Vodafone stole €1200 out of a separate joint account

dilallio

As Seamus said earlier, it sounds like Vodafone (who did not know that the DD was cancelled) presented the DD to the bank. Because the DD was cancelled, someone in the Bank probably made an error and paid it from the other account.
The fact that the bank are going to refund the money and follow up with Vodafone re-enforces this.
It's happened to me in the past - not enough money in my current acct to honour a DD, and someone in the bank made a deduction from my savings acct instead.
It would be a criminal offence for Vodafone to hire a detective to get your brother's bank details, and forge another direct-debit in his name & other bank account no. They may be difficult to deal with, but they are not that stupid. To suggest that they would do this is ludicrous.

Guy:Incognito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

BTW do you work for Vodafone Customer care? :rolleyes:

Do all rational people work for Vodafone customer care?

Run_to_da_hills

dilallio wrote: »

As Seamus said earlier, it sounds like Vodafone (who did not know that the DD was canceled) presented the DD to the bank. Because the DD was cancelled, someone in the Bank probably made an error and paid it from the other account..

They presented a DD to the bank when they knew well there was an unsettled dispute over the matter. It was irrelevant what bank account they attacked.

Guy:Incognito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They presented a DD to the bank when they knew well there was an unsettled dispute over the matter. It was irrelevant what bank account they attacked.

Ah more buzz words. It's like reading the Sun. "attacked" now. It's very relevant seeign as you are accusing them or falsly obtaining details of a seperate account and committing fraud by taking money from it. In fact it could'nt be more relevant which account they "attack".

Run_to_da_hills

Stekelly wrote: »

Ah more buzz words. It's like reading the Sun. "attacked" now. It's very relevant seeign as you are accusing them or falsly obtaining details of a seperate account and committing fraud by taking money from it. In fact it could'nt be more relevant which account they "attack".

If it was a dignified company yes I wouldnt use such words but no we are dealing with a ruthless telecommunications multinational that dosen't give two shi*t about customer care. It has already been exposed by consumer programmes such as Prime Time. Its a wonder that so many of their former billed customers are leaving them in droves and joining Meteor.

Guy:Incognito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If it was a dignified company yes I wouldnt use such words but no we are dealing with a ruthless telecommunications company that dosen't give two shi*t about customer care. It has already been exposed by consumer programmes such as Prime Time. Its a wonder that so many of their former billed customers are leaving them in droves and joining Meteor.

So what your sayinng is your acussations are unfounded and pretty much defamatory due to a complete lack of any evidence pointing to this being a Vodafone error, never mind a malicious and illegal act?

Run_to_da_hills

Stekelly wrote: »

So what your sayinng is your acussations are unfounded and pretty much defamatory due to a complete lack of any evidence pointing to this being a Vodafone error, never mind a malicious and illegal act?

Again you have never bothered to read the follow up thread to get the full story of this dispute.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055625965

35notout

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If it was a dignified company yes I wouldnt use such words but no we are dealing with a ruthless telecommunications multinational that dosen't give two shi*t about customer care. It has already been exposed by consumer programmes such as Prime Time. Its a wonder that so many of their former billed customers are leaving them in droves and joining Meteor.

Oh yes, Meteor AKA Eircom - the epitome of good customer service :rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Again you have never bothered to read the follow up thread to get the full story of this dispute.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055625965

I did read that thread too. None of it lends anything to any of the wild accusations your throwing around here.

GerardKeating

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Irrelivant, I have my phone fully covered

No you do not, the insurance would not cover a case when you were negligent.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This case is about Vodafone failing to contact a customer and informing them of the theft of e1200 worth of calls after initially informing them that no calls were made on the phone when it was reported it stolen.

Sometimes it takes a while for call (esp roaming calls) to appear on a statement.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They presented a DD to the bank when they knew well there was an unsettled dispute over the matter. It was irrelevant what bank account they attacked.

Or the evil hearhless computer did it when the office was empty...

Run_to_da_hills

Stekelly wrote: »

I did read that thread too. None of it lends anything to any of the wild accusations your throwing around here.

Like deducting e1200 when they verbally asked would she settle for e600 :rolleyes:

Not making any written contact or replies to their customer at all over the matter.

Giving out misleading information at the store at the time the phone was stolen telling their customer that the phone was never used at the time of theft. Then texting her a bill off e1200 a month later.

If she had known of the theft she could have reported it to the Gardai but she didn't because she thought nothing of it. Their agent told her she should only report the theft to the Gardai if she was making an insurance claim.

When I threatened to terminate my contract (After being loyal with them 8 years) their customer service contacting me immediately from an unregistered number and told me that they were a bit "over the top" at first and were willing to discuss the matter. They never got back to me or them and hit the bank instead.

Call that good customer service. :rolleyes:

GerardKeating wrote: »

No you do not, the insurance would not cover a case when you were negligent....

I have never made a claim in 5 years, in previous claims my van was broken into and the phone stolen from the glove compartment. In her case the phone itself was not worth much.and she bought a brand new one from Vodafone the next day.

GerardKeating wrote: »

Sometimes it takes a while for call (esp roaming calls) to appear on a statement....

Not the issue, whether it took a day or two days to register, Vodaphone should have had the courtesy to contact her immediately over the outstanding discrepancy in their bill.

Guy:Incognito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Call that good customer service. :rolleyes:

Again I'll say it. None of that lends itself to the wild and illegal acts your accussing them of in this thread.

Run_to_da_hills

Stekelly wrote: »

Again I'll say it. None of that lends itself to the wild and illegal acts your accussing them of in this thread.

It takes two to tango.

Guy:Incognito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It takes two to tango.

Not in this case. Your just throwing out anythign that pops into your head.

Rhymenocerous

When you sign up for a contract phone you are libel for all calls made on that account. Whether they are made by you, your OH or the person that steals your phone. This is why phone insurance covers you for unauthorised calls. So being notified by Vodafone so you can report it to the Gardaí makes no difference, you're still libel for the calls made on that account, unless you have insurance to protect you against this (which the policy holder didn't).

From what I can gather from your posts, because of the mess up in-store, vodafone have suggested they'll take 50% off the call charges (which they do not have to do) but (IIRC) that offer was declined as the policy holder figured they owed nothing. Therefore the full bill went through under it's normal billing cycle to be paid by it's normal method (i.e. Direct Debit). All is pretty standard in my opinion to this point.

Then, somehow the direct debit was cancelled, and the bank have authorised this direct debit on the wrong account. Seems like a mistake, as you've indicated that the bank have said they will refund the money, provided the correct form is filled out (this is what I get from your post anyway).

As far as your outrageous claim that Vodafone have hired a private detective to source another account number for the policy holder, well that's just nonsense and you know it. Next you'll be looking over your should for fear that Vodafone have hired some Eastern European ATM cloning gang to take your money that way. Cop on.

And before you start accusing me of working for Vodafone, I don't. I openly dislike them; however, I don't see that they've done anything wrong here except give out the wrong info about calls that really doesn't effect anything because whether they told you (or had access to even see it at the time in-store) or not, the policy holder is still libel for all calls.

Run_to_da_hills

Rhymenocerous wrote: »

When you sign up for a contract phone you are libel for all calls made on that account. Whether they are made by you, your OH or the person that steals your phone. This is why phone insurance covers you for unauthorised calls. So being notified by Vodafone so you can report it to the Gardaí makes no difference, you're still libel for the calls made on that account, unless you have insurance to protect you against this (which the policy holder didn't).

From what I can gather from your posts, because of the mess up in-store, vodafone have suggested they'll take 50% off the call charges (which they do not have to do) but (IIRC) that offer was declined as the policy holder figured they owed nothing. Therefore the full bill went through under it's normal billing cycle to be paid by it's normal method (i.e. Direct Debit). All is pretty standard in my opinion to this point.

Then, somehow the direct debit was cancelled, and the bank have authorised this direct debit on the wrong account. Seems like a mistake, as you've indicated that the bank have said they will refund the money, provided the correct form is filled out (this is what I get from your post anyway).

As far as your outrageous claim that Vodafone have hired a private detective to source another account number for the policy holder, well that's just nonsense and you know it. Next you'll be looking over your should for fear that Vodafone have hired some Eastern European ATM cloning gang to take your money that way. Cop on.

And before you start accusing me of working for Vodafone, I don't. I openly dislike them; however, I don't see that they've done anything wrong here except give out the wrong info about calls that really doesn't effect anything because whether they told you (or had access to even see it at the time in-store) or not, the policy holder is still libel for all calls.

I blame the total lack of communication with the customer on Vodafones behalf.

dilallio

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They presented a DD to the bank when they knew well there was an unsettled dispute over the matter. It was irrelevant what bank account they attacked.

Yes they did - I agree with you on this. Unfortunately, this is the real world. Their automated billing system will do this (as will the majority of other companies). Virtually every large organisation will bill now, and deal with any issues resulting from an incorrect billing later. In this case they did not know that the direct debit had been cancelled.

It was the bank's fault for paying the money to Vodafone from an alternative account. They have acknowledged this and will refund the money.

From experience, when dealing with these companies, making wild and unfounded accusations will not help you at all in the resolution of the issue.

