Bank account which doesn't allow O/D

GingerFurball_2

gorses wrote: »

Looks like in the States you have to opt-in to getting stung for going O/D.

I'm still looking for a suitable first account for my 17 year old son to learn how to manage his meagre income without getting his hands burnt.

I don't think telling your son that avoiding overdrafts at all costs is a sensible way to educate him.

Overdrafts are fine if used sensibly.

Roland_Sausage

I wouldn't have thought any account availale to a 17 year old would allow him to go overdrawn anyway, since they would not be allowed to offer him credit.

polymaff

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Don't confuse "no ODs allowed" with "will never get charged". Read the detailed charges document that comes with each account. You can get away with no charges but you have to still manage your available balance.

The best advice in the thread, so far, IMHO. You can specify "No Overdraft" but if something comes in that would put you in the red then, even if the bank takes no action, you still may face a significant charge. RBS charge £35 flat fee in such circumstances for, effectively, doing nothing. BTW "free" bank accounts seem to attract the highest of these charges. "Swings and Roundabouts" - I expect the banks would reply

pmduk

polymaff wrote: »

RBS charge £35 flat fee in such circumstances for, effectively, doing nothing.

They quote £6.00 where did you get £35 from?

polymaff

pmduk wrote: »

They quote £6.00 where did you get £35 from?

Off my subsequent statement - they didn't even write or email me. I only found out when the statement arrived. I argued it off .

pmduk

Well as I indicated in the post above the charge for returning an item is £6. you obviously had additional issues with the account or are talking historically.

polymaff

pmduk wrote: »

Well as I indicated in the post above the charge for returning an item is £6. you obviously had additional issues with the account or are talking historically.

Neither. Both your statements are incorrect - but, with the greatest of respect, I know better than to argue with someone who so quickly resorts to the word "obviously".

Archi_Bald

polymaff wrote: »

Neither. Both your statements are incorrect - but, with the greatest of respect, I know better than to argue with someone who so quickly resorts to the word "obviously".

I can't see anything wrong with what pmduk said in this thread or anywhere else about RBS charges.

Where's your evidence that RBS charge £35 for making a payment that gets you into an unarranged overdraft? Are you saying RBS are charging you different amounts than those published on their website? If so, what did they say when you queried it with them?

polymaff

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I can't see anything wrong with what pmduk said in this thread or anywhere else about RBS charges.

Where's your evidence that RBS charge £35 for making a payment that gets you into an unarranged overdraft? Are you saying RBS are charging you different amounts than those published on their website? If so, what did they say when you queried it with them?

Taking your three questions in order:

1 I answered this in message #26.
2 No.
3 Not applicable, see 2 above.

Now your statements. Let's look at "what you can't see anything wrong with", e.g. "the charge for returning an item is £6". It just isn't so. You may have found an RBS bank account where this is true - but as stated it is not true.

@Archibald, @pmduk
When I started posting more regularly to MSE I was prepared for foolishness, ignorance (including my own) and rudeness. That's life and MSE reflects life. What I was taken by surprise by was the amount of bigotry. Neither you nor pmduk have at any point shown any evidence of thinking "Well, what he says and what I believe to be the facts of the matter disagree - so what am I missing?" Instead, you are both taking the line "His statements differ from my understanding - so he is wrong". The classic definition of a bigot.

Archi_Bald

polymaff, you seem to be determined not to understand that there is a difference between information that everyone can verify, and information that is completely unverifiable. pmduk and I posted the earlier, you posted the latter. None of what pmduk and I have posted is foolishness, ignorance, rudeness or bigotry. It is simple fact, verifiable by everybody, including yourself.

If RBS did indeed charge you £35 simply for going overdrawn, you should be taking this up with them as it is clearly not in line with their published charges, and they would need to correct your charges. What you should not do is claim that they charge £35 when their published rate is £6.

I cannot speak for pmduk or others, but it appears to me you have some sort of a gripe with some companies and you are making generalised claims based on something that apparently happened to you. Your claims about RBS charges in this thread are one such example, your posts elsewhere about Nationwide's systems crashing is another.

As long as you post unverifiable or incorrect information, you need to expect that one or more of the other posters will pick up on it and post correct information.