Stopping Concern Direct Debit

Rothko

Mods can move this to a more suitable forum if it's necessary as I wasn't sure where to post this.

Anyway, I was giving money to Concern though a direct debit and I want to stop it as I won't be able to afford it now as money is a bit tight at the moment. I'm just wondering how do I do this. Do I have to contact the bank or Concern themselves? Any help would be great, thanks.

bbam

Suas11 wrote: »

Mods can move this to a more suitable forum if it's necessary as I wasn't sure where to post this.

Anyway, I was giving money to Concern though a direct debit and I want to stop it as I won't be able to afford it now as money is a bit tight at the moment. I'm just wondering how do I do this. Do I have to contact the bank or Concern themselves? Any help would be great, thanks.

Contact the Bank or if you have online banking you should be able to stop it there..

Fr_Dougal

You can stop it via online banking.

admiralofthefleet

contact your bank. how anyone can donate to a charity that has a director on 100/200K + is beyond me

Spiritual

If you have online banking you can do it yourself. If not ring your bank and they will do it.
No need to contact Concern as it isn't a service they are providing you so no contract to break.

paddy147

Suas11 wrote: »

Mods can move this to a more suitable forum if it's necessary as I wasn't sure where to post this.

Anyway, I was giving money to Concern though a direct debit and I want to stop it as I won't be able to afford it now as money is a bit tight at the moment. I'm just wondering how do I do this. Do I have to contact the bank or Concern themselves? Any help would be great, thanks.

Go to the bank and ask them to place an immediate block on that DD mandate.

Then contact Concern and tell them you are widthdrawing your money to them.

Make a note of the day,time of phonecall and get the persons full name too....just incase.

Celly Smunt

When you stop a direct debit,that's when concern get really concerned.Make sure to contact them telling them you don't want to be called everyday.

TheGolfer01

Suas11 wrote: »

Mods can move this to a more suitable forum if it's necessary as I wasn't sure where to post this.

Anyway, I was giving money to Concern though a direct debit and I want to stop it as I won't be able to afford it now as money is a bit tight at the moment. I'm just wondering how do I do this. Do I have to contact the bank or Concern themselves? Any help would be great, thanks.

You're not allowed cancel concern direct debits, it's against the rules, read the small print.

paddy147

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

contact your bank. how anyone can donate to a charity that has a director on 100/200K + is beyond me

I had both them and also dogstrust on my doorstep the other day...both trying to get me to sign up to a DD scheme.

Told them both that...."charity begins at home"


Concern asked me if I wouldnt think of the young children for a second

I said I am..."my own"......"now good evening to you sir".

paddy147

TheGolfer01 wrote: »

You're not allowed cancel concern direct debits, it's against the rules, read the small print.

Let them bring a court case then.:pac::pac:

oppenheimer1

TheGolfer01 wrote: »

You're not allowed cancel concern direct debits, it's against the rules, read the small print.

I don't think it is.

Bodhran

Are you sure it's a Direct Debit? It is more likely to be a Standing Order which you can cancel at any time.

admiralofthefleet

TheGolfer01 wrote: »

You're not allowed cancel concern direct debits, it's against the rules, read the small print.

i find that very hard to believe, but if it is true i would just swap banks

bobwilliams

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

contact your bank. how anyone can donate to a charity that has a director on 100/200K + is beyond me

i hear ya but it's a big organisation,what do you suggest a proper salary would be?
I think you need to forget that it's a charity,it's a very big company and needs someone with very good credentials to run it.
that said, i give them feck all

admiralofthefleet

bobwilliams wrote: »

i hear ya but it's a big organisation,what do you suggest a proper salary would be?
I think you need to forget that it's a charity,it's a very big company and needs someone with very good credentials to run it.
that said, i give them feck all

maybe they should be registered as a corporation and not a charity then?

bobwilliams

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

maybe they should be registered as a corporation and not a charity then?

maybe not?

Rothko

Yeah, it's direct debit and I was told I could stop it at any time.

admiralofthefleet

some info on salaries of all charities here

franktheplank

bobwilliams wrote: »

i hear ya but it's a big organisation,what do you suggest a proper salary would be?
I think you need to forget that it's a charity,it's a very big company and needs someone with very good credentials to run it.
that said, i give them feck all

Yup this is the usual argument about 'Charity' CEO's. Goes along the lines of they're professional people running a large organization so they need to be paid top rates.

Ok, but I wouldn't blindly hand over money to other professional people believing it'll actually end up in the hands of the needy. Im not gonna turn around to a banker or a lawyer and say here's oodles of money, Im just gonna turn my back now and you're going to give it the poor.

There is essentially no regulation of charity in this country and yet some of them take in 20-30 million a year. Until there is and I can see full accountability, then not a penny from me.

