Wonga, Is this legal

DebtClearer

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I guess that as it was in the terms that your brother agreed to then it was his responsibility to tell you of this when you made the payment.
Harsh, though!

But presumably the OP didn't do this.
I would certainly imagine that, two years down the line, there is no proof that the OP did this.
I would also guess that if someone said this to Wonga then Wonga would refuse to take the original payment on that card.

No proof he didn't do this. If it came down to a case of reasonableness it could easily be that the OP asked for them to be removed and having 2 years passed thought nothing of it. This is the story I would be telling them anyway. Infact I'd be applying further pressure that them taking this money has affected your other obligations and you will be going after compensation too.

Wonga will have telephone staff taking 1000s of calls a day, all it would take is for one idol worker to not remove the OPs details. Make sure you are adamant in your complaint in that you specifically expressed this was a one time only thing and they clarified details would the be removed. If you don't do this you will definitely get no where.

JimmyTheWig

nottoolate wrote: »

if you only authorised a one of payment then that is all they are allowed to take.

Correct.
But unfortunately that's not what the OP did.

stuartroberts

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Wonga will at least argue that they were authorised to take it.
When the OP gave Wonga his card details, he did so under the terms and conditions that his brother had signed up to.
In other words he authorised them to take more money in the future if need-be.

I think it is bang out of order.
But at the same time I can't _really_ blame Wonga for it. Sounds like it's the sort of condition that they need to ensure they get their money back.

I'm trying to think of an analogy...
Imagine two brothers went for dinner in a restaurant, resulting in a bill for £40.
One brother hands over a £50 note (expecting £30 change) and in the meantime the other brother does a runner.
Would you really expect the restaurant to hand £30 change to the honest brother and pursue the other through the courts, etc? Or would you expect the restaurant to give £10 change and say "thank you very much", leaving the honest one to get the £20 from his brother?

Lol But if i went one time and the owner knew me and my brother. had my meal and paid. then 2 years later my brother goes in on his has a meal and doesn't pay. does that give the owner the right to use my card details coz i had dinner with my brother there 2 years later.

sistafromanothermista

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Correct.
But unfortunately that's not what the OP did.

But surely along the same vein the OP did not ask them to link the card to an account which wasn't hers? purely to take a payment from it once?!

stuartroberts

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Correct.
But unfortunately that's not what the OP did.

that is what i thought i had done 2 years ago. It should be down to them to prove to me that they made me aware of the terms.

We all agree its wrong but its 50/50 as to wonga have done anything wrong .

Its interesting because the rules can be read in both parties favor, the only exeption s are its not the loan i intended to pay off it's not my loan and they should have to prove i gave continuous authority

sistafromanothermista

I agree stuartroberts. They surely would only be allowed to do this if the loan/credit agreement was in your name and therefore bound by terms you agreed to!

JimmyTheWig

DebtClearer wrote: »

No proof he didn't do this. If it came down to a case of reasonableness it could easily be that the OP asked for them to be removed and having 2 years passed thought nothing of it. This is the story I would be telling them anyway. Infact I'd be applying further pressure that them taking this money has affected your other obligations and you will be going after compensation too.

Wonga will have telephone staff taking 1000s of calls a day, all it would take is for one idol worker to not remove the OPs details. Make sure you are adamant in your complaint in that you specifically expressed this was a one time only thing and they clarified details would the be removed. If you don't do this you will definitely get no where.

Sounds like you are encouraging the OP to lie. Be careful.

The first question here is whether Wonga would accept a payment on those terms. I'm not sure that they would. In which case the balance of probabilities would fall that the OP didn't say this as if he had said this then they wouldn't have taken the payment.
In which case, lying about it in court might get the OP into serious trouble.

meer53

Wonga have their money, the OP will also get their money back. Lesson learned that this is how PDL companies work and that it's never a good idea to give your card details to a company without asking a few questions first. The OP will feel better when he has complained. Sorted.

Anyone who wants to make a crusade out of PDL companies tactics, feel free, go ahead.

JimmyTheWig

stuartroberts wrote: »

Lol But if i went one time and the owner knew me and my brother. had my meal and paid. then 2 years later my brother goes in on his has a meal and doesn't pay. does that give the owner the right to use my card details coz i had dinner with my brother there 2 years later.

In general, no. Because there is nothing to say that you gave this permission.
But - if during the first meal your brother signed terms and conditions with the restaurant to say that the cost of further meals could be taken from the card used to pay for this meal, then asked you to use your card to pay for this meal - then I think it would be reasonable.

DevCoder

In the meantime, whilst this argument is an interesting one, the OP should be ensuring there isn't a CPA on their account, banks are legally obliged to remove them if asked although this may take some time as some banks understanding of PSR 2009 is hazy to say the least.

The section relevant to quote to them if needed is section 55.

55.—(1) A payment transaction is to be regarded as having been authorised by the payer for the purposes of this Part only if the payer has given its consent to—

(a)the execution of the payment transaction; or .
(b)the execution of a series of payment transactions of which that payment transaction forms part. .
(2) Such consent—

(a)may be given before or, if agreed between the payer and its payment service provider, after the execution of the payment transaction; and .
(b)must be given in the form, and in accordance with the procedure, agreed between the payer and its payment service provider. .
(3) The payer may withdraw its consent to a payment transaction at any time before the point at which the payment order can no longer be revoked under regulation 67.

(4) Subject to regulation 67(3) to (5), the payer may withdraw its consent to the execution of a series of payment transactions at any time with the effect that any future payment transactions are not regarded as authorised for the purposes of this Part.