Problems with Direct Debit

dub45

Congrats and well done for keepin' on keepin' on:)

zynaps

I did a double-take when I read that.... they're actually doing it? Thank jaysus something's starting to move!

RangeR

Second "Final Response" letter from BOI. This time for my business account. It's not worded as derisively as the first one but it's substantively the same. I'm sure that this is just a formality. I won't be responding to it. I'll be telling FSO that I reject that as a response. Not quite sure how I'll phrase it. Might wait a few days and compose myself. Ideas welcome.

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3

cookie1977

It's (sadly) funny how they trust the company making the unauthorised direct debit but they dont trust the customer (who might be a little forgetful!!! groan) who says it's an unauthorised one until they've undertaken a full investigation. Go figure.

Baked.noodle

RangeR,

Just want to say fair play to you. I will not use Direct Debit until this issue is addressed.

dub45

It really makes grim reading even for one as cynical as myself about the direct debit system.

Just some random musings:

From the IPSO website:

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

A high level of trust and confidence? Quite honestly in the light of the information outlined in this thread and many other postings here how could anyone even semi-sane have trust and confidence either in the scheme or anyone institution associated with it in any way? It really is hard not to find that paragraph offensive to bank customers and bill payers.

Was anything as ever so wrongly named as direct debit "plus"?

How can the auditors of the banks (or whoever the appropriate people are internally) allow them to run a system which allows money to be taken from customers accounts without the banks holding any authority from the customer for such deductions? (as we all know it can be difficult enough to get money from your own account yet others can do it with no problems)

How can the banks "delegate" checks which are undeniably their responsibility to business over which they have no control whatsoever? And it is perfect reasonable to assume that nobody checks to see if the businesses are carrying out any checks - who is there to do such checks?

One of the major banks describes the total lack of knowledge of the dd system (a system which which must impact on a huge percentage of their customers) as regrettable!!!

The very people who you would contact on finding your bank account emptied (imagine being on holiday and finding all your funds gone) the front line people have no authority to make a refund??????

The entire thrust of that letter is that it doesn't matter really what goes on as under the so called dd guarantee you will get your money back (eventually!)

So an account can be ravaged with no consequences for anyone except the owner of the account. Imagine being on holiday and finding 800 euros plus gone and maybe not being able to pay your way home or not having money for food. Or perhaps cheques you had issued bouncing. The onus is on the account holder to prove the account has been wrongly debited...

The banks seem to have lost all sense of their responsibilities to protect the integrity of customers' accounts.

Initially it seemed that the dd plus non system was a sort of subset of the main scheme but as far as I can see it has now become the default scheme for the companies - nobody as far as I am aware is told when they are signing up for the dd scheme that they are being put on the dd+ plus scheme.

Also the default notice under the dd scheme is 14 days and this cannot be varied without the consent of the bill payer. The default under the dd + scheme is 7 days which is a joke. How can this conflict be reconciled?

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

Also this is an excerpt from the dd scheme rules and does not appear to allow any deviation for dd+

Paying Banks:
o must adhere to the Rules of the Scheme
o must put in place processes which will ensure that unauthorised, refused and/or cancelled
Direct Debits are intercepted and returned immediately on presentation

Where are these processes? Who is supposed to make sure they are in place?

Here is another very interesting obligation on the originator:

Where no signed DDI is in place, then within 3 days of the
agreement at 3 above, the Originator issues a written Direct
Debit confirmation to the Payer.

How many originators comply with this important step?

wmpdd3

I have only just found this thread again after it was m moved from three.I an so impressed with the progress made.
anyone working in Billing or cc will they'll you the issues with dd can be unbelievable.

you'd think the central bank would be trying to reclaim their good name! But no they are once again proceed not fit for purpose.

RangeR

Ok, As I thought, the second Final Response letter was just a formality. I didn't even have to contact FSO to reject it. eMail from FSO today acknowledging [more or less] my refusal of the Final Response They've also split out my two complaints. The personal account complaint is the initial reference. The business complaint now has a new reference.

Dear Mr Burke

Please note that the above complaint reference number relates to conduct complained of relevant to the account of <REDACTED> only.

Conduct relevant to your personal account is to be examined under complaint reference number 12/69845.

I note that the complaint has not been resolved, even after the matter was referred to the internal complaints procedure of the Provider and the Provider issued its Final Response. Before it is decided to investigate the complaint in detail I now wish to invite you to consider mediation of this dispute.

