UPC Laser card charge problem

Heart Break Kid

Millicent wrote: »

That's just annoying. Have you been back in touch with the UPC rep here about getting a refund? I don't see why it can't be done at their end.

The UPC rep here didnt really do anything plus i made contact with one of there social media guys who has been trying to help me so its just as good.

Thoie: thanks man yeah im dropping in tomorrow to ask for an update or whats the eta on a refund.

Heart Break Kid

YAY, Finally got my money back, sorted. Bank issued a fraud refund. Shame BOI College green wouldn't do it in the first place, but i has my monies back so all good, just in time too

Millicent

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

YAY, Finally got my money back, sorted. Bank issued a fraud refund. Shame BOI College green wouldn't do it in the first place, but i has my monies back so all good, just in time too

Glad you got it sorted.

dub45

BrianD wrote: »

Not entirely correct - for good order you also need to contact and cancel the DD with the company you deal with.

If you set up a DD then you've agreed to pay that company on an ongoing basis. You need to cancel the agreement with the company you agreed to pay in the first place.

Otherwise they will continue to request payment from your bank, it gets refused and you may incur charges. If they are not getting paid as agreed then it could escalate into a bad debts issue.

Remember with a DD you have given permission to a third party to extract variable amounts from your account. However, if you look at the guidelines they seem to contradict each other.

Just for the record the above is not correct. You cancel a direct debit by notifying the bank. They in turn notify the company concerned.

You can cancel the Direct Debit Instruction by writing in good time to your bank

http://www.ipso.ie/section/section/YourRightsasaPayer

However there is a second form of direct debit called the direct debit plus. (never was anything more wrongly named!) With this type of direct debit you have to inform the company directly. This type of dd is usually set up online or over the phone. Disgracefully (for it can result in chaos if things go wrong) your bank holds no details of this type of dd.

Setting up a direct debit has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing to pay a company on an ongoing basis. A direct debit is merely a way of paying a bill.

Cancelling a direct debit does not absolve you from the obligation to pay for a service if you are continuing on with that service.

Always remember that a direct debit cannot be cancelled with any degree of finality. Apparently it is quite easy to reinstate a direct debit and the banks cannot automatically detect cancelled direct debits:eek: and stop them hitting your account and this practise is far from unusual.
So always check your account carefully.

In spite of the fact that this defect would seem to indicate that there is a serious flaw in the integrity of the banking system (not to mention the implications for data protection) the banks have no intention of taking the required action to correct it. This has been confirmed to my by IPSO.

dub45

I came across this thread late but sadly it demonstrates in no uncertain terms how careless in general bank staff have become in relation to the concept of the integrity of a customers bank account and their responsibility to preserve it.

A sum of money vanishes from a customers account and nobody gives two hoots when the customer complains its sadly commonplace nowadays.

Sadly neither bank systems nor the their training of staff are keeping up at all with the demands of electronic payment systems.

It is also an indictment of UPC (and of course they are not alone in this type of attitude) that they have charged an amount to a non customer and display no apparent concern or urgency in investigating the matter.

The use of a cards details which was previously used for once off payments should surely raise concerns about how UPC handle data internally?

And the idea that because a charge or credit card has been used on once off transactions can be used willy nilly again is simply wrong.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Case_Study_4/01_Credit_Card_Transaction/124.htm

More generally, I consider it to be a sound and proper principle that credit card data obtained for a particular transaction cannot be used subsequently for other transactions without express consent, without violating the ‘fair obtaining’ rule. The principle of transparency and fairness, which are key tenets of data protection law and practice, apply in this area just as in any other.

I somehow doubt if UPC or Bank of Ireland would be so relaxed about a comparable amount of money disappearing out of their accounts if they knew who the person responsible was.

And as always there is no compensation for the time/efforts/stress/expenses incurred by the individual who has to deal with this outrageouis nonsense.

BrianD

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

YAY, Finally got my money back, sorted. Bank issued a fraud refund. Shame BOI College green wouldn't do it in the first place, but i has my monies back so all good, just in time too

Just for clarity - did UPC ever tell you where the money went?

dub45

BrianD wrote: »

Just for clarity - did UPC ever tell you where the money went?

Surely a much more relevant question is "Did UPC ever give the op an explanation as to how they came to withdraw 365.63 euro from his laser card account?"

Have UPC even contacted the op to apologise and to give an assurance that his laser card details will be removed from their system?

These things just done magically happen through bad luck.

Someone within UPC initiated this payment and presumably someone authorised it to be forwarded to the op's bank.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions UPC are very quick to penalise anyone who misses a dd payment with charges which are not advised to the customer when they are setting up a dd.

I would assume in that spirit UPC would consider that they themselves should pay the op a suitable amount for irregularly accessing his account and misusing his data.

Solair

If the card details were stored and used erroneously you should also contact:


http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/about/1c.htm&CatID=15&m=a

BrianD

dub45 wrote: »

Surely a much more relevant question is "Did UPC ever give the op an explanation as to how they came to withdraw 365.63 euro from his laser card account?"

Have UPC even contacted the op to apologise and to give an assurance that his laser card details will be removed from their system?

These things just done magically happen through bad luck.

Someone within UPC initiated this payment and presumably someone authorised it to be forwarded to the op's bank.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions UPC are very quick to penalise anyone who misses a dd payment with charges which are not advised to the customer when they are setting up a dd.

