From: Ronald Raygun 
Subject: Re: Unauthorised Overdraft Charges
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:29:36 GMT

Peter Saxton wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:04:28 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>  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 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.

>>>>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 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.