouldn't you agree that customers should be made fully aware of such variable limits?

If you wouldn't agree, do you not think that the customer has a right to know such things before deciding on an account?

As such important information is witheld from the customer intentionally then under the Trade Descriptions Act, and the Consumer Protection Act, then the bank/building society could be forced to both show this information in future, and to rectify the situation back to what it would have been before the unlawful practices were carried out. Would you agree with that thought?

Additionally, the bank/building society concerned would have also breached the contract an additional time (that's in addition to breaking the law in regard to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations) as the terms and conditions usually clearly state that they conform with the law.

While consumers have only been focusing on the charges themselves so far, it appears more sinister unlawful practices appear to be going unnoticed at present.

I do appreciate that you do appear to be stating quite clearly that you have said 2 different things on the same issue on 2 different forums though.

Thank you for that.

natweststaffmember

The answer is No because as i said it is a complicated thing, just because say a bank pays a cheque or Direct debit does not mean that the next month it will happen as well. As i said it is complicated. Crazyworld, you are moving all around with semantics. I will explain, a shop has floor limits in which it will check a card for funds. They are the cause technically of exceeding the limit but the bank is bound to pay the item because the contract is between shop A and the Bank. Should the shop be prosecuted for fraud against the bank? or for complicitly being in cohoots with the bank in an unlawful activity?
The information is not witheld as i said it is something that not even I can explain. It relates to creditworthiness as to whether items are paid. Is that what you mean by limits? with regards to the bank allowing customers goin overdrawn the only shadow limit directly that I am aware of is how far it can go before it goes to collections department. That limit is set by the bank and has changed(personally to the detriment of the customer imho).

crazyworld_2

Thank you for your reply natweststaffmember. I read your post on the other forum by the way, and wanted to say that I do appreciate your words, it may not always seem like that, but bank workers who are speaking out against unlawful and unfair practices are in my book very brave, and to be praised.