We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
3 very odd direct debits
Comments
-
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
Interesting post. That must be the direct debit process that I've been informed of that seems insecure (relatively at least). It just seems the whole process is flawed. I believe most people would expect most banks to provide reasonable levels of security. The level of security here is minimal. I doubt if there is anything the bank has done wrong, as the industry standards appear inadequate. This makes sense given the increase in direct debit fraud.0 -
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.
It is not ridiculous at all that they are prohibited from telling you anything about an active investigation into fraudulent activity. Just think it through, and you will figure out why.
Just because they are not telling you that and what they are investigating doesn't mean they are not investigating anything. You may not like it, but once you got your money back, you have absolutely zero right to any further information about the case. As I said, think it through and you will figure out why.0 -
Interesting post. That must be the direct debit process that I've been informed of that seems insecure (relatively at least). It just seems the whole process is flawed. I believe most people would expect most banks to provide reasonable levels of security. The level of security here is minimal. I doubt if there is anything the bank has done wrong, as the industry standards appear inadequate. This makes sense given the increase in direct debit fraud.
Considering there are hundreds of millions of direct debits that get processed each year, without any complaints, you can hardly say the process is flawed. There's a handful of stray transactions a year, most of which are likely to be genuine errors.
Any real fraudulent attempts will be very short lived since the recipient is well known to the bank/BS. Unless they have a very plausible explanation, their DD authorisation will be cancelled, their credit record will have been shot to pieces, they could find themselves in Court and their business will be ruined for life.
Joe Bloggs is protected by the Direct Debit Guarantee.0 -
That must be the direct debit process that I've been informed of that seems insecure (relatively at least). It just seems the whole process is flawed. I believe most people would expect most banks to provide reasonable levels of security. The level of security here is minimal. I doubt if there is anything the bank has done wrong, as the industry standards appear inadequate. This makes sense given the increase in direct debit fraud.
There are two ways: with paper, and paperless. Both need the same level of information, but even with paper there is no guarantee that the paper instruction will ever get anywhere near the bank as most will be kept on file by the Service User and transmitted to the bank electronically via AUDDIS. It is nowadays incredibly rare to see any DD Service User forward a paper instruction to the bank in any other circumstance other than fraud or a dispute.
As you've been refunded, you've suffered no loss. The bank (and ultimately the Service User) have and so you're not the victim of any crime (if one occurred and this isn't just a genuine mistake). As they are the 'victims' it's up to them to press for an investigation/prosecution if they feel that it's in their interests.
Innovate has already stated: given the volume of DD transactions processed and the relatively few 'incidents' that occur in relation to AUDDIS instructions, it's a non-issue. Indeed the DD Guarantee is there for these types of incidents; you say that this didn't work for you - can you elaborate? It should have gone like this:
You: Hello bank, I have three DDs taken from my account today which I don't recognise. Could you tell me when they were set up?
Bank: They were set up last week.
You: Hmm, I haven't set any DDs up recently. Could you cancel them immediately? I'd like to claim the funds taken under the DD guarantee under which I am guaranteed a full and immediate refund.
Bank: Certainly; are you certain you don't recognise them?
You: No I don't.
Bank: I'll raise that refund immediately for you.
If that's not the way the conversation went, you need to raise it as an issue with the bank.43580 -
It is not ridiculous at all that they are prohibited from telling you anything about an active investigation into fraudulent activity. Just think it through, and you will figure out why.
Just because they are not telling you that and what they are investigating doesn't mean they are not investigating anything. You may not like it, but once you got your money back, you have absolutely zero right to any further information about the case. As I said, think it through and you will figure out why.
Please enlighten me as requested before. I can think of daft reasons, such as they don't wish to admit mistakes, or that they know their system is insecure, but neither of these are matters that they are prohibited to discuss. Nor does the data protection act prevent them.0 -
There are two ways: with paper, and paperless. Both need the same level of information, but even with paper there is no guarantee that the paper instruction will ever get anywhere near the bank as most will be kept on file by the Service User and transmitted to the bank electronically via AUDDIS. It is nowadays incredibly rare to see any DD Service User forward a paper instruction to the bank in any other circumstance other than fraud or a dispute.
As you've been refunded, you've suffered no loss. The bank (and ultimately the Service User) have and so you're not the victim of any crime (if one occurred and this isn't just a genuine mistake). As they are the 'victims' it's up to them to press for an investigation/prosecution if they feel that it's in their interests.
Innovate has already stated: given the volume of DD transactions processed and the relatively few 'incidents' that occur in relation to AUDDIS instructions, it's a non-issue. Indeed the DD Guarantee is there for these types of incidents; you say that this didn't work for you - can you elaborate? It should have gone like this:
You: Hello bank, I have three DDs taken from my account today which I don't recognise. Could you tell me when they were set up?
Bank: They were set up last week.
You: Hmm, I haven't set any DDs up recently. Could you cancel them immediately? I'd like to claim the funds taken under the DD guarantee under which I am guaranteed a full and immediate refund.
Bank: Certainly; are you certain you don't recognise them?
You: No I don't.
Bank: I'll raise that refund immediately for you.
If that's not the way the conversation went, you need to raise it as an issue with the bank.
Thanks for your comments. That basically formed part of the conversation. I've outlined my other concerns previously regarding the amount of time speaking to the bank and also the lack of security in relation to this matter. It appears direct debit fraud is on the increase, so perhaps they need to do more. Not everyone will monitor their monies as frequently as me, and perhaps they need greater assistance.0 -
Considering there are hundreds of millions of direct debits that get processed each year, without any complaints, you can hardly say the process is flawed. There's a handful of stray transactions a year, most of which are likely to be genuine errors.
Any real fraudulent attempts will be very short lived since the recipient is well known to the bank/BS. Unless they have a very plausible explanation, their DD authorisation will be cancelled, their credit record will have been shot to pieces, they could find themselves in Court and their business will be ruined for life.
Joe Bloggs is protected by the Direct Debit Guarantee.
They don't know who has committed the fraud and appear disinterested in finding out who, as already stated.
3 direct debits against one account is ridiculous, so unlikely to be an error, but how do we find out - brilliant idea, how about the bank looking into the matter - which they won't.
As stated before - always prevent a problem, don't seek to address it when it occurs, especially if, as appears it can easily occur - even the bank have admitted that.0 -
They don't know who has committed the fraud and appear disinterested in finding out who, as already stated.
If you can you not get your head round the fact that they will not / are not allowed to tell you what they are investigating or have investigated, and that you only have the right to your money back, I can't help you.0 -
Please enlighten me as requested before. I can think of daft reasons, such as they don't wish to admit mistakes, or that they know their system is insecure, but neither of these are matters that they are prohibited to discuss. Nor does the data protection act prevent them.
They don't know for certain that YOU are not complicit in the fraud. Therefore they will not discuss it with you0 -
If you can you not get your head round the fact that they will not / are not allowed to tell you what they are investigating or have investigated, and that you only have the right to your money back, I can't help you.
If you cannot or will not say why, then why should I believe you?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards