possible loophole??

jo_ray

this by the way is not the fao view, this was ment to be some kind of defence from the bank, when we first bought the compaint, we don't even know you bought anything til... ,this is no excuse, where are the guidelines where is the information about this,who gives the shop the power to decide what is or isn't authorised , the bank must.nice to know where their prioritys lie, it's not with their customers or they would insist, everything was authorised.

MonkeyMad

The real trouble is the time is takes in the banking system as a whole. If I withdraw from a machine, it normally doesn't display until the next day, so I could easily withdraw several times in a day and not see the balance go down, but then it is probably reasonable to expect me to keep a running total based on a balance at the start of the day.


At the lowest level, every time we buy/pay for anything not using cash, we have given someone the authority to take money from us at THEIR convenience, which may not be on the day we actually allowed them to do it (cheques are a great example). So WE need to ensure that all authorisations have been fufilled to determine a correct balance before we allow more access to our funds. This unfortunately means that those people whose average income is not much greater than average expenditure need to take more care going through thier accounts since they are more likely to be close to being overdrawn.

surfcat

Palerie-head wrote: »

I have pencil, and plenty of paper, but sadly am not anal enough to jot down every transaction....:D

That's the long and short of it isn't it? Us who actually keep track or our money are just 'boring' or 'anal'. Whatever the outcome of the pending case now, it's not going to be me (with more than 1500 going in each month) who gets shafted.

Hope you have your anal cream ready.

surfcat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

My council tax which I paid last monday has still not gone out. But I check my bank every day, only take 5 mins, I do it in the morning with a coffee.

Gosh I'm so put out. You mean I should actually take some responsibility and take time out of reading Heat magazine to plan my finances? You're so anal Graham.

surfcat

MonkeyMad wrote: »

The real trouble is the time is takes in the banking system as a whole. If I withdraw from a machine, it normally doesn't display until the next day, so I could easily withdraw several times in a day and not see the balance go down, but then it is probably reasonable to expect me to keep a running total based on a balance at the start of the day.
.

Then change banks. Not a perfect bank in many eyes, but when I draw out cash from an ATM my HSBC online banking is updated within a few minutes.

MonkeyMad

I have no need to change bank since this has never caused me a problem. Doesn't mean I can't spot the potential problems of a system.

surfcat

MonkeyMad wrote: »

I have no need to change bank since this has never caused me a problem. Doesn't mean I can't spot the potential problems of a system.

Agreed, but for someone who it would be a problem, then they should change banks! They have the choice to do so, that is, if other banks will take them.

MonkeyMad

Could be a problem to those of us with partners who have access to joint accounts and spend a lot of time away withdrawing money in strange cities without telling us....

Yes people should change banks for better services, but banks should aim to get the basics right too. Shouldn't this include lowering ATM balances each time money is withdrawn (transaction hardly likely to be reversed since the money is in my pocket).

This however is no substitute for individuals tracking their own money day by day. It is not the banks job - they just look after it for you.

jo_ray

before cards, there was only cheque books and cash, you pay bills mostly by cheque, usually large amounts, and all other transactions were done in cash , thereby, you would know if your cheques were cashed or not. you had far less transactions on your account.these cards are supposed to be an alternative to both,that is why they should not have discretion........by the way i think you should change banks too, if your cash is delayed.

MonkeyMad

jo_ray wrote: »

. before cards, there was only cheque books and cash, you pay bills mostly by cheque, usually large amounts, and all other transactions were done in cash , thereby, you would know if your cheques were cashed or not. you had far less transactions on your account.these cards are supposed to be an alternative to both,that is why they should not have discretion

Surely a card is only an alternative to a cheque which is an alternative to cash. Logical extension tells us card transactions should be dealt with in the same way as a cheque ie check if they have been cashed although you need to keep the receipts since there is no handy book stub?