Natwest Transactions Not In Order

eskbanker

Entirely possible that I've misunderstood a very confusing collection of posts, but it seems to me that the bank is effectively categorising the £50 as non-benefit income, which is understandable when it was credited by a bookie, and therefore it would be used to repay the overdraft irrevocably - the timings and sequencing of transactions doesn't appear to be relevant to this?

sheramber

The credit was allocated to the overdraft rather than the benefit money as benefit money should not be used cover an overdraft so, yes, what the bank did was legal.

ugo2slo4me

AmityNeon said:

Why were you expecting NatWest to 'refund' you anything? Were you exercising First Right of Appropriation?

            Actual             |            Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date         In/Out   Balance  |  Date         In/Out   Balance
26/12/2023     -200      -200  |  26/12/2023     -200      -200
27/12/2023    1,150       950  |  27/12/2023       50      -150
27/12/2023      -10       940  |  27/12/2023    1,150      1000
27/12/2023       50       990  |  27/12/2023       -1       999
27/12/2023       -1       989  |  27/12/2023      -10       989

ugo2slo4me said:

At 9.30am I contacted Natwest to say they had taken £200 from my UC that was my rent payment could I have an encashment of £200 and on the 28th I would deposit £100 and £100 will come from WH. I was told account had to have a 0 balance first.

So it appears you wanted the full £1,150 of UC available to you, which would have required NatWest to 'refund' you £200 and not just £150, is that correct?

ugo2slo4me said:

And incase you are wondering what happened about the now £150...on 2nd January after being on the phone for 3hrs I was told I would not get it back because it was my own expenditure. Has anyone else had their transaction put in a different order that benefits natwest? 

Your own expenditure, so not other financial obligations. In what way do you believe NatWest has benefited? An account being overdrawn reflects money that you have borrowed and must pay back. If NatWest had 'refunded' you £150 or £200, that would have put your account back into overdraft by £150 or £200; either way, it's still you borrowing money, so spending the £989 first and then going overdrawn (if necessary) makes more sense doesn't it?

Wow.... You've done the chart as if you can see my statement and it's is very helpful. So now we go from here. 
You are correct Natwest just took their 200 which is fine. (and from the chart we can see they took 200). When I called them 8am and said I don't think they were allowed to take benefit money I was told I had to bring account to 0 balance then ask for encashment of 200. That morning 50 credited from william hill that I won when I deposited 10 from the now balance of 950 to make it 940....all good so far. 
Fast forward to 2 January 2024 when I call them to ask for encashment of 200 and they say they can't see 200 being taken from 1150 as the balance at 2am on 27th was 150 overdrawn. Plus 1 charge made it 149 then 1150 came in making it 999.  So they put the later transactions earlier  making the order in your chart - 200, 50 in, - 150, 1 out,  - 149, 1150 in, 999, 10 out, 989 ball. So they said when the 1150 came in they took 150 and 1 fee leaving 999. 3 hours later... As it was my own expenditure and not from bank fees they cannot give the 150 but they can put through to complaints department! 
I said to them what I've been trying to say here, it's not about complaint or refunding 150/200 it's about their false accounting moving the 50 to the front when without the 1150 there would be no 50.
My question was "is that even legal to do"? Surely by doing that there would be some instances where transactions like oyster charge that were fine on contact would then not go through when reaching bank. 

Ps: Forgive me if yal have explained and I've not understood... 

. 

sheramber

ugo2slo4me said:

AmityNeon said:

Why were you expecting NatWest to 'refund' you anything? Were you exercising First Right of Appropriation?

            Actual             |            Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date         In/Out   Balance  |  Date         In/Out   Balance
26/12/2023     -200      -200  |  26/12/2023     -200      -200
27/12/2023    1,150       950  |  27/12/2023       50      -150
27/12/2023      -10       940  |  27/12/2023    1,150      1000
27/12/2023       50       990  |  27/12/2023       -1       999
27/12/2023       -1       989  |  27/12/2023      -10       989

ugo2slo4me said:

At 9.30am I contacted Natwest to say they had taken £200 from my UC that was my rent payment could I have an encashment of £200 and on the 28th I would deposit £100 and £100 will come from WH. I was told account had to have a 0 balance first.

So it appears you wanted the full £1,150 of UC available to you, which would have required NatWest to 'refund' you £200 and not just £150, is that correct?

ugo2slo4me said:

And incase you are wondering what happened about the now £150...on 2nd January after being on the phone for 3hrs I was told I would not get it back because it was my own expenditure. Has anyone else had their transaction put in a different order that benefits natwest? 

Your own expenditure, so not other financial obligations. In what way do you believe NatWest has benefited? An account being overdrawn reflects money that you have borrowed and must pay back. If NatWest had 'refunded' you £150 or £200, that would have put your account back into overdraft by £150 or £200; either way, it's still you borrowing money, so spending the £989 first and then going overdrawn (if necessary) makes more sense doesn't it?

