This is how much your overdraft limit should be, according to your age
Usually, after rent, splitting bills with housemates, and paying my gym membership from my part-time job, I'd be left with enough for a couple of pints.
Until one day, £2000 magically dropped into my Santander student account. Confused at first as to where it came from, these concerns soon transitioned into 'I'm rich,' when I realised my bank had 'gifted' me a lovely overdraft to spend at my leisure.
This, of course, was followed by a shopping spree at Beyond Retro, lunch in the Brighton Laines, and an afternoon sesh at East Street Tap. Looking back, I can see how silly my spending habits were and how dangerous they could become.
But with 2K casually landing in a few of my friends' accounts – during the height of summer – it was safety in numbers.
Thankfully, I managed to pay my overdraft off before the charges kicked in, which saved me a whole lot of future debt. It also forced me to become more responsible with money, focusing on saving it, rather than spending.
But the whole scenario got me thinking: what should your overdraft limit be, according to your age? Because at 18, a random and unasked-for £2000 doesn't seem like the brightest idea. Hopefully, almost a decade later, it's a thing of the past.
With this in mind, Metro spoke to Matthew Sheeran, money saving expert at Money Wellness, and finance specialist Pernia Rogers, founder of Your Finance Travel Buddy, to get the low-down.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
'There's no one-size-fits-all answer to how much your overdraft limit should be, but we do see some patterns based on age and life stage,' explains Sheeran.
Rogers agrees, adding: 'A more practical approach is to set your overdraft limit according to your income, which usually grows as you get older.'
But for clarity, the pair have split these guidelines into age groups:
'If you're 18 to 24, your overdraft limit will typically be somewhere between £100 and £500,' says Sheeran. At this stage, most people are studying or just starting out in work, so they don't need or qualify for a large buffer.
If you're unsure of what bank account to go for as a student or young adult, Rogers says that many student accounts offer interest-free overdrafts of around £500.
'These can be useful if managed carefully, but it's important to treat it as a buffer, not free money,' she warns. If only I'd had such advice back in the day.
According to Sheeran, this is when we expect to see limits rise to around £500 to £1,000. 'As people's income increases, they start taking on more financial responsibilities like rent or bills,' he states.
Rogers elaborates: 'Early in your career, between the ages of 25 and 30, when your income is more stable, banks may offer larger overdrafts.'
However, the expert still urges you to be sensible. Rogers says it's a smart idea to limit your overdraft to about one month's salary and only use it in emergencies.
By the time people are in their late thirties or early forties, their overdraft might be as high as £1,500, Sheeran reveals. But ideally, it's used only for unexpected costs, not everyday spending.
The amount is likely increased to this level due to higher earnings and the expectation that people this age are more financially mature. Meaning, they typically refrain from splurging on superficial purchases. More Trending
Once you're older – around the 30+ age – and more established, you'll have access to higher limits, explains Rogers. However, your overdraft should never be part of your regular income.
'Once people reach their mid-forties and beyond, it's common to see limits start to shrink again,' Sheeran says. He puts this figure at around £500 to £1,000, as people become both more financially stable and look to reduce their reliance on credit.
Overall, he says it's important to remember that your overdraft is still a form of borrowing, and if you're constantly in it, that could be a warning sign that something's not quite right with your budget.
View More »
'It's designed to be a short-term safety net, not a regular source of money.'
