Taking company to Court vs Backing down

Nofinway

sourcrates said:

Nofinway said:

Deleted_User said:

Nofinway said:

A couple of posters on here have indicated that if the DD is set up and they fail to take it then the onus is on, in this case EON, but could be the lender et al. One person even linked to the DD guarantee. 
The DD is simply the means to facilitate the repayment  - it does not remove the contractual obligation to ensure that the payments are made, in fact this is specifically mentioned in the page linked to. The responsibility to ensure payments are made lies with the payee not the originating company. DD's can and do fail for a myriad reasons; they're not fool proof even if they are usually the best option.
I suspect that is why the Ombudsman has sided with EON in this case. To achieve 3,000 arrears 'without noticing' is at best negligent. 
However - if the OP has in writing and recorded calls that they would remove the default upon receipt of payment then it is worth investigating and complaining to their customer relations team (again I suspect this has already happened to reach the Ombudsman) but taking them to court would be a step too far in my opinion. The cost would be extremely high with only an outside chance of winning. 

You need to stop repeating this myth. A DD not being collected by the company (where it is correctly setup) is not the fault of the customer and they are not liable for this, the company is required to take the DD under the DD guarantee and any complaint to the firm (and ultimately the ombudsman) would side with the customer as the fault was the lender not taking the payment they agreed they would

Seriously!!

Even the Ombudsman disagrees with you and I suggest you actually read any form of loan or credit agreement. You keep spouting on about 'where it's correctly set up' Why, if it's correctly set up, did it fail? 

​​​Direct Debit Guarantee

Your rights

Organisations using the Direct Debit Scheme go through a careful vetting process before they're authorised, and are closely monitored by the banking industry. The efficiency and security of Direct Debit is monitored and protected by your own bank or building society.

The Direct Debit Guarantee applies to all Direct Debits. It protects you in the rare event that there is an error in the payment of your Direct Debit, for instance if a payment is taken on the incorrect date, or the wrong amount is collected. It cannot be used to address contractual disputes between you and the billing organisation.​

Yes - I've linked to that page myself earlier in the thread. It applies when the direct debit is set up and functioning - it doesn't mean you can abdicate responsibility in the first place. I would also urge all to actually read all of the pages and the template letters contained on that site. The templates specifically state about the incorrect payment being where the originator has taken more than expected or agreed or on the incorrect dates - nothing whatsoever about it not being taken at all. 

phillw

Nofinway said:

Yes - I've linked to that page myself earlier in the thread. It applies when the direct debit is set up and functioning - it doesn't mean you can abdicate responsibility in the first place. I would also urge all to actually read all of the pages and the template letters contained on that site. The templates specifically state about the incorrect payment being where the originator has taken more than expected or agreed or on the incorrect dates - nothing whatsoever about it not being taken at all. 

Yeah, it's to cover the situation where they don't take the direct debit and then a couple of days later they hit you with a late payment fee.

Not, for example, if you gave them incorrect account details and then ignored all of their communication.

The exact details are important.