Soldato
Either that or some of us spend the little money we have wisely and advoid unnecessary bank charges.
*claps hands*
Today's the day...
- Thread starter platypus
- Start date
*claps hands*
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
So what are you saying? That you should be exempt from bank charges for using an unauthorised overdraft becuase you are a single parent?
Charges for those who go over an agreed amount subsidise free banking for the rest of us. Without the charges, we all have to pay more.
Soldato
[TW]Fox;11561325 said:
No im saying im not irresponsible for having to borrow money.
I dont think anyone has said you are. But going over your agreed overdraft is not 'borrowing money' in the same sense as arranging a larger overdraft or a temporary personal loan.
Both of which were options available to you.
Nobody has a problem with people borrowing money. The problem is people who borrow more money than they have been offered and then have the audacity to whinge and complain when they get charged.
Like, duh.
Soldato
[TW]Fox;11561343 said:
No they were not.
So the bank refused to increase your overdraft, other banks refused to open you an account with a nominal overdraft and your bank point blank refused a small loan at any APR and also refused to issue you with a credit card?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,712
[TW]Fox;11560898 said:
No it's not. Banks enable you to go past your limit, and then charge you a fee that far exceeds the costs to the bank.
People will still get charged for the costs incurred by the bank, and so punished for irresponsibility, they just don't subsidise your banking through their actions.
Soldato
[TW]Fox;11561363 said:
At the time of my court case I was right in the middle of my mortgage application / home buying process and getting extra credit would have scuppered that resulting in me not being able to offer my son a home..
I did the RESPONSIBLE thing and made sure he had a roof over his head.
If you were being responsible you'd accept the charges for the service offered (namely not refusing to allow you to spend money).
Am I missing something here? You DID get extra credit by going into an unauthorised overdraft, something which is far more detrimental to your credit rating than arranging an additional overdraft
What exactly is your opinion, that you should have been allowed to borrow past your agreement without being charged £35? Whats the rationale behind that?
Quick, use lots of question marks??
As you can see from his post it wasn't the case - he wasnt refused he just felt it wasnt a good idea to apply. Two totally different things..
And the way the charges are arranged (flat fees per day) they're designed to catch people who go over by a small amount (<£5) and penalise them severely. Like I said, I was charged £33 for going over by £1.50. I would also have been charged £33 if I had gone over by £150. Is this fair?
Soldato
[TW]Fox;11561398 said:Am I missing something here? You DID get extra credit by going into an unauthorised overdraft, something which is far more detrimental to your credit rating than arranging an additional overdraft
Yes you are missing something !
The legal fees do not get paid until 28 days after the case has finished. My mortgage application was going through at the time of the court case itself. There was no way I could have got an addition £(insert figure here) thousand pounds extra credit at that time before the fees were due.
Completion on the property happened before the end of the court case.
This is going far too much into detail for my liking.
It sucks, I agree that much. But they are a business not a charity and you knew what would happen when:
a) You applied for the account
b) You went £1.50 over
It wasnt as if, like a bolt out of the blue, they theived £33 from you.
Soldato
[TW]Fox;11561398 said:Am I missing something here? You DID get extra credit by going into an unauthorised overdraft, something which is far more detrimental to your credit rating than arranging an additional overdraft
What exactly is your opinion, that you should have been allowed to borrow past your agreement without being charged £35? Whats the rationale behind that?
My opinion is that people should not be judged just because they go beyond there limit. It seems yourself and L0rdmike from the tone of your posts are doing just that.
Saying things along the line of do you not have funds set aside etc is ignorant when you do not know everyones personal situations.
In an ideal world no-one would use credit and this thread would not exist.
This is getting more and more confusing.
Lets clarify - this thread is about bank charges for unauthorised overdrafts.
It seems you took out several grand over your limit? And you are what.. somehow miffed you got charged for that?!?!
Should banks let you go several grand over for free or something? What is your view?
Soldato
I did but I have also claimed them back.