You hear "...should have been more careful..." a lot.
As far as I can tell there seems to be a deliberate mechanism in place to make you overdrawn and keep you overdrawn. I'm sure some will say that's paranoia, but after hearing many similar accounts, and experiencing similar myself (bill refused one month but two allowed the next, regardless of overdraft) it's the only theory which makes sense.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Thu 10 Feb 2011, 17:51, 2 replies)

not paranoid.
For instance. If you have debits and credits on the same day, the debits will be processed first. So if you had 20 quid coming in to an account with a fiver in it, and you took out 6 quid, you'd be a quid overdrawn, and voila! along come the charges.
Larger debits are processed first to maximise the chances of you going overdrawn. If you had three direct debits going out of an account with 100 quid in it. One for 90 quid, one for 20 and one for 15. The 90 would come out first, leaving the account with 10 quid. In that instance you'd be charged twice for bouncing the two smaller ones. If the 15, then the 20 went out first, you'd only be charged for bouncing the 90 quid one.
There's no way any of that is by accident, and smells to me like it's been given some serious thought.
(dchurch bah, Thu 10 Feb 2011, 19:42, closed)

^this^
in spades.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Thu 10 Feb 2011, 22:45, closed)

AbsoLUTEly.
I paid a £300 cheque into my account (totally in the black). Two days later and voila - the money is in my account, and the available balance has increased accordingly. Happy day. I moved the funds out of that account and into my ISA.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I was charged interest. Eh? What?

I emailed the bank. The interest was for the "loan" they had given me, because the funds had not yet cleared.

This is clearly fraudulent behaviour - to trick you into thinking the funds are available to you with no penalty. There was no indication that they hadn't cleared.

What do you think of that little trick? The bank's name may be an anagram of HBSC.
(Stiltzkin, Fri 11 Feb 2011, 15:36, closed)

I think the thing that irked me was
the fact when she said "should have been more careful" was sort of implying "we screwed you over because YOU let us" mentality.

I could go all political and point out how the tax payers have done XYZ for the banks, and being charged £130 for using £2 of the banks is a bit of a piss take. Especially to an overdraft I never agreed on and to say my money has given them plenty of interest over the years I had that account.

Building societies all the way for me!
(Jon_LTD Treat the world like a head!, Thu 10 Feb 2011, 22:39, closed)

£130 charges for going £2 over, you say?
Try having a £1500 limit, being overdrawn by, ooh, £1480, and then having a £23 direct debit bounced. Cost me £35 to bounce it, plus £28 for going over my limit, plus £28 for BEING over my limit. Plus a £25 charge from the people the direct debit was supposed to be paying.

I couldn't get back inside the £1500 limit after that so I kind of stopped using the account. A year later, when I went bankrupt, the debit balance on that account alone stood at £3,800. £2,300 of that was made up of charges and interest. In fact out of the whole £22k bankruptcy I reckon only £4k of it was actual money I'd spent, and that was on rent and bills.
(WillI'mNot logs in twice a year, every year, Thu 10 Feb 2011, 23:35, closed)

"Cost me £35 to bounce it, plus £28 for going over my limit..."
If they let you go over your limit, then why did the direct debit bounce?
(Stiltzkin, Fri 11 Feb 2011, 15:38, closed)

I've had a DD bounce then get payed.
Around the same ammout as the OP too (£28). That meant a bounce charge, and overdrawn charge and a charge for paying a DD when overdrawn.
The charges are a complete scam but, sadly, those in power won't declare them illegal despite the fact they are by any logical intepretation of the UKs contract laws.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Fri 11 Feb 2011, 17:25, closed)

Letting
you go overdrawn wouldn't satisfy the "liquidated damages v penalties clauses". Bouncing a direct debit and then charging you would, yet, it's allowed to continue with impunity.
Most now have dropped the amount considerably, but it's still there.
(dchurch bah, Sat 12 Feb 2011, 12:36, closed)

You got F'd in the A
However, I took issue with the thieving behaviour as well as the money issue. It is just absolutely mind-blowing that this was legal practice.
(Jon_LTD Treat the world like a head!, Fri 11 Feb 2011, 18:32, closed)