Cancelling direct debit

cgarvey

antoinolachtnai wrote:

This is just not true. Much as IFSRA may like to deny it, IFSRA does regulate IPSO.

Well both IFSRA and IPSO deny it, so what's your source to the contrary?

My ESB analogy was just that; an analogy. Take some other one like, say, an IT company that provides banking-related services. IPSO doesn't provide any banking/financial services, does it? It's just a central administrative body for services that the individual banks offer (like Laser/DD/etc.). So I could see the logic in them not being regulated by IFSRA.

Anyway, can you tell me why that is not true, so that I and others are better informed. I could also use your reference in my next conversation with IFSRA!

Sponge Bob

The IFSRA is another pretend or sham regulator a la Comreg.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?

antoinolachtnai

First of all, in this instance, the issue is with AIB, not IPSO.

But to answer the question, the general principles stated in chapter 1 of the Consumer Code clearly relate to the activities of IPSO and to the issue being discussed. These provisions are very broad.

A regulated entity must ensure that in all its dealings with customers and within the context of its authorisation it:

1. acts honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of its customers and the integrity of the market;

2. acts with due skill, care and diligence in the best interests of its customers;

...

4. has and employs effectively the resources and procedures, systems and control checks that are necessary for compliance with this Code;

...

10. ensures that any outsourced activity complies with the requirements of this Code;

(see http://www.financialregulator.ie/industry/in_car_reqs.asp)

MOH

Sponge Bob wrote:

The IFSRA is another pretend or sham regulator a la Comreg.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?

aha!

cgarvey

Agreed on your IPSO points Antoin, but you haven't addressed my request for clarification that I was telling mistruths!

antoinolachtnai

I certainly wasn't saying you were telling mistruths. Maybe my language was a bit boisterous and sorry if it was.

I don't doubt you when you say that both IPSO and IFSRA claim not to have anything to do with one another. But it is simply not true to say that IFSRA does not have a responsibility in relation to IPSO's activities. It does not matter who says it or how many times they say it.

ciaran00

I cancelled a DD with BOI and BT (yes i know there's another page for BT related complaints..) BOI acknowledged this as did BT. Then 2 monts later i was back on DD and monies were taken on 2 occasions, we cancelled twice. BOI fobbed us off with "Originator plus" brownstuff last august and we accepted it. Recently i started investigating it and it turns out what BOI said was totally wrong. I dunno bou you guys but i found IPSO were reasonably good. I got a great response and email with which i was able to go to the bank with. I'm meetign the bank manager on monday and hopefully will have resolution. My intentions are to take them to court. It has taken a year and a half of paperwork and evidence collection (sad it may sound but i got my teeth into this one...) They are obliged to write to BT (or whoever) with information that you've cancelled your DD with them, eventhough the mandate with BT was paperless/over the phone. You deserve to see evidence of this. If it's not forthcoming, you have rights under the data protection legislation - write to their data protection manager. i realise this thread hasn't been written about since 2007 but i'd be intrigued to hear what people are going through now.

dub45

ciaran00 wrote: »

I cancelled a DD with BOI and BT (yes i know there's another page for BT related complaints..) BOI acknowledged this as did BT. Then 2 monts later i was back on DD and monies were taken on 2 occasions, we cancelled twice. BOI fobbed us off with "Originator plus" brownstuff last august and we accepted it. Recently i started investigating it and it turns out what BOI said was totally wrong. I dunno bou you guys but i found IPSO were reasonably good. I got a great response and email with which i was able to go to the bank with. I'm meetign the bank manager on monday and hopefully will have resolution. My intentions are to take them to court. It has taken a year and a half of paperwork and evidence collection (sad it may sound but i got my teeth into this one...) They are obliged to write to BT (or whoever) with information that you've cancelled your DD with them, eventhough the mandate with BT was paperless/over the phone. You deserve to see evidence of this. If it's not forthcoming, you have rights under the data protection legislation - write to their data protection manager. i realise this thread hasn't been written about since 2007 but i'd be intrigued to hear what people are going through now.

