Talk mobile ruins my credit rating

[Deleted User]

Why would you cancel a direct debit when for a phone contract you're billed monthly in arrears?

DCFC79

OP it has been said elsewhere that it is easier to get a refund from a company than trying to sort out a credit file issue like in your case.

PixelPound

Energy companies like you to be in credit, especially smaller ones because they have to pay for the energy, so it keeps costs down if your credit is used to pay for the energy rather than their money if you only paid when billed.

I think people forget that mobiles are billed in arrears because the rental part is usually in advance. I agree its easier to sort out a DD return than problems caused by late markers on CC, especially as in the OP case it would have been £7. Talktalk have not done anything wrong, they will have issued a final bill and try and take a DD. The systems are automatic, they probably should have sent a communication about the failed DD, but the late marker would have been there even if they had.

takman

Quigibo wrote: »

From the Dd wiki
"The problem of cancelled and obsolete direct debits being wrongfully revived or re-implemented is estimated to cost UK consumers £385 million in 2010. For those customers who find out, it takes them on average four months to notice. Although no specific figures were collected it appears a substantial number of people lose considerable amounts of money annually because the obsolete direct debit is neither noticed nor recovered"

There has always been a Direct Debit guarantee.

What that quote says is that people don't keep an eye on their accounts and don't notice when a Direct Debit is incorrectly taken and don't ask for the money back. So the simple solution is to keep an eye on payments being taken and there will never be an issue.

sargeantsalt

Ben8282 wrote: »

Over and over again we have threads from people who cancel the direct debit.
My advice. NEVER cancel a direct debit (unless there are some exceptional genuine grounds to suspect fraud etc).
I have NEVER had anybody take a direct debit that they shouldn't have and if they did you would have the direct debit guarantee to fall back on.
The direct debit should cancel itself in due course. If not, wait a few months and then cancel it.
So because of your haste in cancelling the direct debit before your final payment was taken you have created this problem for yourself. Talk mobile have not ruined your credit rating; you have.

Good advice.

As you say, there are exceptions. So what about the right to withold payment when a company provides defective goods/services?

It is an important right. But, by giving custom to companies that use CRAs, you give up that right. If you lawfully stop payment, you will receive a harsh and immediate extra-judicial penalty - without trial (damage to credit file).

This is unjust.

In fact, even though the OP owed money, the penalty inflicted was unjust because it was without an independent hearing of all the facts and was disproportionate to his offence (£7 owed).

CRAs are a stick to beat customers with. They do not admit to this but it is one of their primary purposes.

No company should be allowed to take the law into their own hands.

antrobus

Quigibo wrote: »

From the Dd wiki
"The problem of cancelled and obsolete direct debits being wrongfully revived or re-implemented is estimated to cost UK consumers £385 million in 2010. For those customers who find out, it takes them on average four months to notice. Although no specific figures were collected it appears a substantial number of people lose considerable amounts of money annually because the obsolete direct debit is neither noticed nor recovered"

So according to Wikipedia "cancelled and obsolete direct debits being wrongfully revived or re-implemented is estimated to cost UK consumers £385 million in 2010". No source is shown for this claim, so I've tracked it down.

https://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=22028

It comes from a survey by LV=. Specifically;

Forgotten direct debits take bank account holders on average four months to notice and cost around £190 each time, according to LV=, with an estimated £385 million 'wasted' in unnecessary direct debits last year.

Thus, and not for the first time, Wikipedia is spouting b0ll0x.:)

There is no problem with organisations re-implementing cancelled DDs. There is a problem with people forgetting about what DDs they've got.

Wikipedia is not a source.

Samsung_Note2

Ben8282 wrote: »

You have partially answered your question in your OP



Obviously there will be a final bill. Say your bill is generated on 1st of the month and you cancelled on 15th.
Next month on 1st there will be a final bill. That should be self evident. If you had already cancelled the direct debit obviously they couldn't take it.
]
Rather foolish if you ask me. Did you never think to call them and ask them to adjust the direct debit based on your current level of consumption?

Youve obviously never been with Iresa for energy...you could be thousands in credit yet they will still take direct debits...:D

antrobus

sargeantsalt wrote: »

...

As you say, there are exceptions. So what about the right to withold payment when a company provides defective goods/services?....

There is no such 'right'. The withholding of payment is merely a tactic deployed in a contractual dispute.

sargeantsalt wrote: »

....
It is an important right. But, by giving custom to companies that use CRAs, you give up that right. If you lawfully stop payment, you will receive a harsh and immediate extra-judicial penalty - without trial (damage to credit file).....

What are you on about? If you withhold payment, the other party is perfectly entitled to disagree with you, and insist that you still owe them money.

sargeantsalt wrote: »

....

This is unjust.

In fact, even though the OP owed money, the penalty inflicted was unjust because it was without an independent hearing of all the facts and was disproportionate to his offence (£7 owed)........

An independent hearing?

sargeantsalt wrote: »

....

CRAs are a stick to beat customers with. They do not admit to this but it is one of their primary purposes....

Why do CRAs want to "beat" consumers? (I presume that's who you mean.) What benefit do they derive?

sargeantsalt wrote: »

....
No company should be allowed to take the law into their own hands.

The CRA has not done so.

sargeantsalt

I will deal with one point at a time.

antrobus wrote: »

There is no such 'right'...

We all have something called a "proprietary interest" in our "property" such as money in our bank accounts.

In law, that gives each of us exclusive "rights" as to what we do with it. We have exclusive power to pay or not pay another person. So, the right to withold payment is indeed a right.

antrobus

sargeantsalt wrote: »

I will deal with one point at a time.

We all have something called a "proprietary interest" in our "property" such as money in our bank accounts.

In law, that gives each of us exclusive "rights" as to what we do with it. We have exclusive power to pay or not pay another person. So, the right to withold payment is indeed a right.

Pseudo-legal gobbledygook.:)

Unless of course, you can cite a specific act of parliament, regulation, or case, to support your claim.