BT Billing, its happened again.

Q_Ball

Hey all,

Mam received a bill today for ~€600 from BT for their broadband service (not even a bill, a letter). She rang customer "care" who told us that bills had not been paid since july 2004 and that the amount quoted in the letter was the outstanding debt. To top it all off, the customer care rep asked us if we lived at a different address (he gave the house number and street name, to which mam politely informed him that we have lived at our current address for 18 years...).

I have come to realise that this is not uncommon among BT sufferees.

The account was set up to use direct debit to pay each bill. The CC rep said that the last bill paid was 21st July 2004. So at least we know that at some stage the DD was working. The account that the DD comes from was never changed, so why did it stop all of a sudden?

It boggles the mind as to how a company like BT Ireland can let their customers not pay bills for two years and not notice

No bills were ever received, it was assumed that they were being paid in good faith but this has not been the case.

What really bugs me is:

• How did the bill go unpaid without them ever noticing,
• Why, after confirming our address, did the CC rep ask if we lived at another address,
• How the bill works out to be ~€600 since 24 months at our bill tariff (€90 every two months) does not equal that amount.

I am now looking into different broadband providers with the view of cancelling the account asap. I do not want this to happen again. It should never have happened in the first place.

Grrr

http://www.btirelandsucks indeed.

Mam (or myself) will ring the credit department on monday to try and arrange the amount to be paid in installments but only after they provide a statement indicating where they are getting their figures from.

I am unsure of what else to do. I want to make my opinion known to them but don't know how. In another thread it was mentioned that an email should be sent to a mike maloney at BT Ireland and cc'd to comreg. Is this still a valid course of action? At least if ComReg know then something may happen to prevent this from happening in the future.

All the best,

Darren

watty

This should be in Broadband, not Ireland Offline?

Q_Ball

Yeah i noticed that after I had posted. I didnt check the broadband forum because in the charter it said

The Broadband forum is for general tech support etc for broadband connections.

I've copied and pasted the post into the BT Complaints thread there. I'm going to leave it up as I feel it is a valid post and at least users like myself who didnt know about the thread on broadband can be made aware of its existance

cgarvey

Few things..

1. Realise that there was at least some onus on you (or your mam, rather) to realise that ye'd been using a service without paying for it for 2 years. Yeah sure you've been entitled to timely billing, but some onus is on you to realise that wasn't happening.

2. Ring customer care and seek clarification on the charges (having your own calculations to hand so that you can compare and see where one of you have gone wrong). If they "can't do" that, or transfer you to endless useless CS/Billing reps, then do it in writing instead, using registered post.

3. Once the charges have been clarified, seek to have a re-payment plan that is reasonable (to both you and BT) on the grounds of BT not supplying you with timely billing information, to which you are entitled. There's no doubt you owe them money, so don't get too cocky! Again if you get no joy over the phone, pop in in writing via registered post.

4. If you still have no reply/joy/resolution (to charges clarification), make a formal complaint, in writing, and suggest a maximum of 10 working days for a reply. Don't offer email address/phone (so that they'll have to reply in writing). If they do phone you, say you're busy and can you have that in writing instead. If you do get the charges clarified, but get no joy on a re-payment plan, then you'll have to seek legal advice, or the advice of your local Citizen's Bureau as to your entitlement. I'd only be speculating on that subject, which is of no use to you.

5. If after 10 working days you don't get a reply, contact ComReg for assistance, explaining the steps you've followed in your attempt to adhere to BT's customer complaints procedure. ComReg, quite rightly, will not entertain your issue until you've made a sufficient attempt to resolve it.

6. Make sure you note names, dates & times of all phone calls made. If he/she doesn't announce their name, ask for it. Ask if there is a reference number for this complaint (and they'll likely say no, but it'll let them know that you're being particular, etc.). Note what was said in the conversation, including any promises like "we'll credit you", or "we'll ring you back", etc. Summarise the call before hanging up, so that both sides are clear on what who is doing next. Be courteous.

7. Good luck, and let us know how you get on (so that others may learn from your experience).

8. Moved from IoffL > Broadband for a wider/more specific audience.

Irishdudedave

Q_Ball wrote:

Hey all,

Mam received a bill today for ~€600 from BT for their broadband service (not even a bill, a letter). She rang customer "care" who told us that bills had not been paid since july 2004 and that the amount quoted in the letter was the outstanding debt. To top it all off, the customer care rep asked us if we lived at a different address (he gave the house number and street name, to which mam politely informed him that we have lived at our current address for 18 years...).

I have come to realise that this is not uncommon among BT sufferees.

The account was set up to use direct debit to pay each bill. The CC rep said that the last bill paid was 21st July 2004. So at least we know that at some stage the DD was working. The account that the DD comes from was never changed, so why did it stop all of a sudden?

It boggles the mind as to how a company like BT Ireland can let their customers not pay bills for two years and not notice

No bills were ever received, it was assumed that they were being paid in good faith but this has not been the case.

What really bugs me is:

• How did the bill go unpaid without them ever noticing,
• Why, after confirming our address, did the CC rep ask if we lived at another address,
• How the bill works out to be ~€600 since 24 months at our bill tariff (€90 every two months) does not equal that amount.

I am now looking into different broadband providers with the view of cancelling the account asap. I do not want this to happen again. It should never have happened in the first place.

Grrr

http://www.btirelandsucks indeed.

Mam (or myself) will ring the credit department on monday to try and arrange the amount to be paid in installments but only after they provide a statement indicating where they are getting their figures from.

I am unsure of what else to do. I want to make my opinion known to them but don't know how. In another thread it was mentioned that an email should be sent to a mike maloney at BT Ireland and cc'd to comreg. Is this still a valid course of action? At least if ComReg know then something may happen to prevent this from happening in the future.

All the best,

Darren

The exact same thing is happening with me at the moment, We keep receiving a bill for a woman in Dublin that is dated 2004!! I finally recived a paper bill from them yesterday and it was my address just with Dublin instead of Cork on it...You would think a phone company would know that 021 is not a Dublin area code!!!

Sponge Bob

Irishdudedave wrote:

The exact same thing is happening with me at the moment, We keep receiving a bill for a woman in Dublin that is dated 2004!! I finally recived a paper bill from them yesterday and it was my address just with Dublin instead of Cork on it...You would think a phone company would know that 021 is not a Dublin area code!!!

LOL, thats qballs ma I reckon

Have you ever rung BT about this and what happened , its 1800924924 or 1904 ??

Sapele

A very similar thing happened to me. I paid the outstanding balance by credit card; this transaction went through on my card, but not on BT's billing system. Then mysteriously my DD with BT worked again and the same bill I had paid by CC was then taken again by DD by BT. I then had BT's legendary complaints dept inflicted on me, needed Comregs help, eventually getting my refund months later. Good Question, why do DD's with BT just stop working ... my bank told me there was nothing untoward with the DD, BT just didn’t take the payments it seems. Why? I asked many times and never got a coherent answer from them. Needless to say, I've left BT. I just could not stomach paying a cent to that company....

Comreg are aware of these types of problems with BT. A typical situation may be; you email BT's complaints dept and get a complaints ref number. A reasonable amount of time goes by without a satisfactory resolution (say 10 days or 2 weeks), you email Comreg detailing the problem and supply your complaints ref number. Comreq then contact BT quoting that number and ask for an update on your behalf.

As for preventing it happening in the future, well that would entail BT fixing their billing system. If you look at some of the threads here on boards and elsewhere you will see that many people have been calling for that for a long time. Personally I don't think they want to ... all the overcharging complained about must add up to a nice tidy sum :eek:

eircomtribunal

Sapele wrote:

Personally I don't think they want to ... all the overcharging complained about must add up to a nice tidy sum :eek:

Don't be stupid. Nothing is more damaging to BT than the gremlins in their billing system. BT certainly have billing issues, they know that and I know that they certainly try to iron them out.
In my experience they are dealing with and resolving the individual cases. While it is a hassle (I know it from my own experience. As chance would have it we just got a BT bill last week over € -0.01 and we aren't BT customers since a long time.) for the individual – and the anger is voiced in the posts – I have seldom seen that posters acknowledged when the issues were resolved.

If I could avail of BT's loss-leader broadband offer (broadband for an extra tenner per month above the line rental), I would do so anytime.

P.

dub45

eircomtribunal wrote:

Don't be stupid. Nothing is more damaging to BT than the gremlins in their billing system. BT certainly have billing issues, they know that and I know that they certainly try to iron them out.
......................

P.

So maybe you would explain to us whey have have let their billing problems go on for so long........................?

dub45

Q_Ball wrote:

Hey all,

Mam received a bill today for ~€600 from BT for their broadband service (not even a bill, a letter). ...................................


I am unsure of what else to do. I want to make my opinion known to them but don't know how. In another thread it was mentioned that an email should be sent to a mike maloney at BT Ireland and cc'd to comreg. Is this still a valid course of action? At least if ComReg know then something may happen to prevent this from happening in the future.

All the best,

Darren

Now if there is a new EsatBt and they are really serious about sorting issues out isnt this the type of thing we should not be seeeing?

Surely this type of case which is sadly hardly rare is an opportunity for them to issue a nice letter along the lines of 'Sorry due to system problems (the old reliable excuse!) we have not been dding you for some time now. We realise that the amount outstanding may be an issue for you and we would be grateful therefore if you would contact us at xxxxxxxxxxx so that a mutually acceptable payment programme can be agreed.''

Q_Ball

I was explaining the situation to my girlfriend who is also a BT customer. Perturbed by what had happened she checked her account to find out that they haven't billed her in months either.

I feel guilty because I had originally recommended BT to her as I had never had a problem with it. Needless to say I will NEVER recommend BT to ANYONE.

BT Ireland, you have joined IBB on "the list"

dub45

Q_Ball wrote:

I was explaining the situation to my girlfriend who is also a BT customer. Perturbed by what had happened she checked her account to find out that they haven't billed her in months either.

I feel guilty because I had originally recommended BT to her as I had never had a problem with it. Needless to say I will NEVER recommend BT to ANYONE.

BT Ireland, you have joined IBB on "the list"

You could deal with your guilt in the personal issues forum:)

eircomtribunal

Q_Ball wrote:

I was explaining the situation to my girlfriend who is also a BT customer. Perturbed by what had happened she checked her account to find out that they haven't billed her in months either.

Look at the bright side! BT lends money, without charging interest.
Let us know to what agreement you come with BT about paying the bill in increments etc.

I feel guilty because I had originally recommended BT to her as I had never had a problem with it. Needless to say I will NEVER recommend BT to ANYONE.

So you would not recommend a broadband provider who offers some of the best pricing, rock solid network performance and in some cases does not even want to be paid for until years after providing the service?
P.

Dman_15

Q_Ball wrote:

No bills were ever received, it was assumed that they were being paid in good faith but this has not been the case.

I had exactly the same thing happen over an unlimited dialup a/c

I signed up with my CC for monthly payment, the dialup worked, i never got a bill or thought to check my CC bill then out of the blue a letter demanding i paid €250 odd that was due on the account.

After dozens of emails and phone calls I asked for a breakdown of the bill. Thank god BT are hopelessly incompetent and to this day (2 years later) have not produced this and seem to have forgotten about me.

I dont think they even had the means or documentation to persue it any further

dub45

eircomtribunal wrote:

Look at the bright side! BT lends money, without charging interest.
Let us know to what agreement you come with BT about paying the bill in increments etc.

So you would not recommend a broadband provider who offers some of the best pricing, rock solid network performance and in some cases does not even want to be paid for until years after providing the service?
P.

You conveniently forget to mention the stress from the debt collectors and the f***cking up of peoples' bank accounts and the witholding of overpaid amounts and the hours on the telephone trying to sort out bills and causing so much frustration that a dossier is compiled (in the absence of any action from EsatBt who you claim are embarssed by their wrong billing) and the hijacking of said dossier so that it never reaches its destination - they are highly recommendable ok!!!!!!

Sapele

BT has had years to fix their billing system and have failed to do. Judging by the amount of complaints regarding BT overcharging and abuse of the direct debit system over the last 6 months or so on boards it would seem that their billing system is if anything, getting worse :eek: It would seem to me that not only are BT abusing the DD system but they are cashing in on soft direct debits. It is my opinion that many people who have a direct debit set up with BT and don't check the amounts being taken carefully may well be, or were at one stage, being over charged. I never once received a paper bill from esatBT, yet I was charged €2.50 per month for it. If for example BT's practices were very publicly highlighted on a mainstream radio or tv program or Comreg really got their finger out and started protecting Irish consumers from rip off companies then it wouldn’t take donkeys years for BT to "fix their billing system"

vibe666

having them not bill you is the last of your worries, wait till you try and get them to stop billing you, then you'll know what it's all about!

they have the power to re-set up a direct debit even if you've cancelled it and there's not a thing the banks can do about it.

they did it three times to me before i managed to get them to stop it by contacting bill murphy directly (god bless him, if only he were still there).

then when i moved house to a property that had previously had a phone line and broadband it took them 3 months to get me re-connected.

dub45

I know it is slightly off topic but it is really the direct debit system which allows companies so much freedom that has contributed greatly to this mess.
As I learn more about the system the more depressed I become - it is almost impossible to make any sort of complaint about a company who abuses the system - to do so you have to ask your own bank to make a complaint to the 'sponsoring' bank of the company involved - now how many banks are going to be interested in doing that with any conviction???

and I wonder how many people realise that the minimum notice period between billing and debiting an account has now been reduced to 7 working days in the new direct debit plus system. (thats what they call the system which allows you to sign up over the phone without a signature) 7 working days is a ludicrously short time to allow a customer to challenge a billed amount.

eircomtribunal

dub45 wrote:

I know it is slightly off topic...

I find it hard to believe that

they have the power to re-set up a direct debit even if you've cancelled it and there's not a thing the banks can do about it.

I would strongly assume that nobody other than myself can re-set up a direct debit that I've cancelled?!?
P.

dub45

eircomtribunal wrote:

I find it hard to believe that I would strongly assume that nobody other than myself can re-set up a direct debit that I've cancelled?!?
P.

I would have thought the same however it had been reported quite regularly here on boards that companies just reset up the direct debit:rolleyes: and that the banks just say oh its between you and the company etc etc - thats why I think that the chances of a bank pursuing a complaint against a company like EsatBT are slim to say the least. Whereas if there was a realtic chance of a direct debit facility being withdrawn from a company that might encouarge them to behave. Full details of the supposed operations of the direct debit system are at www.ipso.ie

eircomtribunal

dub45 wrote:

Full details of the supposed operations of the direct debit system are at www.ipso.ie

The rules leave no doubt:
that cancelled DDs are cancelled; disputed amounts cannot be debited etc,

"Paying banks...
must put in place processes which
will ensure that unauthorised and/or
cancelled Direct Debits are
intercepted and returned
immediately on presentation"

If the Payer has cancelled the DD, the bank has to return the DD request unpaid with the appropriate return code (1 in this case).

I doubt that banks would not adhere to these clear-cut regulations. If they did, a very simple notification of the financial regulator would sort out that bank rather quickly.
P.

dub45

eircomtribunal wrote:

The rules leave no doubt:
that cancelled DDs are cancelled; disputed amounts cannot be debited etc,

"Paying banks...
must put in place processes which
will ensure that unauthorised and/or
cancelled Direct Debits are
intercepted and returned
immediately on presentation"

If the Payer has cancelled the DD, the bank has to return the DD request unpaid with the appropriate return code (1 in this case).

I doubt that banks would not adhere to these clear-cut regulations. If they did, a very simple notification of the financial regulator would sort out that bank rather quickly.
P.

I agree with you but in practise according to reports here banks abdicate their responsibility in this respect and tell people its between you and the company - and with the current levels of extemely inexperienced staff in branches I am not surprised at all - appalled yes - surprised no!

Have you ever seen any consumer information in respect of direct debits in bank branches?

Does this guide - http://www.ipso.ie/frames/documents/PayersGuide.pdf

ever appear in a branch or get shown to bank staff? And even though its pretty weak I think that companies issuing direct debit sign ups should be required to enclose it for customers.

geecee

Again slightly off topic (sorry OP)

But to back up what Dub45 is saying...
Every year for the last 4 years Sentinel Card services (and more recently Pinnacle insurances)have re-opened a Visa Account that I closed down over 5 years ago. And charged me ~€15 for "Card Protection Services"

The Visa bill is then paid by DD every year without my knowledge
First time i notice it is when the money gets withdrawn from my bank account!

Despite probably hundreds of phonecalls and letters to Sentinel, Pinnacle, AIB Visa and my bank it consistently happens every year! Only way to stop it would be to close my Bank account.... But i have been advised that could lead to Sentinel putting me on a credit blacklist!

And the worst thing is... I never even signed up for any card protection services EVER! And AIB have no idea where sentinel got my details from!

Sapele

Well here's a test for you then eircomtribunal - ring up your bank and ask them if they can guarantee that if you stop a DD on your current account in writing to both the bank and the company the DD is with that no money will ever be taken from your account by that company unless your re-authorise it. I did just that with my AIB branch regarding BT and they could not guarantee me this would be the case. I spoke to a senior manager and said to her that this sounds incredible, surely a company cannot take money from my account unless I give a say so. She told me that what happens is the company puts through the cancelled DD again as a first payment, thereby fooling the banks systems. She advised me that the only way to be 100% sure was to close that account and reopen a new current account. She said she would have no problems doing this for me there and then. I said no, I'm not letting BT force me into closing my current account. She then advised me to keep a close eye on the account for another DD going through and that if one did go through and I contacted the bank promptly, they would pull the money back. Apparently they can do this if it is spotted within a certain time span. The time span may well vary depending on how well you know your bank manager

Scruff

Could a class action law suit be taken against them or some sort of legal action that would give them really bad publicity and force them to sort out there horrendous billing system??

Especially in the case where someone has ceased to be a customer and BT continue to take money from their account. Is this not stealing or at the very least gross negligence and dereliction of duty to honour a cessation request???

dub45

Sapele wrote:

Well here's a test for you then eircomtribunal - ring up your bank and ask them if they can guarantee that if you stop a DD on your current account in writing to both the bank and the company the DD is with that no money will ever be taken from your account by that company unless your re-authorise it. I did just that with my AIB branch regarding BT and they could not guarantee me this would be the case. I spoke to a senior manager and said to her that this sounds incredible, surely a company cannot take money from my account unless I give a say so. She told me that what happens is the company puts through the cancelled DD again as a first payment, thereby fooling the banks systems. She advised me that the only way to be 100% sure was to close that account and reopen a new current account. She said she would have no problems doing this for me there and then. I said no, I'm not letting BT force me into closing my current account. She then advised me to keep a close eye on the account for another DD going through and that if one did go through and I contacted the bank promptly, they would pull the money back. Apparently they can do this if it is spotted within a certain time span. The time span may well vary depending on how well you know your bank manager

Sadly this bears out my arguments about the weakness of the direct debit system and the ignorance of its workings by bank staff in this case a 'senior manager' - according to the so called dd system your branch should be making a complaint to EsatBT's sponsoring bank and that should take care of things:rolleyes: But if a senior manager is advising you to close your account to evade BT (or any other company) God help us all.

Bascially there is no realistic sanction available to a customer against a company who abuses the direct debit system and ipso dont want to know about this - I have tried and they think the system is perfect!

dub45

Scruff wrote:

Could a class action law suit be taken against them or some sort of legal action that would give them really bad publicity and force them to sort out there horrendous billing system??

Especially in the case where someone has ceased to be a customer and BT continue to take money from their account. Is this not stealing or at the very least gross negligence and dereliction of duty to honour a cessation request???

It's stealing pure and simple - can you imagine what would happen to someone who hacked into EsatBT's accounts or any other company for that matter and took a sum as small as a tenner even and left a note saying ring me (oh by the way I might or might not answer the phone after an hour or so) and I will arrange to get this back to you eventually maybe in three or four months or longer?

Foxwood

Scruff wrote:

Could a class action law suit be taken against them

You could move to the US (where they have Class Action Law Suits) and try, but I don't think the courts would have jurisdiction.

or some sort of legal action that would give them really bad publicity and force them to sort out there horrendous billing system??

The problem here is the "getting publicity" bit, not the "some sort of legal action" bit. AFAIR, a number if people have reported success in the small claims court. Getting the media to make an issue of it is another story.

eircomtribunal

Sapele wrote:

Well here's a test for you then eircomtribunal

I take note of and do not question what you say. This is in clear breach of the DD rules and regulations on the ipso website documents. I would not take any shîte like that from my bank. That's absurd with restarting a new current account etc.
Carefully read through document http://www.ipso.ie/frames/documents/OriginatorsDay-to-Dayfinal_001.pdf from the ipso website.
Your, or any bank should not have the slightest chance to get away with what you are saying.

Even if the Sponsoring bank (the bank that in this case BT uses) allows the Originator (BT) to put through first DD deductions to the Paying bank (your bank) without proof of your DD statement (and they can do this for practical reasons; i.e. as a DD originator it suffices to tell my sponsoring bank name, account number, banking code and amount to be taken for the first DD deduction, but this is no open door for misusing the system) they cannot use this path to get around your cancelled DD or in order to get disputed sums.
You are entitled to prompt return of any funds taken thus by your bank from your account. It is not a point of discussion or debate or excuses about how "your bank was fooled" or an excuse for delay. Money can only be taken via DD if it is done with your agreement. Full stop.



Just to make sure I have brought this issue to the attention of the Irish Payment Services Organisation. They won't be back with a full answer until tomorrow, but I am confident that they will live up to their main prerogative: "The essence of the Direct Debit Scheme is that of the total integrity of and trust in the Scheme."
P.

dub45

eircomtribunal wrote:

I take note of and do not question what you say. This is in clear breach of the DD rules and regulations on the ipso website ...........................

Just to make sure I have brought this issue to the attention of the Irish Payment Services Organisation. They won't be back with a full answer until tomorrow, but I am confident that they will live up to their main prerogative: "The essence of the Direct Debit Scheme is that of the total integrity of and trust in the Scheme."
P.

I raised a number of issues in connection with the dd system lately with ipso and while the girl was very polite on the phone that was it - all they will do is point you back to the bank (I will be very happy to be proved wrong I assure you!).

I still think that the biggest flaw is the complete absence of sanction against an offender - no matter what the likes of EsatBt or other companies do - nothing - absolutely nothing will be done against them and confident in that knowledge they will do what they bloodywell like with the dd system and that has been the case for years and nothing sadly is going to change it. Surely it is an indictment of the whole system that a 'senior manager' in a branch has not got a clue how do deal witha problem?

event

how do you not realise that you havent been charged in 4 years?

dub45

event wrote:

how do you not realise that you havent been charged in 4 years?

Its called being rich:)

Sapele

Yes, the Originator (BT) assumes certain responsibilities, one of them being that disputed amounts are not debited. In my case I paid off a bill by CC but the amount remained on the BT billing system yet went through on my card. I noticed my online bill still reflected the amount I had paid by CC, so in my eyes that amount became a disputed amount, because I had already paid it. I notified BT of this and was told a credit trace would take place and I would be informed. Instead of finding this amount BT went ahead and took the money I had paid by CC out by DD. Therefore BT took a disputed amount by DD from my current account.

As dub45 points out, my bank should be pointing this out to BT's sponsoring bank, which then slap BT on the wrists maybe and "promptly seek the required adherence by the originator". Actually, I may be mistaken but in a similar thread a few months back, someone mentioned that AIB were BTIreland's sponsoring bank. Not sure if this is the case or not, but if it were, wouldn't it be AIB reporting to AIB about BT hhhmmm

The DD transaction codes are interesting. When a DD is cancelled but the Originator attempts to take the money, the DD is returned to the Originator by the payers bank with a return code. Return code 1 is instruction cancelled (which it should be). Below that it tell us that Re-Presentation of the DD can only take place on DD's returned with return code 0. So in the examples we have seen on boards where BT suddenly dip into peoples current accounts months later -- have payers banks returned DD's with the wrong transaction codes, or do BT just ignore the codes? Also if what I was told is true, that it's possible to put through a cancelled DD as a first payment, then that cancelled DD would have to be given a transaction code of 01, and that wouldn't happen by accident :eek:

elexes

lol

lol ahh

whens mine comming .

dub45

Again away from the main topic but still on the dd thing.

The notice period is not defined properly - it says 14 days or 7 days in the case of direct debit plus but it does not say from what:rolleyes: Is it the invoice date? is the date of posting? is it the date of receipt?

Then there is the question of charges which the banks impose and some companies seek to impose when a direct debit is not paid.

these charges are never mentioned when a customer is signing up for a direct debit and I believe on that basis they should be contested by all dd customers to whom this may happen. I raised this issue with ipso but they said it was nothing at all do to with them!!!!!!!!

eircomtribunal

Sapele wrote:

Also if what I was told is true, that it's possible to put through a cancelled DD as a first payment, then that cancelled DD would have to be given a transaction code of 01, and that wouldn't happen by accident :eek:

Even if a DD is put through as a first payment, which can be done on a basically unchecked, unproved basis and so to speak on good faith, this can only be done with your retrospective approvement. In other words: If you are an originator (who gets paid for by means of DD), you can request from your sponsoring bank to take amount x from account of Mr A in bank B. For the first payment you need not show any proof of a Mr. A's agreement with this DD.
But, and it is a big but (and herein lies the crux of the discussed problem), you would not do this, if you are not absolutely sure that Mr. A really wants to pay this way. Because if he does not, he can simply go to his bank (the paying bank) and tell them that he had never agreed to this DD and that he does not want to have it taken from his account.
And his bank will reimburse the DD and both the sponsoring bank and the originator will not get the money. For this reason no DD originator would try to take money, if he was not absolutely sure that the customer was willing to pay this money.

Why this rule, without which the whole system of DD would fall apart, was not adhered to in the cases mentioned, is a mystery to me. And I am looking forward to IPSO clarifying the issue.

P.

dub45

eircomtribunal wrote:

Even if a DD is put through as a first payment, which can be done on a basically unchecked, unproved basis and so to speak on good faith, this can only be done with your retrospective approvement. In other words: If you are an originator (who gets paid for by means of DD), you can request from your sponsoring bank to take amount x from account of Mr A in bank B. For the first payment you need not show any proof of a Mr. A's agreement with this DD.
But, and it is a big but (and herein lies the crux of the discussed problem), you would not do this, if you are not absolutely sure that Mr. A really wants to pay this way. Because if he does not, he can simply go to his bank (the paying bank) and tell them that he had never agreed to this DD and that he does not want to have it taken from his account.
And his bank will reimburse the DD and both the sponsoring bank and the originator will not get the money. For this reason no DD originator would try to take money, if he was not absolutely sure that the customer was willing to pay this money.

Why this rule, without which the whole system of DD would fall apart, was not adhered to in the cases mentioned, is a mystery to me. And I am looking forward to IPSO clarifying the issue.

P.

I believe that in the absence of any meaningful sanction and probably in the absence of any real knowledge of the direct debit system in originating companies they basically do what they bloodiwell like and this is proven time after time!!

I believe that the only reason that the dd system (or at least a prime reason anyways) that it does not fall apart is that people for the most part dont challenge it, dont know how to challenge it and get no support from their own bank branches to challenge it. (just think of the advice of the 'senior manager' quoted earlier.)

the average disgruntled customer is not going to spend time studying the direct debit code and coming to terms with 'sponsoring banks' and 'originating banks'. There should be one central point to which a person can complain about abuses in the dd system but unfortunately there isnt and the whole thing is far too diffuse.

Just look at the ipso site itself its hardly consumer friendly is it?

Foxwood

dub45 wrote:

There should be one central point to which a person can complain about abuses in the dd system but unfortunately there isnt and the whole thing is far too diffuse.