I do sympathise with your predicament. However, if I was working for Vodafone (which I'm not), or any organisation, no matter how sympathetic I was to your issue, I would find it extremely difficult to compromise with you on a mutually acceptable solution, the second you start accusing the company of theft / hiring detectives to hack your bank account. If this occurred, I would simply follow the agreed contract to the letter, in the knowledge that if you take the case to the small-claims court, your wild accusations would not do your case any good whatsoever.

The majority of the people working for Vodafone aren't out to get you - they have procedures for everything. The more senior the person you are dealing with is, the more they can do for you here, but again, if you adopt a hard line with them, they will simply get tired of trying to deal with you, and retreat to their official procedures.

Run_to_da_hills

dilallio wrote: »

Yes they did - I agree with you on this. Unfortunately, this is the real world. Their automated billing system will do this (as will the majority of other companies). Virtually every large organisation will bill now, and deal with any issues resulting from an incorrect billing later. In this case they did not know that the direct debit had been cancelled.

It was the bank's fault for paying the money to Vodafone from an alternative account. They have acknowledged this and will refund the money.

From experience, when dealing with these companies, making wild and unfounded accusations will not help you at all in the resolution of the issue.

I do sympathise with your predicament. However, if I was working for Vodafone (which I'm not), or any organisation, no matter how sympathetic I was to your issue, I would find it extremely difficult to compromise with you on a mutually acceptable solution, the second you start accusing the company of theft / hiring detectives to hack your bank account. If this occurred, I would simply follow the agreed contract to the letter, in the knowledge that if you take the case to the small-claims court, your wild accusations would not do your case any good whatsoever.

The majority of the people working for Vodafone aren't out to get you - they have procedures for everything. The more senior the person you are dealing with is, the more they can do for you here, but again, if you adopt a hard line with them, they will simply get tired of trying to deal with you, and retreat to their official procedures.

It isn't me that has the problem. :P

Vodafone will now not talk to anyone other than the customer involved.

Walkman

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It isn't me that has the problem. :P

Vodafone will now not talk to anyone other than the customer involved.

That would be due to data protection...they are now taking the procedural approach. I have just read over this thread and the other one and am in no way a fan of Vodafone but you seem to fail to realise how DD payments work, NO ONE in Vodafone is looking at DD payments, it is an automated process carried out with minimal human interaction save to change any information on a customers account (and please no more childish talk of them obtaining different bank account information without their customers knowledge....that is just plain ridiculous)

Run_to_da_hills

Walkman wrote: »

That would be due to data protection...they are now taking the procedural approach. I have just read over this thread and the other one and am in no way a fan of Vodafone but you seem to fail to realise how DD payments work, NO ONE in Vodafone is looking at DD payments, it is an automated process carried out with minimal human interaction save to change any information on a customers account (and please no more childish talk of them obtaining different bank account information without their customers knowledge....that is just plain ridiculous)

The whole point of the matter is thet there was a serious problem and Vodafone customer care knew of it.

Rather than try to deal with the customer in question they went directly to the bank. Whether it was automated deduction or not they should have been more dignified over the matter.

It had also been explained to customer care at the time that the customer in question was unemployed and did not have e1200 in her account so what were they playing at?

Nody

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The whole point of the matter is thet there was a serious problem and Vodafone customer care knew of it.

They where told; don't mean the appropiate notes etc. where done by the individual person.

Rather than try to deal with the customer in question they went directly to the bank. Whether it was automated deduction or not they should have been more dignified over the matter.

See above; unless the account was blocked there would be no, none, nada, human involvement in the automatic payment run. Their system would generate a payment file sent to the bank requesting the cash from the bank account the original DD was set up on. From that point the bank was in error by going to a different account to try to execute it.

It had also been explained to customer care at the time that the customer in question was unemployed and did not have e1200 in her account so what were they playing at?

And why would they care if the person is unemployed and can't pay the 1200? This is of course beyond the previous point that no one actually looked (or would be allowed to look) at something like that in the first place as it would be an automated process.

And before you run of screaming again I've never worked for Vodafone or any other mobile company but I have worked in major international billing companies.

Walkman

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The whole point of the matter is thet there was a serious problem and Vodafone customer care knew of it.

Rather than try to deal with the customer in question they went directly to the bank. Whether it was automated deduction or not they should have been more dignified over the matter.

It had also been explained to customer care at the time that the customer in question was unemployed and did not have e1200 in her account so what were they playing at?

I do not dispute the fact that if the error is on Vodafone's side then it is their mistake as they agreed to half the bill (obviously the CC rep never informed whoever would have made the adjustment on the bill...a MISTAKE I would imagine). The fact the person is currently unemployed (however unfortunate that is) is not the issue here. The issue is how the monies were deducted from another account not named on the Vodafone account and that is to be taken up with the bank not Vodafone

Rhymenocerous

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The whole point of the matter is thet there was a serious problem and Vodafone customer care knew of it.

