Problems with Direct Debit

dub45

lil5 wrote: »

As RangeR suggested earlier it might be more suited to the Banking forum (or maybe Consumer Issues?) as it's not a Three issue anymore.

But it's certainly an enlightening tale and I wonder if it is coincidence that the DD's were caused by mobile providers.

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.

RangeR

Oceans12 wrote: »

just queried the above with the bank and apparently even if bank account is closed bank will pay out on a DD!

and chase customer for the money!

That is absolutely shocking. PLEASE take this up with IPSO. I'm currently discussing my DD issues with them.

I'm not saying it's going to help but if people don't complain, nothing will change.

dub45

I wonder if by any chance this is as a result of the Eircom data loss? Some data belonging to ex customers was involved in that shambles. Did you receive any correspondence from Eircom/Meteor about it by any chance?

RangeR

I know this is going to sound strange but...

Third formal complaint sent, to careline@boimail.com. This is in relation the the Bank of Ireland Group Complaints Department not following up on a formal complaint lodged in Week 1 February 2012.

Tonight, I'm will print these three formal complaints and register post them tomorrow to :

*Name withheld as per charter*
Customer Care Unit
Group Customer Complaints
Bank of Ireland
4th Floor
New Century House
Mayor Street
IFSC
Dublin 1

RangeR

dub45 wrote: »

I wonder if by any chance this is as a result of the Eircom data loss? Some data belonging to ex customers was involved in that shambles. Did you receive any correspondence from Eircom/Meteor about it by any chance?

I heard about it through the media but don't recollect hearing it direct from them. However, the bank shouldn't have honoured the mandate. The bank have a name on file, taken from the mandate. That name has nothing to do with my account, in any way. This was, apparently, an absolutely fraudulent payment.

Within the past couple of hours, I have changed my position and am chasing the bank more than Meteor. There are some serious legal questions to be answered.

I'll let you know what the Gardaí say tonight. I'm not willing to make public the formal complaints at this time, but I'm not ruling it out.

dub45

RangeR wrote: »

That is absolutely shocking. PLEASE take this up with IPSO. I'm currently discussing my DD issues with them.

I'm not saying it's going to help but if people don't complain, nothing will change.

Irrespective of how much you "discuss" anything no matter how bad in relation to the dd scheme with IPSO you will get the same basic answer. "Shouldn't have happened will take it up with bank/company/joebloggs" severe warning issued etc.

They will rehash excuses that would shame a 10 year old schoolboy that has not done his homework. Nothing will ever be done to any company irrespective of what they do to a customer.


The companies/banks dont give a hoot they know nothing will happen. IPSO are an industry body the bill payer comes a very poor third in their eyes. Their actions/inactions over the years are a testimony to that fact. IPSO are the equivalent of being savaged by a dead sheep in the old political phrase.

dub45

RangeR wrote: »

I heard about it through the media but don't recollect hearing it direct from them. However, the bank shouldn't have honoured the mandate. The bank have a name on file, taken from the mandate. That name has nothing to do with my account, in any way. This was, apparently, an absolutely fraudulent payment.

Within the past couple of hours, I have changed my position and am chasing the bank more than Meteor. There are some serious legal questions to be answered.

I'll let you know what the Gardaí say tonight. I'm not willing to make public the formal complaints at this time, but I'm not ruling it out.

This could go back to one of my favourite hobby horses the so called direct debit plus (almost offensive in its title)

Where a dd+ is set up (usally over the phone or on line) the company holds the mandate. The bank are apparently not even aware of any of the details. So money can be taken from an account without the bank holding any physical authority from the customer - I really don't know how any auditor can stand over such a system.

It has been well documented on here over a period how the dd+ causes lots of confusion for bank staff in the absence of a physical mandate.

As regards the wrong name I presume this is down to the way payment is made. The dd is debited electronically so the name is not an issue all thats needed is the sort code and account number. In reality the banks havent caught up at all with protecting customers' accounts in the electronic age. You have only to talk to bank staff to realise that they have no concept (for the majority at least) of the duty to protect the integrity of the customers' accounts.

Imagine if you were on holidays and dependent on this amount to actually live on?

There is no mechanism in place to ensure that your problem is dealt with, with any sense of urgency and you have to fight the bureaucracy at every step of the way. What a system!!!!
So much for a so called direct debit guarantee.

The easiest way to solve the cancellation problem is that every time a dd is cancelled the account number should be removed from the company's system immediately and the customer should receive a signed written assurance of this having been done. There is no reason whatsoever to hold the account number once a dd has been cancelled.

RangeR

dub45 wrote: »

This could go back to one of my favourite hobby horses the so called direct debit plus (almost offensive in its title)

Where a dd+ is set up the company holds the mandate. The bank are not even aware of any of the details. So money can be taken from an account without the bank holding any authority from the customer - i really don't know how any auditor can stand over such a system.

On the nose. Although, today, the bank called it Originator+.

RangeR

Just got back from talking to the local Gardai. There were very interested in talking about the issue. I gave them a copy of my earlier second formal complaint [re Meteor]. They are going to forward that onto the Fraud Squad in Dublin and take it from there.

dub45

RangeR wrote: »

Just got back from talking to the local Gardai. There were very interested in talking about the issue. I gave them a copy of my earlier second formal complaint [re Meteor]. They are going to forward that onto the Fraud Squad in Dublin and take it from there.

Maybe IPSO need a vist from the fraud squad to wake them up to their responsibilities. It is a disgrace that they have never sought legal advice on the submission of a cancelled direct debit given that it is a deliberate attempt to access a persons account where the permission for such access had been specifically withdrawn.

It would also seem to me that where a bank branch become aware of such an action that they should automatically notify the Gardai. But again in the absence of any concept of protecting the concept of the integrity of the customers account this would never occur to them.

Any company who submits a cancelled direct debit should face either a considerable fine or automatic explusion from the scheme. Pigs will fly sooner sadly.

dub45

RangeR wrote: »

On the nose. Although, today, the bank called it Originator+.

It would also seem that more companies are now resorting to using the dd+ system as their default system and even where a customer signs a paper mandate they are being put on the dd+ sytem.

Given that the dd scheme rules provide that the default notice period for the scheme overall is 14 days (unless otherwise agreed with the customer) and the default notice period for the dd+ scheme is 7 days there would seem to be no provision with the dd scheme rules for a customer to be placed in the dd+ scheme without specific agreement. In my experience with Meteor this agreement was not sought.

Also see this thread for a company's unique approach to using the dd scheme:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056427212

Sponge Bob

RangeR wrote: »

The guts of it are this. I got my branch to cancel the mandate. If Meteor try to put forward another payment, it will not go through. However, this block only remains in place for 2 months. If Meteor present a payment on the same mandate after two months, for ANY amount, it will be honoured. The bank can't stop it. I can't stop it. EVER.

There is absolutely NO checks done by the bank on suspect mandates. It is 100% the honour system. The originator [Meteor in this case] promises that they have done all necessary checks on the person and that the bank details are their own. Now, we all know that this isn't the case. You just have to turn up to any network retail store with a utility bill and photo ID and you will get a phone contract. You just provide Bank Account Number and Sort Code.

I would take this matter up with the Data protection commissioner immediately. I would also cc the email to the Financial Regulator. Comreg are secondary.

This is your account and your money and your good name (and time and effort wasted) an BoI/IPSO are basically colluding in fraud at this stage and at your expense.

However at this stage three are not in any way at fault. Perhaps the thread should be renamed and go to consumer issues.

Oceans12

have a look at this url http://www.ipso.ie/action/validation it allows you to validate an account number,

i put in an account number that i had closed two years ago and its showing that old account number as a valid one.


is it a little silly to have an application like at the above url open to the public?? also why is my account showing as valid if its a closed account?

RangeR

Oceans12 wrote: »

have a look at this url http://www.ipso.ie/action/validation it allows you to validate an account number,

i put in an account number that i had closed two years ago and its showing that old account number as a valid one.


is it a little silly to have an application like at the above url open to the public?? also why is my account showing as valid if its a closed account?

It's based on an algorithm. It just verifies the make up of the account number matches the sort code. Nothing else. It doesn't know if the account is open or not.

RangeR

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I would take this matter up with the Data protection commissioner immediately. I would also cc the email to the Financial Regulator. Comreg are secondary.