Does the Ombudsmans office have any role in this? Or the Financial Regulator?

dub45

Foxwood wrote:

Does the Ombudsmans office have any role in this? Or the Financial Regulator?

IFSRA certainly have a role due to the invovlement of the banks - but sadly when I made enquires over the phone the reflex response when I mentioned that the query was broadband related was 'Comreg':rolleyes: After persisting and pointing out ad nauseam that Comreg was not the body responsible I spoke to a supervisor who was very sympathetic to my devastating analysis of the faults of the dd system and then suggested I write in to them. Anyways IFSRA are not the central point for dd complaints there simply is none. Its a great system for everyone but the consumer!

dub45

eircomtribunal wrote:

The rules leave no doubt:
that cancelled DDs are cancelled; disputed amounts cannot be debited etc,

........................
I doubt that banks would not adhere to these clear-cut regulations. If they did, a very simple notification of the financial regulator would sort out that bank rather quickly.
P.

More reading materail for you

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=15175

vibe666

the problem isn't that BT etc. are re-submitting cancelled direct debits at all. they are creating brand new ones from scratch without your authorisation, so unless you can see it coming and cancel it in those few days the bank sees it a a new DD not a ressurected old one, hence their inability to do anything about it due to their wonderful super duper automatic paperless direct debit system.

trust me, when you have someone taking money out of your account and you can't sotp them, you spend a lot of time trying to find a way that you can, and believe me there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

three times ina row over 6 months I cancelled my BT DD as it was coming out a few days before I got paid and putting me overdrawn (without an overdraft) and three times they re-set it up and took the money anyway.

the only way i got them to stop in the end was to have the head of customer services expunge my banking details compltely from their computer system, and this was after numerous other attempts with everyone from phone monkeys to complaints and everyone in between and being faithfully promised it was going to be sorted.

don't trust them, they aren't worthy of it by any stretch of the imagination.

eircomtribunal

Ipso have clearly stated the position, and I have no doubt that (whatever some banks were up to, as I note from the posts in this thread and the one you mention above) when you confront your bank in case of cancelled DDs, they will have no other choice but to adhere to the clear-cut rules and regulations regarding DD, there just is no wiggle room.

IPSO state in writing (25/July/2006; highlight by me):
"...
I would like to advise that in relation to your query of yesterday all direct debit customers are protected under the direct debit guarantee. Under the guarantee a customer can ‘cancel the Direct Debit Instruction by writing in good time to your Bank’ and would not be liable for any further debits that come through from that originator generated after the date of cancellation.

Irish Banks have varying methods of detecting incoming debits from originators where the mandate has been cancelled. Most banks have fully automated systems but some have semi-automated or manual systems. Fully automated systems are able to detect incoming debits where the mandate has been cancelled and will reject the debit no matter what transaction code the originator has used. In the manual systems there is a small possibility that a debit could get through to the customers account after the mandate has been cancelled but this customer is still covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee and would be entitled to a full refund by the bank. It would then be the responsibility of the bank to seek a balancing payment from the originator. In relation to this point the guarantee states ‘If it is established that an unauthorized Direct Debit was charged to your account, you are guaranteed a prompt refund by your Bank’.

If a customer has an issue with the DD scheme their first point of call would be to talk directly to their own bank. Queries should be able to be resolved satisfactorily with their bank but in the event that they are not the customer can talk directly to the Direct Debit Scheme Manager in IPSO.

Please note that also under the scheme rules, there are specific obligations on the originator including the following to ‘accept instructions from customers and from paying banks to amend or cancel DDIs and promptly act on such instruction’"

So, the buck stops with your bank. If you've cancelled a DD (or if you are disputing a DD) the onus is on your bank to act accordingly. Full stop.

Ipso can be contacted:
Address:
12-13 Cumberland St.
Dun Laoghaire
Co. Dublin
Phone: 016636740
email: info@ipso.ie


P.

eircomtribunal

vibe666 wrote:

the problem isn't that BT etc. are re-submitting cancelled direct debits at all. they are creating brand new ones from scratch without your authorisation

Your bank has no business to give money from your account on foot of unauthorised DDs. Fullstop.
You tell your bank in no unclear terms that you want that unauthorised DD transaction promptly refunded.

Let the fact that BT's billing system is sometimes playing up be a matter of concern for BT and their sponsoring bank.

P.

dub45

eircomtribunal wrote:

Ipso have clearly stated the position, and I have no doubt that (whatever some banks were up to, as I note from the posts in this thread and the one you mention above) when you confront your bank in case of cancelled DDs, they will have no other choice but to adhere to the clear-cut rules and regulations regarding DD, there just is no wiggle room.

I...............................
Address:
12-13 Cumberland St.
Dun Laoghaire
Co. Dublin
Phone: 016636740
email: info@ipso.ie


P.