Rather than try to deal with the customer in question they went directly to the bank. Whether it was automated deduction or not they should have been more dignified over the matter.

It had also been explained to customer care at the time that the customer in question was unemployed and did not have e1200 in her account so what were they playing at?

When you sign the pay monthly contract, then you agree to pay your bill monthly, all calls, all charges, no matter. Vodafone are 100% in the right to bill the customer every month. That's the contract.

From what it seems (could be wrong, but this is what I get from the second hand information, speculation and random accusations in both threads)
(1) the customer got a bill for €1200 (quite steep; I can understand the shock).
(2) Customer rang up Vodafone and said they didn't make the calls, so are not paying (contrary to what they actually signed up for).
(3) Due to a slight mistake on Vodafone's part with informing the customer at the time of unauthorised calls they agree to go 50/50 on the cost (quite a fair resolution if you ask me).
(4) Customer declines this, stating they owe nothing (when in fact, the contract they signed states they owe it all)
(5) Vodafone bill the account for that month, as the contract stipulates all outstanding payments must be paid monthly.
(6) Bank make a mistake with DD.

This is not even your issue; it's the bill payers. I don't see what you want from this thread, bar ranting and raving, which is a whole separate forum.

To sum it up: Vodafone are 100% in the right to bill per month as the contract states. Vodafone are being very fair with their 50:50 offer, it should have been accepted. The bank (it seems, as thisissue is not even 100% clear) have made a mistake. The bill payer, even with the refund of the money from the bank, still owes the amount on the bill.

My advice:
The policy holder should ring Vodafone and see if the offer for 50:50 is still on the table, and then pay it promptly. If they are unemployed, then look into cancelling the bill and going to a pay as you go or opt in for the insurance package as it covers the user for this situation in the future.

Run_to_da_hills

Cash is to be refunded by Vodafone however there is still a dispute over the bill.

Ian Beale

Walkman wrote: »

The issue is how the monies were deducted from another account not named on the Vodafone account and that is to be taken up with the bank not Vodafone

This happens often and is legal, when people have DD's setup on one account and if that account has no money in it (for whatever reason) the bank see's that the direct debit has failed and will take the money from another account if the customer has another with them especially if the customer usually pays their bills every month and may have just forgotten to put money in.

TBH the only strange thing is they took it from a joint account which I didn't think they would do and that's probably why they've agreed on the refund.

parsi

What did the Guards say when they were informed that Vodafone stole €1200 ?

amcalester

The reason the Bank refunded the money is that under the Direct Debit Indemnity Scheme they are obliged to refund the money in any disputed direct debit pending the outcome of an investigation.

If after their investigation it turns out that Vodefone had the proper authorisation the Bank will come looking for the money from the account holder. The bank will not be interested in any agreement between account holder and Vodafone about paying half of the bill.

As for the money having been taken out of the joint account, Vodafone are a member of the Direct Debit Plus scheme which means that they can set up a paperless direct debit (ie no direct debit mandate is signed by the customer, bank details can be taken over the phone) on any bank account.

I have worked for an Irish bank in the Direct Debit department and it couldn't happen that we would apply a direct debit to any other account apart from the account number in the file sent by Vodafones bank. (We had a very new system in place so maybe others banks had a different set up)

Are you sure that Vodafone were not given the bank details by accident? You'd be surprised how many times people gave joint account numbers instead of single account number (and vice versa) to companies.

And 1 other thing, have them go back through the joint account to see if Vodafone have ever taken a direct debit from that account before, could be they've always taken the money from it but never noticed till now.

jor el

amcalester wrote: »

As for the money having been taken out of the joint account, Vodafone are a member of the Direct Debit Plus scheme which means that they can set up a paperless direct debit (ie no direct debit mandate is signed by the customer, bank details can be taken over the phone) on any bank account.

They would have to know the bank account number first though, which they apparently didn't.

Halfdog

I have been following this thread from the beginning, I hate the this type of carry on by by these big bulleys, They know its a genuine cock up with a loyal bill paying customer of several years. FFS Kenya, :rolleyes:

Phone gets robbed, she gets spooked, leaves Vodafone, joins meteor her BF, kids follow because they offer free meteor to meteor. At the end of the day they will be the real losers.

GerardKeating

Walkman wrote: »

The issue is how the monies were deducted from another account not named on the Vodafone account and that is to be taken up with the bank not Vodafone

And many other times, people compain that the bank bounced a DD due to lack of funds in the current account when there was eneough funds in the savings account.

Some one in the thought they were being helpful and it went wrong.