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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Problems with Direct Debit

245678

Comments

  • #52
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    Related but different company. Myt business account just had a DD of €850~ from Meteor. Just rang my branch and hope I don't have to run through the same hoops. For this amount, they WILL fix this today.

    Jeebus Criost.

    EDIT : I'm not even a Meteor Customer!!!!!!

    Isn't it extraordinary how such an imabalance has evolved in the power of the Company and the individual. Meteor or any Company can access an individual's account no problem and remove a considerable amount of money with impunity.

    The bank concerned, who supposedly have a duty to protect the individual's account, dont appear to bat an eyelid at what should seem an extrapordinary occurence but is probably far from rare.

    Meteor require a bank statement (surely an invasion of privacy) apparently before they will begin to even scratch their proverbial and investigate the occurence even though they have a considerable amount of money that they shouldnt have.

    There is no prospect of any "punishment" for either the bank concerned or Meteor. Meanwhile the individual concerned is minus the money and has to fight for basic rights with staff who havent a clue about the system they are operating not to mention the inconveniece faced and the cost of phonecalls etc not to mention the time involved. Will the individual concerned receive an explanation form either the bank or Meteor as to how is money was stolen (i.e. money taken without any authority or permission).

    Make a complaint to IPSO and you will receive broadly the following reply:

    "Shouldn't have happened and will make sure it doesnt happen again"

    Now reverse the situation. An individual accesses Meteor's account and removes lets say even a fiver. Can you imagine the scenario above applying in that situation. No the police would arrive - probably IT equipment confiscated - probably a life effectively destroyed, job lost etc etc.

    How did we let it get to this?

    Meanwhile consider this and smile:


    The Irish Retail Electronic Payments Clearing Company (IRECC) manages a sound and trustworthy Direct Debit Scheme in association with its members, the Sponsoring Banks. We strive to offer the best possible service in order to deliver a high level of trust and confidence to you.

    Trust? Confidence?


  • #53
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    The CEOs email address is ( Paul) podonovan@eircom.ie and the PR department is ( another Paul ) pbradley@eircom.ie

    Once you mail them they know about it.

    Report the matter and the pair of them to the Guards and it will be fixed rapid with full compensation and cancellation of DD.


  • #54
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    The CEOs email address is ( Paul) podonovan@eircom.ie and the PR department is ( another Paul ) pbradley@eircom.ie

    Once you mail them they know about it.

    Report the matter and the pair of them to the Guards and it will be fixed rapid with full compensation and cancellation of DD.

    Their PR department is only concerned with optics and not substance - see my signature for one of the most idiotic statements in recent times.

    It is apt that PR also stands for Pure Rubbish.


  • #55
    Dav
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,840 ✭✭✭Dav


    I've moved a chunk of posts from this thread (Talk To Three Forum) to this forum as the issue has gone past the initial stress involving Three and the OP has accepted that as far as their dealings with 3 are concerned, the issue is resolved.

    I think it's vital this this discussion continues though as I've been pretty horrified by what I'm reading. I pay pretty much everything by Direct Debit, have never had any issue with it in 15+ years of "being a grown up with bills to pay" but I'm certainly looking at how the process works in a new light.

    I would point out that both Eircom and Bank of Ireland both have Talk To forums here and maybe the reps there can assist in some way, but from what I'm reading here, we're looking at a fundamental flaw in the system rather than an isolated incident gone bad.


  • #56
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    BOI Naas rang me about two hours ago. They confirmed that the charge should never have been levied. My account should be refunded during their automated process in or around midnight.

    While not an immediate refund, I'm not going to fight that.

    I took the opportunity to ask, considering this was verified as fraudulent activity, had BOI Naas notified the Guards, IPSO, DPC etc. She couldn't answer but said she would pass the question up the chain and someone would ring me back.

    I suggested that it may be better for them to report it to the guards rather than wait for the guards to call them, because that WILL happen.


  • #57
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    You guys might want to follow this thread.


  • #58
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    BOI Naas rang me about two hours ago. They confirmed that the charge should never have been levied. My account should be refunded during their automated process in or around midnight.

    While not an immediate refund, I'm not going to fight that.

    I took the opportunity to ask, considering this was verified as fraudulent activity, had BOI Naas notified the Guards, IPSO, DPC etc. She couldn't answer but said she would pass the question up the chain and someone would ring me back.

    I suggested that it may be better for them to report it to the guards rather than wait for the guards to call them, because that WILL happen.

    This just demonstrates that it is not automatic for such activity to be reported by default. The integrity of a customer's account should be paramount with bank employees and it demonstrably isnt.


  • #59
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    Dav wrote: »
    ..........................

    I think it's vital this this discussion continues though as I've been pretty horrified by what I'm reading. I pay pretty much everything by Direct Debit, have never had any issue with it in 15+ years of "being a grown up with bills to pay" but I'm certainly looking at how the process works in a new light.

    I would point out that both Eircom and Bank of Ireland both have Talk To forums here and maybe the reps there can assist in some way, but from what I'm reading here, we're looking at a fundamental flaw in the system rather than an isolated incident gone bad.

    Oh if only we were looking at just one fundamental flaw!

