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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Problems with Direct Debit

1…34689…12

Comments

  • #152
    zynaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    Customer disputes a charge on their bill and network agrees there was an error but say they'll refund next month as bill has already been issued.
    Yes, I've experienced this several times, with UPC and probably most frequently, Bord Gáis and Airtricity.

    What's most frustrating about this is that some companies will charge you if you fail to pay the bill on time, or if a DD fails. But when they make an error in their own favour, you don't get to charge them. Instead, they get an interest free loan until it suits them to pay you back.
    How is that fair? :confused:


  • #153
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    zynaps wrote: »
    Yes, I've experienced this several times, with UPC and probably most frequently, Bord Gáis and Airtricity.

    What's most frustrating about this is that some companies will charge you if you fail to pay the bill on time, or if a DD fails. But when they make an error in their own favour, you don't get to charge them. Instead, they get an interest free loan until it suits them to pay you back.
    How is that fair? :confused:

    There is no fairness in the dd system. It is run purely for the benefit of businesses. They can and do what they like without any fear of consequences.

    No matter what inconvenience or havoc they wreak on a customers account there is no comeback.

    And as you point out they lob charges on customers who miss a payment - in many cases without informing the customer when the dd is being set up of the possibility of such charges.

    From the IPSO website:mad::mad:
    Each of the players has an important role to play in ensuring that the soundness and integrity of the scheme is maintained and that Payers have a high level of trust and confidence when signing up for direct debit.

    Trust, integrity, Soundness? When you become aware of the reality of the day to day operation of the scheme and the lack of protection for the bill payer those words become nauseating.


  • #154
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    Shock horror, another one:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056642748


  • #155
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    And another.


  • #156
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    On 23 May 2012 13:21, Keith Burke <* not here *> wrote to directdebits@ipso.ie:


    To whom it may concern,


    I am making a formal complaint against Originator Meteor Mobile. I was unable to modify your PDF Complaints Document so I have included all of it's information below.

    Name : Keith Burke
    Date : 23 May 2012
    Address : * not here *
    EMail : * not here *
    Tel : * not here *
    Date of Issue / Complaint : 13 February 2012
    Bank : Bank of Ireland Naas

    Account Number : * not here *


    Complaint :
    On 13 February 2012, €844.87 was taken via Direct Debit from my bank account. This was an unauthorised debit. Meteor had no permission to take such funds from my account. I have no business relationship with Meteor.

    I have spoken to IPSO in relation to this, both by phone and email, and was assured that the Meteor Fraud department would be contacting me to explain. To date, I've had no information from that department as to what happened and how it happened.

    My complaint is that Meteor are in direct violation of the Direct Debit Scheme rules by not verifying the bank details provided by that third party.

    Section 2, page 43 of the Direct Debit Scheme Rules, November 2011 clearly states :

    "Obtain and Verify Bank account details
    The Originator must obtain and verify bank account details of the Payer including the sort code, account number and account name, as well as confirmation that the Payer is the only person required to authorise debits from the account and that the account type is suitable for Direct Debits. To verify bank account details originators should confirm that the payer owns the bank account. This can be done by asking for bank statement or a cheque book."

    If this simple verification had taken place, monies would not have been taken from my account.

    I strongly urge IPSO to request the Sponsoring Bank to perform a full audit of the Originator's Direct Debit Scheme compliance.



    I look forward to your response.





    Keith Burke
    --


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    It has been brought to my attention, from a kind PM, that the current trend in the Direct Debit Scheme may open liability under the European Anti Money Laundering laws. I'm currently reading through them to verify.

    IPSO watch out. Feckin High Court of Ireland might not be high enough :S


  • #158
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    UPDATE from DPC. I consider this now closed with them.
    Subject Data Protection Complaint 3/12/302

    Comments :

    Dear Mr Burke,

    I refer to your complaint to this Office against Meteor and my previous
    email of the 15th May 2012.

    As previously stated Meteor has outlined that: "It might appear that a
    third party recently provided us with the bank account details in order to
    settle their account. I would recommend that the subject report the matter
    to the Gardaí who may wish to contact us to obtain information pertinent to
    their investigation."

    In relation to the allegation that Meteor had retained your bank account
    details from when you were a Meteor customer it has been confirmed by
    Meteor that: "The records were not retained and were provided to us during
    what we now believe to be a fraudulent transaction."

    I hope that the above information has been of assistance to you and if you
    have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

    Yours sincerely,


  • #159
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Over the last few years that I have had phone and broadband service with meteor they have set up several different direct debits on my account whenever they upgrade or whenever the contract changed slightly etc.