This is your account and your money and your good name (and time and effort wasted) an BoI/IPSO are basically colluding in fraud at this stage and at your expense.

However at this stage three are not in any way at fault. Perhaps the thread should be renamed and go to consumer issues.

Further up the thread, I mentioned that I already rang the DPC. They didn't want to talk to me over the phone and insisted I put my complaint in writing, so I then followed the directions on their website and filled in the complaint form.

Fair enough, that's how they operate but it's a far cry compared to the assistance I received over the phone from ComReg and NCA.

Oceans12

RangeR wrote: »

It's based on an algorithm. It just verifies the make up of the account number matches the sort code. Nothing else. It doesn't know if the account is open or not.

i thought as much,

dub45

Oceans12 wrote: »

have a look at this url http://www.ipso.ie/action/validation it allows you to validate an account number,

i put in an account number that i had closed two years ago and its showing that old account number as a valid one.


is it a little silly to have an application like at the above url open to the public?? also why is my account showing as valid if its a closed account?

I agree and I raised it with them some time ago to no effect.

RangeR

So, here is the current state of play.

I contacted Meteor about the irregularity. They refused to do anything unless I show them a bank statement [which will only confirm it happened] or I contact the guards and the guards get a court order.

I contacted my bank, obtained a refund and they cancelled the Direct Debit.

At this stage, I'm just chasing for answers and accountability.

TWO MINUTES AGO, my partner says that Meteor charged us a €10.15 amount for an unpaid bill. How do we know this? You guessed it, they charged it via DD form our account.

This is meant to be impossible!!!!!


EDIT : I was mistaken. Meteor didn't put forward that charge. The ****ing bank did. ****ing ridiculous. I demanded the money back within the hour. I don't offer credit and it's MY money.

dub45

RangeR wrote: »

So, here is the current state of play.

I contacted Meteor about the irregularity. They refused to do anything unless I show them a bank statement [which will only confirm it happened] or I contact the guards and the guards get a court order.

I contacted my bank, obtained a refund and they cancelled the Direct Debit.

At this stage, I'm just chasing for answers and accountability.

TWO MINUTES AGO, my partner says that Meteor charged us a €10.15 amount for an unpaid bill. How do we know this? You guessed it, they charged it via DD form our account.

This is meant to be impossible!!!!!


EDIT : I was mistaken. Meteor didn't put forward that charge. The ****ing bank did. ****ing ridiculous. I demanded the money back within the hour. I don't offer credit and it's MY money.

Banks are so sensitive and caring aren't they? I wonder if there is a formal procedure when paying banks become aware of such an occurrence?

Have they informed the Gardai? (Surely this should be automatic in any case like this?)

Have they informed Meteor's sponsoring bank?


Have they informed IPSO?

If there was a proper procedure in place for monitoring the dd system you would think all three actions above would be mandatory.

Also there is supposed to be a dd committee which monitors the working of the scheme - no doubt they were informed immediately by your branch:D:D

Meteor seem extraordinarily unconcerned about this matter given that they obtained a considerable sum of money from an ex customer's account irregularly. You might also think that they would be particularly interested in a case like this given the possibility that it could result from their data loss. Company staff appear to have no appreciation of the "wrongness" of accessing a person's bank account as they wish. (Several years ago when I was complaining to Bord Gais about my account being double dd's one of their staff said to me with exasperation in his voice "but sure we have your account number" as if it entitled them to do as they wish. And sadly that is the culture in many companies.)

dub45

RangeR wrote: »

Further up the thread, I mentioned that I already rang the DPC. They didn't want to talk to me over the phone and insisted I put my complaint in writing, so I then followed the directions on their website and filled in the complaint form.

Fair enough, that's how they operate but it's a far cry compared to the assistance I received over the phone from ComReg and NCA.

In a couple of cases I found the DPC very helpful but in one recently in relation to a query about the Eircom data loss they were bizarrely disappointing. The person I spoke to on the phone seemed extraordinarily out of touch given that this is such a big case.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

RangeR

You guys might want to follow this thread.

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.

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!

RangeR

RangeR wrote: »

You guys might want to follow this thread.

Maybe follow this thread too?

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.