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.
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
Options
Comments
-
Keep fighting the good fight.0
-
eMail from the FSO keeping me updated.
Summary
=======
FSO has requested more information from the Bank. I will be contacted in due course.0 -
Guys...
I've had enough,. I don't have the energy to fight this any more. FSO rejected my business P&L for 2011 and are insisting on- Turnover for 2011 [isn't that in the P&L I submitted?????]
- Audited Statement of Accounts for 2011.
I can't find my audited Statement of Accounts. I'm going to lose this on a technicality. I don't have the energy to even pick up the phone and ask my accountant for another copy. I just don't. It's ****ing hurdle after hurdle. It's as if the system doesn't want to be found out. Every step of the way, I've been blocked. I've been fighting the system since January 2012. That's, what, 16 odd months. It has taken it's toll. It looks like it's going to take a stronger person than myself to fight this fight.
Everyone I've talked to knows the system is more than flawed but nobody wants to change it. It works for business. It works for banks. Business know it's flawed. Maybe not when they first start using it. But business is business. they will push boundaries to raise revenue. They more they push, the more they see that they are not getting punished... AT ALL!!!! The banks know it's flawed [those that are even aware of the system], even IPSO know it's fundamentally broken. That's me putting words in IPSO's mouth. They didn't actually say "fundamentally flawed" but they admitted that rules are being broken* by >99% [maybe all] businesses but they also don't have the will to combat it as to fix the rules will cost businesses too much money. By definition....!!!!????
I will be contacting the FSO today to tell them that I will not [cannot] be submitting the information they require and I will make one more attempt in asking them if this information is absolutely required. In my head, this information is required so that huge companies, with millions in the bank, don't waste the little man's process. Those companies have the resources to use the big man's court. The profit and loss I gave FSO surely shows that my company is far, far, far from one of the big guys and that, potentially, taking €1000~ out of an account at the wrong time could put a company under.
Anyway, if the FSO stand firm on their requirement, I'll still insist that they push forward with two of the three complaints. Two of them [Three and BOI] are in my personal name and from my personal account. The big Meteor fraud one will probably be dropped as a valid complaint.
* The one rule that is been broken by ALL companies is that account details are not verified with the bank. IPSO said that they are aware of this but it would not be cost effective to implement. But it's still left in as "a rule". Why not take it out as a rule? Maybe it makes the consumer more confident in the system, if it's stated as a fact/rule....?0 -
eMail to FSO [Redacted]FSO,
I received your correspondence, dated April 29th 2013. Apologies for taking so long to reply but I've been away for a week. I've also been trying to resolve these issues with Bank of Ireland since January 2012 and it's taking it's toll, I'm afraid.
I cannot give you an Audited Statement of Accounts. I simply cannot find it. I also don't even want to pick up the phone and ask my accountant for a copy. I've lost the will to fight this, really. It's taken the guts of 16 months and I just can't do this anymore.
Every step of the way has been blocked by the companies involved [Meteor and Hutchinson/Three], Bank of Ireland at every level [from front desk to complaints to legal to the actual Direct Debit office in Group] and even IPSO. IPSO are even fully aware of the fundamental flaws in the Direct Debit system but they say it's not cost effective to implement the rules they say exist. How can that be right? To be fair the Office of the Financial Ombudsman was the only entity that seemed open to the issue.
In my error, I thought a profit and loss for the same period would suffice. BOI's company policy [which are in direct violation of the Direct Debit Scheme rules] is to refund after 2 or 3 weeks, MAYBE never!!!
I apologies, some of my text above may seem a little bit of a rant. It was not meant to be.
Is it an absolute requirement that you have must received an Audited Statement of Accounts? If so, it pains me to say ...you can close this case. It pains me because BOI will will not have to answer for their actions on this issue.
If it's the case that this issue between my company and Bank of Ireland is dismissed, I would still ask that my other two issues be brought forward. I had three complaints. Only one related to my business account.
I thank you for your time.0 -
It saddens me to hear that. Thanks for your diligent work in trying to improve this system and put a stop to this abuse by businesses and banks (and flat out lies on the part of the banks with that direct debit "guarantee" nonsense). I hope you manage to see this process through.I've had enough,. I don't have the energy to fight this any more.
What do they mean, "not cost effective" to implement? They could just make the rules more specific:* The one rule that is been broken by ALL companies is that account details are not verified with the bank. IPSO said that they are aware of this but it would not be cost effective to implement. But it's still left in as "a rule". Why not take it out as a rule? Maybe it makes the consumer more confident in the system, if it's stated as a fact/rule....?
1) If account details are not verified when they should have been, allowing a third party to fraudulently extract money (or cause a careless company to extract it) from a customer's bank account without proper authorisation, then the bank shall immediately refund the transaction.
2) If the bank does not return the money within one working day, it shall pay an extra €100 per day compensation to the account holder, on top of the original sum, until both the misappropriated sum and compensation have been returned in full.
3) If the bank do not do this, it shall be ejected from the "guarantee" scheme immediately and will face legal proceedings if they do not withdraw all documents and advertisements in which they falsely claim compliance with the scheme.
Make the banks pay for their complicity (through negligence) in fraud. Maybe find a way to make the originating company pay, too, since they also have well-defined responsibilities in the scheme.
[edit]
On that note, could you open a complaint with the ASAI on the basis that the paying bank falsely advertised itself as compliant with the direct debit guarantee rules, when it is most definitely NOT compliant - in fact lengthy and repeated correspondence has shown that their customer-facing employees generally do not understand the rules (or are not even aware of them)...
Similarly, the originator presumably advertises themselves as compliant with those rules when they are not.0 -
Advertisement
-
We can but dream, yeah?. I don't see this happening. Not unless IPSO / SEPA are forced to do it by EU directive. IRE has no will to push this. they would have done it long, long time ago. It's a pity that the FSO was a walkover until recently [banking crash era]What do they mean, "not cost effective" to implement? They could just make the rules more specific:
1) If account details are not verified when they should have been, allowing a third party to fraudulently extract money (or cause a careless company to extract it) from a customer's bank account without proper authorisation, then the bank shall immediately refund the transaction.
2) If the bank does not return the money within one working day, it shall pay an extra €100 per day compensation to the account holder, on top of the original sum, until both the misappropriated sum and compensation have been returned in full.
3) If the bank do not do this, it shall be ejected from the "guarantee" scheme immediately and will face legal proceedings if they do not withdraw all documents and advertisements in which they falsely claim compliance with the scheme.
Make the banks pay for their complicity (through negligence) in fraud. Maybe find a way to make the originating company pay, too, since they also have well-defined responsibilities in the scheme.
You know, I never thought of that. ASAI might be an option but I'd have to prove that BOI [and other banks / originators] actively market themselves as fully compliant with the DDS. It's the old marketing trick... Allude but don't admit.[edit]
On that note, could you open a complaint with the ASAI on the basis that the paying bank falsely advertised itself as compliant with the direct debit guarantee rules, when it is most definitely NOT compliant - in fact lengthy and repeated correspondence has shown that their customer-facing employees generally do not understand the rules (or are not even aware of them)...
Similarly, the originator presumably advertises themselves as compliant with those rules when they are not.
From memory, I don't remember any company or bank say that they are fully DD compliant. They say that they accept it as a form of payment. Reading between the lines means that they MUST be compliant as the rules are very straight forward but they are not actively marketing themselves as such.
I can also see it boil down to ASAI saying that it's the remit of the FSO and nothing to do with them. Demarcation at it's best.
--
To add to the update [I've just gone through some emails as memory isn't that great]
IPSO said, back in May 2012, that they were meeting up with Sponsoring bank and Meteor regarding the issues at hand. Reviewing signup processes and ensuring correct procedures are being followed so that they are fully compliant with the Direct Debit Scheme rulebook. IPSO never said that they would update me on it but they mentioned this to me under the guise of my formal complaint. I've not had an update.
As an aside, they also said that they were going to distribute updated / refreshed communicate [can't find the email off hand] to all SPONSORING and PAYER banks relating to how the Scheme should operate and offer training to those that need it. I have had no update as to if this was done.
Gardaí haven't given me an update since I lodged the Fraud charge with them. I don't even know how to follow up on that. I tried going into the station once, about three months after I made the complaint. I was asked by the desk sergeant if I knew the name of the investigating officer. The desk sergeant is actually the guy I made the initial complaint to and he passed it onto the relevant fraud department???? I didn't know so he said that he couldn't help me. I was speechless so just left. I really don't know how to follow that up. I know the Gardaí have a tough job. I really respect that. My complaint is nothing compared to the murders and gangland stuff out there. Part of me don't want to race in there and demand anything. I really don't think that I have that right. If it went to court, it would be the State vs Meteor. I'm just a witness/victim or whatever.
Meteor won't discuss anything. They indirectly told me that through IPSO. I respect that. They have to close ranks once the Gardaí are involved. I still work with them on a daily basis in my current role but "Don't mention the war" is the MOTD.
Edit
Three don't really acknowledge that they did anything wrong. they insisted that I must have signed a new mandate. I didn't. they couldn't produce one. they just ... fell off the radar as I put most of my time into the whole BOI disaster.0 -
You might be right; I did a quick google for 'site:bankofireland.com "direct debit guarantee"' and only found a handful of results, many of which were "boini.bankofireland.com" which is confusing ... I'd be interested to take a look at some of their leaflets and the DD forms they here, as it seems like their website is short of information.You know, I never thought of that. ASAI might be an option but I'd have to prove that BOI [and other banks / originators] actively market themselves as fully compliant with the DDS. It's the old marketing trick... Allude but don't admit.
From memory, I don't remember any company or bank say that they are fully DD compliant. They say that they accept it as a form of payment. Reading between the lines means that they MUST be compliant as the rules are very straight forward but they are not actively marketing themselves as such.
Got no matches for Meteor...0 -
The case against Meteor / Bank of Ireland has been dismissed. It's emotional.Redacted wrote:I understand. Please dismiss the complaint against Bank of Ireland / Meteor in relation to my company business account.
Is it yourself that is dealing with the two complaints [Three and Bank of Ireland] against my personal account, nothing to do with my business and was a personal transaction. I believe It was originally handled by ANOther FSO Rep under the same reference.
Keith Burke
--
On 14 May 2013 16:35, FSO Rep <fso.rep@financialombudsman.ie> wrote:
Hi Keith,
Thank you for your mail.
Whilst I acknowledge same, I must advise that we will still require a copy of the relevant audited accounts.
Regards,
FSO Rep0 -
Given you were the victim in this why do they require audited accounts?0
-
So this is a charade? From page 10 of the dd scheme rules: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.
No mention of anything having to be "cost effective" there?0 -
Advertisement
-
Its a very sobering thought that the Central Bank may be complicit in the Irish public being mislead (to put it kindly!) in respect of the dd system and the absence of the controls etc that are supposed to be there to protect the public.The IPSO board has a broad membership so as to represent fairly, the different types and size of IPSO’s members and other payment stakeholders. The board of directors includes three independent non-executive director positions as well as an independent non-executive chairman. The decision of the Board to appoint a wholly independent chairman demonstrates the board’s commitment to transparency and recognition of the increasing need to involve non-bank interests in IPSO decision making. The Central Bank of Ireland, as regulator of payments systems in Ireland, has been represented at IPSO board meetings since IPSO was established in 1997.
Surely the Central Bank are failing in their role if they are allowing controls which are required by scheme rules to be conveniently dropped on a "cost effective" basis? Who decides what is cost effective anyway?
Also surely there are questions to be asked about the independent directors? What exactly are they doing if there are so many failings in the dd scheme?