As the man said that is all very well in theory - look at the reality out there and what is actualy happening and the lengths you had to go to to get this information - the average joe soap is just not up for this type of thing and thats how they get away with it - ispo's site is not remotely customer friendly and you would never know from it that they will entertain any complaints from a mere customer.

If a 'senior manager' is giving wrong advice to customers that shows that there is an ignorance of the direct debit system at branch level to put it mildly. And as I have stated previously while there is no meaningful sanction available against the likes of EsatBt they will do what they bloodywell like!!

dub45

eircomtribunal wrote:

Your bank has no business to give money from your account on foot of unauthorised DDs. Fullstop.
You tell your bank in no unclear terms that you want that unauthorised DD transaction promptly refunded.

Let the fact that BT's billing system is sometimes playing up be a matter of concern for BT and their sponsoring bank.

P.

It has never been a concern for either of them up to now!!!!!!!!!!!

vibe666

eircomtribunal wrote:

Your bank has no business to give money from your account on foot of unauthorised DDs. Fullstop.
You tell your bank in no unclear terms that you want that unauthorised DD transaction promptly refunded.

Let the fact that BT's billing system is sometimes playing up be a matter of concern for BT and their sponsoring bank.

P.

you don't think i tried?

i went through the whole thing three times in a row, and each time talking to different people at my bank i was told exactly the same thing.

BT have a paperless DD system that allows them electronically to set up direct debits with their customers banks. i cancelled it, i told BT in no uncertain terms that they did not have my permission to set up a new DD as i would not give them permission to do so, but come billing time, their mysterious billing system generated a new DD out of thing air, presented it to my bank and took the cash.

i asked my bank why they had let them take the cash when the direct debit had been cancelled and they told me it was a new one.

i went through the whole 'speaking to a manager' charade and it ended with them basically telling me that whilst BT had the power to create new DD's there was nothing the bank could do as each one is processed as a new transaction.

short of closing my account completely i did everything i could to get it stopped, and every time i did i was told by bt that it was all cancelled and wouldn't happen again and surprise surprise it did.

each time i got more and more angry, more and more annoyed and more and more forceful on the phone but every 2 months it just kept happening and happening all over again.

Foxwood

vibe666 wrote:

i asked my bank why they had let them take the cash when the direct debit had been cancelled and they told me it was a new one.

i went through the whole 'speaking to a manager' charade and it ended with them basically telling me that whilst BT had the power to create new DD's there was nothing the bank could do as each one is processed as a new transaction.

Your bank is clearly in breach of the Direct Debit Scheme rules as documented on the IPSO site. That is entirely seperate from the fact the IOL/ESAT/BT is also in breach. IOL/ESAT/BTs breach doesn't absolve your bank of it's responsibilities under the scheme.

ardmacha

Let the fact that BT's billing system is sometimes playing up be a matter of concern for BT and their sponsoring bank.

I suggested previously that the data protection commissioner might be interested in BTs computer continuing to make DDs after you asked for them to be stopped. This implies that BT are not keeping proper computerised records, as they are obliged to do. Did anyone try this line of enquiry.

dub45

Foxwood wrote:

Your bank is clearly in breach of the Direct Debit Scheme rules as documented on the IPSO site. That is entirely seperate from the fact the IOL/ESAT/BT is also in breach. IOL/ESAT/BTs breach doesn't absolve your bank of it's responsibilities under the scheme.

The sad fact is that the dd system is so unrealistic, unwieldy and totally impractiical in terms of policing that it does not matter in real terms who is in breach of it because nothing will be done about it.

Sponge Bob

I have never seen the DD 'service' discussed in such depth before. I feel the 'mystery' of how it 'works' is a thing of the past.

The data protection commissionner would be VERY interested in hearing from a victim of this 'system' I'll wager. IPSO will crap themselves

dub45

If I understand the dd system properly the only one who could carry out a 'sanction' on a misbehaving business is the sponsoring bank - but the sponsoring bank is going to be that business's bank - so realistically are they going to do something that will more than likely lose them a major customer?

And what does it say about Ipso's credibility that they will allow a system (ironically enough called 'plus':rolleyes: ) which allows a minimum notice period of only 7 days - a period so short that it has to be entirely unworkable both from the consumer's point of view and the companys'. This is especiially so when you consider that some (probably most I would guess) companies have a clause in their T&C's along the lines of this one (which is taken from Smart's for example purposes)

Should the Customer disagree with any of the Tariffs charged on its bill, the Customer shall contact Smart Telecom before the due date of payment of the bill. If, in the reasonable opinion of Smart Telecom, the Tariffs as set out there are incorrect, Smart Telecom will amend and re-issue the bill with a new date for payment. Otherwise the full amount remains due.

Now if all that can be done within seven days....................