Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Problems with Direct Debit

1246712

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Legislator


    In the new SEPA Direct Debit Schemes which Ireland must migrate its domestic scheme to before February 2014 each Creditor in the scheme has a unique identifier and each direct debit transaction has a unique mandate reference.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    Legislator wrote: »
    In the new SEPA Direct Debit Schemes which Ireland must migrate its domestic scheme to before February 2014 each Creditor in the scheme has a unique identifier and each direct debit transaction has a unique mandate reference.
    Excellent! It's a bit sad that it had to come from the EU, rather than our own banking system and/or regulator and/or government who appear to be happy with the current system, which is fundamentally broken as far as the customer is concerned.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    Legislator wrote: »
    In the new SEPA Direct Debit Schemes which Ireland must migrate its domestic scheme to before February 2014 each Creditor in the scheme has a unique identifier and each direct debit transaction has a unique mandate reference.

    But has the specific mandate got a unique identifier which would allow it to be stopped?

    You mention the creditor and the individual transaction but surely a unique identifier for the specific instruction would be necessary also?

    Irrespective of any improvements in the new scheme the lax to non existent governance of the present scheme has to be addressed and cannot be allowed continue. There appears to be no recognition whatsoever by either IPSO or the banks that the activities of companies within the scheme such as reinstating cancelled dds or using data obtained for cancelled DDR has possible legal implications. Or if they recognise it they conveniently ignore it.

    Also there needs to be a structural assertive representation for the bill payers interest in the overall system. The present structure has none whatsoever.


  • Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Legislator


    The mandate whether for a one-off or a recurring direct debit will have a unique reference number. This number must be submitted by the originators bank to the payers bank every time a DD is collected.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    dub45 wrote: »
    Reclaim control of your bank account - cancel your direct debits and refuse to sign up for any more.


    The problem is that some companies charge extra for "not" paying by DD :(
    Direct Debit: The easiest way to pay your bill is by using Direct Debit. Paying by Direct Debit will save you €3.04 per bill. Simply log into your My UPC account on www.upc.ie, click on "Direct Debit" and provide your details.
    http://support.upc.ie/app/answers/detail/a_id/125/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xMzM1NDU0NDI0L3NpZC9xbDNUSENXaw%3D%3D


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    cookie1977 wrote: »

    Oh I know this only too well and I have posted several times at how adept UPC in particular are at exploiting the system as an apparent revenue generator.

    Not content with the benefits of the dd system itself have a look at page 3 here:

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

    UPC effectively fine those customers who do not subject themselves to the dd system. This was given to them as a sop when they tried to impose dd on everyone a number of years ago.

    That article states that over half their customers are on dd. So lets say that 300,000 are not. That could mean 900,000 euros per billing period for UPC for their "administrative" costs. That sure pays for a lot of staff!

    Surely when the dd scheme was introduced it was introduced to pay bills and not for exploitation to generate revenue?

    However UPC (and others) levy charges on customers who miss dds too without informing them up front explicitly of such charges.
    (The possibility of such charges is often tucked away in the T&C"S) In UPC's case its 11 euros afaik. Now as I have pointed out before my informal information is that up to 10% of bank customers miss dds. So do the maths and see how much revenue can be generated in this way:eek: (even if you deduct half the 11 euros for administrative costs)

    Incidentally UPC have now according to their website even branded the dd system.

    I have raised these type of charges with IPSO and they conveniently refuse to comment.

    What we need is mass cancellation of dds. Companies should be grateful for access to a customers bank account and the savings it presents them with not exploiting the system and ignoring relatively simple rules as they wish.

    Sadly unless there is massive public embarassment nothing will change.

    We need someone like Vincent Browne to have his account pillaged by a dd:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    The missed direct debit fee isn't stated but (as you say) deep in their answers section it states that there is a late payment fee of €12.50 which is probably the same as the missed debit fee. Some nice profit there alright even if you're only 50% right on your figures. I know the EU were after businesses over supplementary credit card charges (such as when you book the cinema or a flight. It's no wonder they haven't gone after DD's too


  • Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭Legislator


    dub45 wrote: »
    Oh I know this only too well and I have posted several times at how adept UPC in particular are at exploiting the system as an apparent revenue generator.

    Not content with the benefits of the dd system itself have a look at page 3 here:

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

    UPC effectively fine those customers who do not subject themselves to the dd system. This was given to them as a sop when they tried to impose dd on everyone a number of years ago.

    The Payment Services Regulation 2009 allows retailers to sur-charge for different payment methods. For example if a retailer wants to charge more for paying by credit card or cheque they are legally entitled to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Legislator wrote: »

    UPC effectively fine those customers who do not subject themselves to the dd system. This was given to them as a sop when they tried to impose dd on everyone a number of years ago.