It is great to see someone taking action on the direct debit mess. In my view it is a totally inadequate system and on top of that company staff and bank staff are simply not familiar with how it works. For example why is there no booklet available in branches to customers explaining exactly how the dd systime works? Why isnt such a booklet issued to everyone who takes out a direct debit.

I have found IPSO monunentally arrogant when I asked them some questions about the direct debit system. I wrote to them in April last asking what requirements are in place for the storage of customers banking information in companies participating in the dd sytem. I am still waiting on a reply!!!

As far as I can establish even though a direct debit may have been cancelled it is not possible for the bank to stop a reinstituded direct debit hitting an account. This is because a direct debit has not got a unique identifier like a cheque has. And also there is no central complaints facility in the systerm which means persisten offenders like BT are not picked up. IPSO are not a counsumer body their interests are the banks and companies and most people dont even know that they exist.

Your one question for the bank manager should be ''Why did they allow BT to steal money from your account on two occassions and then defend the practise''.

ciaran00

dub45 wrote: »

It is great to see someone taking action on the direct debit mess. In my view it is a totally inadequate system and on top of that company staff and bank staff are simply not familiar with how it works. For example why is there no booklet available in branches to customers explaining exactly how the dd systime works? Why isnt such a booklet issued to everyone who takes out a direct debit.

I have found IPSO monunentally arrogant when I asked them some questions about the direct debit system. I wrote to them in April last asking what requirements are in place for the storage of customers banking information in companies participating in the dd sytem. I am still waiting on a reply!!!

As far as I can establish even though a direct debit may have been cancelled it is not possible for the bank to stop a reinstituded direct debit hitting an account. This is because a direct debit has not got a unique identifier like a cheque has. And also there is no central complaints facility in the systerm which means persisten offenders like BT are not picked up. IPSO are not a counsumer body their interests are the banks and companies and most people dont even know that they exist.

Your one question for the bank manager should be ''Why did they allow BT to steal money from your account on two occassions and then defend the practise''.

I did ask that and was told that since the mandate is paperless, BT don't physically send them anything, the bank can't do anything. This goes against the rules set out by IPSO, who i realise is not regulated by the financial regulator however they do seem to make the rules that the rest should be working under. He actually told me that in order for BT to work in Ireland, they needed a spondoring bank. BT's sponsoring bank is AIB, he said he would use my case and go to AIB directly and show them how BT are abusing them and their services. However, banks being banks and back slapping being as popular as ever, nothing much may come of it.
The rep i talked with from the bank told me that it was difficult for the bank to offer protection to customers when dealing with paperless mandates. Monday shoudl be interesting. meanwhile i'm off looking for a very large mattress!

cgarvey

dub45 wrote: »

IPSO are not a counsumer body their interests are the banks and companies and most people dont even know that they exist.

That's it. in one.

It's time for a very clear Direct Debit scheme with very clear rules for all 3 parties. Originator Plus businesses should be forced to provide proof of authorisation, on demand. The guarantee must be enforced (with clear penalties for both consumer and originator if they abuse it). It's very easy to come up with a set of plain-English guidelines that all parties can follow.

IPSO have the ideal oppertunity to provide a simple interface to this (so consumers can see all their DDs, automate cancellation notices, and track abuses, etc.). They have the oppertunity to come up with a clear system that is favourable (rather than being forced on consumers, even with financial penalties now), and they can do that with minimum expense.

Will they? Perhaps the answer lies within their source of income.

cgarvey

ciaran00 wrote: »

My intentions are to take them to court. It has taken a year and a half of paperwork and evidence collection (sad it may sound but i got my teeth into this one...)

Good man, and good luck! From where I'm sitting you have a legal case against the bank (on grounds of neglegence) and BT (on grounds of deducting monies and establishing Direct Debit contracts without your authorisation), but the details in your case might not be that simple. At least you're standing up to the nonsense!

dub45

ciaran00 wrote: »

I did ask that and was told that since the mandate is paperless, BT don't physically send them anything, the bank can't do anything.

That is absurd beyond words! If the bank cannot do anything they should not be operating the dd scheme plain and simple. How can internal audit allow such a scheme to operate if the bank are so powerless.

