I don't think it's at all fair for banks to give you an "unauthorised" overdraft (which one hard never requested) and then charge a small fortune for the privilege.
Through my teenage years I had banked with NatWest, which never allowed me to go beyond any money I already owned or any overdraft that had already been agreed. Maybe I had grown used to this system, when it isn't actually used across the board.
What really surprises me is that Smile Bank, owned by The Co-operative and always advertising their ethical, fair trade, people-friendly policies, does not seem to allow this. Granted, there is the argument that you should be monitoring your finances enough that you never get to the point a payment would be declined because of lack of money. But there is an annoyance that putting that card in a card machine amounts to a "request" for an informal overdraft.
When I put my trust in a bank so I decide to pay by card, I have always worked on the trust they wouldn't spend more than I have available. I see it as a bit like going through your pockets at the checkout only to realise you had a bit less money than you thought. I wouldn't in my right mind decide to take a loan out on Wonga just to cover there extra cost, but rather I would either put a few items back or cancel the transaction. And I would have always expected my bank to act in the same way.
What shocks me most is NatWest, a commercial bank which is part of Royal Bank of Scotland and 80% owned by the taxpayer, is actually more reliable and trustworthy in this situation than the "ethically superior" Cooperative Bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment