Mint Direct Debit Scam

YorkshireBoy

SteveEast9 wrote: »

Of course, the point of this post was not that but the *refusal* of Mint - given all the facts - to agree a goodwill refund of the fee. That is the 'scam' here.

Up until the last year or so I'm sure you would have been refunded your £10.

However, financial institutions have tightened up on goodwill gestures since customers started claiming back their 'unlawful' default fees which has severely impacted on their profits.

Many institutions now have a zero tolerance policy as a result of the above, and especially if you get 'heavy' with the CSA.

SteveEast9

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Up until the last year or so I'm sure you would have been refunded your £10.

However, financial institutions have tightened up on goodwill gestures since customers started claiming back their 'unlawful' default fees which has severely impacted on their profits.

Many institutions now have a zero tolerance policy as a result of the above, and especially if you get 'heavy' with the CSA.

Not relevant since I have never been charged any penalty fees by any bank or card issuer in my adult life, so never attempted to claim any back.

MINT know that from my record so it makes their refusal - on your logic - even more unreasonable.

I still think your point has nothing to do with this thread.

YorkshireBoy

SteveEast9 wrote: »

Not relevant since I have never been charged any penalty fees by any bank or card issuer in my adult life, so never attempted to claim any back.

MINT know that from my record so it makes their refusal - on your logic - even more unreasonable.

I still think your point has nothing to do with this thread.

You've completely missed my point. How you have managed your account has nothing to with their refusal. It's the other tens of thousands of customers who have claimed back millions of pounds that has resulted in this blanket refusal to refund in the form of goodwill gestures.

We have bank employees on the boards who have posted that the facility to waive charges has been removed from their control.

In conclusion though, and I suspect that you knew this all along, you will be refunded when you make an official complaint in writing. Be prepared for an 8 week wait though.

SteveEast9

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

You've completely missed my point. .....
We have bank employees on the boards who have posted that the facility to waive charges has been removed from their control.....

I haven't missed your point. I just don't believe it is relevant since I was transferred to a fully named and status-identified 'Manager' who most definitely *did* have the discretion to waive the charge.
The fact that she chose, either on her own behalf or because of a general guidance policy, to refuse to exercise that power at the phone is a different matter.

I do know that I will get a refund when I make a delivery-proofed written complaint. But, with respect, changing the goal 'posts' from the previous garbage appearing here in earlier posts is of little help to onlookers.

egamar

SteveEast9 wrote: »

3. ...I already have spoken to a *Manager* at Mint who, knowing the circumstances in full, has refused, in the manner of a speaking robot, and that's why I posted the Orwellian transcript of said conversation.

I have no idea what level call centre "managers" operate at, but it's pretty low down the food chain, and my experience tells me that any 'discretion' they have is pretty circumscribed by policy. Call Centre drones (at whatever rank) seem to believe that their knowledge of the world is all the knowledge there is, and herein lies so much frustration. They have so little experience and understanding of the wider commercial world that they are incapable of operating beyond their scripts anyhow.

Making a written complaint normally solves the problem for me (since it bypasses the idiots in the call centres) but takes time and costs money to do. I normally find a freepost address for the institution and that saves me the cost of a stamp!

I guess you'll just have to accept that unfortunately you have no legal or moral case to complain, but you can still feel mightily annoyed that they have chosen to take the easy option to the customer's likely detriment. Don't let it ruin your week, though: even though the principle is worth exposing and deriding, it was only a tenner, after all.

egamar

SteveEast9 wrote: »

I still think your point has nothing to do with this thread.

I've gotta say, I think he was bang on and is it everything to do with this thread and how refunds (goodwill or not) are becoming increasingly hard to get. Once upon a time you might have got a goodwill refund (and that's what it would have to have been since what they do was in accordance with their Ts and Cs) but not nowadays.

Things have changed recently,and can affect us all at any time. As an example, I was charged interest on my Halifax card because I sent them £7xx.59 instead of £7xx.95.

It was either because my sight isn't so good at monitor distance or I made a typo (and Hfx don't have a simple button to press saying "make full payment" only a button for "make minimum payment" and a box for anything else). Bearing in mind how obvious an error that was since the underpayment was pennies on £700 or so and I have a history of full payment, I was expecting an immediate and gracious refund after some humorous banter about my being a daft old codger. Not a bit of it.

Hfx call centre drones must be trained to be aggressive, patronising, contemptuous and rude.

I never got to speak to the 'manager', only the drone said she did that (do they get black-marks if they actually put customers through to their managers?) and the best I could get was a 50% refund of the interest. I suggested the drone explain the wider commercial view to the manager and see if what s/he was saving the company might be outweighed by the loss of business represented by the transfer of all our credit card, current account and well-populated savings accounts elsewhere as this had now become a matter of principle. "It won't make any difference" said the drone. Unbelievable.

A letter to the head of Customer Servicee did generate an apology, a full refund, an acknowledgement that the drones were completely wrong and that they would be sent for "retraining". I've no idea of they ever were, but I hope so!

I can't see the point any longer of bothering with the call centres (at least the Halifax one, it's as awful as ever) and in future I'd probably write straight to the complaints department.

Chris2000

SteveEast9 wrote: »

You may be right but then that makes a Coop credit card call centre employee wrong. He told me it will take into account a full settlement payment received and credited to the card account at least 5 working days prior to the due date for the minimum payment

On my Co-op Bank statement it says: "THE FULL BALANCE OUTSTANDING WILL BE COLLECTED BY DIRECT DEBIT REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER PAYMENTS MADE"

Either the statement message or the call centre employee is wrong.

Moggles_2

Given that lenders differ in this respect - as with everything else - it would help if others followed the Co-op's example and included a brief summary of their DD policy on monthly statements.

egamar

Moggles wrote: »

Given that lenders differ in this respect - as with everything else - it would help if others followed the Co-op's example and included a brief summary of their DD policy on monthly statements.

That is such a brilliantly simple idea! How on earth would one go about getting the banks to do it?

MarkyMarkD

Perhaps by simply writing to any offending bank and suggesting it?

I don't quite understand why SteveEast9 has chosen to come onto MSE and after posting a rant - not in a "rant" forum, but a "credit card" forum, so it's reasonable to assume he's asking for advice - merely slag off every other person who has commented.Now that SE9 has identified that his main problem is not the way that Mint choose to deal with payments when a minimum payment DD is in place - and others have commented, correctly, that this is actually at least equally common practice as his preferred approach - but the way they have failed to deal with his complaint to his satisfaction, let me comment on that.

YorkshireBoy's comments are bang on the money. The increase in claims for "unfair charges" has decimated credit card lenders' profitability and led them to treat other disputes more harshly - or more strictly in accordance with their terms & conditions, depending which side of the fence you sit on.

For everyone complaining that a DD has gone through even though they've cleared the balance in full, there will be another complaining that a DD has NOT gone through when they intended their BACS payment to be in addition, not instead, if banks took the alternative approach SE9 would appear to prefer.

If you aren't sure whether something will happen the way you expect, you need to ask.

If you are sure, and you are wrong, then that's your own fault.

Just because one, or many, other banks does it a different way, doesn't make it the law that all banks have to do so and assuming they are all the same is a risky strategy.