what is a "fair" unpaid Direct Debit charge?

AnxiousMum

It is actually obtaining goods through 'false pretense' which is a type of theft and/or fraud. This would need to be proven to be the intent of the person committing it though - as in continuous behaviour in this way.
IF the bank 'authorises' and pays the direct debit, cheque etc., then they have in effect given their permission - IF they pay the money out. If a person was to use their debit card via an offline system, chip and pin system down or something, and they did it knowing there were no funds in their account, then the above 'false pretenses' could be applied.

willo65

AnxiousMum wrote: »

It is actually obtaining goods through 'false pretense' which is a type of theft and/or fraud. This would need to be proven to be the intent of the person committing it though - as in continuous behaviour in this way.
IF the bank 'authorises' and pays the direct debit, cheque etc., then they have in effect given their permission - IF they pay the money out. If a person was to use their debit card via an offline system, chip and pin system down or something, and they did it knowing there were no funds in their account, then the above 'false pretenses' could be applied.

Or guranteeing a cheque with gurantee card knowing there is no funds to cover in account.

Orford

Did I say there was any?

Well, if it is theft, why are there no prosecutions, why is your bank condoning crime. Could it be that it isn't theft after all?

I was posing a question to which the objection was that it is "Impossible" to go overdarwn without the "Express permission" of the bank.

The bank certainly has the ability to prevent you going overdrawn and equally can allow you to go overdrawn if it wants.

Who pushed your buzzer?

Guess.

willo65

Orford wrote: »

Well, if it is theft, why are there no prosecutions, why is your bank condoning crime. Could it be that it isn't theft after all?

The bank certainly has the ability to prevent you going overdrawn and equally can allow you to go overdrawn if it wants.

Guess.

Are you selectively reading? poster above clarified my point the bank can't stop you if you use a Chip & Pin machine that's down or if you are spending less than the floor limit of the store. Or if you gurantee the cheque so sorry to point this out to you but you ARE wrong. Also people don't always get persecuted(sp) or theft, ie when shoplifting a store may let you off with a warning or may just ban you from the store. You seem to have a lack of understanding when it comes to the world around you.

Orford

You seem to have a lack of understanding when it comes to the world around you.

As opposed to bringing tins of beans, parking, human rights, theft and broken chip and pin machines into the equation?

jambosans

So, it may not be as dramatic as theft (making or bouncing a payment from your account without having sufficient cleared funds) but it is a breach of most (if not all) bank account terms and conditions. If you make a payment with insufficient funds then most banks will coin this as an "informal request" for use of a temporary overdraft, not theft. Perhaps the OFT will be given the power to regulate charge amounts but ultimately they are here to stay.

Nathan_Spleen

jambosans wrote: »

So, it may not be as dramatic as theft (making or bouncing a payment from your account without having sufficient cleared funds) but it is a breach of most (if not all) bank account terms and conditions. .

This is completely wrong and has been proven to be. In the High Court last year Justice Smith ruled that, with the possible exception of Natwest's 2001 terms & conditions, no banks' charges are capable of being penalties at common law precisely because no breach of contract has occurred.

Nathan_Spleen

Also it is wrong to say that ''Perhaps the OFT will be given the power to regulate charge amounts but ultimately they are here to stay''.

The OFT have no power to ''regulate charge amounts'' but do have the power to apply UTCCR and as such any term and charge it triggers is struck down in it's entirety.

Nathan_Spleen

willo65 wrote: »

Similarly if you have promised to pay someone with a cheque gurantee card knowing full well no funds are available then this is also theft?

How can it be theft if the bank has guaranteed it?

Nathan_Spleen

willo65 wrote: »

Did I say there was any? I was posing a question to which the objection was that it is "Impossible" to go overdarwn without the "Express permission" of the bank. this is blatantly not true so I contested. Who pushed your buzzer? It may not be illegal although it could be i suppose but the point is that it's not Impossible to go o/d without the express permission of the bank.

Youv'e invalidated your entire argument with this.

Firstly you tell us it is theft and then go to concede ''it may not be illegal''. Theft is a criminal offence and by definition is illegal. Therefore you can't say, with any credibility, it is theft.

Secondly, during the test case hearing the banks legal representitives repeatedly and successfully argued that any attempt by an account holder to make a payment without sufficiant funds to meet it is regarded by the banks as an informal request for an overdraft and that it is at the banks' discreation as to whether to honour the payment or not. Therefore it is impossible to go overdrawn without the banks' permission.

And as such your view contradicts that of both the High Court and your employer.