From: Peter Saxton 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Unauthorised Overdraft Charges
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:22:26 +0100

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:29:36 GMT, Ronald Raygun
 wrote:

>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 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@petersaxton.co.uk