That's part of the argument.

Is it a legal contractual obligation?

Dunno. I didn't read it beyond the important bits about how much they'd charge if I went overdrawn.

I don't quite follow that. Bank provides a service and you agreed to their terms and conditions. What does court has to do with it? You approved the fact that bank is going to charge you by signing the agreement. Seems pretty straight forward to me...

Considering the banks have had multi-billion amounts of our cash thrown at them, this decision seems rather small minded and downright mean.
They won't lend me a small amount of cash to cover a momentary lapse in solvency, but yet they've taken vast sums from our coffers.
As a child, if I visited a friends house and left a toy there, only to have them be a complete bitch about returning it, I'd avoid them. Shame we can't do that with banks.

I've only ever been overdrawn three times in my life and each time I didn't get charged for it.

I think the education thing is a good idea but it also needs to be easier to monitor your account (which it is now with internet banking).

However, I do feel that whilst it is appropriate to charge, the way they do it isn't right. A person is overdrawn by say £1. They then get charged silly money, like £30 per day for every day they are overdrawn. Why?!?!? If they had the money, they wouldn't be overdrawn.

Furthermore, we're at a stage where it's almost impossible to do anything without a bank. My workplace won't pay us unless we have a bank account. I wouldn't have been able to buy my car without a bank (can't walk in with a briefcase containing £20k) and I would be charged extra for various bills for not using direct debit!

Some of us don't have the option of not using a bank.

That doesnt make it anymore moral when they stick you for £25+ for going a quid over.

I dont dispute that people should manage their money better but charges should be fair (emphasis on the word fair)

These charges are so disproportionate to what the action actually costs the bank it's disgusting.

Anyone who truly believes these charges are either fair or proportionate is an idiot. The charges could easily be cut down to less than £10 and the bank would STILL be in profit.

And to anyone who says these charges keep banking free - they don't. The banks make more than enough money on the cash already sat in your bank account which they pay [LIFTED] all interest to you on.

If we don't like the big banks, there are alternatives with a more ethical basis.

There's the Co-op Bank for example. I'd be with them in a heartbeat if I didn't have to use the internet to do any transactions. If there was a proper local branch, I'd be there like a shot.

I think they may be fair or proportionate, it entirely depends on the situation.

If you go £300 overdrawn and get charged £30 I would say that is fair.
If you go £3 overdrawn and get charged £30 I don't.

It's down to poor money management. The one time I had the problem it was due to a banking error on the account.

The charges do keep the bank accounts 'free' in the sense that there is no fixed charge for the service.

If you have piles of money sat in your current account for extended periods of time you obviously aren't qualified to be in control of your finances as you aren't doing the sensible thing and putting the funds in a more beneficial location

I went about £2.50 over the £100 overdraft due to a payment of over £100 being taken by a company on the day they notified me that it would be taken.

Two scheduled payments (both for around £10) were then declined.

I was then paid over £1200 into my bank the following day which I had been for over the past year on the same day.

Because of this I was charged £104.

I am no longer with Natwest and bank with Smile (part of the Co-op).

I get a £500 emergency overdraft facility with a maximum charge of £20 (plus interest) per month (or something like that) if any penalties are due.

Comment from another forum:



So €120 a year, every year for a current account, call it £120 for sake of argument

This would mean if you go overdrawn 3 times a year it is roughly equal, if you don't then the UK is a better system, if you go more then maybe Europe is for you (if you can get an overdraft)

This doesn't take interest into account.... but lets be honest, if you are getting charged for going overdrawn getting interest on positive amounts is the least of your worries!

This doesn't include the planned charges for cash machine withdrawals on top. That would be another charge like they have in the US which is a pain if you don't like carrying lots of cash on you, or you want to pay cash for something.

Well, I've been looking at pulling my loan out of Natwest and even mid way through the payments I can get a cheaper loan elsewhere and use it to settle with Natwest

I'll wait until I've paid for my car (2 months) and look at getting rid of Natwest completely

YAY

Yes but this uis Unathorised Overdraft
If you have an authorised overdraft then ( in the banks I have worked in / Banked with) there are no charges – other than interest - if you go inot the Red

I know that occasionally I will go overdrawn – something comes up just before pay day etc – so arranged a overdraft limit with my bank well in excess of what I will ever need

This gets rolled over every year and cost me nothing

That way I know that if I go Overdrawn I will not pay any fees

Its simple and anyone could do it. Obviously if they will not give you an overdraft limit then you are, in their eyes, a poor risk and so want t charge you accordingly

I meant unauthorised overdraft, assuming no current overdraft was in place, which to be honest most people need £100 or less of an overdraft or they need to rethink their finances

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8382289.stm

it didn't take the greedy w@nkers, sorry bankers, long …