Standing Order/DD

SuperHan

thewad wrote: »

What bothers me is I signed for a SO so how did they set up the DD w/o my authorisation.....if a firm I know can do it so can a scammer.

Yes, but it would be pointless, as one phone call to the bank means they will reverse the DD payment in full and immediately if you ring and say you don't agree to the payment. So nobody really bothers scamming with direct debits.

I think it was Jeremy Clarkson who made a similar point by publishing his bank details in a national newspaper, to make the point that although that's all you need to set up a DD, nothing fraudulent can come of it.

Also, are you 100% sure it's a DD? It doesn't say automated debit or something like that in the description does it? Because that can still be a standing order... It's of no benefit really for the company to change it from an SO to a DD. Once you send an SO, it's theirs and you cannot get that money back. Once they take a DD, it's really still yours, just in their bank account if you choose to claim it back under the guarantee. It's much less secure for them.

grumbler

SuperHan wrote: »

I think it was Jeremy Clarkson who made a similar point by publishing his bank details in a national newspaper, to make the point that although that's all you need to set up a DD, nothing fraudulent can come of it.

You've got it absolutely wrong. LOL.
The point he tried to make was quite the opposite - that the bank details weren't a secret and it was absolutely safe to publish/broadcast them as they could be used only for paying money into the account, not taking money from the account. Somebody used the published details to set a DD to some charity to prove him wrong.

Gromitt

SuperHan wrote: »

It's of no benefit really for the company to change it from an SO to a DD. Once you send an SO, it's theirs and you cannot get that money back. Once they take a DD, it's really still yours, just in their bank account if you choose to claim it back under the guarantee. It's much less secure for them.

A DD will also cost them more to process than an SO, but they'll usually accept this as its cheaper than cards and provides a much better administration system than SOs. My ISP recently changed from SO to DD to make things easier even though it costs them more. Some customers were always overdue because of the date they specified to the bank, some missed out the reference information, some the incorrect amount, etc. (So it probably costs them less, overall).

eskbanker

grumbler wrote: »

You've got it absolutely wrong. LOL.
The point he tried to make was quite the opposite - that the bank details weren't a secret and it was absolutely safe to publish/broadcast them as they could be used only for paying money into the account, not taking money from the account. Somebody used the published details to set a DD to some charity to prove him wrong.

Agreed, but wasn't the final piece of the jigsaw that under the DD guarantee he could have got it reversed and therefore ultimately not lost out by publishing his details? If memory serves correctly he chose not to do so - you can imagine the "rich TV star takes money from charity" headlines, not that he seems to care a great deal about his image!

grumbler

Yes, but can you imagine how many people don't check their statements thoroughly and how many small DDs slip through unnoticed?

The fact remains: the current system of setting DDs up is flawed and open to abuse. Your current account details aren't top secret, but are better to be kept secret.

This thread is just another proof of how easy it is to set up a DD without any authorisation.

innovate

grumbler wrote: »

Yes, but can you imagine how many people don't check their statements thoroughly and how many small DDs slip through unnoticed?

The fact remains: the current system of setting DDs up is flawed and open to abuse. Your current account details aren't top secret, but are better to be kept secret.

This thread is just another proof of how easy it is to set up a DD without any authorisation.

You are being quite religious in your opposition to DDs. You also keep ignoring that tens of millions of them work without any problem each year, that they are saving tens of millions of people real money and time, that they are saving copious amounts of paper and postage as they replaced billions of cheques, that they are improving the cashflow and reducing the operating costs of countless businesses, and that there is a DD guarantee.

What alternative that provides all those benefits do you have to offer, and is 100% resilient against human error?

It is ridiculous to suggest that the DD system is flawed because people can't be expected to check their bank statements. The whole purpose of bank statements is so people can confirm that all outgoing and incoming transactions are as expected. These days, you don't even have to wait for statements as you can check our account online 24x7. Also, it is ever so easy to check whether you have DDs on your account, and get rid of any that should be there. There is just about no excuse for not knowing that money was taken from your account that shouldn't have been taken.

As to keeping your bank account number secret - if there was a serious issue with that information, it wouldn't have been printed on cheques for the last 60-odd years, or on debit cards since debit cards came into existence a couple of decades or so ago.

If anyone finds any unauthorised/unknown DDs on their statements, they still have the DD guarantee to get all their money back.

Regarding abuse: any company/organisation that can collect money via DD has to be registered for the service and is easily traceable. None of them will be stupid enough and set up fraudulent DDs.


In the case of the OP, it appears human error occurred and a DD has been set up instead of an SO. The OP would have had to pay the same amount regardless, so no financial loss has occurred. But clearly, the OP should be asking the company and the bank involved how the error could have happened, and what gets done to prevent it from happening again. I would assume the OP has in the meantime cancelled the DD and replaced it with an SO that they set up themselves.

grumbler

innovate wrote: »

You are being quite religious in your opposition to DDs.

