EE ruined my credit score

boo_star

mattvolatile wrote: »

When I worked with AUDDIS, which was admittedly some time ago and for a company several orders of magnitude smaller than EE, the "DD Cancelled" message was an error message produced after we did a payment run. We didn't get messages every time a customer cancelled their instruction, only when a payment we had requested, failed.

You're splitting hairs though.

Ultimately the DD instruction was cancelled therefore the DD scheme rules no longer applied.

mattvolatile

boo_star wrote: »

You're splitting hairs though.

Ultimately the DD instruction was cancelled therefore the DD scheme rules no longer applied.

I mean, people keep saying that, but both the DD Guarantee itself and various Ombudsman rulings explicitly state otherwise. If a debit request is not processed correctly, it's illegitimate whether or not the money was actually owed and whether or not the instruction was cancelled. See the PDF I liked earlier, and the details of the ruling in Mrs B's case as regards her son's school fees.

No company is allowed to take, or attempt to take, money by Direct Debit unless they have properly notified the customer correctly in advance of the date and amount involved. That very clearly applies whether or not the money is owed, or not.

Now, you're right insofar as he has no direct *remedy* under the Guarantee, as no money was taken... but (as I've been saying all along), the point that the debit should never have been processed (if the OP is honest about not having received notice) and the money owing should have been sought in another way. That's useful evidence for any complaint, even if there's no direct remedy under the Guarantee.

In fact, I think it would be really interesting indeed to see what the Ombudsman had to say, given evidence that EE have in the past admitted to incorrectly notify customers of final debit instructions and that this incorrectly notified instruction seems to be the root cause of the issues here.

[Deleted User]

You're still intent on twisting this the other way.

The CUSTOMER CANCELLED the Direct Debit request.

Therefore, the Direct Debit Guarantee is NOT APPLICABLE.

mattvolatile

!!! wrote: »

You're still intent on twisting this the other way.

The CUSTOMER CANCELLED the Direct Debit request.

Therefore, the Direct Debit Guarantee is NOT APPLICABLE.

Gary, I really don't know how to make this any clearer for you.

1) the Direct Debit Guarantee explicitly allows you to cancel any instruction at any time.

2) One of the *main functions* of the Guarantee is to protect people who've cancelled their debit instructions from having money debited anyway. If you were in *any way* correct that cancelling your instruction made the debit guarantee inapplicable, then the Guarantee would be toothless.

I implore you: read the link I provided earlier to Ombudsman rulings on this. Of *course* the Guarantee still applies if you've cancelled your instruction, because protection against debits being made after cancellation is one of its primary functions!

mattvolatile

I mean, how would this sentence make any sense at all if cancelling your instruction voided your right to complain under the Guarantee, as you suggest?

"Money shouldn't be collected from your account after you have cancelled and under the Scheme rules, an organisation would have to obtain your authority to reinstate a cancelled Instruction."

By your argument, after cancellation the scheme rules don't apply, which is transparent nonsense given that protecting customers who cancel is one of the main functions of the rules!

boo_star

mattvolatile wrote: »

I mean, people keep saying that, but both the DD Guarantee itself and various Ombudsman rulings explicitly state otherwise. If a debit request is not processed correctly, it's illegitimate whether or not the money was actually owed and whether or not the instruction was cancelled. See the PDF I liked earlier, and the details of the ruling in Mrs B's case as regards her son's school fees.

No company is allowed to take, or attempt to take, money by Direct Debit unless they have properly notified the customer correctly in advance of the date and amount involved. That very clearly applies whether or not the money is owed, or not.

Now, you're right insofar as he has no direct *remedy* under the Guarantee, as no money was taken... but (as I've been saying all along), the point that the debit should never have been processed (if the OP is honest about not having received notice) and the money owing should have been sought in another way. That's useful evidence for any complaint, even if there's no direct remedy under the Guarantee.

In fact, I think it would be really interesting indeed to see what the Ombudsman had to say, given evidence that EE have in the past admitted to incorrectly notify customers of final debit instructions and that this incorrectly notified instruction seems to be the root cause of the issues here.

That Ombudsman ruling is in no way similar to the OP's situation though.

That was a simple case of a bank failing to follow the customers instruction and then trying to wriggle out of it by saying "well you owed the money anyway."

The OP's bank has followed the OP's instruction here. It's apples and oranges.

[Deleted User]

This isn't about money being taken anyway following a DD cancellation.

Money wasn't taken or attempted to be taken because OP cancelled the DD and ended up with a defaulted account because of it.

Your argument here is null and void here, and confusing matters.

JustRi

EE do charge in advance for their price plan, not in arrears. The only charges in arrears would be for anything outside of the price plan, eg, if their allowances were used up, or 3rd party services to name but a few.

boo_star

TurningANewLeaf wrote: »

As a newcomer to this site seeking some friendly advice in another thread, I don't know how this !!! troll has been allowed to get away with 5,000 posts pointing the finger at people. Good grief, people come here for advice, not lectures telling them that it is all their own fault.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. A lot of people come here to be told what they want to hear and disregard anything that doesn't agree with whatever it is they want to hear.

In fact a lot of "new" posters are following that theme to the point of absurdity.

Gary may be wrong at times but I don't believe for one second that he is a troll, he's just telling people what they don't want to hear.

TurningANewLeaf

boo_star wrote: »

I'm not sure that's entirely true. A lot of people come here to be told what they want to hear and disregard anything that doesn't agree with whatever it is they want to hear.

In fact a lot of "new" posters are following that theme to the point of absurdity.

Gary may be wrong at times but I don't believe for one second that he is a troll, he's just telling people what they don't want to hear.

Well I've only read two threads on this site, this thread and my own, and in BOTH of them, his advice has either been poor, lecturing, or he's been downright incorrect with his facts.


It's a bit of a turn off for a new user when you are bombarded with posts from someone like this. My biggest mistake was actually giving the dude any attention, I ignored his first post but then he upped the ante by his second post. Pretty transparent what he is doing here, he's looking for a rise. It's clear as day actually. But anyway, I'm not going to discuss this person any further. Said my piece and that's it.