Please ask at your meeting how the banks internal audit and security specialists can stand over the operation of a system that leaves them so powerless.

ciaran00 wrote: »

This goes against the rules set out by IPSO, who i realise is not regulated by the financial regulator however they do seem to make the rules that the rest should be working under. He actually told me that in order for BT to work in Ireland, they needed a spondoring bank. BT's sponsoring bank is AIB, he said he would use my case and go to AIB directly and show them how BT are abusing them and their services. However, banks being banks and back slapping being as popular as ever, nothing much may come of it.

BT and any company for that matter require a sponsoring bank to participate in the direct debit scheme. As you say the only way to complain is to your own bank first and hope that they will bother to complain to the sponsoring bank who of course have a commercial relationship with the offender. There is a need for an independent complaints 'body' so that persistent offenders such as bt will be nabbed. There is no sanction open to the payer against a company who messes them around and this is why the companies operate with such gay abandon they know that no matter what they do there is no sanction against them.

ciaran00 wrote: »

The rep i talked with from the bank told me that it was difficult for the bank to offer protection to customers when dealing with paperless mandates. Monday shoudl be interesting. meanwhile i'm off looking for a very large mattress!

Again if that is the case why are they operating the system? The banks signed up to the system so surely in advance of any sign up they examined the weaknesses of it. The paperless mandate should never have been allowed/ Please also ask your 'friend' on Monday what training staff are given in the direct debit scheme.:)

Incidentally has anyone got a copy of the uk scheme?

dub45

cgarvey wrote: »

That's it. in one.

It's time for a very clear Direct Debit scheme with very clear rules for all 3 parties. Originator Plus businesses should be forced to provide proof of authorisation, on demand. The guarantee must be enforced (with clear penalties for both consumer and originator if they abuse it). It's very easy to come up with a set of plain-English guidelines that all parties can follow.

IPSO have the ideal oppertunity to provide a simple interface to this (so consumers can see all their DDs, automate cancellation notices, and track abuses, etc.). They have the oppertunity to come up with a clear system that is favourable (rather than being forced on consumers, even with financial penalties now), and they can do that with minimum expense.

Will they? Perhaps the answer lies within their source of income.

There appears to me to be no will to take into account the concerns of the consumer. They rely on consumer apathy and know that few people have the energy to really pursue issues and even to try to come to grips with how the scheme works.

For example has anyone noticed how the '14 days notice' has now for a lot of companies become 14 days from the date on the bill? With business envelopes no longer postmarked it is impossible to know when a letter is actually posted and companies can and do print any date they want to on a bill. I tried to raise this with IPSO and the guy I spoke to was openly contemptuous towards me. I pointed out to him repeatedly that the scheme was being broken and he kept saying ok I will tell o2 (who were the offending party in my case) that I have receive ONE complaint and kept emphasising the ONE part of it. He also kept telling me that he was prepared to accept very short notice for his own debits.

By the way in the case of direct debit plus the originator is only requered to give 7 days notice which is an absolute nonsense. One of the purposes of the notice period is to allow a customer to query or dispute a bill and disputed amounts are not supposed to be debited. I leave the rest up to yourselves!

foggy_lad

a quarantor for a loan and most other banking procedures are liable to charges or debits for a period of 6 months from the final payment or closure of account etc afaik
maybe this is what the person in the AIB is referring to when saying the op's DD may be reinstated in the future?

dub45

foggy_lad wrote: »

a quarantor for a loan and most other banking procedures are liable to charges or debits for a period of 6 months from the final payment or closure of account etc afaik
maybe this is what the person in the AIB is referring to when saying the op's DD may be reinstated in the future?

There is absolutely no provision for the reinstatement of a dd in the scheme afaik. To go back to basics. A dd is simply a method of paying a bill which the bank facilitates at the request and with the permission of the account holder.

The account holder's wishes (and instructions) must be supreme in this case and no one else's. The security of the customers account should be paramount to the bank.

The relationship between the business concerned and the customer should be of absolutely no relevance to the bank.