    My issue is that they have set up a direct 2weeks ago without my consent or signature and took an unauthorised payment from my account even though I had cancelled all previous debits and informed them by phone and email at least 10 days before that I would be paying all future bills through the post office.

    The ulster bank are next to useless when it comes to their anytime telephone banking as they are telling me they can't refund the unauthorised payment of €42 which i had already paid in the post office unless I send them proof that it is unauthorised. I went away thinking meteor or eircom must be ulster bank business customers because of the way ulster bank refuse to handle my account properly and seem to take the side of meteor over their customer.


  • #160
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    Complain to IPSO - they are the wonderful people responsible for the dd mess.

    It is quite extraordinary that the banks tolerate the integrity of their customers' accounts being breached on a daily basis and do nothing at all about it.

    As long as there are no consequences for companies who are effectively stealing from customers accounts (after all isn't that what taking money without permission is?) and misusing customer data to do so - this shambolic and dishonest mess will continue.

    My own experience of UB in respect of DD has been pretty disastrous - a few years ago the customer services manager in my branch - a person out on the floor meeting people with 'service' problems! - told me that she could not cancel a dd for me. I printed off the relevant section of the scheme rules and brought them into her. This was a major revelation and she told me that staff were not being given the correct information and she would bring this to the attention of the appropriate manager.

    Roll on another 18 months time to cancel yet another dd. into UB and again speak to an employee who has been there for a number of years and should know better. Experienced dd sufferers would immediately recognise the 'cancel dd body language' of the employee - immediate stress tightening of facial muscles - shrug of shoulders 'can't do that Sir sorry'

    Introduce him to IPSO site etc etc - dd supposedly cancelled (and again never knew about that etc etc)

    Roll on another month and 'cancelled' dd paid. Visit branch again to ask for explanation - meet my customer services 'friend' again (to whom I had previously given the rules of the scheme) - she will investigate! Subsequently phoned me and tells me she has had to make 14 phone calls to get information and tells me that I need a reference number (which is not available to the public) to cancel a dd.

    You couldn't invent this ongoing nonsense if you tried.

    Nothing is going to change the dd system and the woes inflicted on bank customers until it gets some major public embarrassment and the media go after it. Then of course we will get the usual 'take our responsibilities in respect of xxxxxxx very seriously etc etc.

    The sooner the better Vincent Browne's or Shane Ross's accounts are hit by an errant dd the better - they are our only hope.


  • #161
    zynaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭zynaps


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    The ulster bank are next to useless when it comes to their anytime telephone banking as they are telling me they can't refund the unauthorised payment of €42 which i had already paid in the post office unless I send them proof that it is unauthorised.
    And what exactly would constitute such proof? Was the receipt for payment of the same bill through the post office not enough?

    I don't recall seeing "the onus is on the ripped-off customer to prove to the bank that the debit was unauthorised" in those IPSO rules which banks claim to comply with. Can you sue them for false advertising in claiming to be compliant with those (important) rules, when they've proved the opposite?


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    zynaps wrote: »
    And what exactly would constitute such proof? Was the receipt for payment of the same bill through the post office not enough?

    I don't recall seeing "the onus is on the ripped-off customer to prove to the bank that the debit was unauthorised" in those IPSO rules which banks claim to comply with. Can you sue them for false advertising in claiming to be compliant with those (important) rules, when they've proved the opposite?

    But this is not advertising! It is supposedly factual information provided by a 'company' owned by the banks and charged with running this abysmal mess.

    The dd rules are littered with references to integrity and yet dd users are routinely lied to - the dd guarantee itself is a lie - the statement about cancelling a dd is a lie. And Central Bank reoesentatives attend board meetings of this company so are presumably assisting this deliberate deception.

    Also banks in their roles as paying banks are disgracefully ignorant of even the basic dd scheme rules as we know only too well - so how can they be any more efficient in their role as a sponsoring bank? The sponsoring bank are supposedly responsible for ensuring that the likes of Meteor are complying with the scheme rules!!! How can they do this?

    I reckon that based on the number of companies in the dd scheme the average branch must be sponsoring about eight companies - presumably some of the bigger branches sponsor a lot more. It is farcical.

    They all seem to be forever "working" with IPSO - where does all this work go? - yet IPSO at least in respect of the dd scheme seems to be a one man band i.e. the dd manager - so this 'mantra' of working with IPSO is just another lie.

    The simple fact is that in relation to the dd scheme the public are being deceived for the benefit of banks and companies and there is no transparency whatsoever. And no one in this shameful deception is answerable to the public.

    Noone will 'answer' for the debit to Ranger's account yet an Ulster Bank customer missing a dd payment to UPC will immediately be hit by fees of €25.


  • #163
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    I honestly believe the problem lies firmly with the Banks not getting tough on companies and their staff not being properly trained/educated about the schemes that are in place! they will know all about products which will earn them or the bank commission but the DD scheme is really supposed to benefit the customer by making payments easier so the banks are not interested!

    If the banks were fined €1000 for each and every breach of the rules they would soon have half their staff sent off on courses to learn about the scheme but hey these are the people who open accounts for people's dog and cats(but only if you are in their magic circle) so don't expect anything good from them anytime soon!


  • #164
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    This problem is getting a bit old now

    All I'm missing now is trying to be fooked over by Vodafone.


  • #165
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    RangeR wrote: »
    This problem is getting a bit old now

    All I'm missing now is trying to be fooked over by Vodafone.
    At least with O2 they won't ignore it and will get to the bottom of it even if it takes a long time.


  • #166
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    At least with O2 they won't ignore it and will get to the bottom of it even if it takes a long time.

    O2 claim is that I was still in contract when I ported. I specifically asked was I in contract a month or two before I ported. I've requested call recording and contract to be pulled.

    I'm informing my bank, stating that this payment is in dispute and to put a hold on the direct debit. Let's see if this process actually works.


  • #167
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    From the IPSO website:
    The Irish Payment Services Organisation (IPSO) has announced the appointment of Mr. Fachtna Murphy (Retired Garda Commissioner) as its new independent Chairman. He replaces Dr. Don Thornhill who was the first independent Chairman.

    Paying tribute to Don, Pat McLoughlin IPSO’s Chief Executive said, “Don Thornhill, who served a 6 year term as Chairman, provided excellent leadership to IPSO in pursuing the modernisation of our payments systems to improve national competitiveness".

    Welcoming the appointment of Mr. Fachtna Murphy, Pat McLoughlin said, “Fachtna Murphy joins IPSO at a very important time as Ireland’s National Payments Plan is being prepared under the leadership of the Central Bank of Ireland. In his senior management roles in An Garda Síochána, Fachtna gained valuable experience and insights into Ireland’s payments systems”.

    Commenting on his appointment, Fachtna Murphy said, “I am delighted to join IPSO as Chairman and I look forward to working with the board and management of IPSO in ensuring that Ireland continues to modernise its payments systems and bring benefits to businesses, consumers and the public sector”.

    That's an interesting observation about the insight into Ireland's payment systems! (My emphasis!)

    I wonder what exactly the duties of the Chairman of IPSO are and who he is answerable to?

    Meanwhile it is extraordinary that the IPSO board has no consumer representatives. Says it all really.

    There are three "independent" board members - does anyone know what they are supposed to do?


  • #168
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    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.

    The dd scheme rules state in relation to the responsibilities of the paying banks:

    Paying Banks:
    o must adhere to the Rules of the Scheme
    o must put in place processes which will ensure that unauthorised, refused 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

    Did you ask Bank of Ireland why an unauthorised DD was not "intercepted" by the "processes" which they are required to have in place under the DD scheme? We all know of course that these processes are not in place but it would be interesting to get an official response from a bank as to why they are not compliant with the rules of the scheme.


  • #169
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    My phrasing was off, sorry. Money hasn't actually left the account yet. That's due on June 29th. I'm currently in the dispute process with O2. I'll hold off on the bank for a few days.


  • #170
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    dub45 wrote: »
    Did you ask Bank of Ireland why an unauthorised DD was not "intercepted" by the "processes" which they are required to have in place under the DD scheme? We all know of course that these processes are not in place but it would be interesting to get an official response from a bank as to why they are not compliant with the rules of the scheme.

    To refresh, BOI haven't actually acknowledged ANY of my formal complaints in ANY manner.

    That letter was just from my local branch responding to my initial phone call. Nothing to do with the formal complaints.


  • #171
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    dub45 wrote: »
    Did you ask Bank of Ireland why an unauthorised DD was not "intercepted" by the "processes" which they are required to have in place under the DD scheme? We all know of course that these processes are not in place but it would be interesting to get an official response from a bank as to why they are not compliant with the rules of the scheme.

    To refresh, BOI haven't actually acknowledged ANY of my formal complaints in ANY manner.

    That letter was just from my local branch responding to my initial phone call. Nothing to do with the formal complaints.

