DD cancelled but bank paid out and charged

kitkat34

innovate grumbler was talking about the fact that the dd was cancelled not about different amounts dd might take. You need to look at what happened dd was CANCELLED therefore it was no more the company set it up again THAT IS NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT AUTHORISATION WHICH THEY DID NOT HAVE.


Innovate do you understand yet???? I feel like im talking to a 5 year old

grumbler

@innovate
Stop misquoting me, please.

I did say 'explicit authorisation', but not "in the context of increased premiums".
The website says just 'authorisation', that is essentially the same.

The original DD had been cancelled. The reinstatement of the DD, not the new amount, needed authorisation. Varying amount has nothing to do with this and is absolutely irrelevant. The entire DD had been cancelled, not some amount.

Yes, I am bound by the T&C and the company can chase me for the money I owe them (in fact insurance companies normally just stop the policy if the money isn't paid). However, they have no right simply to take money from my account by reinstating the cancelled DD without a new authorisation.

innovate

grumbler wrote: »

@innovate
Stop misquoting me, please.

I did say 'explicit authorisation', but not "in the context of increased premiums".

I have not misquoted you, grumbler.

You said

grumbler wrote: »

No way.
The DD has to be authorised explicitly.

that was indirect response (as you quoted it) to me saying:

innovate wrote: »

In the notice, there were probably words to the effect "you don't need to do anything if you accept these changes, and we will collect £££ from your account not xx/xx/xx.

Thus you had authorised the DD.

Granted, my text that you quoted did not contain the word "increased premiums" but it is abundantly clear that my quoted text refers to the increase in premium.

Also, you are just wrong by saying people need to explicitly authorise DDs (when the DD amount changes). One single authorisation might well be good for a variety of amounts, over a period of time.

It all depends on the T&Cs of the service you are paying for by DD. (is there an echo, I think I said this before).

Gromitt

Does anyone know the actual terms of the DD that the OP agreed to? I doubt it, so all we can do is guess the contents.

For all we know, the company didn't even notice that the DD was cancelled by the OP. All they noticed is that the insurance hasn't been cancelled so therefore the OP wishes to carry on with the insurance. (Continue reading before replying)

They might know that could not collect the funds under the original DD mandate as they had not specified "varying amounts on various dates", so they cancelled the original mandate and created a new one for the new insurance, which the OP had authorised as they did not cancel the policy. At this point it doesn't matter what the OP does with the original DD. It's redundant.

The company concerned are not going to write to you and say "We would like to create a new DD, please give us authorisation to do so" when they have already sent out the letter stating that the amount will be changing. The letter is in itself a request for authorisation.

BMN

Gromitt wrote: »

Does anyone know the actual terms of the DD that the OP agreed to?

This is important.
You're "authorisation" for a direct debit lies with the company and whatever terms they specify.

grumbler

innovate wrote: »

I have not misquoted you, grumbler.

You had and you do it again, by omitting the important statement that followed: "They have no right to reinstate the DD".

Possibly, you missed the fact the the OP cancelled the DD, but I didn't miss it. All what I said referred to an unauthorised reinstatement of a cancelled DD. I can only repeat that the increased/varying amount was absolutely irrelevant.

You said that DD could be reinstated by some 'implicit' authorisation: "Thus you had authorised the DD". Uncancelled DD doesn't need any authorisation. So, this didn't "refer to the increase in premium" for anyone except, possibly, you.

Also, you are just wrong by saying people need to explicitly authorise DDs (when the DD amount changes).

Again, you are misquoting me as I have never said this. I think you just have misunderstood me, hence this debate.

One single authorisation might well be good for a variety of amounts, over a period of time.

Yes, until the DD is cancelled.

It all depends on the T&Cs of the service you are paying for by DD.

No, reinstatement of a cancelled DD depends on the DD rules and regulations only, not on the T&C

Aquamania

igaveupnowimback wrote: »

Hi. Not sure if right place to post. I cancelled an annual DD online with TSB after external company (appliance insurance) gave notice that they were increasing premium by almost 100%, after 9 years paying £34 pa it was going to be £64.:mad:
I did not contact the company, it seemed just another hassle amidst hectic life at moment. Checked cancelled online. Today letter from TSB re overdrawn and charges of £10 per day since last week. TSB paid the company.
Phoned TSB, they confirmed DD cancelled early December, but say company reinstated the DD at new amount. I asked how could they reinstate without my agreement, they say original agreement suffices.
DD code practice seems to say bank not at liberty to pay out post cancellation. Is this my fault, could the fact I didnt contact company be construed as acceptance? TSB say my problem is with the company, I think why does TSB allow cancellation online if it is meaningless ? Apologies for long post, confused.

Mistakes made all round here I'm afraid.

First of all, as you have been already been correctly advised in this thread, cancelling a DDI does not cancel the underlying contract. You would need to contact the company directly to do this, and your failure to do so could mean you are liable for the costs they claim (refer to the terms of the specific contract)

With regards to the Direct Debit Scheme, there are certain occasions that a DDI may be reinstated, but the reinstatement of a DDI by the service provider when it was cancelled by the payer direct to the payers bank is specifically not allowed under the scheme; the service provider would be required to obtain the payer's permission to create a new DDI.

If you wish to pursue this, if only to recover your consequential losses (bank charges), then enforce your rights under the direct debit guarantee. If the bank still won't play ball, raise a formal complaint with them.

Bank front line staff are notoriously ill-educated over the rules of the DD scheme, but hopefully a formal complaint to the bank will escalate the matter to someone there who is aware of the rules.
If all else fails, then when you eventually complain to the FOS I feel sure you will be granted your rights.

Good luck!

rb10

Innovate, I'm going to have to side with Grumbler here.

When a DD is cancelled by a bank:

* The company will receive automatic notification that the DD mandate has been cancelled
* The company is not allowed to set up a new DD without the customer's explicit consent (i.e. the insurance company should not have done this)
* If the company does do this, then the amount can be claimed back by the customer under the DD Guarantee (i.e. TSB should have paid back the OP today)

If a customer's DD is not paid (whether it's been cancelled or returned unpaid due to lack of funds):

* The service being paid for (i.e. the insurance policy) would not normally be automatically cancelled (the policyholder may just wish to pay by another means, e.g. send a cheque in the post)
* The customer therefore still owes the company the money (so in this case the OP will have to contact the insurance company and see what they say about cancelling at this stage - they are likely to have to pay a cancellation fee, as they allowed the policy to roll over for another year).

BMN

rb10 wrote: »

* The company is not allowed to set up a new DD without the customer's explicit consent (i.e. the insurance company should not have done this)

But you may have (inadvertently) given this consent when signing up to the insurance?

grumbler

BMN wrote: »

But you may have (inadvertently) given this consent when signing up to the insurance?

In the time of paper mandates this would mean giving the company a right to keep signing the DD mandates on behalf of you.
Can you really imagine this?