To put it another way suppose you paid your monthly bill to someone by posting a cheque to them or perhaps through the bill pay facility of an post. If you decide to change your method of payment that would be irrelevant to an post and so it should be irrelevant to the bank other than you follow the correct procedure.

As I have pointed out (to the point of driving people mad I am sure:)) there is a major flaw in the banking system in that they cannot afaik stop a dd hitting the system. If they could there would be no way a dd could be reinstated.

Every dd when it is set up should have a unique numeric identifier and this is what the banks should use to stop it when it has been cancelled.

Also when a dd is cancelled all banking data should have to be immediately removed from the company's computer systems and any other records they have should be destroyed. There is no requirement for this in the scheme.

To reinstate a dd without the customers knowledge and to use it to get money from an account is theft. And for a bank to facilitate this theft is mindboggling.

I cannot understand how the dd system in its present state is allowed to be operated by the banks' security departments and I wonder who actually has to sign off on it on the part of the banks.

faceman

dub45 wrote: »

The main trouble (and there are many) with direct debits is that each agreement is not numbered so therefore cannot be stopped like a cheque. A company so long as it has your bank account details can keep presenting a direct debit on your account until the cows come home. The bank has no way of detecting a deduction as it comes in for presentation.

Thats not correct. The bank are spouting rubbish. Each retailer who utilises the DD scheme has a unique originator ID which the bank use to verify they are who they say they are. They can stop that particular originator from debiting your account if need be.

OP, its sounds like there is alot of information being bandied about here that may not be necessary yet.

There are 2 types of direct debit scheme. The one that seems to cause most of the problems on boards is what's called Originator Plus (OP)

OP works on a basis of trust. The Originator (e.g. your phone provider etc) can take your bank details over the phone, doesnt need your signature but has a specific process to follow to confirm with you, the customer, that a DD has been set up for your customer account.

The bank can debit money from your bank account without a signed copy of a DD mandate (as with the old scheme) on the "trust" that the originator has followed the correct process.

If you want to cancel a DD regardless of what retailers or some Customer Service people with a bank say, you must do 2 things. Cancel with both the bank and the service provider in writing. It doesnt matter if you still owe money to the originator or not, you have the right to cancel the DD at any stage.

The bank can prevent further transactions by the originator being carried out on your account. If a transaction goes through, the bank must refund you and chase the originator for the relevent reimbursement themselves. Regardless of whether the originator refunds the bank should not impact the bank refunding you.

If you find that the originator or the bank is not cooperating despite your written notice, then you contact IPSO as your first point of contact. Supply them with copy of cancellation letters, contracts etc.

In the unlikely event that IPSO doesnt help then you can contact Consumer Affairs etc.

Despite what some people are saying here, I have found IPSO to be a very helpful organisation to both consumers and retailers.

dub45

faceman wrote: »

Thats not correct. The bank are spouting rubbish. Each retailer who utilises the DD scheme has a unique originator ID which the bank use to verify they are who they say they are. They can stop that particular originator from debiting your account if need be.

I have confirmed with people working in the bank that they cannot stop direct debits. And if they can as you claim then why are reinstituted dds, who after all come from that originator that you claim can be identified, paid?

And what about a situation where you have may have two direct debits with the one originator how is the bank to distinguish between those?

faceman wrote: »

OP, its sounds like there is alot of information being bandied about here that may not be necessary yet.

There are 2 types of direct debit scheme. The one that seems to cause most of the problems on boards is what's called Originator Plus (OP)

OP works on a basis of trust. The Originator (e.g. your phone provider etc) can take your bank details over the phone, doesnt need your signature but has a specific process to follow to confirm with you, the customer, that a DD has been set up for your customer account.

The bank can debit money from your bank account without a signed copy of a DD mandate (as with the old scheme) on the "trust" that the originator has followed the correct process.

If you want to cancel a DD regardless of what retailers or some Customer Service people with a bank say, you must do 2 things. Cancel with both the bank and the service provider in writing. It doesnt matter if you still owe money to the originator or not, you have the right to cancel the DD at any stage.