    Still it might be worth asking them why the unauthorised dd wasn't intercepted as required by dd scheme rules😂

    Have you had any apology from Meteor yet?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    To refresh, BOI haven't actually acknowledged ANY of my formal complaints in ANY manner.

    That letter was just from my local branch responding to my initial phone call. Nothing to do with the formal complaints.

    Apart altogether from the dd mess the lack of acknowledgement is extraordinarily discourteous and unprofessional.


  • #173
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    dub45 wrote: »
    Still it might be worth asking them why the unauthorised dd wasn't intercepted as required by dd scheme rules😂
    Unofficially, they already told me. Well the person in the Group Complaints department. She was an eye opener. I don't have anything on paper. I did, however, ask in the formal complaint, which has gone ignored.
    dub45 wrote: »
    Have you had any apology from Meteor yet?
    No. There has been no direct contact. Through IPSO, they have confirmed that it appears to be fraudulent activity. Advise calling the guards and won't be directly contact me about it EVER, as the guards are involved. Not a ****ing dicky about it, after taking that much money from my account.


  • #174
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    And so it goes! Here's another fine mess! Bank doing as it wishes with impunity.

    Today (12th June) I received my M&S store card statement supposedly for 24th May and due for dd on 18th June. So much for 14 days notice!

    AIB operate the M&S scheme.

    I immediately contacted the M&S support no (presumably AIB) and complained.

    I was told the statements had been posted out on the 25th May and that they must have been delayed by An Post. I pointed out that An Post have no role in this matter and that the onus was on AIB to ensure that I received the correct notice. I also pointed out that given the drastic fall in volumes of mail handled by An Post it was hardly likely that they were almost three weeks behind in delivering the mail.

    Lo and behold I was suddenly told a different story whereby the csr had discovered an email telling them that there had been a delay in printing the statements! I of course went through the motions of asking to speak to a supervisor.

    I asked why was a bank who should know the rules of the dd scheme deliberately breaching the rules of the scheme etc etc. Anyway you know the rest yourselves you can write the script.

    So once again an example of an originator sending out a considerable number of irregular dd's ( a monthly run was mentioned at one stage) without any fear of consequences for not complying with the dd scheme.

    I wonder who sponsors AIB in the dd scheme!!

    I feel seriously let down by my bank (Ulster Bank) who under the dd scheme guarantee are supposed to guarantee that I will get advance notice (presumably implicit in that is the correct advance notice?):D. How idiotic is such a guarantee when it is completely unworkable?
    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


  • #175
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Update : Follow on to Formal Complaint against Meteor to IPSO
    On 12 June 2012 16:18, Keith Burke wrote to IPSO:
    *IPSO Employee*,

    Following on from my formal complaint, is there up update on Meteor's non compliance in the Direct Debit Scheme.

    Are their Sponsoring Bank aware of the non compliance?
    Are their Sponsoring Bank going to issue sanctions?
    Are IPSO going to issue sanctions?

    What is being done to ensure that this non compliance doesn't happen to any future customers?




    Keith Burke
    --


  • #176
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    I have formed the opinion from dealing with delayed bills from Bord Gais for over two years that these companies can save a few euros by getting an post to collect ALL their metered post on the same day, so that bills printed monday this week may not be collected for a further week because the company are trying to save the cost of postal collections?


  • #177
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Update : Formal complaint made to IPSO against Three Ireland
    On 12 June 2012 16:34, Keith Burke To IPSO wrote:
    Th whom it may concern,

    I wish to make a Formal Complaint against Three Ireland for non compliance in the Direct Debit Scheme.

    In or around the first week of May 2012, I assisted my partner to setup a bill pay account on Three Ireland, porting over from O2. We performed this online at www.three.ie. Everything went as normal. Within days, we received our new SIM and were fully on the network.

    As of today, we have still to receive a request to prove our bank account details. Under the Direct Debit Scheme rules, this is a requirement. As you are no doubt aware, it's because of this type of non compliance that I was down almost €1000 recently, from a different provider.

    I humbly request that Three's Sponsoring Bank be notified of the non compliance and act accordingly. I trust that this wonp't be an issue in the future, with other customers.



    "2. Obtain and Verify Bank account details
    The Originator must obtain and verify bank account details of the Payer including the sort
    code, account number and account name, as well as confirmation that the Payer is the only
    person required to authorise debits from the account and that the account type is suitable for
    Direct Debits. To verify bank account details originators should confirm that the payer owns the
    bank account. This can be done by asking for bank statement or a cheque book. "




    Keith Burke
    --


  • #178
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    I have formed the opinion from dealing with delayed bills from Bord Gais for over two years that these companies can save a few euros by getting an post to collect ALL their metered post on the same day, so that bills printed monday this week may not be collected for a further week because the company are trying to save the cost of postal collections?

