Yes you are
Don't go over your overdraft limited - don't get charged GBP30 - profit.

The stories of people being screwed over *by* bank errors are appalling, and those people have the absolute right to be enraged at the banks. But if you end up paying a hundred quid penalty because you're too inept to notice you're spending money that you haven't got and don't have the right to spend, I'm failing to spot the moral problem.

(see: "I only nicked a tenner's worth of stuff from Tesco's, so it's outrageous that I've been fined gbp200 for shoplifting!")
(stalinism, Sat 18 Jul 2009, 14:14, 1 reply)

Because it's a penalty
Why should being £1 over incur such a disproportionate penalty? If I borrowed a pound from you would you demand I pay £90 back? Surely it cannot be hard to set up a system whereby you pay 50% on any extra that comes out of your account? So if you're a pound over you pay £1.50 back, and if you're £100 over you pay £150 back. That way the penalty is proportionate to the ammount. Why can we not do that? Answer: The current system produces maximum profit for the bank.

And for the record the only time this happens is when something comes out of my account before something else has cleared. Yes, it would be nice to have more going into my account but I live in something that I like to call "the real world" and as such that is not a possibility. You seem to be assuming that I'm some airhead who cannot balance his finances, and is wantonly spending money which is not his, which I assure you is not true.
(MrC. Having the most boring username on b3ta since 2004, Mon 20 Jul 2009, 9:31, closed)