MORE: The 'unusual' way you can build your credit score as a renter — and make your money work harder
MORE: My credit score was so bad I couldn't get a phone — now I'm a homeowner
MORE: Map reveals the UK loan hotspots where people borrow the most money
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
10 hours ago
- Times
Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture
Millions of motorists will not be able to claim car finance compensation after a landmark Supreme Court ruling on Friday. Judges rejected two out of the three cases that argued car dealers should have told customers about commission paid when they took out loans. It cannot be overstated how significant this ruling was — and how relieved Rachel Reeves will be. An enormous redress scheme — which could have opened the floodgates to compensation claims worth up to £44 billion — would have seriously tarnished the reputation of our financial services industry. It would also have made Britain a less desirable place to invest and damaged the growth that we so need. Yet ultimately it would have been you, the consumer, footing the bill through higher interest rates. The investigation into car finance mis-selling was initially focused on drivers whose car dealer had increased their interest rate to earn a bigger fee, charging something known as discretionary commission — a practice that was banned in 2021. But since the three cases went to the Supreme Court, there have been concerns that a ruling in favour of all of them would have allowed millions of drivers to claim for compensation. Friday's verdict means that only those who have genuinely been treated unfairly will be able to make a claim. The government has said it will work with regulators to unpack the Supreme Court's ruling and its impact on consumers, banks and the car industry. • I want to overpay my car finance, but Santander won't let me We have seen many commission-linked scandals over the years. Payment protection insurance (PPI) was a worthless product flogged to simply make money. Same with credit card cover. Mis-sold annuities, pensions and with-profits funds were all driven by salespeople's desire to make vast sums by giving bad advice that was often life-destroying. But can commission on car finance really be compared with these scandals? Hardly. This commission was linked to the sale of a car — a product used by the owner. Not once, not twice, but often every day, year in, year out. Most of these drivers didn't get a bad deal. They bought cars they liked on deals that were good and hassle-free. Not many drivers would have £50,000 lying around to buy a new car; loans allowed them to get behind the wheel of something new, while keeping payments affordable — and you can swap cars every few years. • UK litigation boom mainly benefits lawyers, insurers and funders Car finance has become a big business — more than nine in ten new cars are bought this way. New lending was worth £39.7 billion in the 12 months to May 2025 — up from £20 billion in 2008. I don't believe for a second that everyone who took out car finance suffered with buyer's remorse — especially those who weren't subject to discretionary commission. Redress is to compensate for a loss but have all these drivers really suffered a loss? The court ruling means that only those who have genuinely been mis-sold will be able to make a claim. If people have been ripped off, it's only right that they get compensation. But if you've been happy with your deal, should you really claim compensation? Surely most people know that the car salesman will get something in return for selling you a loan? 'I wouldn't have got car finance if I knew the salesman got commission' — said no one. If the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of all three cases it would have come at a great expense. The cost of compensation would have pushed up the price of loans. Small and medium-sized car loan firms may also have disappeared, leading to less competition and higher rates. And what would have happened to the car industry, largely propped up by these loans? If we haven't got car finance, what options do people have? You can buy a car with cash. But not all drivers have that kind of money, and it's often not a smart way to use your money if you do — new cars lose up to 20 per cent of their value the moment they're driven off the forecourt. You can, of course, buy a used car. But second-hand cars come with their own issues — they may not have a warranty and they could end up being expensive if they need lots of repairs. This sorry saga has highlighted a shocking compensation culture that Britain has managed to nurture in the wake of the PPI scandal. It's welcome news that common sense has prevailed. Ultimately, consumers will be the ones to benefit.
Daily Mail
11 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Car finance supreme court ruling a 'major blow' to motorists - but a relief for credit lenders
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has delivered a major blow to motorists after it sided with major lenders in the car finance misselling scandal. Millions of motorists had been hoping for a payout after being 'mis-sold' car finance deals dating back more than a decade. But their hopes of compensation have been dashed after the most senior judges in the country ruled today lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. It's a relief for some of the nation's biggest lenders including Lloyds, Close Brothers and Santander who could have been forced to hand over as much as £44billion in compensation. Many brokers and dealers were paid a behind-the-scenes commission by lenders in return for tempting drivers to sign on to a car finance deal, which was deemed 'unlawful' is not made by the Court of Appeal in October last year. The case was appealed and landed in the Supreme Court, which yesterday delivered it's judgement at 4.35pm after markets closed to protect car finance