£12 over limit fee for going 73p over for 2 days

molerat

oldagetraveller1 said:

Card was used regularly, at least once per week, for Tesco shopping etc..

DD is cancelled "I've now cancelled the DD in my Tesco account".

The letter was the most annoying part which informed me of being in debt when I'm not!

Also confirmed during the phone call.

Rather than cutting off your nose to spite your face a formal complaint would have been the correct option.  Tesco Bank have failed and you should hold them to account for that.

oldagetraveller1

molerat said:

oldagetraveller1 said:

Card was used regularly, at least once per week, for Tesco shopping etc..

DD is cancelled "I've now cancelled the DD in my Tesco account".

The letter was the most annoying part which informed me of being in debt when I'm not!

Also confirmed during the phone call.

Rather than cutting off your nose to spite your face a formal complaint would have been the correct option.  Tesco Bank have failed and you should hold them to account for that.

My nose is still firmly in place, thanks. Unlike the DD.

What result would a formal complaint achieve other than a sorry about that, in response. Maybe some would in the hope of a bit of compensayshun?

Or maybe I might just do that, could do with a few quid!

molerat

oldagetraveller1 said:

molerat said:

oldagetraveller1 said:

Card was used regularly, at least once per week, for Tesco shopping etc..

DD is cancelled "I've now cancelled the DD in my Tesco account".

The letter was the most annoying part which informed me of being in debt when I'm not!

Also confirmed during the phone call.

Rather than cutting off your nose to spite your face a formal complaint would have been the correct option.  Tesco Bank have failed and you should hold them to account for that.

My nose is still firmly in place, thanks. Unlike the DD.

What result would a formal complaint achieve other than a sorry about that, in response. Maybe some would in the hope of a bit of compensayshun?

Or maybe I might just do that, could do with a few quid!

Yes you may get a bit of compensation but talking to front line cs is often like banging your head against a wall, they can only see what their bosses allow them to see.  A complaint goes higher up the food chain and will get passed to someone who can find out what has happened and what can be done about it.  If the complaint is not resolved it can be passed on to the FOS who can make them do something about it if it is a systemic problem which results in you receiving worrying letters.

oldagetraveller1

I have submitted a formal complaint.

1. relating to them failing to take 3 Nov. DD full balance, then adding a £12 fee for late payment (refunded after phoning).

2. An "account in arrears" letter stating that I had missed two months minimum payments and advising debt help. Two months, no it's one? Non of which is/was my fault because of their failure to take payment.

The DD details were in my Tesco card account, date and full balance. Also listed in my current account's DD list.

I await their response.

oldagetraveller1

Complaint upheld. The letter should not have been sent. It's that which has cost them £50!

OceanSound

eskbanker said:

moneymoner said:
Some banks do not even take a card payment from your account balance until several days later.

Where such delays occur, it'll almost always be the responsibility of the retailer in submitting transactions for settlement, rather than banks being dilatory in processing them.

Doesn't pretty much every transaction these days get put through for authorization with the card provider. Are there instances when a retailer will be able to take a payment without the card provider being unaware for days about the purchase (and more crucially the amount)?

Gone are the days, when a sales clerk took out some strange contraption from underneath the desk, put a receipt with carbon paper between several sheets, then put the card underneath these sheets and slid the contraption across the card so the card number, expiry date etc is captured to the receipt. I can somewhat understand retailers taking days to submit transactions in these instances. But nowadays, even the smallest retailer has a computer hooked up to the Internet for accepting card payments.

Would you say your comment applies to a majority of transactions or just a few? If the latter in what circumstances e.g. a small shop in the middle of nowhere that do not have an Internet connection or pretty much any shop (even in urban centres)?

eskbanker

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

moneymoner said:
Some banks do not even take a card payment from your account balance until several days later.

Where such delays occur, it'll almost always be the responsibility of the retailer in submitting transactions for settlement, rather than banks being dilatory in processing them.

Doesn't pretty much every transaction these days get put through for authorization with the card provider. Are there instances when a retailer will be able to take a payment without the card provider being unaware for days about the purchase (and more crucially the amount)?

There's a difference between authorisation and settlement, so even if the former is carried out in real time, the latter may not be.

OceanSound said:

Gone are the days, when a sales clerk took out some strange contraption from underneath the desk, put a receipt with carbon paper between several sheets, then put the card underneath these sheets and slid the contraption across the card so the card number, expiry date etc is captured to the receipt. I can somewhat understand retailers taking days to submit transactions in these instances. But nowadays, even the smallest retailer has a computer hooked up to the Internet for accepting card payments.

Would you say your comment applies to a majority of transactions or just a few? If the latter in what circumstances e.g. a small shop in the middle of nowhere that do not have an Internet connection or pretty much any shop (even in urban centres)?

In my experience it's very infrequent - on the previous page I shared a link about which businesses don't need to go online for authorisation, and there will undoubtedly be circumstances where they can't, either because there isn't technology support (e.g. mid-air purchases by airline passengers) or when it's failed.

However, as above, the issue I was referring to was settlement delays, which will typically be caused by retailers rather than banks, contrary to the impression created in the post to which I was replying.

OceanSound

eskbanker said:

OceanSound said:

eskbanker said:

moneymoner said:
Some banks do not even take a card payment from your account balance until several days later.

Where such delays occur, it'll almost always be the responsibility of the retailer in submitting transactions for settlement, rather than banks being dilatory in processing them.