Wow.... You've done the chart as if you can see my statement and it's is very helpful. So now we go from here. 
You are correct Natwest just took their 200 which is fine. (and from the chart we can see they took 200). When I called them 8am and said I don't think they were allowed to take benefit money I was told I had to bring account to 0 balance then ask for encashment of 200. That morning 50 credited from william hill that I won when I deposited 10 from the now balance of 950 to make it 940....all good so far. 
Fast forward to 2 January 2024 when I call them to ask for encashment of 200 and they say they can't see 200 being taken from 1150 as the balance at 2am on 27th was 150 overdrawn. Plus 1 charge made it 149 then 1150 came in making it 999.  So they put the later transactions earlier  making the order in your chart - 200, 50 in, - 150, 1 out,  - 149, 1150 in, 999, 10 out, 989 ball. So they said when the 1150 came in they took 150 and 1 fee leaving 999. 3 hours later... As it was my own expenditure and not from bank fees they cannot give the 150 but they can put through to complaints department! 
I said to them what I've been trying to say here, it's not about complaint or refunding 150/200 it's about their false accounting moving the 50 to the front when without the 1150 there would be no 50.
My question was "is that even legal to do"? Surely by doing that there would be some instances where transactions like oyster charge that were fine on contact would then not go through when reaching bank. 

Ps: Forgive me if yal have explained and I've not understood... 

. 

Yes, it is legal where benefit money is concerned. 

AmityNeon

ugo2slo4me said:

You are correct Natwest just took their 200 which is fine. (and from the chart we can see they took 200). When I called them 8am and said I don't think they were allowed to take benefit money I was told I had to bring account to 0 balance then ask for encashment of 200. That morning 50 credited from william hill that I won when I deposited 10 from the now balance of 950 to make it 940....all good so far.

Fast forward to 2 January 2024 when I call them to ask for encashment of 200 and they say they can't see 200 being taken from 1150 as the balance at 2am on 27th was 150 overdrawn. Plus 1 charge made it 149 then 1150 came in making it 999. So they put the later transactions earlier making the order in your chart - 200, 50 in, - 150, 1 out, - 149, 1150 in, 999, 10 out, 989 ball. So they said when the 1150 came in they took 150 and 1 fee leaving 999.

This does not make sense. Being overdrawn by £150 and then being charged a £1 overdraft fee means the statement balance should be -151, not -149. I think writing in prose from memory is confusing matters; you could list the transactions as you see them listed on your statement, line by line, although ultimately it's irrelevant.

ugo2slo4me said:

I said to them what I've been trying to say here, it's not about complaint or refunding 150/200 it's about their false accounting moving the 50 to the front when without the 1150 there would be no 50.

My question was "is that even legal to do"? Surely by doing that there would be some instances where transactions like oyster charge that were fine on contact would then not go through when reaching bank.

The order of transactions should be rearranged in real-time (as transactions occur), with credits listed first, thereby preventing real-time overdrafts from being listed as historical overdrafts when the day's transaction history is complete.

The fact remains, you had an extra £50 credit that day for which you did/could not exercise First Right of Appropriation; therefore, it was allocated to partially repay your overdraft, meaning only £150 of your UC was used to repay the rest.

Let's assume you correctly exercised First Right Appropriation and itemised the required amounts to which NatWest agreed, earmarking the full £1,150 of UC income (which includes the £10 bookie gamble, and ignores the overdraft fee for demonstrative clarity.)

             Real-time History             
-------------------------------------------
Date             Details   In/Out   Balance
26/12/2023                   -200      -200
27/12/2023            UC    1,150       950
27/12/2023   (earmarked)   -1,150      -200
27/12/2023            WH       50      -150

Do you see how, even if NatWest had allowed you to earmark the full 1,150 of UC income thereby causing your account balance to remain at -200, your account would still 'only' be at -150? The end net result is exactly the same as if you did as NatWest advised: reduce your account balance to zero, they 'refund' you 150 (i.e. you borrow £150 via overdraft), so your account balance would be... -150.

CouldntResist

Seemed quite obvious that if UC is effectively untouchable to reduce the overdraft then other sources of income will be used instead. Surprised it has taken 3 pages to get to the position where someone has actually had to prove that -£200+£50=-£150. 

ugo2slo4me

AmityNeon said:

ugo2slo4me said:

You are correct Natwest just took their 200 which is fine. (and from the chart we can see they took 200). When I called them 8am and said I don't think they were allowed to take benefit money I was told I had to bring account to 0 balance then ask for encashment of 200. That morning 50 credited from william hill that I won when I deposited 10 from the now balance of 950 to make it 940....all good so far.

Fast forward to 2 January 2024 when I call them to ask for encashment of 200 and they say they can't see 200 being taken from 1150 as the balance at 2am on 27th was 150 overdrawn. Plus 1 charge made it 149 then 1150 came in making it 999. So they put the later transactions earlier making the order in your chart - 200, 50 in, - 150, 1 out, - 149, 1150 in, 999, 10 out, 989 ball. So they said when the 1150 came in they took 150 and 1 fee leaving 999.