I would assume in that spirit UPC would consider that they themselves should pay the op a suitable amount for irregularly accessing his account and misusing his data.

We've already covered this in the thread. The OP had used the same card to pay a UPC account in the past. This explains why UPC have his card details and why the bank would not have flagged it as potential fraud.

As you mention, we don't know why the charge was initiated and what account benefited from the payment.

CramCycle

BrianD wrote: »

We've already covered this in the thread. The OP had used the same card to pay a UPC account in the past. This explains why UPC have his card details and why the bank would not have flagged it as potential fraud.

As you mention, we don't know why the charge was initiated and what account benefited from the payment.

I think his point was that he did not give permission to keep his details. The OP used it for a one off payment, for a different account no less. They should not have kept his details and if they had they certainly should not be using it to pay off an account the OP has not authorised.

While we do not know why or how the payment was initiated, we do know, it was not for an account that the OP had authorised payment on, ever, and that he had not given permission for them to store his details for any further use eg DD or SO etc.

BrianD

CramCycle wrote: »

... it was not for an account that the OP had authorised payment on, ever, and that he had not given permission for them to store his details for any further use eg DD or SO etc.

Without trawling through the thread again, I don't recall any of the above ever being confirmed other than the say so of the OP. Also it was my understanding that it was a charge and not a DD or SO.

I don't think we'll ever find out the full facts so we can abandon this one. It would have been good to get the full story so how this actually happened. It could have been as simple as a fat finger by UPC.

CramCycle

BrianD wrote: »

Without trawling through the thread again, I don't recall any of the above ever being confirmed other than the say so of the OP. Also it was my understanding that it was a charge and not a DD or SO.

I don't think we'll ever find out the full facts so we can abandon this one. What about the people who don't notice or get fobbed off until they give up due to time and effort? It would have been good to get the full story so how this actually happened. It could have been as simple as a fat finger by UPC.

We have no one elses word to go on, if he was being untruthful or deceitful, I'm sure the UPC rep could have cleared that up, the point is that they should not have had his details stored, if they did, they should not have been linked to any other account than one he paid for already (in this case, his parents) UPCs fat finger should have been unable to make the claimed deduction from his account. Therefore someone either used his card fraudulently (UPC should have an idea who as it most likely would be linked to an account) or they authorised his card (without permission) and credited another account in no way linked to him, which, they could apparently do nothing about?!?

It is an issue, I was a former UPC customer, I want some reasonable confidence that they will not charge my card by a random amount for an account that they cannot track down and then be told that they can not refund it.

monkeypants

In any company that I've ever worked for, credit card details are replaced by * once the transaction is completed, with only the last 3/4 digits showing. Similar to what you might see on a standard shop receipt. It would not be possible to use a card again without getting the number off the customer.

One of those companies was NTL (not in Ireland).

dub45

monkeypants wrote: »

In any company that I've ever worked for, credit card details are replaced by * once the transaction is completed, with only the last 3/4 digits showing. Similar to what you might see on a standard shop receipt. It would not be possible to use a card again without getting the number off the customer.

One of those companies was NTL (not in Ireland).

Yes but if say debit or credit card details are given over the phone there is nothing to stop a manual record of them being kept or having those details recorded against an account. And as for not using a number again:

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Case_Study_4/01_Credit_Card_Transaction/124.htm

davo10

dub45 wrote: »

I came across this thread late but sadly it demonstrates in no uncertain terms how careless in general bank staff have become in relation to the concept of the integrity of a customers bank account and their responsibility to preserve it.

A sum of money vanishes from a customers account and nobody gives two hoots when the customer complains its sadly commonplace nowadays.

Sadly neither bank systems nor the their training of staff are keeping up at all with the demands of electronic payment systems.

It is also an indictment of UPC (and of course they are not alone in this type of attitude) that they have charged an amount to a non customer and display no apparent concern or urgency in investigating the matter.

The use of a cards details which was previously used for once off payments should surely raise concerns about how UPC handle data internally?

And the idea that because a charge or credit card has been used on once off transactions can be used willy nilly again is simply wrong.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Case_Study_4/01_Credit_Card_Transaction/124.htm

More generally, I consider it to be a sound and proper principle that credit card data obtained for a particular transaction cannot be used subsequently for other transactions without express consent, without violating the ‘fair obtaining’ rule. The principle of transparency and fairness, which are key tenets of data protection law and practice, apply in this area just as in any other.

I somehow doubt if UPC or Bank of Ireland would be so relaxed about a comparable amount of money disappearing out of their accounts if they knew who the person responsible was.

And as always there is no compensation for the time/efforts/stress/expenses incurred by the individual who has to deal with this outrageouis nonsense.

Dub I think you should inform the readers that your gripe with UPC stems from charges applied to you when you failed to pay your direct debit for the amount you owe due to lack of funds in your account, this is a very situation from the OP's in this thread.

dub45

davo10 wrote: »

Dub I think you should inform the readers that your gripe with UPC stems from charges applied to you when you failed to pay your direct debit for the amount you owe due to lack of funds in your account, this is a very situation from the OP's in this thread.

Perhaps you should tell your readers on what basis you make this post?

dudara

I think this thread has gone on for long enough. Any discussion on direct debit types should continue in the Banking forum.

dudara