    The simple fact is that from the bill payers point of view the dd system is not fit for purpose. From the time that a bill payer signs a dd instruction the account is wide open to abuse there is no upfront protection whatsoever. The whole thing works on the basis of picking up the pieces afterwards.

    The dd system is a wonderful one for businesses (originators) they can collect lots of money with little cost. And you would think on that basis that the bill payer who has to open access to their account would be entitled to lots of protection in return and respect from the businesses concerned but you would be very wrong.

    For example imagine if Ranger had been away on holidays and depending on that 800 euros say to pay for a flight home or simply to live on?

    Not alone do businesses behave as they wish without any fear of sanction but they exploit the dd system to levy charges on customers who miss their dd payment date (as do the banks) As I have pointed out before ESB and UPC for example levy their customers when they miss a payment without warning them in advance of such payments when the dd is being set up. Again as I have pointed out before it seems very likely that UPC are making considerable amounts of money from the dd scheme. I have raised this with IPSO and they refused to comment! Which is very convenient for all concerned.

    Whereas a company can wreak havoc on a customers account without any fear whatsoever.

    This sort of stuff (from the dd scheme rules) is hardly going to terrify anyone into compliance is it?
    Any Bank shall be entitled to refer an alleged instance of non-compliance by a Member to the Direct Debit Committee of IRECC which Committee shall, as soon as practicable, investigate the matter.

    If the said Committee determines that such non-compliance is established and is of a material nature, the Committee shall be empowered to direct the Member concerned to remedy the matter forthwith.

    In the event that the Member fails to do so, the Committee shall be entitled to recommend to the Board of IRECC the imposition of appropriate sanctions (such as suspension or expulsion from membership of the Scheme) either to compel compliance with the Rules of the Scheme and/or to penalise such non-compliance.

    The reported Member would be excluded from voting at Committee or Board level on the recommendations or sanctions.
    In arriving at its decisions, the Committee or the Board would take into account any plan which might be presented by the reported Member which would remedy such non-compliance at a future date.

    So if the said company promises not to do it again everything is fine!

    In the history of the dd scheme apparently no company has ever been expelled for misbehaviour nor is it likely that this will ever happen. The simple fact is that the system is full of conflicts of interest and only the bill payer is ever sanctioned.

    A company is sponsored into the scheme by its bank. There is a commercial relationship here so is a bank ever going to agree to the eviction of its biggest customer from the scheme no matter what they do? Can you imagine a bank threatening say ESB or Bord Gais that they will throw them out of the system?

    And then we have IPSO. IPSO is owned and funded by the Irish banks.

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

    IPSO is an industry body - they are among other roles lobbyists helping people to get the right information:rolleyes:
    IPSO is also the voice of the payments industry on issues with industry wide impact on regulators, Irish Government, media, European bodies etc. This includes ensuring that opinion-formers and regulators are assisted in understanding the payments industry and that public debate on payments issues is well informed.

    Assisted and will informed indeed. Funnily enough I don't ever recall IPSO encouraging any public debate about the dd system and it is only recently that there is information about the dd system on their website. Prior to that there was no effort made whatsoever to make sure that the bill payer was well informed as to their rights under the dd system and there is no effort made to ensure that bank staff are properly trained in this respect.

    As an industry body IPSO also have conflict of interest - how can they oversee the dd scheme and be effectively part of it? IPSO handle complaints - there is no one to actively represent the bill payer - the complaints system is effectively the DD manager who is content to rehash excuses which would shame a 10 year old school boy who hadnt done his homework. There is no transparency whatsoever as to how complaints are handled or to what correspondence (if any) might pass between IPSO and an errant business. There are no procedures in place as far as I am aware to pick up the activities of systematic offenders.

    In spite of the fact that there are specific requirements in the dd scheme rules to have processes in place to capture cancelled dd's these have not been put in place by the banks. This means that the dd guarantee paragraph covering this is at worst a lie and at best deliberately misleading to bill payers.

    And here are some stats which should terrify us but which IPSO proudly boast of!

    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

    Over 5,200 businesses entitled to dd people? It is surely impossible to monitor the activities of so many businesses? How is customer data stored for example? Some bank branches must be sponsoring a considerable number of businesses without the resources to be in any meaningful way responsible for them.

    Over 110 million direct debits processed every year in Ireland and the bank staff havent a clue what is going on around them!

    Amazing how such a shambles from the bill payer's perspective can be allowed.

    Just some points to ponder!


  • #60
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    RangeR wrote: »
    You guys might want to follow this thread.


    Maybe follow this thread too?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    Maybe follow this thread too?

    You may find that they refuse to deal with Meteor issues there and direct you to the Meteor web site which has its own forum.


  • #62
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Sure. Then let them say that. If that's the case, I'll go there and ask the very same questions. And link back here.


  • #63
    take everything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,807 ✭✭✭take everything


    dub45 wrote: »
    No take it from me (and just peruse any of the consumer related forums over a period) and you will see that it is not restricted to a particular type of company. For example in the past few months there was a post about the ESB dding an ex customer for about 150 euros or so - the customer have been gone for nearly a year I think. I have personal experience of Bord Gais double dding me three times in about 5 months a couple of years ago.

    I learned this a few years ago. It is incredible. It was just a general query i had about how the DD system worked after being surprised at how it's authorised. Wasn't in dispute or anything.

    But the level of ****e and defensiveness i had to wade through to get a straight answer from the bank staff (AIB), then IPSO, financial regulator about how it works. As someone else said here, it's quite secretive and opaque.


  • #64
    nlgbbbblth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,668 ✭✭✭nlgbbbblth


    Been saying this for years.....

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75436115&postcount=4

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72961749&postcount=12

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58850486&postcount=16

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51056574&postcount=6


  • #65
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    nlgbbbblth wrote: »
    Been saying this for years.....

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75436115&postcount=4

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72961749&postcount=12

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58850486&postcount=16

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51056574&postcount=6

    Companies indulging in blatantly unlawful behaviour (as per the gyms mentioned in one of your links) should automatically be referred to the Gardai.

    There is absolutely no reason for this not to be done. Bank branches should be doing this irrespective of which company is involved. IPSO is complicit in this behaviour by not ensuring that it is reported to the Gardai and by not reporting it when they become aware of it through complaints being made to them.

    I specifically asked IPSO some time ago if they had ever sought legal advice in respect of Companies reinstating direct debits and I was shocked to find that they had not. There should be a zero tolerance policy towards any company no matter how big which presents a cancelled direct debit. It is a deliberate attempt to access an account where access permission has been specifically withdrawn.


  • #66
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    If there are 5000 odd 'takers' of money then an individual account holder should be allowed to block any taker from their account if they wish....especially after they have been defrauded as RangeR was...I do take it that Meteor are likely a victim here too but it is RangeR own money not theirs so they are lesser victims here.

    What is Bank of Ireland doing to safeguard their customers from DD Fraud???


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    If there are 5000 odd 'takers' of money then an individual account holder should be allowed to block any taker from their account if they wish....

    Many companies insist on dd as a method of payment so for a person in that situation the only way to "deny access" is not to avail of the service.

    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    especially after they have been defrauded as RangeR was...I do take it that Meteor are likely a victim here too but it is RangeR own money not theirs so they are lesser victims here.

    Meteor a victim? What planet are you living on?

    Meteor have debited an ex customer over 800 euros without any permission either to access his account or use his data. That is appalling in itself.

    However Meteor have a responsibility to ensure that they only access a bank account with the specific permission of that bank holder etc etc.

    It maybe that false data was fed to them but if that wasn't detected that again is an indictment of their so called systems. But the responsibility rests with Meteor to ensure that they are in the right when accessing an account.

    Now their carelessness in forwarding the debit is bad enough but their inaction when approached about it by Ranger is appalling. Basically a supposedly reputable company have debited an excustomer for a considerable amount of money and they dont give too hoots simple as that.

    A reputable company would immediately be concerned about any such happening and take immediate steps to investigate it and communicate with the person affected. After all it surely shows up that something is seriously wrong with their internal systems and they have wronged an innocent person and also possibly leaving themselves open for possible legal action in the future.

    Furthermore they have been implicated in one of the biggest data losses in recent times for which their parent company has been severely criticised publicly by the DPC so you would think that they would be on the alert for this very type of case and investigate it immediately to ascertain if it related in any way to the data loss. But sadly we are talking about Metor here - a shambles of a company as their response to Ranger illustrates.

    So please lay off the victimhood:mad:
    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    What is Bank of Ireland doing to safeguard their customers from DD Fraud???

    Probably nothing. As I have pointed out so often as soon as you sign a dd mandate your account is wide open. Given the lack of emphasis on training displayed here at all levels in BOI (and most likely the other banks) I doubt if many bank staff even appreciate the seriousness of "irregular" access to a customers account anymore.

    Surely it says it all when cancelled dd's can be presented by a company without any fear of penalty whatsoever.


  • #68
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Received a call at about 11:30am. IPSO will be calling Meteor and BOI to a meeting to discuss how this has happened and why "safe guards" were / are not in place at either location.

    It is my understanding that Meteor is to get a Scheme expulsion warning.
    It is my understanding that this is the last step before actual expulsion [or at least temporary suspension]. Honestly, I really don't believe it will get that far. But words, at least, must be had. And explanations and re-assurances must be given.


    Still no word from the Fraud Squad, although I am aware that this may take some time [days / weeks].


  • #69
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    Received a call at about 11:30am. IPSO will be calling Meteor and BOI to a meeting to discuss how this has happened and why "safe guards" were / are not in place at either location.

    It is my understanding that Meteor is to get a Scheme expulsion warning.
    It is my understanding that this is the last step before actual expulsion [or at least temporary suspension]. Honestly, I really don't believe it will get that far. But words, at least, must be had. And explanations and re-assurances must be given.


    Still no word from the Fraud Squad, although I am aware that this may take some time [days / weeks].

    I am delighted to hear that you got a response but forgive me for being cynical. There is not the slightest chance of anything being done to either Bank of Ireland or Meteor.

    IPSO are only too well aware that there are no procedures in place in any bank in respect of a happening such as this. I raised the issue of cancelled dd's being presented with them ages ago in writing and they told me they were aware of this. Who will give this scheme expulsion warning? I pointed out above the procedure for just such a warning

    Any Bank shall be entitled to refer an alleged instance of non-compliance by a Member to the Direct Debit Committee of IRECC which Committee shall, as soon as practicable, investigate the matter.

    If the said Committee determines that such non-compliance is established and is of a material nature, the Committee shall be empowered to direct the Member concerned to remedy the matter forthwith.

    In the event that the Member fails to do so, the Committee shall be entitled to recommend to the Board of IRECC the imposition of appropriate sanctions (such as suspension or expulsion from membership of the Scheme) either to compel compliance with the Rules of the Scheme and/or to penalise such non-compliance.

    The reported Member would be excluded from voting at Committee or Board level on the recommendations or sanctions.
    In arriving at its decisions, the Committee or the Board would take into account any plan which might be presented by the reported Member which would remedy such non-compliance at a future date.
    - can we really believe that all this procedure has taken place in such a short time?

    How can you be told that Meteor will be given an expulsion warning over the the telephone without them being afforded an opportunity to remedy the situation forthwith as per their own procedures?

    In respect of BOI in particular given that once a mandate is signed an account is wide open what safe guards do IPSO expect to be put in place?

    Will minutes be kept of this meeting? will you be given a full explanation as to how this happened? In fact why cant you attend this meeting?:)

    Will Meteor/BOI be required to compensate you for your time and cost so far?

    This sudden urgency smacks to me of cynicism to put it kindly. It would be interesting to know what action IPSO took in respect of Eircom when the recent data loss was announced. Was there any such meeting held then? Surely any such loss on such a scale automatically warranted them and their subsidiaries being at least suspended from the dd scheme?

    It was reported on Boards some months ago that the ESB took a considerable amount of money from an excustomer via dd as far as I am aware IPSO did nothing about that?

    Around the same time 3 apparently reinstated a dd that was four years old - what did IPSO do about that.

    And in case anyone is in any doubt whatsoever about the mess that is the dd system have a look at the thread below and wonder if IPSo did anything about the appalling way this person was treated?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75436115#post75436115


  • #70
    nlgbbbblth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,668 ✭✭✭nlgbbbblth


    If a company insists on direct debits as a method of payment then I will not do business with them. The only exception I'd make is for life cover.

    Mobile - Vodafone
    Landline - Eircom
    Broadband - Eircom
    Electricity - ESB
    Gas - Bord Gais

    all paid by internet banking when I want to. Therefore I have control.


  • #71
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    I have just been stung for the second time by FloGas who have failed to give adequate notice of the debits on my account for the last two payments. my bill is dated 05 Apr 12 but I did not recieve it in the post until last monday so they have given me less than a weeks notice, The previous bill was similar but on that occasion they gave me 8 days notice from the time I got the bill to the date of the Debit.

    I got onto Ulster Bank Carlow who couldn't have been more helpful, the woman I spoke with suggested I cancel Direct Debits with them and pay in future by debit card or through the post office if FloGas were unable to comply with the Direct Debit rules. She also offered to refund the returned debit charge of €12.70 as a goodwill gesture because she was unable to return the debit as an unauthorised debit because it had already been rejected because of insuffient funds.

    The mandate I filled out and signed and posted off to FloGas guaranteed me 14 days notice of debits on my account, I am prepared to give 2-3 days grace for posting out the bill to me but posting a bill from Dundalk should not take over a week! obviously FloGas have issues with their proceedures or with the postal service!

    Just another example of a company ignoring the rules of the Direct Debit scheme and doing their own thing!


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    I have just been stung for the second time by FloGas who have failed to give adequate notice of the debits on my account for the last two payments. my bill is dated 05 Apr 12 but I did not recieve it in the post until last monday so they have given me less than a weeks notice, The previous bill was similar but on that occasion they gave me 8 days notice from the time I got the bill to the date of the Debit.

    I got onto Ulster Bank Carlow who couldn't have been more helpful, the woman I spoke with suggested I cancel Direct Debits with them and pay in future by debit card or through the post office if FloGas were unable to comply with the Direct Debit rules. She also offered to refund the returned debit charge of €12.70 as a goodwill gesture because she was unable to return the debit as an unauthorised debit because it had already been rejected because of insuffient funds.

    The mandate I filled out and signed and posted off to FloGas guaranteed me 14 days notice of debits on my account, I am prepared to give 2-3 days grace for posting out the bill to me but posting a bill from Dundalk should not take over a week! obviously FloGas have issues with their proceedures or with the postal service!

    Just another example of a company ignoring the rules of the Direct Debit scheme and doing their own thing!

    The notice period is not taken seriously either by the Companies or IPSO or the banks in spite of the fact that it is the first paragraph of the downright misleading so called Direct Debit Guarantee.

    The direct debit guarantee states:
    A Direct Debit Guarantee is provided by your bank in the following form:

    * If you authorise payment by direct debit, then
    o Your direct debit originator will notify you in advance of the amounts to be debited to your account

    So you are "guaranteed" advance notice - (note that it doesn’t say the correct notice or specify the 14 days default notice). But how can that guarantee be effected? How can anyone's bank either at branch level or at corporate level guarantee advance notice? It is a joke and a lie plain and simple.