securities. Supreme Court President Lord Reed said the court allowed the appeals brought by the finance companies. It did uphold one claim that one claimant's relationship with the finance company was 'unfair' and that claimant will be awarded the amount of commission plus interest.' He then said, however, that 'other customers' claims are rejected'. However, some select drivers could still receive payouts under a redress scheme from the city watchdog. What car finance deals were made? The majority of new cars – as many as 90 per cent – are bought via car finance deals, which is where drivers can simply pay an upfront deposit for their car, borrow the rest from a lender and pay back the loan each month. Each year some two million new and used cars are purchased this way. However, many dealers and brokers were paid a commission by car finance lenders for signing motorists up to these agreements. In some cases, brokers secured higher interest rates on the loans in return for higher commission, which in turn meant higher payments for motorists. Last October, the Court of Appeal ruled that 'secret' commission payments, as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. It looked at the cases of three claimants, who had each bought cars on credit. In each case, the car dealer made a profit on the sale of the car but also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them - which the three claimants argued they did not know about. However, the industry maintains it has done nothing wrong. The lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, are challenging that Court of Appeal decision, which is why the case went to the Supreme Court. FCA to look into redress scheme for certain car finance deals The ruling comes as a major relief to car finance lenders as they have now narrowly avoided stumping up potentially billions of pounds. But they still my need to pay out compensation to drivers who had unknowingly signed up to a discretionary commission agreement (DCA) when they took out their car loans. In a DCA, lenders allow brokers and dealers to hike interest rates on car finance to increase their commission. A car buyer borrowing £10,000 over four years could have paid up to £1,100 more than they should have because of commission payments made to dealerships by the banks, according to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Motorists may have paid £165million a year in unnecessary fees, it is believed. These were banned in 2021 by the regulator. While the Supreme Court looked at all hidden commission cases – including these discretionary cases and also fixed percentage – the FCA is still set to announce its decision on a redress scheme next month. The FCA, which has been probing these DCA agreements since January last year, is holding off confirming a compensation scheme and setting out any details of a until six weeks after today's court ruling. The watchdog in March said if after the Supreme Court ruling it thinks there was widespread harm to consumers as a result of commission payments, then it could set up an industry-wide redress scheme. This means that drivers won't have to go to court, or use a law firm or claims management company, to get the compensation they are owed. We won't know the scope of the redress scheme until the FCA reveals its plans in six weeks' time. Greg Huitson-Little, partner at Menzies LLP, says: 'Car purchases and car financing are understandably intrinsically linked when buying new or second-hand cars. 'But terms like 'dealer contributions,' 'rentals,' and 'guaranteed future values' have all blurred the lines between the purchase of a car and the arranging of finance, making it very difficult for consumers to understand the true nature of the two transactions. 'This lack of transparency – brought into sharp focus with hidden commissions – has steadily eroded consumer trust, which will likely have long term implications for motor finance and wider consumer credit sectors. 'Although the Supreme Court's decision reverses much of the Court of Appeal's earlier decisions, the reputational damage is already done. While we await the FCA's guidance on redress later this year, the message is clear: the car finance industry needs to be more transparent. 'That means clear terms and simple structures, proper disclosure, and a renewed commitment to treating car finance for what it is - a loan between the consumer and a third-party lender. The days of opaque 'deals' must come to an end.'
Telegraph
17 hours ago
- Telegraph
‘We won't take this lying down': Santander customers fight back
When Vince McGarry opened his business bank account in 2010, the brochure boldly claimed: 'Free business banking. Not for 12 months, 18 months or even two years… but forever.' Now, two decades later, Santander is preparing to charge businesses £120 a year starting October, breaking what many customers believed was a binding guarantee. It's not the first time the bank has tried to roll back the 'free forever' pledge. In 2011, Santander was forced to abandon similar plans following the threat of a £115m compensation bill. The decision, announced earlier this month, has unleashed fury among customers who believe Santander is in breach of contract and has broken a clearly marketed consumer guarantee. The Telegraph understands more than 50,000 business owners could be affected, a deeply unwelcome change after being hit by a string of tax rises this year. A grassroots campaign has since been set up, with customers telling The Telegraph they have logged formal complaints with the lender, and plan to escalate their grievances to the Financial Ombudsman (FOS) after eight weeks. The FOS would hear each complaint on an individual basis. Because the FOS could charge Santander up to £650 per complaint, the financial risk to the bank could escalate quickly if thousands of businesses file claims. Repeated attempts to backtrack 'Free forever' dates back to the early 2000s when Abbey and Alliance & Leicester – two now defunct lenders – introduced the 'free forever' business bank account. The promotional material at the time was brazen. The Abbey website read: 'Many of our competitors' business bank accounts are only free for a short time, or require a minimum balance. We only charge you for non-standard services or if you exceed our transaction limits. The rest is free. Forever.' Marketing materials also set out the express conditions by which they would break the 'free forever' promise. 