Is there a legal unauthorized overdraft maximum?

Archi_Bald

hypes2k wrote: »

Around 4 years ago we found that purchases under £10 on a LloydsTSB debit card (which was into an unauthorized overdraft) would go through (may have only worked in CO-OP).

this sounds like a normal transaction that wasn't authotised with the bank because the amount was under the shop floor level. This is still happening today, and also happens for all contactless payments.

BTW, if this happened 4 years ago, why are you asking about it only now?

hypes2k wrote: »

However you would have to check the balance at the ATM after each <£10 transation to "reset" it somehow.

you wouldn't see the purchase reflected on your bank balance until the shop has reported it to the bank, which could take several days

hypes2k wrote: »

The account got to around -£1,600 into an unauthorized overdraft until the ATM ate the card

so your crafty "reset" didn't work, did it? If the overdraft was due to your £10 purchases, you must have made a hell of a lot of them before you realised your cunning plan didn't actually work.

hypes2k wrote: »

, is this legal in terms of the bank allowing us to do this, i.e allowing us to get into an unauthorized overdraft that large?

in a word, yes. Not sure why you are asking about the legality of what the bank was doing, when clearly you would have been very happy to "reset" your balance and steal money from the bank.

hypes2k

Archi_Bald wrote: »

so your crafty "reset" didn't work, did it? If the overdraft was due to your £10 purchases, you must have made a hell of a lot of them before you realised your cunning plan didn't actually work.

in a word, yes. Not sure why you are asking about the legality of what the bank was doing, when clearly you would have been very happy to "reset" your balance and steal money from the bank.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. I wasn't trying to reset the balance or steal money at all. It happened over quite a long period of time, not a week - I was well aware of the accumulating negative balance.

I wasn't entirely clear on the whole "reset" bit.

If you tried again, the card would decline until you checked the appended negative balance. It then allowed you to use the card again to get further into the red on small transactions. The money has been paid back - no stealing happened or tried to happen, all transactions were recorded in a traditional fashion by the bank, that's why the account was -£1,600. At absolutely no point did I think that I did not owe the money to the bank or that the transactions were not being recorded.

hypes2k

Archi_Bald wrote: »

BTW, if this happened 4 years ago, why are you asking about it only now?

I wanted to know why the bank allowed me to do this - as it got me into debt. You're right about the floor limit, I was not aware of this.

agrinnall

hypes2k wrote: »

What do you think?

I think CLAPTON has you spot on.

hypes2k

agrinnall wrote: »

I think CLAPTON has you spot on.

I agree, I would not get into debt like that again. It was stupid to get into such debt.

ceredigion

hypes2k wrote: »

I wanted to know why the bank allowed me to do this - as it got me into debt. You're right about the floor limit, I was not aware of this.

NO, NO, and NO Again.


You got your self into debt

timbo58

The problem lies with the fact that making an error that gets you into debt could be argued as partially the banks cause.
However the 1st time you took funds where you could possibly argue you didn't realise they were not your own would fall into this area.

The 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc you knew full well the money was not yours.
Thats the issue.