Oneselect ceased trading

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, I know how the DD guarantee works thank you.

Oh good.
Then why did you wait almost 8 weeks, hoping to go to the ombudsman? :huh:

If, as you claim, you know how the DD guarantee work, then you would have utilised it and so no longer would have had no cause for complaint

antrobus wrote: »

Really?

Yes

antrobus wrote: »

Using the DD guarantee to reclaim money is all very well, but may well prompt the supplier to claim you are in breach of contract.

I doubt that using the DD Guarantee appropriately would allow anyone to prove you were in breach of any contract.

Even if they were to try and suggest so, then you seem to already know the complaint procedure that you can follow to resolve any such issue

antrobus wrote: »

It's not a conspiracy theory.

Oh yes it is!


:xmastree::xmastree::xmastree::xmassign:

masonic wrote: »

"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. The Guarantee covers Direct Debit payments. It cannot be used to address contractual disputes between you and the billing organisation"

When payment by direct debit is a condition of the contract or tariff, and the organisation has followed the rules and has given the right amount of notice and then taken the payment they said they would, then the customer would be ill-advised to submit a fraudulent indemnity claim.

The customer does have the right to reclaim a credit balance, and/or dissolve their contract by switching to a new supplier (during which time cancelling their DD may be permissible, although generally not recommended if the final bill is likely to be in credit).

I entirely agree with you that the Direct Debit Guarantee cannot be used to address contractual disputes between you and the billing organisation.

But this isn't about a contractual dispute.

A contractual dispute would cover, for example, the cost you are charged by the supplier for for the gas & electricity you consume, or indeed the method of payment you agree to use to pay that cost incurred,

However, payment monthly by direct debit is only payment towards that underlying contract.

It is a requirement of the supplier to set fair levels of payment, and to explain that level of payment if asked. This is a requirement placed on the supplier by their licencing condition, if not a specified contractual requirement.

What I am suggesting is that the supplier has made an error in the level of payment to be collected, if it is varied from that previously agreed, and no justification is given even when asked as to why it has been varied.

By making a claim under the Direct Debit Guarantee for such an error does not breach the underlying terms of the contract, as the Direct Decit Mandate remains in place for the supplier to collect such fair amounts.

And it certainly would not involve any form of fraud you suggest, where such a direct debit claim is carried out in good faith.

Remember, even if you make an unintentional error in making a direct debit guarantee claim, the direct debit guarantee covers that too

If you receive a refund you are not entitled to, you must pay it back when the organisation asks you to

:xmastree::xmastree::xmastree::xmassign:

masonic wrote: »

The amount and timing of a direct debit used to pay for energy is governed by the terms and conditions you agree to when entering into your contract with the supplier. Most contracts state the supplier gets to decide unilaterally. Any dispute over the same is necessarily a contractual dispute governed by your agreement and statutory rights.

A direct debit indemnity claim cannot be used to dispute payments collected by your bank in accordance with the payment schedule a customer has been duly notified about. It can only be used if the payment collected was different than the notified schedule or where the supplier agrees the notified schedule and payment amount contains a mistake.

When a customer notifies their bank that a mistake has been made by the originator, the bank refunds the customer immediately out of the bank's own funds. It then contacts the originator to inform them of the mistake and request payment of the amount refunded. If the originator disputes that there was a mistake then the bank can reverse the refund without notice. This may create an overdraft balance and lead to charges. While this is usually the limit of potential impact on the customer, banks do also profile the conduct of all of their customers and use this information to decide whether or not to offer customers various products and services in the future, and ultimately whether to continue a banking relationship with the customer.

Stating that a mistake was made when it wasn't and the supplier can show the correct payment was made in accordance with the notified schedule is at best risky and misguided. If you enter into a contractual dispute with your supplier over the level of direct debit payment it takes pursuant to your contract, then you would be ill-advised to abuse the direct debit guarantee offered by your bank to claw back funds taken. Either reclaim the excess balance from the supplier, cancel the direct debit and pay by other means, dissolve the contract and switch provider, formally complain, or do some combination of these things.

Sounds like you have a lot of experience in being misguided;)

I wouldn't want to attempt to argue against such an obvious expert :cool:
...but others can read my own thoughts on how to deal with unfair direct debit hikes and make their own decisions

:xmastree::xmastree::xmassign:

masonic wrote: »

...

When a customer notifies their bank that a mistake has been made by the originator, the bank refunds the customer immediately out of the bank's own funds. It then contacts the originator to inform them of the mistake and request payment of the amount refunded. If the originator disputes that there was a mistake then the bank can reverse the refund without notice. This may create an overdraft balance and lead to charges. While this is usually the limit of potential impact on the customer, banks do also profile the conduct of all of their customers and use this information to decide whether or not to offer customers various products and services in the future, and ultimately whether to continue a banking relationship with the customer.

Stating that a mistake was made when it wasn't and the supplier can show the correct payment was made in accordance with the notified schedule is at best risky and misguided. If you enter into a contractual dispute with your supplier over the level of direct debit payment it takes pursuant to your contract, then you would be ill-advised to abuse the direct debit guarantee offered by your bank to claw back funds taken. Either reclaim the excess balance from the supplier, cancel the direct debit and pay by other means, dissolve the contract and switch provider, formally complain, or do some combination of these things.

Despite you yourself having used the industry term of an 'Indemnity Claim' previously for a claim a customer makes under the terms of teh Direct Debit Guarantee, I fear you do not understand how the scheme works.

The payers bank doe NOT fund any direct debit guarantee claim, although the paying bank does refund the payer immediately
Rather, the supplier indemnifies the members (the banks running the Direct Debit scheme) against "all actions, claims damages, costs, and expenses arising directly or indirectly from such debiting .... and without our [the supplier's] requiring proof of or our agreement to the validity of such demand we shall forthwith pay the amount thereof"

The banks do not unilaterally take money from a payers account, even if the payer has made a direct debit guarantee claim (save for where the claim is as a result of an error by the bank itself, and not the supplier, and the bank then finds the claim to be invalid)

If the supplier wishes to collect money via the Direct Debit scheme that has previously been incorrectly refunded to a payer, then the supplier will need to provide advance notice of such a collection in the normal way ... or face a further indemnity claim.

Direct Debit Guarantee claims can also relate to what is referred in the industry as 'Consequential losses', which effectively are usually bank charges applied by the bank which may occur when a payment is collected in error, and the payer therefore had not been in a position to ensure adequate funds were claered in his bank account to fund such a collection.

Where an error is made in a direct debit collection, the payer should make a claim under the Direct Debit Guarantee. As stated above, partial calims cannot be entertained; it must be for the whole amount collected at a certain time/date.
This is important, as all claims against a supplier operating a direct debit scheme are monitored by the sponsoring bank, and excessive claims could ultimately mean the sponsoring bankl no longer wish to sponsor the supplier (and hence the supplier will no longer be able to operate the diurect debit scheme)

Where a customer attempts to seek recovery direct from a supplier, the supplier should refer them to the payer's bank to seek redress.

masonic wrote: »

... For example https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=29251267&postcount=7

That post was made almost 9 years ago

Talk about "inciting members"...

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yes, you are wise to stop digging...it doesn't back up what you said. It actually backs up what scoly has said. i.e. the bank refunds, the supplier pays the bank (irrespective of who may be right or wrong), and the supplier then resolves their differences with the payer if necessary.

:xmastree::xmastree::xmastree::xmassign: