Recurring Payments Problem

yhello1

Hi Guys,
Originally posted this on a different thread but was adviced to start a new one....

Back in 2010 I tried to cancel a CPA with Halifax, which they did and then the company took the money, i complained to the bank and they reimbursed it. The company then retook the money, Halifax told me it wasn't their problem because the company had a CPA set up i challenged this and said I had cancelled it with the bank which is why it was originally reimbursed. They refused the second time (just 2 days apart from it being take reimbursed and retaken)

At the time I was going through financial difficulties and the outcome was a CPA came out my account was for £150 was a debt payment, and my account went overdrawn, they wanted it three days before i got paid so with that I was then charged £70 for going overdrawn.

I challenged this as at the time I asked the bank not to take the money and I was basically passed from pillow to post so refused to pay it, after 3 years the debt now sits at £1050, with the FSA ruling on CPA, where does this leave me, do I need to continue paying off the debt which I currently am, or can I query the whole account?

Many thanks

BaxUk

I would say you will still be liable for the debt, the issue is going to be proving your requests to cancel the CPA back in 2010.

If you can prove you requested this and were declined, and that the decline directly led to this further debt, you may have some case.

However, the fact that the debt has been allowed to mount up over 3 years by you, I would question whether you are at least partially liable for a chunk of it despite the CPA issue.

dalesrider

You need to make it clear who the debt is with?

If it is money owed to Halifax for you being overdrawn. Then as per the FSA ruling they would be looking at your case and refund not only the charges, but also paying you interest of 8% on this.
If this is the case. Then while you do not have to contact them about this. I would and raise it as a complaint again.
Clearly if you complained back in 2010 it will be logged on their system. If not then the FCA will be hitting them hard.

If the debt is with the loan co (or who ever this is with) then you still need to pay it. As while you told Halifax NOT TO PAY. It does not cancel the actual agreement with the company you took it out with. Only means that Halifax have not got to pay them.

This is where PSD 2009 has a major flaw and needs testing in court.

BaxUk

dalesrider wrote: »

You need to make it clear who the debt is with?

If it is money owed to Halifax for you being overdrawn. Then as per the FSA ruling they would be looking at your case and refund not only the charges, but also paying you interest of 8% on this.
If this is the case. Then while you do not have to contact them about this. I would and raise it as a complaint again.
Clearly if you complained back in 2010 it will be logged on their system. If not then the FCA will be hitting them hard.

If the debt is with the loan co (or who ever this is with) then you still need to pay it. As while you told Halifax NOT TO PAY. It does not cancel the actual agreement with the company you took it out with. Only means that Halifax have not got to pay them.

This is where PSD 2009 has a major flaw and needs testing in court.

How is this a flaw in PSD 2009?

dalesrider

Because that people think by stopping the bank/card provider from giving the company the money.
That any agreement/debt is no longer in place.

ALL PSD is about is making your bank/card provider stop making payments NOT ending any contract that is in place.

I think we will see quite a few companies taking people to court over non payment after they have contacted their bank/card provider to stop payment.

Think you can start a 12 month contract to pay monthly. Then ring bank and stop payments.
Is that fair to the company. Who YOU agreed to their terms. But simply decided to request a 3rd party to stop payment...

Ins co.. No bother you will no longer be insured.
Sky. I guess they will simply block access.
Gym. You won't get through the door.
PDL... You most likely be taken to court. As well as a wrecked credit score.
Other companies or the above may take a different approach and enforce the 12 month contract and take you to court for non payment.

BaxUk

dalesrider wrote: »

Because that people think by stopping the bank/card provider from giving the company the money.
That any agreement/debt is no longer in place.

ALL PSD is about is making your bank/card provider stop making payments NOT ending any contract that is in place.

I think we will see quite a few companies taking people to court over non payment after they have contacted their bank/card provider to stop payment.

Think you can start a 12 month contract to pay monthly. Then ring bank and stop payments.
Is that fair to the company. Who YOU agreed to their terms. But simply decided to request a 3rd party to stop payment...

Ins co.. No bother you will no longer be insured.
Sky. I guess they will simply block access.
Gym. You won't get through the door.
PDL... You most likely be taken to court. As well as a wrecked credit score.
Other companies or the above may take a different approach and enforce the 12 month contract and take you to court for non payment.

Some good points, but I dont understand how this is a flaw with PSD 2009?

It was never designed to try and give people a quick way out of debit, simply an option of paying by other means.

The frankly annoying abuse of it currently by people with their payday loans is a joke. If you take out a loan, you should pay it back. You shouldnt make your bank take the hit/write off if a payment goes through beyond their control.

Currently, banks are effectively writing off some customer's payday loans due to PSD 2009. Whilst I am extremely sympathetic to people in debt, the banks are a business at the end of the day and shouldnt be forced to pay off a customer's debts due to a 4 year old directive that doesnt really apply fairly to todays world.

dalesrider

BaxUk wrote: »

Currently, banks are effectively writing off some customer's payday loans due to PSD 2009. Whilst I am extremely sympathetic to people in debt, the banks are a business at the end of the day and shouldnt be forced to pay off a customer's debts due to a 4 year old directive that doesnt really apply fairly to todays world.

Not being written off. Its claimed back from the companies.

As far as the OP goes.
Until they come back and clear up where the debt is owed.

NO proper advice can be given.