Re: Unauthorised Overdraft Charges

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:29:36 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter Saxton wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:04:28 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What you said seemed odd to me because it doesn't make sense (a) that
the first is even a decision anyone could make [because drawing on
uncleared funds is one of those "not never, not no-how" things -- though
I dare say in special cases a manager could be persuaded, if the customer
agrees to stump up mega-fees, to phone the drawee of the cheque in
question to ask whether funds are available and would be reserved so that
payment would be guaranteed], and ...

drawing on uncleared funds happens all the time.

Really? I don't believe it does. Technically it would be a loan
which is repaid when the funds clear.

I have different accounts and some are business and some are personal.
At Lloyds TSB personal and business accounts are on different systems
so it takes a day to make the transfer between the different types of
accounts. I check my accounts every morning but Lloyds TSB need funds
by 11.00 am to avoid returning DDs. I can usually make transfers or
pay cash in but sometimes it's not convenient so I will call my
manager and sometimes he'll transfer from an account against uncleared
funds.

I don't see why you think it isn't possible why a flag on your profile
can't make the second decision.

... it didn't seem to me sensible (b) that it a flag can "make" a
decision, a flag being simply an indicator of a decision which has already
been made.

It would make more sense for the *first* to be an automatic "no" and
the *second* to have been a manager's decision.

the flag doesn't "make the decision" as such but it indicates to staff
that they can give make the decision after the manager assesses a
person for an overdraft level.

That's not very practical, then, is it, if the satff still need to get
the manager to level-assess? Surely the "flag" is more than a yes-no
indicator, but a figure giving the pre-assessed level.

Maybe the wording could be better but I meant that the manager makes
the decision earlier, he puts the flag on the profile and then in the
future the staff can use the overdraft if required without referring
to the manager.

IIRC when I asked for the overdraft, the "yes" came immediately
without referring back to a "manager".

Exactly!

Exactly what? It also came immediately without referring to any
"profile". Or perhaps she meant "yes, we'll consider it" and then
went to check my profile, and could have come back and said, "no,
we're only prepared to give you a £1k overdraft instead of the £4k
you're asking for, despite the balance on the account plus the
cheque you've just paid in totalling more than £4k.

Exactly that the staff checked your profile and saw that they were
able to give you an overdraft within what you needed.

IIRC when I asked the first
question, she may have gone to check with a manager before coming
back to say no. It may well be that the manager told her that an
overdraft would be OK, but if so I'm surprised she didn't offer it
but waited for me to ask for it.

All I know is that whenever I check my account online now, the
accounts summary shows an actual balance and an available balance,
and the latter is invariably £4k more than the former. That tells me,
I think, that the "temporary" £4k overdraft authorised years ago is
still in force.

Exactly!

It all seems very understandable to me.

Exactly what? Do you mean both of my last two paragraphs? As for the
2nd, I find it odd that a temporary overdraft (which at the time was
obviously intended to cover only the potential shortfall caused by the
clearing delay of the cheque I had just paid in) would end up becoming
permanent. As for the 1st I find it odd that anyone would check with a
manager or with a profile whether an overdraft would be OK, and then not
come right out and offer it but wait to be asked specifically.

You said: "That tells me, I think, that the "temporary" £4k overdraft
authorised years ago is still in force." Then I said: "Exactly".

Why is it so difficult to understand?

Evidently because of your lack of appropriate snipping.

If you quote me saying "zxvbn asdfgh" and reply "exactly", I must assume
you mean your "exactly" to apply to the whole "zxvbn asdfgh", and when
that doesn't make sense and I query it, you seem astonished I didn't
read your mind and realised you only meant it to apply to "fgh".

I would say that you say too many different things in one paragraph
then. You babbled and then make a statement so I say "exactly" to the
statement and you wonder if I am saying "exactly" to some babbling!

I did sort of cajole you into a new year's resolution to snip properly,
and IIRC you kind of agreed you would, but it didn't last long. :-(

That apart, I also find it odd that a profile would have a piece of
information, unknown to the customer, saying "if ever this customer asks
for an overdraft, and provided it doesn't exceed £x, just say yes".
It seems to me that these decisions ought to be made on the spot and
not in advance on the off-chance. On the other hand, it does save time
when the need arises. Perhaps a similar (or the same) limit exists
[neatly bringing this back to the original topic] for unauthorised
borrowing, in terms of whether to bounce a cheque or to apply usurious
charges instead.

Why would it seem odd. Would the people be available who know the
customer or have time to look at the situation when it is needed? What
is likely to happen is that the bank makes a considered judgment that
a certain overdraft is a good risk if a customer is ever in a
situation when they may need one.

I hope that is easy to understand!

It just seems a bit of a waste of time to make decision in advance which
will, more often than not, turn out to have been unnecessary. No-one
these days actually "knows the customer", and someone should always be
available who could make a decision on the basis of a quick glance at
recent account activity.

I disagree. To what? To all of it!

You really think that a bank would want a situation where someone
makes a decision based on a quick glance at recent account activity?

I would not propose such a system. I prefer managers giving a flag for
a certain overdraft on the understanding if there's an event that
requires a change in the flag it is done and the manager is held
responsible if it is not done.

I'm not in favour blaming someone after they took a "quick glance at
recent account activity"!

--
Peter Saxton from London
peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unauthorised Overdraft Charges
    ... I dare say in special cases a manager could be persuaded, if the customer ... person for an overdraft level. ... I find it odd that a temporary overdraft (which at the time was ...
    (uk.finance)
  • Red alert for overdrawn
    ... In some cases the hikes have been double, even triple, that of the Bank of ... Halifax has increased the interest on its Current Account overdraft by 2%, ... facilities has prompted a call for customers with these accounts to jump ...
    (uk.finance)
  • Workgroup Manager: screwed up home directories
    ... But workgroup manager, working with the LDAP server has decided to ... When I try to login on the GUI console, it seems to accept my password ... I can login on the one account that was created locally (aka: ... very little about actual security. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: she topped her worse (my duaghter did) OT
    ... I had $15,000 in assets, after my car accident was settled. ... Once a year, and ONLY once a year, when the tenant's annual recertification takes place, you bring a copy of your latest bank statement to the rental office during your recertification appointment with the manager. ... The manager cannot access your account any time he wants. ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: When IT Manager breaks rules
    ... I *think* you can set up an alert in Performance Logs and Alerts to fire whenever an account is created. ... Drop a VBScript in your domain controllers scheduled tasks that reads the security log and sends you an email each time an event is recorded for a new account creation. ... One of them is, not to create any user account unless an email arrives from HR to HelpDesk, informing of the user's badge ID, the department he/she belongs to. ... The procedures are in place but sometimes it so happens that some Head of the Dept. or executive management calls up our IT Manager over the phone, or send him an email directly which is then forwarded to our Help Desk incharge who is then left with little options but to create the account without due processes. ...
    (Security-Basics)