Fraudulant transaction and Santander Fraud department

balmk

If they took tehpayment via Direct Debit you should be able to reclaim it under the Direct Debit guarantee (make a DD Indemnity claim)

matttye

The law states you're entitled to an immediate refund if an unauthorised payment leaves your account. Santander should refund and then investigate, not the other way around.

meer53

matttye wrote: »

The law states you're entitled to an immediate refund if an unauthorised payment leaves your account. Santander should refund and then investigate, not the other way around.

Santander first have to establish that it is unauthorised. As the OP says they do have an agreement with the loan company it's not quite as straight forward as a genuinely unauthorised transaction.

matttye

meer53 wrote: »

Santander first have to establish that it is unauthorised. As the OP says they do have an agreement with the loan company it's not quite as straight forward as a genuinely unauthorised transaction.

I disagree with this.

It's not for Santander to decide whether it was authorised or not. Only the payer can decide whether or not it was authorised.

The payer is telling the bank the transaction was NOT authorised, therefore the transaction was NOT authorised. it can't get any simpler.

The law says:

Consent and withdrawal of consent

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/209/regulation/55/made

And:

Payment service provider’s liability for unauthorised payment transactions

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/209/regulation/61/made

They relevant part is that the payment service provider must immediately refund the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction to the payer.

It doesn't mean they investigate for several weeks and then refund the money. They must do it immediately.

yangptangkipperbang

Wynney82 wrote: »

Not really a comment that was helpful!

If you don't like being told the truth don't bother asking for advice then, the comment WAS helpful.

Your thread heading is libellous - you wouldn't like it if the loan company called you a crook or something similar, so why should you do it to them ??

dalesrider

matttye wrote: »

I disagree with this.

It's not for Santander to decide whether it was authorised or not. Only the payer can decide whether or not it was authorised.

The payer is telling the bank the transaction was NOT authorised, therefore the transaction was NOT authorised. it can't get any simpler.


It doesn't mean they investigate for several weeks and then refund the money. They must do it immediately.

You quote the law which is all well and good from where you are sat.
A bank does have the right NOT TO REFUND.
Now if the OP had explained the situation to me, as he has here. He would not be getting a refund. Clearly the OP has a relationship with the company. As such that can be grounds not to refund.

Clearly it is not fraud.
If the Op forced this to be treated as such he would have to have debit card stopped. Sign a declaration stating that he did not take part or authorise the transaction.
Now that company will come back with OP's details and the agreement.
As such he would be redebited and then also face the wrath of the company. Who could very easily claim the full amount due to the OP's actions.
They could even take it to court over the fraud claim.

Sounds to me like they are going to dispute the payment, although on what grounds I'm not sure.

Remember OP you are not the only person the department is dealing with. You fax will have to be attatched to your account which can take a couple of days (forget the weekend) and then be queued up to be work in the order they are received.