what is a "fair" unpaid Direct Debit charge?

natweststaffmember

willo65 wrote: »

Sorry edited my post at the same time as your response - what I don't understand is "state that a card issuer
guarantees in any single transaction the payment of only one cheque taken from only
one of its own cheque books for up to £50, or for up to £100 or £250 " so if a customer did guarantee all of their cheques for £250 to different institutions for single transactions then the bank would have to pay and the customer would have an unauthorise overdraft of £5000.

Yes that is absolutely correct.

natweststaffmember

willo65 wrote: »

Read it again the payment of ONE Cheque from ONE cheque book in any ONE transaction so a seperate transaction means another cheque can be guaranteed.

Will you charge Nathan £30 for that mistake?

Sol00

Just read your signature Natwest. Onto pastures new?

natweststaffmember

Sol00 wrote: »

Just read your signature Natwest. Onto pastures new?

If you read the previous page, JSA at £128 then clearly not any pasture but home at the moment.

Nathan_Spleen

willo65 wrote: »

Read it again the payment of ONE Cheque from ONE cheque book in any ONE transaction so a seperate transaction means another cheque can be guaranteed.

Yes I got that thankyou.

Now if you can just point me to the relevant section in the APACS link about theft and google up something to support your theft theory then perhaps we can move on.

Sol00

Thought I saw something about that, but I'm just skimming through this thread, sorry.

willo65

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Yes I got that thankyou.

Now if you can just point me to the relevant section in the APACS link about theft and google up something to support your theft theory then perhaps we can move on.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8xObDB3e6sMC&pg=PA320&lpg=PA320&dq=guarantee+card+funds&source=bl&ots=x3X64clUJs&sig=CydSBhJW5lH79_fc9f0G_w_yTJc&hl=en&ei=MQf2SbzvNIuTsAaEsqnWAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10
section 9.8.2

http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/TA%201968.pdf
section 16

Nathan_Spleen

willo65 wrote: »

http://books.google.com/books?id=8xObDB3e6sMC&pg=PA320&lpg=PA320&dq=guarantee+card+funds&source=bl&ots=x3X64clUJs&sig=CydSBhJW5lH79_fc9f0G_w_yTJc&hl=en&ei=MQf2SbzvNIuTsAaEsqnWAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10
section 9.8.2

http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/TA%201968.pdf
section 16

In the first link there is no section 9.8.2. Please copy and paste the relevant text,

In the second link there is nothing that supports your claim. Again please copy and paste the relevant text.

willo65

I can't copy and paste from the first link but it should take you straight to 9.8.2, if not then it's page 320

and from second link:

16. Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception

(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any
pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding five years.
(2) All cases in which a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of this section is to
be regarded as obtained for a person are cases where-
(a) [repealed];
(b) he is allowed to borrow by way of overdraft, or to take out any policy of
insurance or annuity contract, or obtains an improvement of the terms on which he
is allowed to do so; or
(c) he is given the opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration
in an office or employment, or to win money by betting.
(3) For purposes of this section ‘deception’ has the same meaning as in section 15 of
this Act.

Nathan_Spleen

willo65 wrote: »

I can't copy and paste from the first link but it should take you straight to 9.8.2, if not then it's page 320

and from second link:

16. Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any
pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding five years.
(2) All cases in which a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of this section is to
be regarded as obtained for a person are cases where-
(a) [repealed];
(b) he is allowed to borrow by way of overdraft, or to take out any policy of
insurance or annuity contract, or obtains an improvement of the terms on which he
is allowed to do so; or
(c) he is given the opportunity to earn remuneration or greater remuneration
in an office or employment, or to win money by betting.
(3) For purposes of this section ‘deception’ has the same meaning as in section 15 of
this Act.

I accept your reference to the The HoLs case but it confirms that the bank were instrumental in facilitating it by way authorising and executing the payments, confirming that you cannot go overdrawn without the bank allowing it.

Still waiting for the APACS section.