That is not correct - it may be the wise thing to so but the direct debit scheme only requires you to cancel with your bank

In the event that the Payer wishes to amend or cancel a DDI or DDI+, the Payer shall duly notify in writing his Paying Bank (and should also as a matter of good practice notify the relevant Originator)

The onus is on the bank to inform the company involved.

faceman wrote: »

The bank can prevent further transactions by the originator being carried out on your account. If a transaction goes through, the bank must refund you and chase the originator for the relevent reimbursement themselves. Regardless of whether the originator refunds the bank should not impact the bank refunding you.

It is not correct to say that the bank 'must' refund you. The direct debit guide states:

If it is established that an unauthorised Direct Debit was charged to your account, you are guaranteed a prompt refund by your Bank of the amount so charged.

So it has to be 'established' before a refund can be made. There is no definition of what 'established' means and there is no procedure laid down for the payer to follow if his bank do not accept his/her claim. Bear in mind too that bank employees do not appear to be over familiar with the details of the scheme to put it kindly. Perfect example of the bank refusing to refund:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56388393&postcount=38

faceman wrote: »

If you find that the originator or the bank is not cooperating despite your written notice, then you contact IPSO as your first point of contact. Supply them with copy of cancellation letters, contracts etc.

In the unlikely event that IPSO doesn't help then you can contact Consumer Affairs etc.

Despite what some people are saying here, I have found IPSO to be a very helpful organisation to both consumers and retailers.

With all due respects to you this is nonsense. There is no formal role for IPSO in the direct debit scheme. Find me a mention of them anywhere?

And this is one of the huge weaknesses of the scheme there is no proper complaints procedure for the payer whatsoever. Most people don't even know of IPSO's existence and it is in the absence of a proper complaints procedure that people contact them in desperation. IPSO are an industry body and the interests of payers come a very poor third after those of the companies and the banks. The way BT have been allowed for years to mess around with peoples accounts is proof of that.

Wny isn't everyone who signs up for the dd scheme issued with a guide with particular reference to the proper way of cancelling and how to make a complaint? I doubt if you will find IPSO taking on that role anytime soon!!

Does anyone know of a guide to the dd scheme for customers other than on the IPSO site?

The only party to the dd scheme who is ever sanctioned for breaking it is the payer. If your money is not in your account on the due date the bank penalises you and in many cases companies impose their own additional charges which are not advised to the payer when they are signing up for the direct debit.

Our so called incredibly helpful friends in IPSO do not want to know about these hidden charges of course!!! Yet if companies break it there is no sanction - if the banks break it there is no sanction. Missing a direct debit payment can cost upwards of 25 euros.

Reinstitute a direct debit without warning - no sanction.

Pay the reinstuteded direct debit no sanction.

I wrote to the IPSO Chief Executive last April asking various questions about requirements for the security of information held by companies. It took a registered letter and the threat of writing to the papers to get a (very inadequate) response!

faceman

Ok here we go again!

dub45 wrote: »

I have confirmed with people working in the bank that they cannot stop direct debits.

That doesnt make sense. Then why do retailers received notifications for cancelled direct debits from the bank when they try debit account where a DD has been cancelled? Granted different banks have different processes (AIB seems to be best organised in that area)

wrote:

And if they can as you claim then why are reinstituted dds, who after all come from that originator that you claim can be identified, paid?

I can explain how and why that happens but it wont make sense to the general readers here. its to do with coding on the electronic file that is presented to the bank by the originator. PM me if you really want to know and I will explain.

wrote:

And what about a situation where you have may have two direct debits with the one originator how is the bank to distinguish between those?

You cant. Point taken. However how common an occurence is it tho?

wrote:

That is not correct - it may be the wise thing to so but the direct debit scheme only requires you to cancel with your bank

Thats true, point taken. However it is best practise.

wrote:

It is not correct to say that the bank 'must' refund you. The direct debit guide states:

So it has to be 'established' before a refund can be made. There is no definition of what 'established' means and there is no procedure laid down for the payer to follow if his bank do not accept his/her claim. Bear in mind too that bank employees do not appear to be over familiar with the details of the scheme to put it kindly. Perfect example of the bank refusing to refund:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56388393&postcount=38

Proof of cancellation is all that's required. (i.e. copy of the letter etc) Its not rocket science in fairness. An individual either cancelled or they didnt. Its detailed in Section 2 of the Direct Debit scheme rules by way of a table which outlines what is required.

wrote:

With all due respects to you this is nonsense. There is no formal role for IPSO in the direct debit scheme. Find me a mention of them anywhere?

