From: Ronald Raygun 
Subject: Re: Guardian: At last customers are fighting back against the =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A33bn?= a year that banks are raking in from fees for going over an overdraft limit.
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:46:04 GMT

Tim wrote:

>> > ... a writer in the Guardian who wrote:
>> >> Have you been stung by exorbitant bank charges
>> >> after going just a few pounds into the red?
>> >
>> >> ... fees such as ... £25 each day an
>> >> account is over its authorised limit.
>> >
>> Biscit wrote:
>> > Inconsistency alert!  Just a few pounds into the red does
>> > not describe someone going over their overdraft limit!
>>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> It does if there is no overdraft agreement in place...
> 
> If there is no overdraft agreement, then there is no "overdraft limit".

Bullshit.  An overdraft limit is the amount a bank has agreed it will
let the account go overdrawn without growling.  In the absence of such
agreement, that limit is usually zero, but it always exists, since there
is a lways a point at which the bank will growl.

> [The limit of zero is not their "overdraft" limit, it is their "borrowing"
> limit...]

Bullshit.  If a bank decides to pay a cheque or order which would result
in the account going overdrawn, it is ipso facto permitting borrowing.
So clearly the borrowing limit is not zero.

> How can they possibly "go over their overdraft limit" when it does not
> exist?  ;-)

If it didn't, they couldn't, but it does, so they can.