Direct Debit Fraud

Macca83_2

spendaholic66 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the question is here but surely your daughter could have just changed her account number, not entire account?

if you change your account number then you're opening a brand New account

dalesrider

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

So you call in the branch just as they are closing and expect the money back straightaway - not feasible IMO.

Oh, yes it is. Just because the branch is shut to customers. Does not mean the staff leg it out of the back door :rotfl:

As a direct debit falls under the PSD. Immediate, means just that. If done via phone @ the end of the call. Or if in person at a branch as soon as you tell them.
So that is not the end of the day or the next working day...

Failure to action the refund would be a breach of the PSD and as such liable to a fine and if the OP took it to FOS a even bigger fine.

opinions4u

dalesrider wrote: »

Failure to action the refund would be a breach of the PSD and as such liable to a fine and if the OP took it to FOS a even bigger fine.

the FOS has no power to fine.

CKhalvashi

Macca83 wrote: »

its not realistic but that's what printed on any direct debit letter so you can argue the case.

IMO, immediate means it needs looking into immediately.

CK

Wyndham

This really doesn't sound like fraud. I think someone was trying to use an account with a similar number, and got it wrong. Keep reading the forums and you'll hear lots of stories in this area, so it's more common than you think.

And if you're really lucky, someone will be on here saying 'I tried to pay £189 to Virgin, but I think I put in the wrong account number - what should I do?' Then maybe we can introduce the two parties to each other

pvt

Pinkycat,

I think this is a massive overreaction by you to what is most probably an error.

If there is fraud involved it is the bank, not your daughter, that has been defrauded.

In such an instance, if the bank advise that you should open another account then follow their advice. I suspect here that the bank staff you spoke to percieved a simple error of some kind, and advised her to let them sort it out, but were faced with their customer's parent ranting about fraud, compromised security, and new bank accounts.

It's probably too late now, but I think your reactions to this have unnecessarily resulted in your daughter having her proper bank account changed to a basic one.

Macca83_2

CKhalvashi wrote: »

IMO, immediate means it needs looking into immediately.

CK

it means that the bank should refund immediately and after investigation if they find out that you're telling porkies, the bank can take it back from customer.

jonesMUFCforever

dalesrider wrote: »

Oh, yes it is. Just because the branch is shut to customers. Does not mean the staff leg it out of the back door :rotfl:

As a direct debit falls under the PSD. Immediate, means just that. If done via phone @ the end of the call. Or if in person at a branch as soon as you tell them.
So that is not the end of the day or the next working day...

Failure to action the refund would be a breach of the PSD and as such liable to a fine and if the OP took it to FOS a even bigger fine.

The banks must be quaking in their boots then with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of customers who's account will be re-credited by the next working day.

dalesrider

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

The banks must be quaking in their boots then with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of customers who's account will be re-credited by the next working day.

Clearly you don't work in a bank.

PSD means that a unrecognised transactions, that full under PSD, have to be refunded straight away...
That is NOT THE NEXT DAY. That is a soon as the customer advises them.

Not sure why you think the banks will be quaking in the boots. Many have been doing it for years. Long before PSD was intorduced.

mulronie

dalesrider wrote: »

PSD means that a unrecognised transactions, that full under PSD, have to be refunded straight away...
That is NOT THE NEXT DAY. That is a soon as the customer advises them.

It's unhelpful when people throw the term PSD around as some holy grail, infact the Payment Services Directive is an EU directive and not a UK-relevant legal instrument.

The UK transposition of the PSD terms was actually made under the Payment Services Regulations 2009 (PSRs) - these are the regulations under which UK banks operate.

PSR Regulation 61:

61. Subject to regulations 59 and 60, where an executed payment transaction was not authorised in accordance with regulation 55, the payment service provider must immediately—
(a)refund the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction to the payer; and
(b)where applicable, restore the debited payment account to the state it would have been in had the unauthorised payment transaction not taken place.

Your interpretation of "immediately" is not in line with how a judge would interpret it under common law, nor in fact in line with the spirit of the law. In fact in their guidance on transposition of PSD, the European Commission advised "refund claims relating to unauthorised transactions should be treated on a case-by-case basis and that where there is a suspicion of fraud, payment service providers should have sufficient time to investigate the case"