Whispered

Suas11 wrote: »

Yeah, it's direct debit and I was told I could stop it at any time.

Just contact them. I cancelled my one with one phone call. Easy Peasy.

Did you try to do it already and had an issue or something?

Rothko

Whispered wrote: »

Just contact them. I cancelled my one with one phone call. Easy Peasy.

Did you try to do it already and had an issue or something?

No, I haven't tried it yet. I'll probably give them a call tomorrow to see if they can cancel it.

Atlantic Dawn

bobwilliams wrote: »

i hear ya but it's a big organisation,what do you suggest a proper salary would be?
I think you need to forget that it's a charity,it's a very big company and needs someone with very good credentials to run it.
that said, i give them feck all

Mother Teresa ran a big organisation too, she wasn't on over €100k though. I feel €50k is more than enough, if it's a career you are after for pure financial gain seek employement somewhere else.

admiralofthefleet

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Mother Teresa ran a big organisation too, she wasn't on over €100k though. I feel €50k is more than enough, if it's a career you are after for pure financial gain seek employement somewhere else.

or minimum wage

Max Power

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

some info on salaries of all charities here

Sickening that is. Worse than politicians. Justin Kilcullen, John O'Shea and Fergus Finlay.

franktheplank

FionnMcCool87 wrote: »

Sickening that is. Worse than politicians. Justin Kilcullen, John O'Shea and Fergus Finlay.

One of the worst offenders here.

http://http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056220862

Salary estimated at 400k from rehab.
Getting paid about 250k over 3/4 years to sit on various quango boards.
Husband has a company selling coffins from China to the Rehab, ffs.

admiralofthefleet

FionnMcCool87 wrote: »

Sickening that is. Worse than politicians. Justin Kilcullen, John O'Shea and Fergus Finlay.

finlay was in the news recently apparently looking for more money off the government while at the same time calling for a reduction in the childrens allowance

franktheplank

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

finlay was in the news recently apparently looking for more money off the government while at the same time calling for a reduction in the childrens allowance

This shower are as bad as any of the bankers, politicians, developers etc in my book.

pontia

any idea what the head of cari gets a year ?

admiralofthefleet

franktheplank wrote: »

This shower are as bad as any of the bankers, politicians, developers etc in my book.

no regulation on charities here.

there is a thread where someone is asking how to make money quickly, i say set up a charity

franktheplank

pontia wrote: »

any idea what the head of cari gets a year ?

You'll find it hard to get exact info on what the head of any charity gets. Because they're private companies they don't have to publish full accounts. Aside from what they might be hiding in expenses, benefits, bonuses, pensions there's also the fact they could have family members benefiting from doing business with the company ala Rehab.

If I'm correct, what you have is a standing order as opposed to a direct debit. Standing orders always take out the same amount of money constantly, with no chance whatsoever. Direct debits are for varying amounts, like with bills. Of course, that could be completely wrong.

You can go in and cancel it in the bank. They will ask you to ring them as a courtesy, but that's entirely your own decision.

Rothko

Deleted User wrote: »

If I'm correct, what you have is a standing order as opposed to a direct debit. Standing orders always take out the same amount of money constantly, with no chance whatsoever. Direct debits are for varying amounts, like with bills. Of course, that could be completely wrong.

You can go in and cancel it in the bank. They will ask you to ring them as a courtesy, but that's entirely your own decision.

Ah, ok. I could be wrong about it being a direct debit.

Feathers

paddy147 wrote: »

I had both them and also dogstrust on my doorstep the other day...both trying to get me to sign up to a DD scheme.

Told them both that...."charity begins at home"

But they called to your home? :pac:

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I feel €50k is more than enough, if it's a career you are after for pure financial gain seek employement somewhere else.

Let's say the person who was going to get £100k could've gotten £200k in the private sector? I can see the emotional argument against high wages, but in private enterprise, you often see boards of directors (whose sole job is to make money for shareholders) appointing people on really high salaries. If you replace shareholders with 'money to charity' in the above equation, why wouldn't it still hold true? If the purpose of a charity is to get money to needy causes, and the board of trustees realises that with a higher CEO salary costs, they're percentage costs go down overall, why shouldn't they back this?


For example, if you said charity A pays a CEO £50k and charity B pays a CEO £200k — which would you prefer to give money to? It's easy to say A. But what happens if A takes in in donations of £1M a year & all other overheads come to £50k (i.e. overall costs of 10%) but B takes in donations of £10M with other overheads of £100k (i.e. overall costs of 3%)?

Adyx

Concern use Direct Debits as much as possible. I can't speak for other banks but with AIB you can't cancel or change direct debits using online banking.

mathepac

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

no regulation on charities here...

Any info to back up this assertion?

Adyx wrote: »

... I can't speak for other banks but with AIB you can't cancel or change direct debits using online banking.

Me too. You must inform the originator and the bank in writing.

Adyx

Adyx wrote: »

Concern use Direct Debits as much as possible. I can't speak for other banks but with AIB you can't cancel or change direct debits using online banking.

Really? That seems pretty underhanded to me!

mathepac

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? That seems pretty underhanded to me!

I can't speak for Concern but other originators issue letters in advance of taking any money laying out the rules for all three parties associated with the arrangement. Typically insurance brokers and insurance companies do this and it's all above board and transparent.

ofcork

I cancelled a concern dd via boi online a few years ago and never heard anymore.

franktheplank

mathepac wrote: »

Any info to back up this assertion?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0522/1224316503985.html

basically the legislation was brought in for charity regulation but the funding has not been put in place so that the actual inspection and regulation can take place. so essentially they are unregulated.

franktheplank

Feathers wrote: »

But they called to your home? :pac:



Let's say the person who was going to get £100k could've gotten £200k in the private sector? I can see the emotional argument against high wages, but in private enterprise, you often see boards of directors (whose sole job is to make money for shareholders) appointing people on really high salaries. If you replace shareholders with 'money to charity' in the above equation, why wouldn't it still hold true? If the purpose of a charity is to get money to needy causes, and the board of trustees realises that with a higher CEO salary costs, they're percentage costs go down overall, why shouldn't they back this?


For example, if you said charity A pays a CEO £50k and charity B pays a CEO £200k — which would you prefer to give money to? It's easy to say A. But what happens if A takes in in donations of £1M a year & all other overheads come to £50k (i.e. overall costs of 10%) but B takes in donations of £10M with other overheads of £100k (i.e. overall costs of 3%)?

There's a number of flaws in this. Firstly, we have no measure to say one charity is performing better than another. There is no accountability so we can't say that one charity is doing more good work with 100m, than another with 1m. (you might assume so, but having worked for a very large charity I can assure you in some notable cases the size of the charity means nothing!)

Secondly, because of the lack of accountability we don't know that both of these charities aren't actually paying their CEO's 500k a year through bonuses, scams, pensions, expenses etc.

Thirdly, some people might believe that the CEO willing to work for 50k is actually more dedicated to the particular cause than the one working for 200k and thus their charity will perform better.

dorkacle

I am actually shocked at the level of income some of these people are getting, this is supposed to be a 'charity'.

I was considering taking up placement in one of these organisations (linked in an earlier post) as part of an intern ship for college, now I'm thinking I may as well get experience and a reference from a for profit organisation, paid or unpaid, that is a joke the money they make!

franktheplank

dorkacle wrote: »

I am actually shocked at the level of income some of these people are getting, this is supposed to be a 'charity'.

I was considering taking up placement in one of these organisations (linked in an earlier post) as part of an intern ship for college, now I'm thinking I may as well get experience and a reference from a for profit organisation, paid or unpaid, that is a joke the money they make!

Yup it's disgusting and remember that's only whats declared nobody knows but themselves what these charity executives are pulling in.

Nd it's not just the CEO's either some of these big charity's are very heavy on high level mgmt, all i'm sure on big wages.

That said maybe you'll go and work for one of the good uns (if they exist) my experience was pretty awful. Met some lovely people working there day to day but in terms of mgmt some of the absolute nastiest pieces of work imaginable, completely cut-throat and not the slightest care for the people the charity was supposed to be helping.

Feathers

franktheplank wrote: »

There's a number of flaws in this. Firstly, we have no measure to say one charity is performing better than another. There is no accountability so we can't say that one charity is doing more good work with 100m, than another with 1m. (you might assume so, but having worked for a very large charity I can assure you in some notable cases the size of the charity means nothing!)

Secondly, because of the lack of accountability we don't know that both of these charities aren't actually paying their CEO's 500k a year through bonuses, scams, pensions, expenses etc.

Thirdly, some people might believe that the CEO willing to work for 50k is actually more dedicated to the particular cause than the one working for 200k and thus their charity will perform better.

We don't have a measure of how well they perform, but generally I'd donate much more readily to a charity with lower percentage costs that take in everything, rather than just looking at a CEO's wage, because as you said, we don't have an objective measure — I don't know the ins and outs, so I don't know if paying high salaries or advertising is a better spend of money to increase donations.

Regarding the dedication of the employees — again, it comes down to who is doing a better job IMO. I suppose something akin to working hard or working smart. You could have a guy who gives his whole life to the charity, but if he's not good at running the place, I think I'd prefer upping the wages & getting someone who can do the job properly.

franktheplank

Feathers wrote: »

We don't have a measure of how well they perform, but generally I'd donate much more readily to a charity with lower percentage costs that take in everything, rather than just looking at a CEO's wage, because as you said, we don't have an objective measure — I don't know the ins and outs, so I don't know if paying high salaries or advertising is a better spend of money to increase donations.