    So your local bank guarantees that flo gas will give you the correct notice????? ( I wonder how the Central Bank or Financial Regulator can stand by and allow this blatant lie to be told to people over such a long period?)

    I have complained several times to IPSO in cases where I did not get any notice and they do nothing.

    As regards the dating of the bill - it is common practise to date a bill 14 days from the due payment date. But the date is irrelevant as a bill can be printed at any stage - and with business letters no longer being postmarked it is impossible (conveniently) to tell when the bill is actually posted.

    It is all too convenient then to blame An Post.

    ( Some time ago the CEO of the NCA admitted in public that she was shocked to discover the companies would behave like this!)

    In reality Companies do not want to give any notice they want to be able to debit an account as they wish. Typical of the fact that the notice period is not taken seriously by IPSO is the infamous dd+ scheme. The default notice period for this farcical scheme is 7 days. No organisation which had any concerns for the bill payer could ever have agreed to this.

    At first the 7 days may seem ok. Remember the purpose of the notice period is to allow the bill payer time to ensure that the money is in the account but also to examine the bill and to contact the company concerned to have it amended if necessary.

    The dd scheme rules specifically state that disputed amounts should not be debited.

    Now back to the 7 days - however these are not working days and so 2 days in any 7 will be lost for a weekend and the dd details are sent to the banks at least three days in advance of the debit date so that leaves virtually no time for a bill payer to dispute a bill and have it changed

    (Even the standard 14 days is not as generous as it first appears as 7 days are lost due to two weekends in any 14 day period and again 3 days for the transmission of the debit information)

    How could anyone with a modicum of intelligence ever have agreed to such a debacle? What is worse is that more and more companies now seem to be defaulting bill payers onto this dd+ scheme without their agreement.

    Given that the default notice period is 14 days unless agreed otherwise:
    Originators must give advance notice of the date and the amount of each direct debit. The advance notice period is generally fourteen days, or in some cases seven days or less if agreed by all parties, before the direct debit is applied

    There is no provision in the dd scheme for people to be defaulted onto the dd+ scheme without their agreement. And having a 7 day notice period imposed on a customer in the absence of being clearly informed of their right to an alternative period is not obtaining their agreement.

    It is refreshing that you met someone in your bank that was knowledgeable and helpful. But again there is no process in place for FloGas to be reported to anyone for their failure to comply with the scheme rules. So they (and who knows how many others?) will go merrily on behaving as they wish!

    Meantime the only one who is ever sanctioned under the scheme is the bill payer with bank fees, companies using the opportunity to lob administration fees on etc etc.

    The dd scheme is run for the benefit of business by the banks and overseen by an organisation owned by the banks.

    The interests of the bill payer are nowhere assertively represented in the facade. (The dire lack of training of bank staff in relation to dd scheme rules again shows no interest in giving proper service or support as supposedly required under dd scheme rules)

    Meanwhile as we know from this thread Meteor can remove 800 euros from an ex-customer’s account and it won’t cost them a cent!


  • #73
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Just received a call from BOI Naas as my follow up call in relation to process bank of reporting fraud to the Guards. She said that all of these issues are passed onto the BOI internal fraud department, who then take ownership of the issue.

    I asked her what the status of that was within internal fraud. She didn't know as Naas are now out of the loop as far as information flow is concerned. Fair enough, to an extent. I would still like to know. She is going to find out and get back to me.

    I took the opportunity to ask her a few question.

    "Is it true, that is I cancel a direct debit with bank and originator, if that originator presents a payment request after day 60, it will be honoured."

    She replied "Yes. With Originator+"

    I spent a long time on the phone with her, detailing everything that happened, everything that didn't happen, how the BOI formal complaints system has broken down. That anyone I spoke to in BOI had no idea how the Direct Debit Scheme operated, the rules, the guarantees etc. Fair play to her, she took it all in.

    Her underlying comment was that She knows it's wide open to abuse [my words]. I asked if the higher up powers are aware, IPSO, DPC, Financial Regulator, BOI Board etc. She said, considering all financial institutions handle Originator+ the same way, she would imaging so.

    One of my final words to her was.


    "Outrageous. The bank is falling down around the seams. If I ran my company the same way BOI ran theirs, I'd be out of business in no time. There would be no taxpayers to bail me out."

    A low shot, I fully admit, but entirely true.


  • #74
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    Just received a call from BOI Naas as my follow up call in relation to process bank of reporting fraud to the Guards. She said that all of these issues are passed onto the BOI internal fraud department, who then take ownership of the issue.

    I asked her what the status of that was within internal fraud. She didn't know as Naas are now out of the loop as far as information flow is concerned. Fair enough, to an extent. I would still like to know. She is going to find out and get back to me.

    I took the opportunity to ask her a few question.

    "Is it true, that is I cancel a direct debit with bank and originator, if that originator presents a payment request after day 60, it will be honoured."

    She replied "Yes. With Originator+"

    I spent a long time on the phone with her, detailing everything that happened, everything that didn't happen, how the BOI formal complaints system has broken down. That anyone I spoke to in BOI had no idea how the Direct Debit Scheme operated, the rules, the guarantees etc. Fair play to her, she took it all in.

    Her underlying comment was that She knows it's wide open to abuse [my words]. I asked if the higher up powers are aware, IPSO, DPC, Financial Regulator, BOI Board etc. She said, considering all financial institutions handle Originator+ the same way, she would imaging so.

    One of my final words to her was.


    "Outrageous. The bank is falling down around the seams. If I ran my company the same way BOI ran theirs, I'd be out of business in no time. There would be no taxpayers to bail me out."

    A low shot, I fully admit, but entirely true.

    It is not just with dd+ - a cancelled dd apparently cannot be detected.

    The dd+ may cause extra problems because the banks hold no records in relation to it.

    There is nothing in your post that is not well known to the banks and IPSO and yet they do nothing whatsoever about it - it is amazing that none of the financial or consumer journalists have ever picked up on it.

    It also amazes me that apparently the banks internal audit people (or whoever the appropriate people are in the respect) can stand over the banks continued sponsorship (as it is the banks who own the scheme) and participation in such a blatantly unsatisfactroy system.

    As we know the only thing that changes anything in Ireland is public embarassment and until that happens nothing will change.


  • #75
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Here is the Email I just sent to Flogas Customer care and also to their financial controller and managing director,
    "FORMAL COMPLAINT"

    Account number, ******

    Bill numbers, ******, ******

    I received my latest bill from FloGas on Monday 16th April but the date for the direct debit printed on the bill was only a few days later on 19th April. I did not notice this until this morning when i checked my account online and saw the Direct Debit had been returned unpaid to FloGas. The date of issue of this bill is 5th April!

    This Debit was presented to my bank on 20th April and because I was not given adequate notice of the debit(14 days) there were insufficient funds and the debit was rejected/returned unpaid. Because FloGas are not following the rules of the Direct Debit Scheme I am going to be out of pocket by at least €25. €12.70 bank charges levied by Ulster Bank and a further €12.30 charge levied by the incompetent people within FloGas who caused this to happen!

    When I joined FloGas I signed up for Direct Debit payments by filling out a paper mandate and sending it in to FloGas as part of the great offer which meant FloGas were the cheapest in Ireland for Gas but the reality is that the issuing and mailing of bills and notification of Direct Debits is a disgrace and goes against the rules of the Direct Debit Scheme!

    Under the Direct Debit scheme I am Guaranteed 14 days notice of debits to my bank account but FloGas are so far failing to provide even 7-10 days notice! It is up to FloGas to provide adequate notice to me before trying to take money from my bank account! You can try to blame An Post if you want but that only brings the issue back to FloGas as I do not have any contract with An Post for receiving my post, FloGas contract An Post to deliver their bills and if they are not doing that in a timely manner it is up to FloGas to sort it out not their customers!!

    The latest bill I received on the 16th of April had a date of issue 5th April! The previous bill was also delivered to me without the required 14days notice and also resulted in me being penalised to the tune of €25 for FloGas's failure to notify me properly.

    I now want this problem of bills arriving late investigated and sorted out by FloGas and I also want to receive a written undertaking that FloGas will in future operate within the guidelines and rules set out and laid down for using the Direct Debit scheme.

    Here is a link to the obligations of a Direct Debit Originator

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

    “ Ensure that direct debits are collected in line with the customer instruction and the Direct Debit Scheme Rules

    Ensure that a Direct Debit Instruction form that complies with the Direct Debit Scheme Rules is used

    Provide advance notification to customers in accordance with the Direct Debit Scheme Rules

    Process instructions from customers to amend or cancel DDIs and promptly act on such instructions

    Ensure direct debit indemnity claims are processed in a timely fashion

    Ensure unpaid direct debits are re-presented in accordance with the Direct Debit Scheme Rules"

    The Scheme as the customer views it

    "Originators must give advance notice of the date and the amount of each direct debit. The advance notice period is generally fourteen days, or in some cases seven days or less if agreed by all parties, before the direct debit is applied

    Once advance notice is received the originator will collect the funds directly from your bank account on the due date"

    I have never agreed to any reduction of the 14 day notice period except for what is a reasonable 2-3 days to allow for posting out bills, even if done on a Friday they should arrive on Tuesday at the latest!

    I am also seeking to be reimbursed for the monies I have been charged as a direct result of FloGas failing to notify me in good time of Debits to my bank account!


    Kind Regards

    ****** ******



  • #76
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    When you signed for dd payment with flogas did they advise you a fee of 12.30 if you missed a dd?

    There is no provision in the dd scheme for companies to levy customers in the even of a dd not being met.

    As I have pointed out before companies through outrageous levies like that are using what should be a bill paying service as a handy revenue generator and in many cases not advising the customer upfront of the possibility of such charges.

    Again I have raised this matter with the DD manager and he disgracefully refused to comment.


  • #77
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Data Protection Commissioner [DPC] emailed me back today and requested more information, including proof that Meteor took money via direct debit [bank statement].

    Was busy in work today, so I'm emailing them the details now.


  • #78
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    dub45 wrote: »
    When you signed for dd payment with flogas did they advise you a fee of 12.30 if you missed a dd?

    There is no provision in the dd scheme for companies to levy customers in the even of a dd not being met.

