lol Sad yes
Update email from DPC. It looks like a stock update, so I'll post the bones of it here
Is a retailer entitled to charge more for paying by cash? Because in effect that's what UPC are doing.
I am merely pointing out how they exploit the dd system to generate huge amounts of money for themselves in addition to the considerable benefits which the system already gives them as per the article I linked to above.
I believe there is a serious issue of integrity around significant unspecified (in advance) charges being levied on customers who miss a dd. Many companies have hopped on this bandwagon.
Contrast this instant punishment with the lack of action against businesses who can do as they wish. It would be fascinating to know how much banks and companies have made from dd related "fines" since the inception of the scheme.
It is incredible even by dd scheme standards that up to three weeks will have passed after Ranger's account was raided before IPSO will get to talk to the person they want to in Meteor.
Surely even for the optics someone from meteor should have been in the ipso offices the next day being threatened with fire brimstone etc etc.
The simple fact is that it will cost a bank customer missing a single dd even by one day (even without a company fine) more than it will cost Meteor for raiding an account of €850.
What a system.
How about if we were able to fine companies who breach their obligations under the DD scheme? It seems only fair, since they can fine us for their own arbitrary reasons, for arbitrary amounts.
Update : Meteor just rang with an update. They have confirmed that this is a case of identity theft and that I should contact the guards [which I have already done].
For the time being I don't think I'll be commenting on this issue, except for factual updates from other bodies that I have contacted, until this has run it's course.
I do not want to prejudice any case taken against any other involved body.
Update : ComReg sent me a text confirming that Meteor contacted me, confirming Identify Theft. The case is now closed with ComReg as the Gardaí will be taking over.
Update : BOI snail mail reply to formal complaint.
Summary [as I have not personally read it] : BOI can't give me the mandate as Meteor have it.
Full update tonight.
Update : Call from IPSO asking if my phone number can be given to Meteor Fraud department. I agreed.
Other than this phone call have you had any other communication from IPSO?
Is the only person in Meteor who could possibly talk to IPSO actually back?
Why did the fraud dept need to contact IPSO if Meteor have already contacted you to tell you it was a case of identity theft?
Or are IPSO completely out of the loop and not aware that Meteor have already contacted you and going their own sweet way?
It would seem that the contact from Comreg inspired action on Meteor's part rather than anything IPSO might have done?
Meteor's apparent inertia seems quite extraordinary given as I have pointed out before that they suffered a major data loss earlier in the year plus their lack of consideration towards a person who suffered loss and inconvenience as result of their systems' failure is quite shocking.
OK, I've just seen the letter. It wasn't a response to my formal complaint. This was a letter from BOI Naas, informing me that they completed their investigation.
As of yet, I have no response from my three formal complaints to BOI Group.
This is the letter I received.
Some facts gathered from IPSO website today. This is an incomplete list. I'm still looking. Everything below is freely and publicly available on the IPSO website.
Everything blow is in the Direct Debit Rulebook November 2011
- must put in place processes which will ensure that unauthorised, refused and/or cancelled Direct Debits are intercepted and returned immediately on presentation must assist its customer, to the extent practicable, in the resolution of disputes arising under or pursuant to the Scheme
One of the key points to note from the above is the following:
Note that this requirement refers to "intercepted" and 'on presentation' (not pick up the pieces afterwards). This means that such dds should never hit the customers' account at all.
These processes are not in place. This means that no bank is compliant with the rules of the scheme. IPSO are well aware of these processes not being in place and as Central Bank representatives sit at boards meetings of IPSO they too are presumably aware of this deception of the general public.
The absence of such processes means that there is no upfront protection for the bill payer. The bill payer is deceived into thinking such processes are in place by the very rules of the scheme.
Somebody somewhere must have made a decision at some stage in the past to run with the scheme in the absence of such processes.
It is long past time that this deception of the general public by the banking industry was exposed.
Furthermore the so called direct guarantee is also a lie.
The guarantee in respect of advance notice is simply fantasy and a dd cannot be cancelled with any assurance of finality.
No updates. No word back from anyone, not even Meteor Fraud.
I might have another case of non complience. My partner just signed up for a contract, online, DD+. No proof of owning bank account details but service has still been given.
Will give it a week or two before taking that further.
Update : Naas Gardaí just rang. They will be contacting Meteor and then progressing.