One could also legitimately ask who if anyone represents the bill payers interests in all of this?0 -
It's disheartening that none of the journalists or broadcast media that regularly read boards for material for articles of public interest haven't found this issue newsworthy enough to report on, especially considering how quick they can be to report on other important newsworthy issues e.g a recent front page article in the Metro Herald claiming that ''The Irish web community got its knickers in a knot yesterday after a woman claimed she lost her dole - because she was selling her used knickers to fetishists online.'' A boards.ie thread which contained all of 15 posts.
Surely, a more mainstream issue such as this, a thread containing 252 posts, considering that it could potentially at any stage affect hundreds of thousands of bank account holders, would be something that any decent journalist (print, tv, radio or internet) would be only delighted to get their teeth into?0 -
Cushie Butterfield wrote: »It's disheartening that none of the journalists or broadcast media that regularly read boards for material for articles of public interest haven't found this issue newsworthy enough to report on, especially considering how quick they can be to report on other important newsworthy issues e.g a recent front page article in the Metro Herald claiming that ''The Irish web community got its knickers in a knot yesterday after a woman claimed she lost her dole - because she was selling her used knickers to fetishists online.'' A boards.ie thread which contained all of 15 posts.
I agree. But the truth is many fold...- This is not a sexy story
- There are very few investigative journalists out there anymore. They are mostly reporters. They just report as many stories as they can, in as little time as they can, to make up their quota for print / TV / Radio.
- It's cut throat out there. It costs too much for actual investigation work. This story needs investigation. It's not worth their while.
It has always been my intention, when I'm done here, to document all I've done in the Scheme and hand it to as many Journalists / Reports as I can find. I'll have done most of the investigation, they just need to verify it and report. However, this may bring it to the public eye for ... a day, maybe a few days. Then it will be forgotten about when the next big story hits. I am VERY skeptical, with all I've experienced in this, that anybody in power has the will to change this.
People don't care about most things until it affects them. I've spoken about this issue to friends over the past year. They fein interest. I'm not sure if it's because they don't believe me, think I'm over reacting or just don't care. It pains me but it is a fact of life. Generally [and it is a sweeping generalisation] people don't care if it doesn't affect them or invoke some form of emotion [selling used knickers anyone???]. It's as simple as that.
However, as I said, it has always been my intent and that hasn't changed.
I've also sort of decided to approach one of the power players at #ccven to see if I can be put into contact with someone who is passionate about this sort of thing and who can actively assist. There has to be someone in politics who fits the bill. I'm a proud man. I hate asking for help from anyone. I might make an exception on this occasion.
We've also got well over 10,000 thread views so there are a lot of people watching this but staying very quiet. It seems to be the same 5 or 6 people showing their faces here. There are many, many more but are silent.Surely, a more mainstream issue such as this, a thread containing 252 posts, considering that it could potentially at any stage affect hundreds of thousands of bank account holders, would be something that any decent journalist (print, tv, radio or internet) would be only delighted to get their teeth into?0 -
Watchdog on the BBC last week had a little about direct debits just stating how companies say they love them because of control:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zkz1k/features/payment-methodsCompanies love us to pay by direct debit because they are then in control…What company wouldn’t like that?
I have friends who dont even check their bills and have no idea how much is going out of their account each month. One friend was on the 15euro meteor plan for a year and after the year was up they didn't notice the plan had increased to 30 a month (all perfectly above board). They were puzzled how meteor hadn't bothered to contact them or put them on another discounted plan. Sure why would they when people dont even notice the change in the monthly bill.
I suspect there are more people like my friend who dont monitor their bills or bank accounts as much as they should. I remember when I was with O2. At one point I was ringing up every month for almost 6 months to get my bill adjusted due to "errors". Unlike monopoly though, the errors were never in my favour. Funny that.0 -
Actually, since mid yesterday to now, we've had over 400 views. We're now up to 11,050.We've also got well over 10,000 thread views so there are a lot of people watching this but staying very quiet. It seems to be the same 5 or 6 people showing their faces here. There are many, many more but are silent.0 -
My heart goes out to you RangeR, you have had one hell of a rough ride with the lot of them. You would think RTE would have got in touch with you for a prime-time investigates slot in relation to a serious issue like this.
I'm above shocked after reading this thread in full.It's as if the system doesn't want to be found out.
This is exactly the case without doubt, in my opinion.0 -
I'm above shocked after reading this thread in full.
This thread isn't even the full story. It started back in January 2012, I believe. This was split from a Three [the mobile network] thread I started about being charged twice in a month. That's how it all started, for me anyway. After it became more about the "System" rather than Three, I requested Dav to split it to it's own thread.
It was split to Consumer Issues and then to Banking and Insurance.0 -
My intention is to snail mail this to as many journalists and politicians as I can.
I hope you do this, as you have come so far. Let it not be in vain, as this already public issue could force changes within the system. I would like to think that this would be the case.0 -
could force changes within the system. I would like to think that this would be the case.
Unfortunately, it won't. Nothing will change in the Scheme. We know that for fact. The Direct Debit Scheme is due to not exist at all in or around February 2014. It is being replaced by SEPA, the EU equivalent.0 -
Unfortunately, it won't. Nothing will change in the Scheme. We know that for fact. The Direct Debit Scheme is due to not exist at all in or around February 2014. It is being replaced by SEPA, the EU equivalent.
The only thing that matters now in Ireland in terms of getting anything done is public embarrassment. Once the spotlight looms people suddenly "take their responsibilities very seriously"
The simple fact is that there is no will on the part of all of those "responsible" for the running of the dd scheme to run it in accordance with the "rules".
The direct debit "guarantee" is and always has been a lie - read it - it is unenforcable. It's only function is to lull bill payers into a false sense of security.
The direct debit scheme rules are a lie - there is absolutely no will on the part of the responsible parties to implement them so they are a charade. Key requirements such as a system to detect cancelled direct debits being presented again are not in place.
There are no systems in place to monitor compliance with the rules of the scheme.
Companies can do what they like and they do. Bank staff laugh at the "usual suspects" who regularly reinstate cancelled direct debits - in my view an attempt at theft - yet there is no requirement on bank staff to report this activity. And no consequences for companies who do so.
The only ones who ever suffer for not complying with the scheme are bill payers.
Miss a direct debit and it can cost you up to €25 (instantly)if you happen to be with UPC. Of course there are no problems on the companies' or banks' part in having a system in place to catch this "non compliance"!!
Facilitate taking a considerable amount of money from Ranger's account and absolutely nothing happens to those responsible.
We know that IPSO monitors boards.ie but they haven't the courage to come on here and answer the criticism put forward.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm quite literally speechless.On 11 June 2013 19:42, Keith Burke <my.email@address.com> wrote:
FSO Agent,
Pursuant to your email dated June 6, 2013, I fear you may not be in possession of all the facts. You say that after a full review of all submissions that it would appear that the basis for my complaint relates to my business account.
This couldn't be further from the truth. This started in January 2012. My business account only got involved in April 2012. I also mentioned similar in my previous email to which you mention.
This confusion probably stems from the fact that you are the third FSO agent to deal with this complaint.
I've attached all submissions again.
Could you also please confirm why there is a need for audited accounts in which to pursue the Bank? I mean, other than to state that those are just the rules. What is the reason for that rule? It seems exceptionally unfair that the Financial Services Ombudsman is willing to dismiss this case of facilitated fraud on a technicality. This is a proven case of fraudulent transaction that went unchecked by the bank.
EDIT : Actually, I'm so pissed off at the FSO I'm reconsidering getting my Audited Accounts from my accountant and fighting full force. FSO probably won't let me, know.0 -
I'm quite literally speechless.
EDIT : Actually, I'm so pissed off at the FSO I'm reconsidering getting my Audited Accounts from my accountant and fighting full force. FSO probably won't let me, know.
Are you a sole trader or limited company?
Can a sole trader produced "audited" accounts? I thought certified accounts would be more appropriate.
Somebody else from an accountancy background might be able to clarify0 -
nlgbbbblth wrote: »Are you a sole trader or limited company?
Can a sole trader produced "audited" accounts? I thought certified accounts would be more appropriate.
