3 very odd direct debits

matttye

dalesrider wrote: »

Simple. I'll let you think of the answer

You're going to have to help me out here because I don't see how it's possible!

Edit: unless it's covered by FSCS or some other compensation scheme.

guesswho2000

matttye wrote: »

You're going to have to help me out here because I don't see how it's possible!

Edit: unless it's covered by FSCS or some other compensation scheme.

May be mistaken, but I think dalesrider was inferring that we (as in the bank's customers) will pick up the tab, by way of fees, charges, higher interest rates on borrowing, lower on saving, etc etc; he's right, the banks won't lose out.

Even the thousands they're lending me at 0% for now are being offset by the fact my mortgage is interest bearing, my savings are earning a pittance and every purchase I make earns them interchange.

chriswa1

dalesrider wrote: »

Who? Royal Sun Alliance - for a Homebase Dog Insurance, Octane Media and Hearst Magazine



Have you ever used these companies, while living in that street?
No


Well without knowing who the co's are can't commet.
As above


Any invistagion will have to be by the party suffering the loss... That will be the 3 co's
They don't seem interested in investigating either, though are happy to co-operate with any police enquiries, of course.


How did it take 5 hours to stop 3 DD's not set up by yourself??? Perhaps I phrased this poorly. It took 5 hours in total to deal with all issues. This included discussing with the fraud department (being transferred between 3 departments to do this), then chasing the fraud department twice as they had missed their deadline (given by them) for a response. Then discovering they hadn't investigated anything as promised. Then being told they had never spoken to me in the first place and that the branch dealt with the issue. Then being told by the branch they couldn't deal with it. Then having to find out more information directly from the 3 companies regarding the direct debits. Then finally after speaking to someone sensible in the fraud department, to change my account number (which initself took 50 minutes of my time).

I have a idea of what may have happened, but will await some replies before. I answer....

Thanks for your comments so far.

chriswa1

innovate wrote: »

Only if they have a Direct Debit authority, which isn't terribly easy to get. And once in place, payments to the person/outfit the payments went to, can be traced with 100% certainty. Perhaps read up how to set yourself up so you can take DDs?

Do you understand what's involved in checking someone's address? You should be delighted that there is no requirement for address (or name) check when processing a direct debit, or other payment. If there were one, we would have babylonic confusion over why millions of payments aren't executed.

The Direct Debit Guarantee is there to protect you when something goes wrong. It worked as designed in your case, like it should. So what's the issue?

The issue is the low level of security. As for knowing what is involved with checking an address, yes, I think we all are. The other method of setting up a direct debit requires this, so surely it can't me that arduous a task. Frankly I prefer security over simplicity anyway, as a general rule.

As for the issue - I've already outlined that. The guarantee didn't actually work for me, as I resolved all the direct debit issues myself. It is obviously good in itself, but I didn't actually want to spend 5 hours addressing this problem. That's an unacceptable amount of time, and frankly I don't think I should have had to pay for the telephone calls to my bank either. I believe that as I'm not at fault, I should be compensated. Most of us tend to feel that way I believe.

chriswa1

innovate wrote: »

Actually, they are not. Because they will come with a vengeance after the real culprit, and they will have the last laugh.

I wish they would. They show no interest in investigating the matter however.

Herbalus

chriswa1 wrote: »

I don't think I should have had to pay for the telephone calls to my bank either. I believe that as I'm not at fault, I should be compensated. Most of us tend to feel that way I believe.

I don't disagree with the idea, but it's also not the banks fault that someone else set up the direct debits to come from your account. Your compensation would be due from the person who wronged you.

(I guess from your posts that you would argue the bank's lack of security in this matter is a fault, but the direct debit guarantee means it's highly unlikely that you would have lost any money).

chriswa1

Herbalus wrote: »

I don't disagree with the idea, but it's also not the banks fault that someone else set up the direct debits to come from your account. Your compensation would be due from the person who wronged you.

(I guess from your posts that you would argue the bank's lack of security in this matter is a fault, but the direct debit guarantee means it's highly unlikely that you would have lost any money).

Thanks for your comments. You're correct that ideally I should be compensated by the wrongdoer. Sadly I don't know who that is. You are right that I think that the bank hasn't provided appropriate security. You are also right that I wouldn't have lost money, but I don't think that it is right that they provided a fairly insecure service. I will complain to them about the difficulty in addressing the security issues, which I know from past dealings with banks will get me around £50-£100. However, my main concerns are that the direct debit process is insecure (you seek to prevent problems not to compensate those who had problems) and that I do not know why there was a problem in the first place, which isn't helped by the bank's lack of interest in seeking to establish the cause of the problem. I'd certainly want to check for similar issues if I was a bank.

innovate

chriswa1 wrote: »

I wish they would. They show no interest in investigating the matter however.

They are unlikely to tell you that they are investigating, and / or telling you the result of their investigations. They are even legally prohibited from telling you when there is suspected fraud involved.

You got your money back, thus the matter should be closed for you. With almost guaranteed certainty, paying you your money back is only the start of the matter for the bank.

anna42hmr

chriswa1 wrote: »

Thanks for your comments. You're correct that ideally I should be compensated by the wrongdoer. Sadly I don't know who that is. You are right that I think that the bank hasn't provided appropriate security. You are also right that I wouldn't have lost money, but I don't think that it is right that they provided a fairly insecure service. I will complain to them about the difficulty in addressing the security issues, which I know from past dealings with banks will get me around £50-£100. However, my main concerns are that the direct debit process is insecure (you seek to prevent problems not to compensate those who had problems) and that I do not know why there was a problem in the first place, which isn't helped by the bank's lack of interest in seeking to establish the cause of the problem. I'd certainly want to check for similar issues if I was a bank.

It is not necessarily the bank that has a security issue. There is a system called AUDDIS which allows companies to set up dd's without any bank authorisation etc. the banks themselves don't see the mandates at all, or signatures the co sets it up and claims from the bank directly,

As stated on bacs site it's the dd origator ie the company claiming the dd's responsibility to check payments are claimed legitimately:


Q. Isn't there a risk of fraud if customers' signatures aren't checked by banks?
A.
It's extremely unlikely because you have responsibility for verifying your customers' identities via methods such as credit reference checks, cross-referencing with the electoral register or your own historical customer records. Furthermore, before joining AUDDIS, you must satisfy your bank about the checking procedures you intend to adopt.
http://www.bacs.co.uk/Bacs/Businesses/FAQ/Pages/AUDDIS.aspx
As another poster has stated, if your account details have been given fraudulently they may not be able to tell you the outcome etc as could be considered tipping off

chriswa1

innovate wrote: »

They are unlikely to tell you that they are investigating, and / or telling you the result of their investigations. They are even legally prohibited from telling you when there is suspected fraud involved.

You got your money back, thus the matter should be closed for you. With almost guaranteed certainty, paying you your money back is only the start of the matter for the bank.

I'd be fascinated to hear why they are prohibited. That would seem ridiculous to most people. I'm not sure you are correct mind you, given that initially they did say they would investigate, but just didn't.

I don't see why the matter should be closed to me either. I have already said that it isn't and confirmed why and what will happen.