Jeremy Clarkson- Woops

Sizzler

Slightly off-topic but since its Jeremy I thought the punters on here might appreciate it more so than after hours

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91248-1299551,00.html

rebel.ranter

Mitch Connor

He is not wrong though, or at least this incident can't be used to categorically prove that he is.

The DD should not have been set up without his signature. Even with online bacnking, he should have received paperwork to confirm the DD was being set up legitimately - the bank has to take all reasonable measures to ensure any money being taken out of your account is being done so with your consent. His bank obvioulsy did not do this - so they are at fault.

babel

Tauren wrote: »

He is not wrong though, or at least this incident can't be used to categorically prove that he is.

The DD should not have been set up without his signature. Even with online bacnking, he should have received paperwork to confirm the DD was being set up legitimately - the bank has to take all reasonable measures to ensure any money being taken out of your account is being done so with your consent. His bank obvioulsy did not do this - so they are at fault.

This is not correct. In Ireland anyway, companies can be setup as a "non mandated direct debiter". These companies can setup DDs with the customers signature.

Mitch Connor

In England though.....

I am basing my comments on people I have spoken to in England. As I am in Ireland myself, I could be wrong.

cantdecide

Tauren wrote: »

He is not wrong though, or at least this incident can't be used to categorically prove that he is.

The DD should not have been set up without his signature. Even with online bacnking, he should have received paperwork to confirm the DD was being set up legitimately - the bank has to take all reasonable measures to ensure any money being taken out of your account is being done so with your consent. His bank obvioulsy did not do this - so they are at fault.

That sounds plausible- I'll go with that...

Sizzler

Tauren wrote: »

In England though.....

I am basing my comments on people I have spoken to in England. As I am in Ireland myself, I could be wrong.

Sorry horse, you are wrong again, its the same craic in England. Paperless mandates, its called the DD plus scheme.

What it didnt say in the article though was Clarkson could instigate an indemnity claim as he did not authorise the DD, this is part of the rules of the scheme so he will get his money back, but given it was for a charity Im guessing he wont

Mitch Connor

So what he has proven is that even by giving his banking details out, no one would be actually able to get money out of him (as he can get the money back). So he isn't wrong.

And how do you know how i am hung?

Henry Ford III

Karma is a word that springs to mind.

Gregor Samsa

Tauren wrote: »

So what he has proven is that even by giving his banking details out, no one would be actually able to get money out of him (as he can get the money back). So he isn't wrong.

Well, he himself said "I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake", so maybe he's a better judge of the situation than you.

Just because he could get his money back, doesn't mean identity fraud isn't a serious issue (the notion he was trying to discredit) that costs us all a lot of money in many different ways.

My GF's credit card number was recently fraudulently used to pay for hotel bills in the UK. She'll be covered, but someone has to absorb the cost of the stay and the meals - and that cost gets passed on to the consumer.

bazz26

Clarkson suffers from a serious case of "Foot in Mouth" disease.