Request For Comment

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

dub45 wrote: »

Totally wrong. Nothing to do with each other whatsoever!

!= means "does not equal" in some computer programming languages.

Given that the thread is not restricted to programmers could you post in plain English for the rest of us?

Bank of Ireland: Graham wrote: »

Hi RangeR,

I've just heard back with some more information on your other queries:


A non-signatory shouldn't be able to set up a direct debit instruction on an account which isn't theirs. However, if the originator is a Direct Debit Plus Originator they can take an instruction from the customer over the phone to debit an account. They are advised to get the relevant documentation from the customer. In these circumstances we are not provided with a copy of a paper mandate. The customer's account would again be refunded under the Direct Debit Guarantee and the originator would be advised of the error.

Error? How is it that when a company takes money from a customer's account without permission it is always an "error"?

This is one of the many things that baffles me about the acceptability of the so called direct debit plus system.

How can it it be acceptable for a bank to allow access to a customer's account without holding any documentation whatsover for the transaction?

How can the integrity of a customer's account be maintained when accounts are wide open to such access? Is the system acceptable to your internal auditors (or whoever the appropriate authority is)? Has such a system being passed as meeting all the bank's requirements? how can any customer have confidence in a banking system which allows access to a customers accounts without appropriate documentation being in place?

Also I have a pain in my proverbial reading that in the event of an "error" the customers account would be refunded. This attitude by the banks and IPSO is completely unacceptable - i.e. that everything a company does is ok because it can be fixed up afterwards irrespective of the inconvenience and cost to the customer.

It effectively means that accounts are not protected and companies can and do what they like without any fear of sanction. It takes no account whatsoever of the potential to wreak havoc on a customers account (whereas as I continually point out if a customer misses a dd payment he or she is instantly punished with hefty charges).

Meteor took 800 euros from an account without any problem whatsoever. And nothing will happen to them. If I took a fiver off the counter in a bank and told them they could have it back tomorrow I would be getting hauled off in a garda car.

It is instructive that apparently it took the intervention of Comreg for Meteor to actually respond to Ranger in this case. So much for the "fear" of the bank or IPSO.

Bank of Ireland: Graham wrote: »

Hi dub45,

Apologies for the delay in responding to you, it has taken a bit time to get the information together. Here are the answers to your queries and I'll follow up with more information as soon as I get it.
...............................


............I hope this helps to address some your concerns and I'll return with more information on your other query when I have it.

Thanks,
Graham

Firstly I would like to say thanks for responding so quickly and indeed undertaking to respond at all and I would also like to thank you for the breadth of your response although sadly I cannot thank you for the depth of your response as unfortunately it is long in aspiration and smacks all to readily of the dead hand of PR.

Bank of Ireland: Graham wrote: »

There are a range of checks done in order to satisfy us as a sponsoring bank that a new direct debit originator can fulfil the obligations of the DD Scheme. These include, but are not limited to, the relationship between the potential originator and us, and the purpose/use of the direct debits set up by them. If a company can't meet the criteria we set out and sponsorship isn't granted then we cannot proceed to set up the company as a direct debit originator. A new originator must also meet all requirements of IPSO.

I asked you what checks are carried out but you still haven't told me?

What has the relationship with yourselves got to do with it? What exactly does that prove?

The purpose/use of the dd? Seriously? What the hell does BOI think the purpose of a dd is?

So can I ask you again what checks are carried out on a prospective member of the dd scheme?

And can I remind you that you are talking about businesses that have wide open access to customers accounts so customers should have in depth information on what checks are carried out to allow such wide open access.

In response to my query - When a sponsorship is agreed what subsequent checks are are carried out to ensure that the company concerned is complying with the dd scheme rules. You state:

Bank of Ireland: Graham wrote: »

As part of the set up of a new direct debit originator, there are a number of items that are checked to ensure that the prospective originator is scheme compliant. We provide the applicant with the scheme rules and work with them to ensure they have a detailed understanding of those rules. Once they are up and running we retain the ability to monitor and/or audit their processes if we see fit. In the majority of cases originators adhere to scheme rules. However, in cases where a series of complaints have been received from payers (account holders permitting DD's), we may seek to investigate this which may result in a review of the originator's processes to ensure scheme compliance.

So in other words you don't do anything? You "retain the ability" "If we see fit" " "we may seek" all nice pious PR talk but no regular actual checking procedures in place?

Also in the absence of any semblance of a proper complaints procedure how would the bank even be aware of complaints about an errant company?

As has been pointed our already many staff haven't a clue about the workings of the scheme so they are most unlikely to pass on complaints about an errant company so how are the complaints collated which would justify an "Investigation of the originator's compliance'? Who would receive them centrally so as to know there was a problem?

You say you work with the company to ensure that they have a detailed knowledge of the scheme rules? Forgive my skepticism but given the absence of any such knowledge amongst the majority of bank staff but who does this "working" and what exactly does it involve?

Bank of Ireland: Graham wrote: »

The potential originator's business advisor or relationship manager oversees originator sponsorship. A regional business manager may also be involved in considering prospective direct debit originators.