    The Payment Services Regulation 2009 allows retailers to sur-charge for different payment methods. For example if a retailer wants to charge more for paying by credit card or cheque they are legally entitled to.

    And dont you just hate it. These sur-charges should be illegal. I used to try to keep direct debit's on my credit card but now most companies wont accept it. Pity as it was handy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Over the past few weeks, one point has sorely been missed.

    This was the guts of €1000 taken from a business account, illegally [allegedly] may I add. This could have been averted, if both Meteor and BOI performed due diligence.

    Now, consider that possibility that I didn't know my rights, under law and under the direct debit scheme. Consider that my business may have been in the same bucket as about large percentage of the SOHO / SME businesses out there.

    I probably would have gone insolvent, once bill and salary time came around.

    A business could have gone under, due the the lack of process in the Direct Debit Scheme.


    Now, thankfully, I DO know my rights. My business is cash rich. But that's not the point.

    Something like this should NOT be allowed to happen.

    The Payment Services Regulation 2009 allows retailers to sur-charge for different payment methods. For example if a retailer wants to charge more for paying by credit card or cheque they are legally entitled to.
    Is this an IPSO "Regulation" or law?

    And what about UPC branding the Direct Debut scheme under a different name? Why is that allowed to happen?

    AND... Only yesterday, BOI said that under certain circumstances, an immediate refund won't be given. This flies in the face of
    Paying Banks Must:

    Only pay direct debits in accordance with customers’ Instructions
    Ensure that unauthorised and/or cancelled direct debits are intercepted and returned immediately on presentation
    Promptly refund customers for indemnity claims and present the Indemnity to the Originator
    Assist customers in resolving disputes with Originators
    Inform the Sponsoring Bank if an Originator is not adhering to the Scheme Rules


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    IPSO also say:
    Ensure that disputed amounts are not debited
    Surely that would imply that disputed debits should immediately be refunded until an investigation has taken place.

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    And dont you just hate it. These sur-charges should be illegal. I used to try to keep direct debit's on my credit card but now most companies wont accept it. Pity as it was handy.

    That's even more risky than Direct Debits on your current account.
    Credit Card Direct Debits are balls deep scary.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    RangeR wrote: »
    That's even more risky than Direct Debits on your current account.
    Credit Card Direct Debits are balls deep scary.

    I dunno, I never experienced a problem but my thinking was I'd have a minimum of 30days (and up to 56 days) to sort it out if there was. It would also stop me loosing my actual cash reserves if there was an issue and any wrong doing by originators could be classified as "fraud" and such refunds on a credit card are easier to obtain then on a current account. Finally I could "loose" a credit card and get a new number if there was any repeat offenders


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Finally I could "loose" a credit card and get a new number if there was any repeat offenders

    AFAIK, that's the only REAL way of cancelling a CC Direct Debit against persistent companies.

    Actually, how is that REALLY different from normal DD's :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    lol Sad yes :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Update email from DPC. It looks like a stock update, so I'll post the bones of it here
    I wish to acknowledge receipt of your complaint to the Data Protection
    Commissioner against Meteor.

    The Commissioner, under Section 10 of the Data Protection Acts 1988 & 2003,
    will investigate your complaint using our full legal powers if necessary to
    resolve the matter.

    The first step in the investigation is to give the party about whom the
    complaint is made an opportunity to respond.

    Our approach to complaints, as provided under the Acts, is to try to reach
    an amicable resolution to the matter which is the subject of the complaint.
    In cases where it is not possible to reach an amicable resolution, a
    complainant may ask the Commissioner to make a formal decision under
    Section 10 of the Acts as to whether a contravention has occurred.
    However, the Commissioner does not have a power to award compensation.

    Data controllers are liable under Section 7 of the Acts to an individual
    for damages in the Courts if they fail to observe the duty of care they owe
    in relation to personal data in their possession. It is a matter for any
    individual who feels s/he may have suffered damage from a contravention by
    a data controller of its data protection responsibilities to take legal
    advice as appropriate. This Office has no function in relation to the
    taking of any such proceedings under this Section or in the giving of any
    such legal advice.

    We would ask that you quote the reference number above in all
    correspondence to this Office to assist us in dealing efficiently with your
    complaint.

    Yours sincerely,


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    ,
    dub45 wrote: »
    Oh I know this only too well and I have posted several times at how adept UPC in particular are at exploiting the system as an apparent revenue generator.

    Not content with the benefits of the dd system itself have a look at page 3 here:

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

    UPC effectively fine those customers who do not subject themselves to the dd system. This was given to them as a sop when they tried to impose dd on everyone a number of years ago.

    The Payment Services Regulation 2009 allows retailers to sur-charge for different payment methods. For example if a retailer wants to charge more for paying by credit card or cheque they are legally entitled to.

    Is a retailer entitled to charge more for paying by cash? Because in effect that's what UPC are doing.

    I am merely pointing out how they exploit the dd system to generate huge amounts of money for themselves in addition to the considerable benefits which the system already gives them as per the article I linked to above.

    I believe there is a serious issue of integrity around significant unspecified (in advance) charges being levied on customers who miss a dd. Many companies have hopped on this bandwagon.

    Contrast this instant punishment with the lack of action against businesses who can do as they wish. It would be fascinating to know how much banks and companies have made from dd related "fines" since the inception of the scheme.

    It is incredible even by dd scheme standards that up to three weeks will have passed after Ranger's account was raided before IPSO will get to talk to the person they want to in Meteor.

    Surely even for the optics someone from meteor should have been in the ipso offices the next day being threatened with fire brimstone etc etc.

    The simple fact is that it will cost a bank customer missing a single dd even by one day (even without a company fine) more than it will cost Meteor for raiding an account of €850.

    What a system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    dub45 wrote: »
    Contrast this instant punishment with the lack of action against businesses who can do as they wish. It would be fascinating to know how much banks and companies have made from dd related "fines" since the inception of the scheme.

    It is incredible even by dd scheme standards that up to three weeks will have passed after Ranger's account was raided before IPSO will get to talk to the person they want to in Meteor.
    How about if we were able to fine companies who breach their obligations under the DD scheme? It seems only fair, since they can fine us for their own arbitrary reasons, for arbitrary amounts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Update : Meteor just rang with an update. They have confirmed that this is a case of identity theft and that I should contact the guards [which I have already done].

    For the time being I don't think I'll be commenting on this issue, except for factual updates from other bodies that I have contacted, until this has run it's course.

    I do not want to prejudice any case taken against any other involved body.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    RangeR wrote: »
    Update : Meteor just rang with an update. They have confirmed that this is a case of identity theft and that I should contact the guards [which I have already done].

    For the time being I don't think I'll be commenting on this issue, except for factual updates from other bodies that I have contacted, until this has run it's course.

    I do not want to prejudice any case taken against any other involved body.

    Hope you get it sorted RangeR


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Update : ComReg sent me a text confirming that Meteor contacted me, confirming Identify Theft. The case is now closed with ComReg as the Gardaí will be taking over.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Update : BOI snail mail reply to formal complaint.
    Summary [as I have not personally read it] : BOI can't give me the mandate as Meteor have it.

    Full update tonight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Update : Call from IPSO asking if my phone number can be given to Meteor Fraud department. I agreed.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    Update : Call from IPSO asking if my phone number can be given to Meteor Fraud department. I agreed.

    Other than this phone call have you had any other communication from IPSO?

    Is the only person in Meteor who could possibly talk to IPSO actually back?:eek:

    Why did the fraud dept need to contact IPSO if Meteor have already contacted you to tell you it was a case of identity theft?

    Or are IPSO completely out of the loop and not aware that Meteor have already contacted you and going their own sweet way?

    It would seem that the contact from Comreg inspired action on Meteor's part rather than anything IPSO might have done?

    Meteor's apparent inertia seems quite extraordinary given as I have pointed out before that they suffered a major data loss earlier in the year plus their lack of consideration towards a person who suffered loss and inconvenience as result of their systems' failure is quite shocking.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    RangeR wrote: »
    Update : BOI snail mail reply to formal complaint.
    Summary [as I have not personally read it] : BOI can't give me the mandate as Meteor have it.

    Full update tonight.

    OK, I've just seen the letter. It wasn't a response to my formal complaint. This was a letter from BOI Naas, informing me that they completed their investigation.

    As of yet, I have no response from my three formal complaints to BOI Group.

    This is the letter I received.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Some facts gathered from IPSO website today. This is an incomplete list. I'm still looking. Everything below is freely and publicly available on the IPSO website.

    Statistics
    • The ever-increasing number of direct debit originators in Ireland now exceeds 5,200
    • Ireland is in the EU ‘Top 10’ in terms of direct debit usage, averaging 24 direct debits per capita, per annum
    • Over 110 million direct debits are processed every year in Ireland
    • The number of payments made in Ireland by direct debit has been rising steadily for many years, having increased from 77 million in 2003 to well over 100 million today
    • Some billing organisations offer discounts for paying by direct debit, others charge customers a premium for using other payment methods

    Everything blow is in the Direct Debit Rulebook November 2011

    The Direct Debit Scheme is governed and administered by the Irish Retail Electronic Payments Clearing Company Limited.