This does not make sense. Being overdrawn by £150 and then being charged a £1 overdraft fee means the statement balance should be -151, not -149. I think writing in prose from memory is confusing matters; you could list the transactions as you see them listed on your statement, line by line, although ultimately it's irrelevant.

ugo2slo4me said:

I said to them what I've been trying to say here, it's not about complaint or refunding 150/200 it's about their false accounting moving the 50 to the front when without the 1150 there would be no 50.

My question was "is that even legal to do"? Surely by doing that there would be some instances where transactions like oyster charge that were fine on contact would then not go through when reaching bank.

The order of transactions should be rearranged in real-time (as transactions occur), with credits listed first, thereby preventing real-time overdrafts from being listed as historical overdrafts when the day's transaction history is complete.

The fact remains, you had an extra £50 credit that day for which you did/could not exercise First Right of Appropriation; therefore, it was allocated to partially repay your overdraft, meaning only £150 of your UC was used to repay the rest.

Let's assume you correctly exercised First Right Appropriation and itemised the required amounts to which NatWest agreed, earmarking the full £1,150 of UC income (which includes the £10 bookie gamble, and ignores the overdraft fee for demonstrative clarity.)

             Real-time History             
-------------------------------------------
Date             Details   In/Out   Balance
26/12/2023                   -200      -200
27/12/2023            UC    1,150       950
27/12/2023   (earmarked)   -1,150      -200
27/12/2023            WH       50      -150

Do you see how, even if NatWest had allowed you to earmark the full 1,150 of UC income thereby causing your account balance to remain at -200, your account would still 'only' be at -150? The end net result is exactly the same as if you did as NatWest advised: reduce your account balance to zero, they 'refund' you 150 (i.e. you borrow £150 via overdraft), so your account balance would be... -150.

OK I understand. So regardless of when a transaction takes place during the day the order it goes in doesn't matter as long  as the ending balance is correct?? I just couldn't understand how the +50 was placed before the +1150 when there would be no 50 without the 1150.
Thanx for taking time to explain that. I have another query that I'm hesitant to ask on here because some respondents seem to use it as a time to criticise instead of help. 

ugo2slo4me

ugo2slo4me said:

AmityNeon said:

ugo2slo4me said:

You are correct Natwest just took their 200 which is fine. (and from the chart we can see they took 200). When I called them 8am and said I don't think they were allowed to take benefit money I was told I had to bring account to 0 balance then ask for encashment of 200. That morning 50 credited from william hill that I won when I deposited 10 from the now balance of 950 to make it 940....all good so far.

Fast forward to 2 January 2024 when I call them to ask for encashment of 200 and they say they can't see 200 being taken from 1150 as the balance at 2am on 27th was 150 overdrawn. Plus 1 charge made it 149 then 1150 came in making it 999. So they put the later transactions earlier making the order in your chart - 200, 50 in, - 150, 1 out, - 149, 1150 in, 999, 10 out, 989 ball. So they said when the 1150 came in they took 150 and 1 fee leaving 999.

This does not make sense. Being overdrawn by £150 and then being charged a £1 overdraft fee means the statement balance should be -151, not -149. I think writing in prose from memory is confusing matters; you could list the transactions as you see them listed on your statement, line by line, although ultimately it's irrelevant.

ugo2slo4me said:

I said to them what I've been trying to say here, it's not about complaint or refunding 150/200 it's about their false accounting moving the 50 to the front when without the 1150 there would be no 50.

My question was "is that even legal to do"? Surely by doing that there would be some instances where transactions like oyster charge that were fine on contact would then not go through when reaching bank.

The order of transactions should be rearranged in real-time (as transactions occur), with credits listed first, thereby preventing real-time overdrafts from being listed as historical overdrafts when the day's transaction history is complete.

The fact remains, you had an extra £50 credit that day for which you did/could not exercise First Right of Appropriation; therefore, it was allocated to partially repay your overdraft, meaning only £150 of your UC was used to repay the rest.

Let's assume you correctly exercised First Right Appropriation and itemised the required amounts to which NatWest agreed, earmarking the full £1,150 of UC income (which includes the £10 bookie gamble, and ignores the overdraft fee for demonstrative clarity.)

             Real-time History             
-------------------------------------------
Date             Details   In/Out   Balance
26/12/2023                   -200      -200
27/12/2023            UC    1,150       950
27/12/2023   (earmarked)   -1,150      -200
27/12/2023            WH       50      -150

Do you see how, even if NatWest had allowed you to earmark the full 1,150 of UC income thereby causing your account balance to remain at -200, your account would still 'only' be at -150? The end net result is exactly the same as if you did as NatWest advised: reduce your account balance to zero, they 'refund' you 150 (i.e. you borrow £150 via overdraft), so your account balance would be... -150.

OK I understand. So regardless of when a transaction takes place during the day the order it goes in doesn't matter as long  as the ending balance is correct?? I just couldn't understand how the +50 was placed before the +1150 when there would be no 50 without the 1150.
Thanx for taking time to explain that. I have another query that I'm hesitant to ask on here because some respondents seem to use it as a time to criticise instead of help. 

And you correct - 151 not - 149