Somebody else from an accountancy background might be able to clarify
Limited Company, albeit a very small 2 person limited company. However, a month ago, I lost the will to fight this. I'm starting to get that will back. Going to ring my accountant this week and get the audited document. and send to FSO.0 -
Limited Company, albeit a very small 2 person limited company. However, a month ago, I lost the will to fight this. I'm starting to get that will back. Going to ring my accountant this week and get the audited document. and send to FSO.
It's worth one last effort as you've put so much into it now. Still there for moral support!!0 -
.On 14 June 2013 16:01, Keith Burke wrote:
FSO Rep,
Thank you for your update. I note that there is no answer to why the audited accounts are required. To this end, I tore my house apart and found them. Please find attached audit accounts for 2011. I hope you take this into account and pursue all complaints against Bank of Ireland Group.
Keith Burke
--
On 13 June 2013 14:58, Desmond Butler <fsorep@financialombudsman.ie> wrote:
Dear Keith,
Thank you for your mail.
Please note that further information has been requested from the Bank.
We will be in contact in due course.
Regards,
FSO Rep.0 -
Given you were the victim in this why do they require audited accounts?
Just after reading this epic thread I can only feel sympathy for you RangeR. The only reason I think they might be looking for accounts is to see if your complaint is valid. I work in a similar sector and from doing a bit of study into the FSO you generally need to be a person or company with a turnover of less than 2 million to be covered within some of the powers of the FSO. Thats the only thing I can think why they want your turnover statements. At the very least your story will definitely show people the merits of keeping a close eye on their accounts.0 -
delta_bravo wrote: »Just after reading this epic thread I can only feel sympathy for you RangeR. The only reason I think they might be looking for accounts is to see if your complaint is valid. I work in a similar sector and from doing a bit of study into the FSO you generally need to be a person or company with a turnover of less than 2 million to be covered within some of the powers of the FSO. Thats the only thing I can think why they want your turnover statements. At the very least your story will definitely show people the merits of keeping a close eye on their accounts.
I gave them a P&L. That should suffice. IF that is the reason.0 -
.On 24 June 2013 16:32, FSO Agent <fso.agent@financialombudsman.ie> wrote:
Hi Keith,
I will have a formal letter out to you tomorrow.
Regards,
FSO Agent.
From: Keith Burke [mailto:ranger.email.address]
Sent: 14 June 2013 16:01
To: FSO Agent
Subject: Re: Ref : 12/69845
FSO Agent,
Thank you for your update. I note that there is no answer to why the audited accounts are required. To this end, I tore my house apart and found them. Please find attached audit accounts for 2011. I hope you take this into account and pursue all complaints against Bank of Ireland Group.
Keith Burke
--0 -
Was dreading this email back from FSO but ... Happy days. Full steam ahead on all complaints.On 26 June 2013 16:00, Keith Burke <email.address.of.the.RangeR@gmail.com> wrote:
FSO Agent,
Brilliant and thank you for your help so far.
Keith Burke
--
On 26 June 2013 15:53, FSO Agent <fso.agent@financialombudsman.ie> wrote:
Dear Mr Burke,
Please see attached document(s) in relation to the above complaint.
If you are unable to open the PDF file format, you can download Adobe Reader from the link below.
http://get.adobe.com/uk/reader/
Kind regards
FSO Agent
Case Officer
Financial Services Ombudsman's Bureau
3rd Floor
Lincoln House
Lincoln Place
Dublin 2
Main Phone: +353 (1) 6620899Contents of PDF wrote:26 June 2013
Please quote the reference below in all correspondence to this office and refrain from using staples as all documents received are scanned.
Re: Your dispute with Bank of Ireland Reference number: 12/69845
Dear Mr Burke
Thank you for your recent correspondence.
I note that it is now your intention for the Bureau to investigate both of your accounts, business and personal.
In light of same, please note that clarification has been sought from the Bank. We will be in contact in due course.
Yours sincerely0 -
Advertisement
-
Looking good now. At least they're proceeding with the investigation.0
Advertisement