Direct Debit drama

Aquamania

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

That's covered in 64(2).

:rotfl:

You really don't understand do you.

I'm not going to teach you the law because it's not appropriate to this thread anyway, but you might want to look at 63(2) which that term relates to and then 63(3) which appears, using your previous venacular, to trump it!!!

:rotfl:


But bottom line is the Direct Debit Scheme is a scheme that doesn't rely on statutes - it's a scheme owned and operated by some financial institutions (the sponsors) and is fundamentally based on trust, a trust backed by the simple Direct Debit Guarantee that leaves the Payer in complete control.

Without such trust, and by resorting to legislation, the whole scheme would be doomed to failure.

(The guide & rules are intended to standardise the Direct Debit Scheme and it's application to all participants; the requirements are mandatory; the ultimate sanction would be expulsion from the scheme by the scheme owners)

YorkshireBoy

Aquamania wrote: »

You really don't understand do you.

I'm not going to teach you the law because it's not appropriate to this thread anyway, but you might want to look at 63(2) which that term relates to and then 63(3) which appears, using your previous venacular, to trump it!!!

I understand there's a reference to "within 10 business days" for a refund. I've searched and cannot find a reference to "before you leave the bank's premises/hang up the phone", which is the point I initially made.

Without such trust...

I still don't understand why, with all this "trust", so many people report having great difficulty in getting a 'there and then' refund on the strength of their word.

Like you say though, this isn't helping the OP so best to keep it on topic.

Aquamania

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

.I still don't understand ...

Exactly.

Go and seek independent legal advice if you want to know about the law.

But you don't need to know anything about the law to understand the Direct Debit Scheme, because it doesn't rely upon it and cannot for it's success as a scheme.

I've never had any difficulty getting a payment reversed under the Direct Debit Guarantee and that is how it should be.

In the event anyone does experience issues, they should follow the bank's own complaint procedure where hopefully someone in the bank who does understand the scheme and how it is intended to work will refund the payer upon a claim.

If not I am sure the FOS will gladly relieve the bank of several hundred pounds to ensure the payer's claim is met without further issue.

YorkshireBoy

Aquamania wrote: »

Exactly.

Rather than childishly cropping my sentence for effect, why not help me, and no doubt others, understand what it is I, and no doubt others, don't understand?


ie, if "immediate" means 'there and then' why doesn't it happen in practice?

YorkshireBoy

Aquamania wrote: »

that is how it should be.

At least we agree on something.

In the event anyone does experience issues, they should follow the bank's own complaint procedure where hopefully someone in the bank who does understand the scheme and how it is intended to work will refund the payer upon a claim.

The problem, for many, with that is that it has an 8 week max timescale. Even the PSRs say only 10 days!

If not I am sure the FOS will gladly relieve the bank of several hundred pounds to ensure the payer's claim is met without further issue.

...but only if the complaint is referred to an adjudicator. If it's dealt with by frontline staff (and 5 in 6 are, and I don't think a complaint of this nature would make it up the FOS foodchain) then no fee is payable.

Be_Happy

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It's just asking for trouble if you set up a DD, and then pay some or all of the amount yourself outside the DD arrangement. As has been mentioned already, some CC companies will, as per their T&Cs, always take the statement sum by DD if a DD exists, regardless of what other payments the card owner chooses to make. But even if they are able to reduce the amount due by DD by any sums paid off some other way, it is sort of obvious that they will need to be able to process the extra payments before the DD process begins - else you might, by your decision, pay the same bill twice. Of course, such double payment would just result in you having a credit on your credit card, it is not money lost.

The only valid reason I can think of for making extra payments is if you want to spend beyond your card limit before the DD for outstanding money has been taken.

You missed the point in my post. The DD is set up to pay the MINIMUM payment so that there is never a missed payment. I make the additional payment to clear off the statement total. I don't set the DD to pay the entire amount as I would need to be sure there is enough money in the account at the time of the DD.

System

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

if "immediate" means 'there and then' why doesn't it happen in practice?

In my experience, it does happen in practice. But some customers don't know their rights under the direct debit guarantee. And, disgracefully, some bank staff don't know either (or pretend not to know).
The OP could have demanded, and got, an immediate refund from his bank of the unnecessary direct debit payment. Assuming that his manual payment reached Halifax in time, Halifax would then have had no grounds for pursuing him to pay any more (this month). But, probably, their automated systems would have imposed a "returned direct debit" charge. The OP would then have had to contest that.

Aquamania

YoungNick wrote: »

...But, probably, their automated systems would have imposed a "returned direct debit" charge. The OP would then have had to contest that.

You are correct that in the unlikley event the bank did apply a charge to a customer exercising their rights under the Direct Debit Guarantee, then a complaint should be made to the bank for it's return.

An unpaid item charge is not appropriate (nor any other charge) when a Payer is exercising their rights under the Direct Debit Guarantee