    However, this is in direct violation of the Direct Debit Scheme if the letters aren't received 7 or 14 days in advance of monies being taken from accounts. There is no room for deviation. The Direct Debit Scheme rulebook is VERY clear.


  • #179
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,448 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    However, this is in direct violation of the Direct Debit Scheme if the letters aren't received 7 or 14 days in advance of monies being taken from accounts. There is no room for deviation. The Direct Debit Scheme rulebook is VERY clear.

    Very clear but not enforced by anyone!!!


  • #180
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    dub45 wrote: »
    Very clear but not enforced by anyone!!!
    It could also be the case that companies like gas and electricity providers who are dependant on meter readings from other companies could be backdating bills if they don't get the meter readings on time? If meters are read on 1st of the month and normally the bill would be produced a few days later for collection near the end of the month but if the readings were done late or not sent to the company in time they may be producing the bills a week or more later but backdating them to the first week of the month.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    UPDATE : IPSO responded but specifically put "Private and Confidential" in the body. For fear of potential legal repercussions, I'm not posting it here. But this is my response [with one spelling correction]...
    On 12 June 2012 17:03, Keith Burke To IPSO wrote:
    *IPSO*,

    Thank you for your response. While I will gladly admit that this type of Fraud is rare, it's painfully obvious from talking to many people that this type of Direct Debit Scheme non compliance is rampant.

    Prevention measures, that you mention below in your private and confidential email, are already taken into account in the Direct Debit Scheme. It's called verifying the bank details. Simply done by requesting a bank statement on official bank paper plus photo ID. This is the sort of non compliance that I'm talking about.

    I've had no contact from the Gardaí since I filed my complaint. It's actually proving quite difficult to get anything out of them, even the name of the Garda heading the investigation. I've also as you know, heard nothing back from Meteor. Not even an acknowledgement or apology. You can imagine my disdain being kept in the dark like this.

    From my own part over the years, I have NEVER been asked to prove banking details when setting up services. I purposely never brought this up before as I have no proof. However, during the normal course of my life, I hope to set a few more up in the coming months. Every one will be DD+. I can tell you now, I really don't think I'll be asked to prove my bank account details.

    I've also spoken to many, many people, who have seen my issues over the past few months. They have said that they have had similar [although non fraudulent] Direct Debit issues over recent times.

    My next Direct Debit will be setup within the next week or two. I'll let you know how it goes, but I'd be VERY surprised if it will be compliant.

    With all due respect, I don't intend to let this go and will pursue this as much as I can, to the Financial Regulator, High Court of Ireland or the European Court of Justice [or equivalent] if it works out that the Direct Debit Scheme is in violation of the European Anti Money Laundering Act. As you may have seen from one of my recent postings on boards.ie, the lack of compliance in the Direct Debit Scheme may be an enabler in European Anti Money Laundering Act because of the non verification of banking details.

    I personally believe that the Direct Debit Scheme can be an efficient one, if implemented properly. However, as it currently stands, I believe that it is unfit for purpose. There are absolutely no checks and balances. There are no dis-incentives to originators non compliance.

    The PAYER Guarantees in the Direct Debit Scheme are worthless for a few reasons.

    1. The money shouldn't come out of the PAYER account at all. There is no way that a PAYER can absolutely stop money coming out from a rougue or other Originator
    2. If money IS taken out, it is proving exceptionally hard for PAYER banks to co-operate. Not just for myself but for others too.

    It is also painfully obvious that the majority of banks [BOI, AIB, Ulster Bank specifically mentioned to me] put little or no training into their front line staff in the Direct Debit Scheme. You admitted a few months ago, that the Direct Debit Scheme is widely used. You [and your website] mentioned something like a couple of hundred thousand transactions a day or week. With this widespread use, it's unconscionable that front line staff do not know how the scheme works. Considering that the Direct Debit Scheme GUARANTEE states to contact these front line staff for immediate resolution.

    I've even had some bank employees mention, under anonymity, that they would NEVER setup direct debits for themselves after seeing first hand how it's abused.

    I am currently gathering absolute evidence from other PAYERS, not anecdotal stories that can be shot down, as to Direct Debit Scheme non compliance. I'll be in touch soon, once I have this.






    Keith Burke
    --


Advertisement