Stop misquoting me, please. You know well that my 'opposition' is not to DDs, but to the the system that allows setting them on the sly, often without the account holder knowing.

You also keep ignoring that tens of millions of them work without any problem each year, that they are saving tens of millions of people real money and time, that they are saving copious amounts of paper and postage as they replaced billions of cheques, that they are improving the cashflow and reducing the operating costs of countless businesses, and that there is a DD guarantee.

I am not ignoring anything.
Firstly, "tens of millions" is poor consolation to tens/hundreds/thousands (who knows?) that fall victims of this and spend their time on putting things right with the help of the DD guarantee. And there is no any statistics on how many such DDs slip unnoticed. You know well that for years many people keep paying by DDs that they did authorise, but failed/forgot to cancel when the time came.

Secondly, if something works (apparently) well, this doesn't mean that it cannot work better.

What alternative that provides all those benefits do you have to offer, and is 100% resilient against human error?

Nothing is 100% reliable, but if you don't remember you can check the earlier discussions for the alternative I suggested. Experts, if wanted, could have suggested something better. They get paid for this.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the DD system is flawed because people can't be expected to check their bank statements.

IMO it's ridiculous to suggest that it's fine that money can be easily taken from peoples account without their consent only because they are supposed to keep their eye on the statements and then spend time and efforts on getting the money refunded.
Is it fine for you if I take money from your purse without telling you and leave a note in the purse promising to give the money back when you discover this in the middle of nowhere and call me?

The whole purpose of bank statements is so people can confirm that all outgoing and incoming transactions are as expected. These days, you don't even have to wait for statements as you can check our account online 24x7.

Personally, I can do this. However, I think many (most?) people have more important things to do in their lives than keep checking their statements 24/7.

Also, it is ever so easy to check whether you have DDs on your account, and get rid of any that should be there.

You know well how easy for the company is to reinstate the DD without your consent.

As to keeping your bank account number secret - if there was a serious issue with that information, it wouldn't have been printed on cheques for the last 60-odd years, or on debit cards since debit cards came into existence a couple of decades or so ago.

The problem didn't exist before the new ill-designed paperless system had been introduced.

Regarding abuse: any company/organisation that can collect money via DD has to be registered for the service and is easily traceable. None of them will be stupid enough and set up fraudulent DDs.

Fraud is very difficult to prove. Was it a fraud in Jeremy Clarkson's case? I can easily imagine a fraudster setting up a charity and then setting small DDs on random accounts. It's next to impossible to trace who exactly 'authorised' the DDs. Most of them will be cancelled. Small proportion will keep going for years.

In the case of the OP, it appears human error occurred and a DD has been set up instead of an SO. The OP would have had to pay the same amount regardless, so no financial loss has occurred. But clearly, the OP should be asking the company and the bank involved how the error could have happened, and what gets done to prevent it from happening again.

How on earth is the bank supposed to know this and prevent from happening again?

SuperHan

grumbler wrote: »

You've got it absolutely wrong. LOL.
The point he tried to make was quite the opposite - that the bank details weren't a secret and it was absolutely safe to publish/broadcast them as they could be used only for paying money into the account, not taking money from the account. Somebody used the published details to set a DD to some charity to prove him wrong.

No, I haven't.

I know what JC was trying to do, but the point still stands here.

Why does the OP care that it's a DD, because as JC made the point, they can't really be fraudulent, because you can reverse them.

Somebody set up a DD on his account, and he could have had that money back if he had wanted it.

I would know if there was a DD on my account. It's not about checking your bank 24/7, you just need to log in once a month and check the list of DDs set up on the account. Any you don't recognise, cancel them. Online banking will tell you if they have debited yet, ring the bank if they have.

I'd rather have the current system, rather than an onerous one that spends days checking my identity, and I'm not alone... Haven't you read angry comments on here where banks have humiliated customers by blocking their cards in the instances of wrongly suspected fraud. I'd rather my car insurance be paid, and I claim back if it's wrong than be driving round uninsured because the bank hasn't verified the payment in time.....

grumbler

SuperHan wrote: »

... but the point still stands here......

It does, but it is the other point, not the one that he wanted to make.

SuperHan

grumbler wrote: »

It does, but it is the other point, not the one that he wanted to make.

Well I did say he made a similar point, not that he made this point exactly in this scenario.

Maybe I should have said 'In a roundabout sort of way Jeremy Clarkson sort of eluded to what I am saying'.

Please accept my apologies for the lack of complete and incontestable clarity.