'We guarantee that unless there are any changes to the law or banking regulations, or any new taxes relating to bank charges, you will benefit from free day-to-day business banking forever,' one Abbey brochure seen by this paper read. The promise appeared in marketing materials, on billboards, online and in the window fronts of bank branches, and continued in 2004 and 2008 after Santander acquired the two lenders, when advertising was rebranded with the Spanish bank's logo. Santander has remained confident that it has not breached its contract. The lender previously attempted to break the 'free forever' promise in July 2012 but it quickly ditched the idea after the threat of up to 230,000 customers going to the Ombudsman and leaving it with a £115m bill. In 2015 it then moved all of the affected business accounts to a 'Business Every Day' account. In the terms and conditions for this product, Santander removed the 'free forever' clause. The letter sent to customers in January 2015, seen by The Telegraph, read: 'We are simplifying our business current account range and want to make sure that you understand what the changes mean for you. Your new account still has no monthly fee and your monthly transactions will be free as long as you stay within monthly limits.' The 'what the changes mean for you' section made no mention of the fact that the 'free forever' pledge had been removed or that customers could be liable to pay monthly fees in the future. On a chart explaining the differences between the new accounts, it said there was 'no change' to the monthly account fee of £0. The following four pages of terms and conditions also failed to mention a loss of the benefit. 'The bank loses whichever way the decision falls' McGarry, 62, who set up a framing business and art gallery 15 years ago, is a member of the campaign group collecting evidence to present to the FOS. He said: 'There's a Facebook group that's been set up and there are people on there who have drafted letters for everyone to copy and send in. 'We are all waiting now for Santander to arrive at its final decision [it has eight weeks to settle a complaint] so that we can send it to the Ombudsman. 'In 2012, there were 230,000 of us, we don't know how many there are now and it's likely a lot will have dropped off in the 13 years since, but if there are still 50,000 of us, it could cost the bank up to £32m.' McGarry said he had been advised that complaints that reach the FOS could take up to eight months to solve but he said that even if Santander won the dispute, it would count for little. 'If we win, the bank will have to pay back all the fees it has collected so far. But if we don't, for £9.99 a month, there are other banks that are cheaper. So even if it does win, it's going to lose all of these accounts; everyone is going to move. They are on a hiding to nothing.' John Pettman, 80, a retired licenced conveyor, who runs a small business letting garages, said: 'I opened the account in 2005 when Abbey was part of the Santander group. I've heard it said, 'well Santander bailed out Abbey so they should not be responsible for the deals it did'. That is total rubbish. 'Abbey was part of Santander and you can see that in the brochures. In my opinion this is a clear breach of contract. They set out express conditions and you can't arbitrarily change that. 'It's not a massive amount but it's wrong. They are reneging on such an explicit promise, and we aren't going to take this lying down.' Craig Champion, 49, a software developer from Glasgow, said this move was 'underhanded'. 'Nobody picked up on this change in 2015. If we thought they were taking it away we would all have kicked up again like we did in 2012,' he said. 'Important information should not be buried' The Telegraph's legal expert Gary Rycroft said customers could have a strong case if the case was brought to the FOS. He said: 'Terms and conditions are in effect a contract and a fundamental contract term such as 'free banking forever' cannot be changed by one party unilaterally. 'The 'lapse of time' argument does not hold if the terms and conditions changes in 2015 were not made explicit to the customer i.e. that the customer was not told that these new terms mean Santander are no longer offering free banking.' There are also concerns that Santander could be in breach of the Consumer Duty. These rules are enforced by the Financial Conduct Authority and mean customers should expect 'timely and clear information' and that 'important information should not be buried in lengthy terms and conditions'. Lewis Glasson, a partner at Thackray Williams, said that the judgment could go either way. 'The question seems to centre on whether terms and conditions can override a guarantee,' he said. 'The usual answer is no, but the situation we have here is that the bank has migrated existing accounts that were protected by the guarantee into Business Everyday Accounts in 2015. 'I anticipate that Santander will say that the Business Everyday Accounts are a different product. The FOS will be interested in the process behind that migration, including what notice was given to customers, and why the guarantees were seemingly left behind.' Santander said it wrote to all customers in 2015 informing them of the proposed changes. Customers who do not wish to be moved to the Business Current Account will be allowed to close their account without incurring any additional fees.