    As I have pointed out before companies through outrageous levies like that are using what should be a bill paying service as a handy revenue generator and in many cases not advising the customer upfront of the possibility of such charges.

    Again I have raised this matter with the DD manager and he disgracefully refused to comment.

    They took €12.30 the last time and it seems odd that what they charge and what the bank charged me both added up to €25.

    They were the cheapest provider of gas in ireland until they start sending out late bills and taking DD without proper notification!


  • #79
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    ****************************************
    ****************************************

    While this is playing out, I intend documenting my two cases and as many other cases that I can find. I also intend to document every flaw that I can come up with in the Direct Debit Scheme.

    Once this document is complete, I intend to snail mail it to as many TD's as I can and email or snail mail it to as many journalists as I can about the failures, shortcomings and outright dangers of the Direct Debit Scheme.

    If anyone would like to assist, please PM me your gmail address and I'll give you author access to my DD Project folder so we can collaborate. Bare in mind, I have absolutely nothing there, just yet. It's all in my head and here, on Boards.

    Anyway, anyone interested, let me know.

    ****************************************
    ****************************************


  • #80
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    They took €12.30 the last time and it seems odd that what they charge and what the bank charged me both added up to €25.

    They were the cheapest provider of gas in ireland until they start sending out late bills and taking DD without proper notification!

    Did you ever agree to be "fined" €12.30 in the event of you missing a direct debit?

    The ESB charge €6 in the event of a dd being unpaid (without advising their customers when signing up for dd of such a specific amount). If the ESB can cover their administration costs with this amount then that would suggest that other companies such as Flo Gas and UPC charging considerably more are exploiting the dd system and using it as a revenue generator.

    From the dd scheme rules:
    Trust and the Direct Debit
    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    .

    Where is the trust and integrity in imposing fees on customers which they are not advised of when signing up for a dd and in using the dd scheme as a revenue generator?


  • #81
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    I sent full details, on Friday night, with copy of edited bank statement to DPC, showing the debit, the credit and the bank charges. Mentioned that the bank charges weren't under the remit of DPC but included them for completeness.

    Just received an acknowledgement from DPC stating that I should have reply within 15 working days. This reply will be either a full response or an update [if it's going to take longer than 15 working days]


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Just received a call from Meteor following up on a ComReg complaint. It was just an information call informing me that they are beginning an investigation and will report back to me soon. Within the week, probably much earlier.


  • #83
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Just received an SMS from ComReg [they asked permission first :)] that Meteor have claimed that they made contact with me and that if this is not the case, to contact them ASAP on 018049668 or 1890229668


  • #84
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    I am happy to say that FloGas have investigated and replied to my email and also credited my account with the amount of the charges, it seems they produced the bills which should have been posted on the same day but because of the Easter period and good Friday etc the bill was not posted until after the Easter break, I am happy with their response especially the speed and attention they appear to have given my issue, I will monitor things over the summer and hopefully this will prove to have been an isolated incident.


  • #85
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Update from IPSO. The person in Meteor that they need to speak to, is out of office until next week. Update to follow after that.


  • #86
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    BOI Naas just rang me. She said she was unable to obtain the Direct Debit Mandate from Meteor. I didn't ask if Meteor COULDN'T or WOULDN'T give it to her but the result is the same.

    Th only thing that Meteor confirmed was that it was initiated electronically. I'm taking from that, that it was an online order.


  • #87
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    BOI Naas just rang me. She said she was unable to obtain the Direct Debit Mandate from Meteor. I didn't ask if Meteor COULDN'T or WOULDN'T give it to her but the result is the same.

    Th only thing that Meteor confirmed was that it was initiated electronically. I'm taking from that, that it was an online order.

    Have Meteor made any contact with you at all? (apart from the acknowledgement of the Comreg complaint)


  • #88
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    dub45 wrote: »
    Have Meteor made any contact with you at all? (apart from the acknowledgement of the Comreg complaint)

    No


  • #89
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    No

    That seems quite extraordinary for a number of reasons.

    Firstly surely any reputable business. big or small, on discovering that a person's account had a considerable amount of money removed in that company's name would be only too anxious to apologise to that person, without prejudice to what might emerge later? (and if only for PR reasons even)

    Meteor have been a party to an appalling data loss which may or may not have played a part in this case - they are supposedly anxious to hear from people whio might be affected by this data loss -surely they should only be too anxious to contact any such person?

    The fact that this could have happened at all surely raises questions about Meteor's internal procedures yet again? And again as the key person in this incident surely they would need to talk to you if they were even bothering to investigate the matter?

    So using the dd system a company removes a considerable amount of money from a non customer's account (and we do not know how this happened obviously) and they make no effort to contact the affected person - quite extraordinary really.


  • #90
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    dub45 wrote: »
    That seems quite extraordinary for a number of reasons.

    Firstly surely any reputable business. big or small, on discovering that a person's account had a considerable amount of money removed in that company's name would be only too anxious to apologise to that person, without prejudice to what might emerge later? (and if only for PR reasons even)

    Meteor have been a party to an appalling data loss which may or may not have played a part in this case - they are supposedly anxious to hear from people whio might be affected by this data loss -surely they should only be too anxious to contact any such person?