Mediation is an informal process, whereby a mediator in this office would be assigned to engage with the parties to try to facilitate an agreed settlement of the complaint. Mediation is independent of the adjudication process, confidential and without prejudice. The Mediator is provided by this office, free of any charge to the parties and nothing is binding unless both parties agree to the outcome (Mediation Guidelines are attached for your information).

Participation in the mediation by the parties to a complaint is entirely voluntary and to enable mediation to proceed, both parties must be willing to engage in the process. I should state that any costs for travel, professional fees, etc incurred by you in the mediation process cannot be borne by this office.

I would therefore be grateful if you would reply in writing or by email within ten days indicating whether or not you wish to participate in such mediation. If I do not hear from you by that time, then the matter will be referred to investigation. At this stage, I would be obliged if you would also submit all relevant documentation not previously submitted in support of your complaint.

Emphasis theirs.

Mediation Guidelines wrote:

Financial Services Ombudsman’s Bureau Mediation Guidelines

1. Where appropriate, Mediation is an alternative method of trying to resolve complaints.

2. It is a process where the parties to the complaint try to reach a solution through agreement with the assistance and support of a mediator rather than through an immediate investigation of the complaint and a decision from this Office on the complaint.

3. If a mediation is to take place, BOTH parties to the complaint must be willing and elect to participate in mediation. If one party wants to mediate the complaint and the other party does not, then no mediation will take place and the matter will proceed to investigation and adjudication.

4. Mediation is an option that is available to both parties. It is a voluntary stage in the handling of a complaint by this Office. Parties to a complaint are not obliged to partake in mediation if they do not wish to.

5. If BOTH parties decide to attempt mediation, the complaint will be assigned to a mediation officer (the “Mediator”) whose participation is free of any charge.

6. The Mediator will then contact both parties to schedule the mediation.

7. Generally speaking, mediation typically involves meeting(s) between the Mediator and both parties. The venue for any mediation meeting will be decided by the Mediator and the date and time of any meetings will be decided by the Mediator, having consulted with both parties.

8. Mediation is an informal process. It is also confidential and is conducted in private.

9. The Mediator’s role is to try to facilitate an agreed resolution of the complaint between the parties. The Mediator is not a decision-maker (unlike a Judge).

10. The Mediator is independent. He/she does not act for (or side with) either party to the dispute. His/her role is to independently assist both parties in reaching an agreed resolution of their differences.

11. Participation in a mediation by the parties to a complaint is voluntary and a party may withdraw from the mediation at any time.

12. If either party chooses not to engage in mediation, then the complaint will be dealt with by the Office by way of investigation and adjudication.

13. If both parties agree to mediation, but during the course of a mediation, either or both of the parties withdraw from a mediation or if the Mediator forms the view that the attempt is not likely to succeed or if the attempt to resolve the complaint by mediation is unsuccessful, then the mediation will come to an end. Both parties will be informed by the Mediator that the mediation is at an end and the complaint will then be subject to investigation and adjudication by this Office.

14. If, during the course of a mediation, the parties reach an agreement to resolve the complaint and both parties agree the resolution/outcome, then that agreement will be recorded in writing, signed by both parties and will become legally binding on the parties. The complaint will be at an end and so it will not be referred to investigation and adjudication (final decision) by this Office.

15. It should be remembered that in a mediation, a party cannot be forced to accept a settlement/outcome. The Mediator will not impose a decision on the parties. Both parties must voluntarily agree the outcome.

16. The Mediator has no authority to settle the dispute himself/herself or to act on either party’s behalf.

17. Evidence of anything said or admitted during a mediation (or an attempted mediation) and any document prepared for the purposes of the mediation, are not admissible in any subsequent investigation of the complaint or in any proceedings before a Court. If however during the mediation an agreement is reached between the parties, that agreement will be recorded in writing, signed by both parties and will then be legally binding.

18. It is not possible to advise how long a mediation might last. It will depend on a number of factors, including the attitude of the parties involved in the mediation and the progress (if any) being made at a mediation.

19. Any costs or expenses incurred by either party to a complaint by participating in the mediation process will not be paid for by the Mediator or this Office. Any such costs/expenses are a matter for the party who incurs the costs/expenses to bear himself/herself.

RangeR

And seconds later, an eMail requesting Mediation on my personal account. Not going to post it here as it's substantially the same.

I replied to both emails separately

Thank you for your email. I am willing to enter into the Mediation process relating to the complain on my <insert bank type here> bank account

eMail was acknowledged to say they would be in touch in due course.

cookie1977

Good luck. Will be interesting to hear how it goes.

RangeR

cookie1977 wrote: »

Good luck. Will be interesting to hear how it goes.

Yeah, me too. Bit nervous now, actually:)

When [IF] mediation comes around, IF BOI have more than one person at the table, I'm going to ask for a "Phone a friend" or can I bring someone too. Who wants to come?

cookie1977

Count me in if you like. To be honest the balls in their court to explain things.

dub45

Happy to go along too:)

cookie1977

Any updates?

RangeR

None at all. As per last update, Mediation process has started. I don't know if the Bank agreed to this process or not.

RangeR

Two Snail Mail letters from FSO yesterday. Both identical except one was for personal account adn the other for business account.

BOI poo poo'd mediation. This was expected but upsetting. They were never going to facilitate publicising the huge gaping holes in Direct Debit Scheme.

RangeR

Apologies. Messed up the sharing option again. Should be viewable now.

cookie1977

Working now. At least it's not a total dead end. They'll investigate and report back soon enough. Will be interesting to see the results.

Maximus Alexander

Great thread, and fair play to you for pursuing this. I expect I would have let it go as soon as they refunded the money. I'm interested to see where this goes.

cookie1977

Financial services ombudsman says banks are not doing enough when complaints are made to them. Most complaints now about MARP and Direct Debits. He was speaking on Morning Ireland today and said that they were too slow to act on complaints and they appear completely undermanned in their complaints department.

Mr Prasifka said there was a need for banks, in particular, to resolve more cases before ending up with his office. There has been a massive increase in complaints about bank accounts, involving direct debits not being paid or money going to the wrong accounts.

New powers are due to be granted to the ombudsman from September that will allow him to name and shame the worst banks and insurance companies when it comes to dealing with complaints. A league table listing the worst offenders is likely to be issued by next February, Mr Prasifka said.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/banks-not-listening-to-customers-ombudsman-29515189.html

RangeR

cookie1977 wrote: »

A league table listing the worst offenders is likely to be issued by next February, Mr Prasifka said.

A league table? How many financial institutions do we have?

wmpdd3

When you include the insurance providers, quite a few.

My refuse collection uses direct debit plus and when I refused to sing up to it the company admitted that more and more people refuse to and the lady had to provide sort code and account so the customer can set up a standing order.

RangeR

wmpdd3 wrote: »

My refuse collection uses direct debit plus and when I refused to sing up to it the company admitted that more and more people refuse to and the lady had to provide sort code and account so the customer can set up a standing order.

If you refuse DD+, would they not then offer standard vanilla DD?

RangeR

RangeR wrote: »

If you refuse DD+, would they not then offer standard vanilla DD?

I totally take that back and can't believe I even suggested it. I'll take the slaps like a man. And cry like a woman.

wmpdd3

I also refused that then I said I'd move providers.

This company raised prices by 25 percent Christmas week last year and did not in any way tell any one.

When I called to complain they offered to return to the old price for 6 months, but for any one who didn't notice, they got nothing.

RangeR

And now it's official

Finance Minister Michael Noonan has given the Financial Services Ombudsman the power to ''name and shame'' financial service providers who have at least three complaints against them substantiated.

The Minister said he had today signed a Statutory Instrument commencing section 72 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013.
Mr Noonan said that this additional provision will mean that financial service providers who are failing their customers will be publicly identified and incentivised to make real improvements.

The section will come into effect on September 1.

The Financial Services Ombudsman, Bill Prasifka, has made repeated calls for the power to name and shame financial service providers.
In the past he had said that naming banks that are the subject of complaints to his office would create a "virtuous competition" in the institutions' behaviour towards customers.

He said making the complaints record of individual banks public would influence how they behave.

Mr Prasifka said the measure would be in the public interest, could be done at no cost to the exchequer, and should have been introduced a long time ago.

In a statement today, Mr Noonan said he understands that the Ombudsman intends to publish his first report with the names of those offending financial services providers early next year.

wmpdd3

Will there be any institution, without a complaint against it lodged to the ombudsman?

Pablo Sanchez

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Will there be any institution, without a complaint against it lodged to the ombudsman?

I think they can only name institutions who have had at least 3 complaints upheld against them. That said, in their recent report, the Ombudsman's office confirmed that they only fully uphold 8% of complaints made against the institutions they oversee.

RangeR

Snail Mail in

Page 1 Redacted
Page 2
Page 3 Redacted

In short, FSO have advised that formally initiated the complaint to BOI. BOI have 20 business days to reply. I will then have right to reply to their reply.......

cookie1977

Looks great! As always, fair play for sticking with this.