Doesn't pretty much every transaction these days get put through for authorization with the card provider. Are there instances when a retailer will be able to take a payment without the card provider being unaware for days about the purchase (and more crucially the amount)?

There's a difference between authorisation and settlement, so even if the former is carried out in real time, the latter may not be.

OceanSound said:

Gone are the days, when a sales clerk took out some strange contraption from underneath the desk, put a receipt with carbon paper between several sheets, then put the card underneath these sheets and slid the contraption across the card so the card number, expiry date etc is captured to the receipt. I can somewhat understand retailers taking days to submit transactions in these instances. But nowadays, even the smallest retailer has a computer hooked up to the Internet for accepting card payments.

Would you say your comment applies to a majority of transactions or just a few? If the latter in what circumstances e.g. a small shop in the middle of nowhere that do not have an Internet connection or pretty much any shop (even in urban centres)?

In my experience it's very infrequent - on the previous page I shared a link about which businesses don't need to go online for authorisation, and there will undoubtedly be circumstances where they can't, either because there isn't technology support (e.g. mid-air purchases by airline passengers) or when it's failed.

However, as above, the issue I was referring to was settlement delays, which will typically be caused by retailers rather than banks, contrary to the impression created in the post to which I was replying.

An option for the customer to choose if going over the limit is allowed or not would be good. This can be offered when applying for the card and/or available within the app/web login.  The former similar to what is offered when it comes to automatic credit limit increases. I always choose 'consult me  to confirm before any automatic limit increase'.

Of course, if customer carried out transactions on a plane or farmer's market, they could still go over credit limit (as the credit card provider will not be able apply the customer choice of preventing going over limit). Therefore, credit card provider can add a disclaimer 'we may not be able to apply credit limit block due to certain transactions in certain situations.  As you say these are few and far between.

Of course, choosing the going over limit block may cause embarrassment to customer at a restaurant if they choose to pay with a card that is close to limit  and the bill amount would take them over even by 1p. Also, if paying for concert tickets online, if transaction is declined due to going over 1p, customer tries with a different card, then the tickets may be sold out. 

moneymoner

OceanSound said:

Of course, choosing the going over limit block may cause embarrassment to customer at a restaurant if they choose to pay with a card that is close to limit  and the bill amount would take them over even by 1p. Also, if paying for concert tickets online, if transaction is declined due to going over 1p, customer tries with a different card, then the tickets may be sold out. 

That's fair choice to offer customers who sign up for a credit card but it's not going to work for the CC provider who is really rubbing their hands for fee's

The CC providers will not even provide a reasonable buffer around the so called "credit limit" to prevent small oversight's as the OP put in the posts subjet. The fact that a £12 fee can be charged for being less than a £1 over the limit is quite obviously exploiting the customers circumstances.

From the reply's I've read, it seems that most of the posters agree with the fee/charges and that the customer is at fault or irresponsible. I do not see the OP at fault and I see the fee imposed to be ridiculous and irresponsible.

moneymoner

RogerBareford said:

A higher limit doesn't mean a higher debt, it's only debt if someone spends it. Anyone spending up to their limit each month either has too low of a limit or has a budgeting problem, but that isn't the fault of the credit card company.

Your analogy doesn't work because without a speedometer, there is no way for someone to know how fast they are going. But they can work out how much they are spending by simply adding on the amount they spend each time they use the card. This can just be to the nearest £10 if they have an adequate limit.

Going back to your car analogy, it's like saying my car has a top speed of 160 MPH so i'm going to drive flat out on the motorway whenever i can even though the limit is only 70 MPH because there is nothing stopping me doing that. But your saying people should only be sold cars which can only go 70MPH so they don't speed. This isn't a long term solution to controlling debt and doesn't resolve the root cause, which is a budgeting issue.

If you want to go back to my borrowing £2 analogy, then let's say the bowl of change is full of 10p coins. Instead of counting them out to borrow £2 you just grab an amount you think is about £2 and end up taking more. Do you think that is acceptable? Because personally i don't.

My anology suggested that the speed could only be obtained via a SMS messge and I was comparing it with a credit card where your balance (speed) could only be obtained via SMS messge.

Your anology with the top speed of the vehicle and driving flat out is funny, I gotta say.

When I received my credit card I was informed that it had a credit limit of £1000. To me that means I cannot spend more than that amount (or my car as a speed limit of 100Mph which I obviously cannot exceed due to the speed limiter within the ECU). But I was mis-informed or mis-sold the card as there is not a limit in place on the card as I can spend more than the supposed limit and be charged a fee for doing so. There is no limit on the card, it is whatever amount the CC issuer will allow. If you look up limit you will find the actual meaning of the word.

This is very similar to the unlimited broadband fiasco of the 90's. Where broadband provider's were mis-selling broadband packages as "unlimited" bandwidth when there was in fact a limit in place. Customers were complaining that their broadband bandwith was being limited in use. With credit cards it's the reverse situation where customers are being sold a card with a credit limit when in it is in fact unlimited or variable.

I only applied for the card on the basis it had a limit and felt reassured I could not over spend on the card. It ws very easy to quickly get into debt with card though, because I was mis-sold the card as it did not have a credit limit as I interpreted it.

I was sold a Ferrari when I thought I was getting a Mini. It's not my fault if hit 160Mph every time I put my foot down  Yeah, the speeding fines are quite misrable though.