Doesn't your reply here really highlight the reality of the dd scheme and one its inherent weaknesses? The bank and the applying business have a commercial relationship with the bill payer a very poor third. Commercial considerations are going to have a very big influence in any such consideration and also in considering any compliance issues on the part of the business?

Bank of Ireland: Graham wrote: »

The rules of the Direct Debit Scheme, which are fully explained to all new originators, highlight the requirements for advance notice of debits. Once a new originator has registered for the scheme, they have signed up to abide by its rules and regulations. In the event of a payer complaint about receiving insufficient or no notice period we would contact that originator to investigate. Continuous breaches may result in sponsorship being removed.

I know very well that the rules of the scheme highlight the requirements for advance notice. In fact the Direct Guarantee which you as a bank give customers states that

A Direct Debit Guarantee is provided by your bank in the following form:
If you authorise payment by direct debit, then
Your direct debit originator will notify you in advance of the amounts to be debited to your account

We are not talking aspirational stuff here. A guarantee is at the very least a "very strong assurance" or "pledge" or "to make sure of" to just quote some random definitions. The guarantee in respect of advance notice is given by the Bank!

So to meet the Bank's commitment under the dd guarantee to your customer you explain the rules to the business concerned? Nothing else happens?

Isn't the reality that this is a guarantee that cannot be kept? It is unworkable even with the best intentions of all concerned. So why does BOI participate in giving an unworkable guarantee which effectively misleads customers?

Bank of Ireland: Graham wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases when a direct debit is cancelled by a customer, the originator is advised and the direct debit never occurs again. However, to cater for the potential for the customer and the originator to become payer/payee at some future stage, it is possible for a direct debit to re-occur at a future date. This can only be done with authorisation from the customer and if it is an error the customer will always have recourse through the direct debit guarantee.

I am extremely disappointed in this response as you are apparently avoiding my question. I specifically asked that wasn't if a fact that a direct debit instruction cannot be cancelled with any degree of finality? And you have not answered my question.

Are you really saying that a direct debit which has been cancelled can only be submitted with the customer's consent? Because if you are this is factually incorrect. You acknowledge this in your reply to Ranger elsewhere.

So can I once again put it to you. The Direct Debit guarantee states

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

Isn't the reality that a direct debit can never be cancelled with finality. And that once again a key part of the DD guarantee cannot be effected and that the customer is deliberately mislead?

And please don't say that a cancelled dd can only be resubmitted with the permission of the customer that is not the case. And also a cancelled dd cannot be submitted in "error" certain actions have to be taken by the originator which means any submission of a cancelled dd is deliberate.

Bank of Ireland: Graham wrote: »

We comply with the scheme rules and work closely with IPSO to ensure this is maintained. The scheme has a number of different methods for the submission of direct debits which may or may not result in paper transmission of mandates. In the case of paper mandates, these are checked for accuracy and appropriateness. In relation to customers requesting cancellations, refusals etc., this is managed on request from the customer. In the occurence of errors with the operation of a direct debit, the customer is protected by the Direct Debit Guarantee and will be refunded any unauthorised, refused or cancelled DD's that are incorrectly processed.

You say you work closely with IPSO but again what exactly does this mean? Staff are not trained properly there is no information readily available in staff for branches. You say that the customer is protected by the Direct Debit guarantee but in reality the dd guarantee is worthless and effectively a deception of the customer. The notice part is unworkable - dds cannot be cancelled with finality and a customer is entitled to get back what shouldn't have been taken in the first place so where exactly are the benefits of this so called guarantee.

The facts are that once a customer signs a dd mandate their account is wide open and the banks and IPSO seem to think that everything is ok because it can all be fixed up afterwards -eventually and maybe - with no consideration of the impact of the customer of all these so called "errors"

Bank of Ireland: Graham wrote: »

The DD Scheme can be quite complex so it's possible that some staff who don't deal with it regularly may not be as knowledgeable on the topic as others. However, to improve both customer and staff understanding of the scheme we're working with IPSO to develop tools/guides for staff with information on the key DD Scheme features.

Please grant us some intelligence? Complex? This is a scheme which has been in place since 1967 (IPSO have been in place since 1997) - there is no excuse for the level of ignorance amongst bank staff (and not just BOI) about a scheme which affects so many customers. How hard is it for bank staff to be familiar with the basics listed here:

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

Again I have a pain in my proverbial reading about this "working with IPSO" what exactly does it mean? When will we see results?

How hard would it be to produce a simple booklet giving the basics?

Could I further ask you how is the notice period for the direct debit scheme agreed?

For example is Bank of Ireland satisfied that the default 7 day notice period in the dd+ scheme is adequate to protect the customers interests? (Given that in effect it allows the customer no time to question a bill they are not satisfied with - two days in any seven will be lost due to a weekend and a further three days are lost due to the transmission of billing data to the bank).

Also does the Bank take any interest in data protection issues either when considering sponsorship issues or day to day operational issues of its customers.