Bank keeps cancelling my direct debit

dalesrider

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

The issue here is that his bank have a cancellation in place for this mandate so he can set it up with the electric company (EC) as often as he likes and the bank will keep returning it all the time.

As I said bad advice from energy co....

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

You may like to say that it's up to the EC to sort it out but clearly the only option they have is to set up a new mandate - how is that going to help ? The bank are certainly not going to talk to the EC about it and quite rightly too. DP Act anyone ?

Op. Has set a new one up with the energy co. It is upto them to get the bank to take the DD.
DPA is not a issue here, as both parties have all the details required.

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

It is not the EC's fault the dd keeps bouncing (although they shouldn't have advised him to cancel it and set up a new one, but too late now, it's happened)

So bad advice form the energy co is not their fault

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

and equally it isn't the banks fault either. Partly why I suggested in an earlier post to remove the word fault altogether and replace with responsible.

The FAULT lays clearly at the door of the energy company for their BAD advice.
Had they not given this bad and incorrect advice then this problem would not have happened.
As such any issue on credit report are for them to repair.

Had the bank given this advice the OP would be looking at a nice little payout as a result.

Hanky_Panky

dalesrider wrote: »

As I said bad advice from energy co....



Op. Has set a new one up with the energy co. It is upto them to get the bank to take the DD.
DPA is not a issue here, as both parties have all the details required.



So bad advice form the energy co is not their fault



The FAULT lays clearly at the door of the energy company for their BAD advice.
Had they not given this bad and incorrect advice then this problem would not have happened.
As such any issue on credit report are for them to repair.

Had the bank given this advice the OP would be looking at a nice little payout as a result.

I typed a big reply but for some reason it didn't submit properly.

Suffice it to say I think you are niaive and making assumptions which with your signature is quite funny. :rotfl:

Hazzanet

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Sorry but you are just completely wrong - grumbler can rest his case all he likes but it doesn't mean he is correct either.

Not sure whether you're talking from the Bank side of things or the Service User side, but my experience is from the Service User (Electric Company) side.

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

The issue here is that his bank have a cancellation in place for this mandate so he can set it up with the electric company (EC) as often as he likes and the bank will keep returning it all the time.

Normally this would return on the ARUDD (unpaid DDs) report as a 1: Instruction Cancelled, which (should/would) have been preceeded by an ADDACS (cancellation) report as 0 or 1: Instruction Cancelled.

For AUDDIS users, this is the prompt to contact the payer and ask for permission to 're-set up' the DD instruction.

If the ADDACS reason code was 0 then the customer needs to speak with the bank.

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

You may like to say that it's up to the EC to sort it out but clearly the only option they have is to set up a new mandate - how is that going to help ?

Unless a 'block' has been placed on the account against the EC's Service User Number, it should be as easy as sending a new 0N transaction to change the instruction from cancelled to active AFTER confirming with the customer that they have permission to do so.

If there's a block, there's probably been a miskey at the bank and this needs the bank to resolve at their end before the EC sends a new 0N transaction.

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

The bank are certainly not going to talk to the EC about it and quite rightly too. DP Act anyone ?

Limited conversation between the two parties is allowed subject to the conversation being solely about resolving the BACS problem and information already shared between both parties. Frankly such conversations frequently amount to nothing and aren't worth the time.

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

In the meantime he/she is missing payments, the op's internal credit rating with the EC is getting shot - possibly his external one too if they report it to a CCA. And all because he takes the stance that it's up to them to sort out. Would you risk getting a ccj because you were too belligerent to sort it our yourself?

Agreed this does need some limited co-ordination between customer, bank and EC.

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

It is not the EC's fault the dd keeps bouncing (although they shouldn't have advised him to cancel it and set up a new one, but too late now, it's happened) and equally it isn't the banks fault either. Partly why I suggested in an earlier post to remove the word fault altogether and replace with responsible.

For the record I have seen this happen in the past hundreds of times.

We're making assumptions here; is the EC using the right reference number? Have they sent the 0N with the right reference number? Are they using the right Service User Number? Has the bank miskeyed a block instead of a cancel? It could quite possibly be the EC or bank's 'fault', only the BACS transaction logs can prove anything here.

I agree that cancelling and re-setting up the DD is a daft way to do this when the amount should have just been varied.