Strictly speaking the process owners are Irish Retail Electronic Payments Clearing Company who are owned by IPSO. google direct debit scheme in ireland and IPSO pops up so i dont know what you mean your comment. If it is a disputes procedure then yes, there aint any! Granted there is very little transparency for consumers up front that advises them where to complain. Although should the process work correctly, the consumer would never need to go beyond their own bank to resolve an issue.

wrote:

And this is one of the huge weaknesses of the scheme there is no proper complaints procedure for the payer whatsoever. Most people don't even know of IPSO's existence and it is in the absence of a proper complaints procedure that people contact them in desperation. IPSO are an industry body and the interests of payers come a very poor third after those of the companies and the banks. The way BT have been allowed for years to mess around with peoples accounts is proof of that.

Wny isn't everyone who signs up for the dd scheme issued with a guide with particular reference to the proper way of cancelling and how to make a complaint? I doubt if you will find IPSO taking on that role anytime soon!!

Dont disagree with your point here.

dub45

Your arguments and defense of the dd system become more porous each time you post.

faceman wrote: »

Ok here we go again!

That doesnt make sense. Then why do retailers received notifications for cancelled direct debits from the bank when they try debit account where a DD has been cancelled? Granted different banks have different processes (AIB seems to be best organised in that area)

It should not be a matter of the banks having different processes. Having a dd rejected should not be a lottery. The fact is that you cannot be guaranteed that a dd will not be paid. Incidentally why are these retailers issuing the dds in the first place if they have been cancelled:0

faceman wrote: »

I can explain how and why that happens but it wont make sense to the general readers here. its to do with coding on the electronic file that is presented to the bank by the originator. PM me if you really want to know and I will explain.

If it can happen then the system is wrong - plain and simple. Electronic coding or whatever may be the excuse it is plain and simply wrong and once again should not be acceptable in a proper system.

faceman wrote: »

You cant. Point taken. However how common an occurence is it tho?

How common it is does not matter again it bears out my point. Each dd agreement should have a unique identifier and in that way could be blocked like a cancelled cheque.

faceman wrote: »

Proof of cancellation is all that's required. (i.e. copy of the letter etc) Its not rocket science in fairness. An individual either cancelled or they didnt. Its detailed in Section 2 of the Direct Debit scheme rules by way of a table which outlines what is required.

You are conveniently forgetting that not all deductions that a customer might be disputing are related to cancelled direct debits. For example many companies do not honour the notice period - when I joined Smart first they were debiting my account (and others) before the actual bills were received.

Our good friends in BT were well known at one stage for not billing people for months and then hitting their accounts without any notice for the full amounts outstanding. They are examples of where the customer should be entitled to request a charge back.
Also there is no provision in the scheme for a payer to be compensated in a case where a dd is wrongly paid out for whatever reason and causes him say to go into overdraft or have other dds rejected. Who does the payer approach about such situations?

faceman wrote: »

Strictly speaking the process owners are Irish Retail Electronic Payments Clearing Company who are owned by IPSO. google direct debit scheme in ireland and IPSO pops up so i dont know what you mean your comment. If it is a disputes procedure then yes, there aint any!

There is no proper complaints procedure - there is no dispute procedure of any description. There is no mention of a role for ipso in the direct debit scheme. Thats my comment I cannot understand what you do not understand about it? If the dd system was proper system it would not involve ''googling for direct debit scheme in Ireland''

IPSO get involved out of the 'goodness' of their heart and embarrassment at the behaviour of their clients. There is nothing to prevent them telling someone who rings them with a complaint to hump off. There is no formal requirement for them in the direct debit scheme to do anything for someone who is complaining.

Complaining to IPSO who after all are dependent on the companies and the banks is like a prisoner complaining to a prison governor
about the behaviour of the prison guards.

faceman wrote: »

Granted there is very little transparency for consumers up front that advises them where to complain. Although should the process work correctly, the consumer would never need to go beyond their own bank to resolve an issue.

There is no transparency anywhere up front behind or anywhere else. And who is responsible for this? IPSO and their clients. After all the scheme did not magically appear out of thin air.

The point is that the process does not work correctly. And even the best process will have failings from time to time - but properly thought out procedures would take care of these failings.

We have the worst of all possible worlds - a badly thought out scheme with lousy protection and concern for the consumer.

As i keep pointing out the only one who is actually sanctioned in the scheme is the consumer when they miss a payment - the banks and the companies can effectively do what they want. IPSO are hardly going to pursue a big company like BT and have the dd facility withdrawn from them no matter what they do.

foggy_lad

what about this senario then- you have a DD with company A and you decide because they are no good or your contract is up or for whatever reason you want to cancel your DD so you write to company A telling them you are doing so and your bank who then cancel your DD for company A.

then after a while some unscruples person within company A who wants to boost his/her sign-up rate for that month or company A's owner wanting to line his/her pocket re-activates your DD by actually setting up a completly new DD using details you have given for the old DD.

this may explain difficulties when then getting this DD cancelled or refunded as it may have a different originater number?

could companies actuall do this?

foggy_lad

• Paying Banks:
o must adhere to the Rules of the Scheme
o must put in place processes which will ensure that unauthorised and/or cancelled Direct Debits are intercepted and returned immediately on presentation
o must promptly present indemnity claims arising under or pursuant to the Scheme
o must assist its customer, to the extent practicable, in the resolution of disputes arising under or pursuant to the Scheme
o must inform the Sponsoring Bank if an Originator is not adhering to the Rules of the Scheme
In the case of any dispute between Banks/Originators regarding the operation of the Scheme or adherence to the Rules of the Scheme, each such participant a party to such dispute may, if it has exhausted all reasonable means of resolving the dispute, refer the dispute to IRECC for its consideration (provided however that no party to such dispute shall disclose to IRECC any confidential information concerning any Payer or Originator as may relate to that dispute without the consent of such person).

of course not all originators are signed up to the direct debit scheme.

sheepshagger

Cancelled a DD yesterday online at the Banking 365 website. .. seemed simple enough.

faceman

dub45 wrote: »

Your arguments and defense of the dd system become more porous each time you post.

Im finding the purposes of your posts confusing and condescending. I didnt post here to defend or attack the DD system. Perhaps you should read my posts again. The OP had a query and i quoted my experience relating to it based on existing restraints surrounding it.

Scottie99

sheepshagger wrote: »

Cancelled a DD yesterday online at the Banking 365 website. .. seemed simple enough.

Exactly, I've done it without contacting the recipient and had no probs. If your bank is not doing what your asking concerning D.D.... close your account. A little hassle yes.........but they'll soon get the message.

dub45

foggy_lad wrote: »

what about this senario then- you have a DD with company A and you decide because they are no good or your contract is up or for whatever reason you want to cancel your DD so you write to company A telling them you are doing so and your bank who then cancel your DD for company A.

then after a while some unscruples person within company A who wants to boost his/her sign-up rate for that month or company A's owner wanting to line his/her pocket re-activates your DD by actually setting up a completly new DD using details you have given for the old DD.

this may explain difficulties when then getting this DD cancelled or refunded as it may have a different originater number?

could companies actuall do this?

Yes that does happen it is called reinstating the dd. See this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56388393&postcount=38

dub45

sheepshagger wrote: »

Cancelled a DD yesterday online at the Banking 365 website. .. seemed simple enough.

As have lots of people in the past. The experience of some unfortunate people is that 'cancelling' the dd does not in fact result in its cancellation.

See this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56388393&postcount=38

FreedomJoe

Ok lads, advice please!

I didnt want to start a new thread, so im using this one!

I previously owned 2 cars both insured with Allianz.