Regarding the dedication of the employees — again, it comes down to who is doing a better job IMO. I suppose something akin to working hard or working smart. You could have a guy who gives his whole life to the charity, but if he's not good at running the place, I think I'd prefer upping the wages & getting someone who can do the job properly.

Hey it's your money, if you wanna give it to a charity because you think they might be doing a good job then so be it!

And if you think giving 200k + to a professional, closing your eyes and hoping, is a good business model, so be it too:D

Geri Male

franktheplank wrote: »

Yup it's disgusting and remember that's only whats declared nobody knows but themselves what these charity executives are pulling in.

Disgusting is too strong a phrase.

Disgusting = going for a sh*t, getting some on your hands and eating food afterwards without washing your hands.

Feathers

franktheplank wrote: »

And if you think giving 200k + to a professional, closing your eyes and hoping, is a good business model, so be it too:D

My argument is quite simple. If it was a cause that I cared about & I was put in charge of hiring a CEO & I've two guys to pick from:

• one guy wants a wage of £200k but will guarantee £1m goes to the front-line after all overheads;
• the other guy wants £50k but will guarantee £300k goes to the front-line cause after all overheads

I'm not going to pick the second guy, purely from a point of principle that 'no-one should earn over X amount from charity work'.

But if you want to close your eyes to the overall overheads & want to fixate on wages of one man in the organisation, so be it too

franktheplank

Feathers wrote: »

My argument is quite simple. If it was a cause that I cared about & I was put in charge of hiring a CEO & I've two guys to pick from:

• one guy wants a wage of £200k but will guarantee £1m goes to the front-line after all overheads;
• the other guy wants £50k but will guarantee £300k goes to the front-line cause after all overheads

I'm not going to pick the second guy, purely from a point of principle that 'no-one should earn over X amount from charity work'.

But if you want to close your eyes to the overall overheads & want to fixate on wages of one man in the organisation, so be it too

Ya coz I'm the one trying to simplify the argument?

I've no problem with somebody being well paid to work for a charity in itself, where did i say that?

What i have a problem with is the lack of accountability, without which it is meaningless to start saying one method is more efficient than the other.

General Relativity

Feathers wrote: »

• one guy wants a wage of £200k but will guarantee £1m goes to the front-line after all overheads;
• the other guy wants £50k but will guarantee £300k goes to the front-line cause after all overheads

??

The first guy pulls in 5 times their wage, the second person pulls in 6 times their wage.

Feathers

franktheplank wrote: »

Ya coz I'm the one trying to simplify the argument?

I've no problem with somebody being well paid to work for a charity in itself, where did i say that?

What i have a problem with is the lack of accountability, without which it is meaningless to start saying one method is more efficient than the other.

I was saying I'm the one trying to simplify the argument I don't know if it's meaningless — not as good as we'd like. But I think most people would like to see as much money going to the needy cause as possible.

General Relativity wrote: »

??

The first guy pulls in 5 times their wage, the second person pulls in 6 times their wage.

Yeah, it's a bit of a contrived (useless) example, because it's missing a figure for overheads :pac:

My main point was that even if the first guy demands higher wages, if he can manage expenses and/or generate income better than the second, does that not make him worth the higher price?

At the end of the day, most charities are looking to provide as much of a quality service in their field (counselling, support groups, facilities, third-world aid) as possible, so the less amount that you can spend on administration costs the better.

murpho999

Makes me laugh all this outrage at people being well paid working for a charity.

All indignant bar stool talk.

Do people not realise that charities are like businesses which have costs, including salaries and their staff generate programs etc to be more efficient and generate profits that then fund their work in the field.

Charities like Concern do more than just hand out food bags to the hungry in Africa.
They run education programs for children and also women in Afghanistan.
These programmes employ international staff as well as local staff to run them and everyone is paid.
Infrastructure projects like irrigation for farming, bridges and vaccination programs.

All run by professional people that could not be done effectively by low paid or voluntary staff.
Professional people bring professional ethics to make it run better and have better marketing programmes to raise funds to run more projects.

Professional people make organisations more appealing for donations llke the Gates Foundation, which would not just give to anyone.

It really is a simple concept and people should stop expecting international organisations , which the likes of Concern & Goal are, to be run like your local under 11 football team.

Also, if people actually looked at how many Irish people are actually employed in the 'charity' sector, you'd realise what an important contributer it is to jobs and economy in Ireland.

Frank Black

'People try to justify not contributing to charity by googling CEO's salary shocker'