what is a "fair" unpaid Direct Debit charge?

Nathan_Spleen

willo65 wrote: »

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 .

For fear of being accused of selective reading, how can you use a chip & pin machine if it's down?

Please think before you post.

natweststaffmember

willo65 wrote: »

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.
Are you saying that it is not the customer's fault if this is happening since if the C&P machine is down, it is not their fault? Why does the bank charge the customer if the Chip and Pin machine is down or it is below a floor limit for the store, since it is not the customer's fault that the store does not seek permission? Why is the store not charged for their failure to seek permission? But if the bank is authorising a cheque guaranteed by a card why is it the customers fault for the time it takes to process the cheque? They authorise the funds at the point they write the cheque out.

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.

Instead many stores use something called Retail Loss Prevention. Have a little search around the forums and see how they work.

I do understand the floor limits argument but it is the Bank that could take steps to prevent this by not allowing it in the first place.

dzug1

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Well you do if you want to avoid paying non-direct debit surcharges.

Besides, direct debits are the subject title of the thread.

But if your financial affairs are such that you cannot run a bank account in the way the bank would like, maybe paying non-DD surcharges is better and cheaper than incurring large bank fees.

Nathan_Spleen

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Instead many stores use something called Retail Loss Prevention. Have a little search around the forums and see how they work.

I do understand the floor limits argument but it is the Bank that could take steps to prevent this by not allowing it in the first place.

Indeed. Floor limits are set and authorised by the banks so how making a payment within the banks' own limit can be described as theft is beyond me.

Also his other example of ''theft'' - writing a guaranteed cheque without sufficient funds - is equally erronious as the the bank clearly authorise it in advance by guarrenteeing the cheque.

I'm not sure what position this character holds at the bank but if it's anything other than emptying the bins I'd find it genuinely disturbing that he could be responsible for running and making decisions on people's accounts when he is unable to make the distinction between a customer exercising a legitimate contractual right and stealing.

I can honestly say that if willo65 had any connection to a bank I held an account at I would close it in a heartbeat.

Nathan_Spleen

dzug1 wrote: »

But if your financial affairs are such that you cannot run a bank account in the way the bank would like, maybe paying non-DD surcharges is better and cheaper than incurring large bank fees.

Indeed but with respect I did say if you wanted to avoid direct debit surcharges.

jambosans

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

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.

Apologies, I worded myself wrongly, from the test case ultimately all the OFT (if the appeal does not go through) will be able to do is assess charges for fairness under UTCCR, it has been decided that charges are not classed as penalties. At the very most (again, if the appeal does not go through) the OFT will assess a charge to be too much, I would argue that it cannot be "struck down in it's entirety" as it is not a penalty, and this part of the ruling gives the banks clarity on being able to charge something - the amounts are really what is in question.

If you would like to point out my wrongs again and source your rights I'm happy to hear, my knowledge on the subject is limited at best, but thought I had the basic grasp of it.

Sol00

willo65 wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of the time the circumstances are avoidable on occasion when people do find themselves in difficulty then fair enough they are being charged when maybe they shouldn't but the majority of the time it's just that people can't be bothered. Many customers will go o/d time and time and time again - why? they have no idea of how much they are actually spending.

I'd be happy to know where you got those statistics from.

Sol00

willo65 wrote: »

Ok another take on this I park where i shouldn't, I get a huge fine.....What do i get for paying that fine?

His first analogy didn't work, so he has to try another :rolleyes:

Sol00

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

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.

Does Willo work for a bank? Ah, that explains it. :rotfl:

Nathan_Spleen

jambosans wrote: »

Apologies, I worded myself wrongly, from the test case ultimately all the OFT (if the appeal does not go through) will be able to do is assess charges for fairness under UTCCR, it has been decided that charges are not classed as penalties. At the very most (again, if the appeal does not go through) the OFT will assess a charge to be too much, I would argue that it cannot be "struck down in it's entirety" as it is not a penalty, and this part of the ruling gives the banks clarity on being able to charge something - the amounts are really what is in question.

If you would like to point out my wrongs again and source your rights I'm happy to hear, my knowledge on the subject is limited at best, but thought I had the basic grasp of it.

It's not my opinion but the view of a barrister who has worked extensively on the issue.

It's all about the terms.

Unlike a utility regulator, the Office of Fair Trading have no statutory powers of price control and so brought investigation and test case litigation under UTCCR - Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

Because there is no provision in law to retrospectively alter a contractual term, if a term is deemed unfair it is automatically struck down from the contract rendering the charge relating to it as nul & void. This is why people who think that any eventual refunds will be minus any new charge level are wrong.

The same cannot be said if the charges had been deemed as penalties because a judge would likely allow the banks to retain the cost of administering the default.