    The fact that this could have happened at all surely raises questions about Meteor's internal procedures yet again? And again as the key person in this incident surely they would need to talk to you if they were even bothering to investigate the matter?

    So using the dd system a company removes a considerable amount of money from a non customer's account (and we do not know how this happened obviously) and they make no effort to contact the affected person - quite extraordinary really.

    I agree with you 100%. I'm not a happy bunny. However, from here on, I'm trying to remain un-emotional.

    Regardless of what companies or banks say, un-athorised Direct Debits are ALWAYS stressful. It ALWAYS takes too much time to clear up. The banks and companies take fook all responsibility over it. I reckon, BOI:Grahams response are testimony to that. "We'll refund any un-athorised Direct Debits". That's not good enough. It should NEVER happen.

    I understand, in any given system, there is room for error. However, there are no belts and braces checks done, AT ALL, on the Direct Debit System.
    • It's unfit for purpose.
    • It's a scam to bank customers.

    I fully intend to follow up on the Direct Debit Scheme with IPSO and the Financial Regulator [under the Supply of Goods and Supply of Services act in our legislation] to outline it's deficiencies and offer SIMPLE suggestions that will make this system SO much secure.

    Here's one : Have a Unique ID on ALL Direct Debit Mandates for all Originators? This could be handled by IPSO and assign a range to sponsoring banks, who could then sub-issue to their customers. There. That is a solution where when a mandate is cancelled, IT'S CANCELLED and shouldn't be allowed to re-activate. If a re-activation is needed, the originator must get their customer to sign a new mandate which will have a new Mandate ID.

    Originator Plus should be scrapped.

    Businesses have to do similar to this already, in relation to barcodes. EAN codes must be requested from EAN Ireland [Now GS1 Ireland]

    There will be a bit of a setup cost for banks and businesses but I don't see how this can fail if handled properly.


    Dammit. You roped me in and I got worked up. This was just going to be a one line reply :)


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    RangeR wrote: »
    dub45 wrote: »
    That seems quite extraordinary for a number of reasons.

    Firstly surely any reputable business. big or small, on discovering that a person's account had a considerable amount of money removed in that company's name would be only too anxious to apologise to that person, without prejudice to what might emerge later? (and if only for PR reasons even)

    Meteor have been a party to an appalling data loss which may or may not have played a part in this case - they are supposedly anxious to hear from people whio might be affected by this data loss -surely they should only be too anxious to contact any such person?

    The fact that this could have happened at all surely raises questions about Meteor's internal procedures yet again? And again as the key person in this incident surely they would need to talk to you if they were even bothering to investigate the matter?

    So using the dd system a company removes a considerable amount of money from a non customer's account (and we do not know how this happened obviously) and they make no effort to contact the affected person - quite extraordinary really.

    I agree with you 100%. I'm not a happy bunny. However, from here on, I'm trying to remain un-emotional.

    Regardless of what companies or banks say, un-athorised Direct Debits are ALWAYS stressful. It ALWAYS takes too much time to clear up. The banks and companies take fook all responsibility over it. I reckon, BOI:Grahams response are testimony to that. "We'll refund any un-athorised Direct Debits". That's not good enough. It should NEVER happen.

    I understand, in any given system, there is room for error. However, there are no belts and braces checks done, AT ALL, on the Direct Debit System.
    • It's unfit for purpose.
    • It's a scam to bank customers.

    I fully intend to follow up on the Direct Debit Scheme with IPSO and the Financial Regulator [under the Supply of Goods and Supply of Services act in our legislation] to outline it's deficiencies and offer SIMPLE suggestions that will make this system SO much secure.

    Here's one : Have a Unique ID on ALL Direct Debit Mandates for all Originators? This could be handled by IPSO and assign a range to sponsoring banks, who could then sub-issue to their customers. There. That is a solution where when a mandate is cancelled, IT'S CANCELLED and shouldn't be allowed to re-activate. If a re-activation is needed, the originator must get their customer to sign a new mandate which will have a new Mandate ID.

    Originator Plus should be scrapped.

    Businesses have to do similar to this already, in relation to barcodes. EAN codes must be requested from EAN Ireland [Now GS1 Ireland]

    There will be a bit of a setup cost for banks and businesses but I don't see how this can fail if handled properly.


    Dammit. You roped me in and I got worked up. This was just going to be a one line reply :)

    As I have pointed out even the very basis of the dd scheme - the dd guarantee- which the banks give is a lie. It is unworkable - so if a scheme allows for that deceit what does it say about it?

    Another short term remedy in respect of cancelled dd's is that the bank acct number should be immediately removed from a company's records. There is no reason to hold it whatsoever.


  • #92
    Legislator
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #93
    zynaps
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #94
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 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.


  • #95
    Legislator
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #96
    cookie1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #97
    dub45
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 12,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭dub45


    cookie1977 wrote: »
    The problem is that some companies charge extra for "not" paying by DD :(

    http://support.upc.ie/app/answers/detail/a_id/125/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xMzM1NDU0NDI0L3NpZC9xbDNUSENXaw%3D%3D

    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:)


  • #98
    cookie1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • #99
    Legislator
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #100
    cookie1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #101
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
Advertisement