Both cars each have their own unique Direct Debit. When I say unique i mean i received instructions from Allianz detailing unique reference numbers in relation to my paymeny instructions.

I bank with PermTSB.

My wife had myself decided it was time to get rid of one car and I cancelled the DD for the car we sold online with open24.

I also wrote to Allianz informing them of the same.

This morning i check the bank and I discover the DD I cancelled was allowed to go through.

I contacted my bank to ask them what was going on.

My bank informed me that even though I cancelled my DD, Allianz have the right to use my other Direct Debit to withdraw the monies for the DD I canceled!

I explained that the DD I cancelled had a unique reference number that had been used for the DD taken out this morning.

The bank basically said that they do not go by that reference number so they dont know what amounts and when these amounts come out of my account!

To cut a long story short permTSB dont care if you cancel a Direct Debit, because if you have another DD with the same company these are allowed to be abused to take whatever payments they wish without the authorsation of the account holder!

Surely this cant be right?

I even tried the excuse, you cant take out 2 payments of a monthly DD.

Didnt work.

You cant use a reference number for a seperate DD from a DD i canceled.

Didnt work.

I have to be informed within 14 days of any changes to a DD.

Thats between you and Allianz was the answer.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Allianz are also claiming they didnt receive my cancelation, but if i fax a copy in they will cancel it for next month!:rolleyes:

dub45

FreedomJoe wrote: »

Ok lads, advice please!

I didnt want to start a new thread, so im using this one!

I previously owned 2 cars both insured with Allianz.

Both cars each have their own unique Direct Debit. When I say unique i mean i received instructions from Allianz detailing unique reference numbers in relation to my paymeny instructions.

I bank with PermTSB.

My wife had myself decided it was time to get rid of one car and I cancelled the DD for the car we sold online with open24.

I also wrote to Allianz informing them of the same.

Do you have an copies of this correspondence? Informing allianz is not essentail under the scheme as your bank should inform them - so the fact that they do not have a copy of your letter is irrelvant

FreedomJoe wrote: »

This morning i check the bank and I discover the DD I cancelled was allowed to go through.

I contacted my bank to ask them what was going on.

My bank informed me that even though I cancelled my DD, Allianz have the right to use my other Direct Debit to withdraw the monies for the DD I canceled!

This is absolute nonsense. Contact a senior manager in your bank and tell them that unless you get an immediate refund and an apology you will report the bank to all the regulators under the sun including IFSRA and the most important regulator of all the Joe Duffy show on whose staff various relatives of yours happen to work! Also threaten to move your account elsewhere.

FreedomJoe wrote: »

I explained that the DD I cancelled had a unique reference number that had been used for the DD taken out this morning.

The bank basically said that they do not go by that reference number so they dont know what amounts and when these amounts come out of my account!

To cut a long story short permTSB dont care if you cancel a Direct Debit, because if you have another DD with the same company these are allowed to be abused to take whatever payments they wish without the authorsation of the account holder!

Surely this cant be right?

Tell TSB that you are appalled at their carelessness in relation to your account and that you will be reporting them to the banking regulator for this matter alone. It simply isn't good enough.

FreedomJoe wrote: »

Allianz are also claiming they didnt receive my cancelation, but if i fax a copy in they will cancel it for next month!:rolleyes:

Under the direct debit scheme the company does not have to be informed by you. It is a wise thing to do of course but the procedure is that you cancel the dd with your bank and they inform the company concerned. Have TSB confirmed to you that they informed Allianz that the direct debit was cancelled?

If I was you I would also ring IPSO (www.ipso.ie) about this. Tell them you are furious at both parties and that you want the matter sorted out immediately. IPSO of course represent the industry but a mention of the Joe Duffy show should frighten them too. IPSO have a lot to be scared about with the dd system which they always say is perfect:)

gypsy79

i cancelled a direct debit and Eir reset it again. Is this illegal?

L1011

gypsy79 wrote: »

i cancelled a direct debit and Eir reset it again. Is this illegal?

No, the mandate is sufficient to restart it. You need to block them with the bank instead. Please note that this does not release you from contractual obligations.

Also, when a thread is this old, please start a new one rather than bouncing it.