    IRECC is the operator of the retail electronic clearing or payment system in the State, and as a payment system is subject to regulation by the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland (CBFSAI) under and pursuant to Part II of the Central Bank Act, 1997.
    The Direct Debit Instruction requires the customer to pre-authorise the debiting of (usually) unspecified amounts which will be notified to him. The pre-authorisation may be by means of a signed DDI or instruction (under Direct Debit Plus Rules) provided by the Payer, via the Originator, to the Paying Bank.

    The essence of such an arrangement is that of the total integrity of and trust in the Scheme. All Participants must work together to ensure that such integrity and trust is maintained.
    Paying Banks:
    • must put in place processes which will ensure that unauthorised, refused and/or cancelled Direct Debits are intercepted and returned immediately on presentation
    • must assist its customer, to the extent practicable, in the resolution of disputes arising under or pursuant to the Scheme
    IRECC will seek to ensure that maintaining the integrity of and trust in the Direct Debit Scheme will be a foremost guiding principle in all deliberations in relation to the Scheme. In this regard, it is an intrinsic and fundamental element of the Scheme that each Payer will have an assurance that when he/she/it provides a Direct Debit Instruction, procedures are in place under or pursuant to the Scheme to protect his/her/its interest.
    The Direct Debit Guarantee will be provided to Payers in the following form:-
    • If you authorise payment by Direct Debit, then
    • Your Bank will accept and pay such debits, provided that your account has sufficient available funds
    • If it is established that an unauthorised Direct Debit was charged to your account, you are guaranteed an immediate refund by your Bank of the amount so charged where you notify your Bank without undue delay on becoming aware of the unauthorised Direct Debit, and in any event no later than 13 months after the date of debiting of such Direct Debit to your account.
    ===
    The governance and administration role of IRECC in relation to the Direct Debit Scheme encompasses the following:

    Developing and maintaining the Direct Debit Scheme, and ensuring as far as practicable that the overall Scheme offers a high standard of efficiency, trust and integrity.
    The Direct Debit Scheme depends upon mutual trust between all parties concerned. In order to assure that trust, each Originator must be sponsored by a Member which is a Sponsoring Bank, and the Member will require assurances and indemnities from the Originators. The assurances relate to the capability and the willingness of Originators to comply with the Scheme Rules. The indemnities are required to ensure that there is no financial risk to the Payer or to the Members arising from the operation of the Scheme.
    In a Direct Debit Instruction (DDI) the Payer authorises and instructs his Bank to pay Direct Debits of (usually) unspecified amounts on (usually) unspecified dates at the request of the Originator. When using Direct Debit Plus, the Payer makes an agreement (usually verbal) with the Originator, and that agreement is confirmed to the Payer in writing.
    Direct Debit Plus
    The Originator holds customer details including the Bank, branch and account details. The Originator must verify the customer details, including identity details, bank account details, authority details (joint accounts, non-personal accounts, etc). In addition, the Originator must verify the sort code and account number using modulus checking for all Payer accounts held by Members.

    Where no signed DDI is in place, then within 3 days of the agreement at 3 above, the Originator issues a written Direct Debit confirmation to the Payer.
    Where an Originator is moving to DD+ from the DD Scheme, he must advise existing payers of shorter advance notice period in due time.

    Payers in this category must also be given an opt out clause. It is acceptable for the originator to state in this advice that allowing the next debit to be passed on their account will be deemed as accepting the shorter notice period.
    Process
    Notification Day "-14" [-7 for DD+] The Originator gives the Payer advance notice of the amount and date of the debit to be presented. Note that in certain circumstances, a direct debit originator may be authorised to vary the notice period (see previous page)
    Transmission Day 1 The Originator transmits the payment file electronically to the Sponsoring Bank in accordance with timeframes agreed with the Sponsoring Bank.
    Clearing Day 2 The file is processed by the Sponsoring Bank, and the individual Direct Debits are delivered by the Sponsoring Bank under the auspices of the IRECC clearing system to the Payer’s Bank.
    Presentment Day 3 Each individual Direct Debit is presented for payment on the Payer’s account not later than this day.
    Direct Debits can be returned electronically, using only the unpaid reason codes listed in the Rulebook, on the day the direct debit is presented for payment or by close of business the next business day.
    Decision Day 4 Latest date on which the Payer’s Bank can return an unpaid Direct Debit.
    The Direct Debit Scheme provides for an alpha-numeric reference to be placed on each Direct Debit and the use of the reference number field is mandatory for the life of the direct debit.

    The minimum requirement is that the first 6 characters of a customer’s reference must remain unchanged for the life of the debit. These 6 characters must be identical in all of the direct debits of a series for a particular customer.
    It is not possible to reactivate a direct debit after cancellation. If a payer wants to reactivate a direct debit a new DDI must be set up. The first 6 characters of the alpha-numeric reference number on the new debit must be different from those on the cancelled DDI
    Where a Payer denies having authorised a Direct Debit, it shall be for the Paying Bank to prove that the Direct Debit was authorised in accordance with the terms of the Direct Debit Rules. The Paying Bank shall (assuming that the Payer is not prevented in accordance with applicable law from disputing or seeking reimbursement in respect of such Direct Debit) promptly investigate the circumstances specific to that Direct Debit and its application with a view to determining, as soon as practicable, whether or not an unauthorised Direct Debit was applied to that account. Where relevant, the Payer may request appropriate documentary evidence of authorisation from the Originator and/or Sponsoring Bank.
    DDI has expired (36 months)
    A Payer shall be entitled to claim a refund from the Paying Bank of any authorised Variable Direct Debit which has already been executed within a period of 8 weeks from the date on which the Variable Direct Debit was applied where the amount of the Variable Direct Debit exceeded the amount the Payer could reasonably have expected taking into account his previous spending pattern, the terms and conditions of his account with the Paying Bank and the relevant circumstances of the case.
    Within 10 Bank Business Days of receiving a request for a refund of an authorised Variable Direct Debit, the Paying Bank shall either refund the full amount of the Variable Direct Debit to the Payer, or, where it determines that the conditions for a refund have not been met, provide reasons for its decision to refuse the refund and where appropriate provide contact details for the relevant bodies to which the Payer may refer the matter if he does not accept the matter in accordance with regulation 103 of the Payment Service Regulations. Such refund shall be made without reference to whether or not the Paying Bank has at such time made any indemnity claim against, and/or received reimbursement from, an Originator relating to the subject matter of the Payer’s claim.
    All claims under and in respect of the DD+ Indemnity shall be dealt with in the same manner and subject to the same rules and provisions as set out above applicable to the DD Indemnity. Any Direct Debits which are presented by an Originator to a Paying Bank on or after the date upon which such Originator becomes operational under and for the purposes of the Direct Debit Plus Scheme (as so notified by the Originator’s Sponsoring Bank to IRECC) will be subject to claims under the DD+ Indemnity and not the Standard Indemnity; if so presented before such date, such Direct Debits will be subject to claims under the Standard Indemnity and not the Direct Debit Plus Indemnity.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    One of the key points to note from the above is the following:
    Paying Banks:

    Paying Banks:

    must put in place processes which will ensure that unauthorised, refused and/or cancelled Direct Debits are intercepted and returned immediately on presentation
    must assist its customer, to the extent practicable, in the resolution of disputes arising under or pursuant to the Scheme

    Note that this requirement refers to "intercepted" and 'on presentation' (not pick up the pieces afterwards). This means that such dds should never hit the customers' account at all.

    These processes are not in place. This means that no bank is compliant with the rules of the scheme. IPSO are well aware of these processes not being in place and as Central Bank representatives sit at boards meetings of IPSO they too are presumably aware of this deception of the general public.

    The absence of such processes means that there is no upfront protection for the bill payer. The bill payer is deceived into thinking such processes are in place by the very rules of the scheme.

    Somebody somewhere must have made a decision at some stage in the past to run with the scheme in the absence of such processes.

    It is long past time that this deception of the general public by the banking industry was exposed.

    Furthermore the so called direct guarantee is also a lie.

    The guarantee in respect of advance notice is simply fantasy and a dd cannot be cancelled with any assurance of finality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    No updates. No word back from anyone, not even Meteor Fraud.

    I might have another case of non complience. My partner just signed up for a contract, online, DD+. No proof of owning bank account details but service has still been given.

    Will give it a week or two before taking that further.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Update : Naas Gardaí just rang. They will be contacting Meteor and then progressing.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    No updates. No word back from anyone, not even Meteor Fraud.

    I might have another case of non complience. My partner just signed up for a contract, online, DD+. No proof of owning bank account details but service has still been given.

    Will give it a week or two before taking that further.

    Did you make a formal complaint to IPSO about this in the early aftermath of the Meteor debit?

    Did your partner receive the standard confirming letter which is supposed to be issued after an online or telephone sign up?


Advertisement