Thanks John,

My approach is that I've asked for the two transactions to be reversed. If
a third appears next month I will request under the freedom of information
act details of all correspondence with respect to how they have proactively
investigated the reported fraud and who they have reported it to in order to
catch the miscreants and as a part of their fraud reduction initiatives. The
two reversals is evidence to support my claim that it should at least be
investigated as a potential fraud, but I suspect they do nothing because
there is no potential for them to lose any money.

I will also ask them for details of their standing instructions as to how
they deal with this type of notification. If it is clear that they
basically ignore it I'll pursue an enquiry through the FSA and any other
suitable publicity vehicle. There is still clearly a misunderstanding about
the fact that direct debits do not exist in the same way as for bank
accounts.

As you point out, it's a shame that some people are desperate to demonstrate
that they neither have manners or common sense - or knowledge of these
things and who without a clue here seek to trash what might have been a
useful and interesting thread to others.


"John Burke" wrote in message
...
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Dan Charette" wrote in message
o.uk...

I gave clear details in my OP. Believe me - it is a fraud.

But you don't have a clue as who the fraudster is.

As if that makes any difference whatsoever, ffs.

If you really
think a company can set up merchant facilities and go round making
only fraudulent transactions then you really haven't got a clue.

That's just a contrived insult - the OP hasn't claimed anywhere to know
the
method or instrument used.

A
few other people suffering fraud via the same company proves nothing,

And you say the OP hasn't a clue...

...it probably just indicates they use CNP transactions and are prepared
to take the risk of the occasional fraud.

What absolute twaddle, as if.

The OP raised a matter of valid concern for people who are responsible
with their money and you've got nothing better to do than flame
him.

You can go in my killfile now and I suggest the OP does the same.

"Dan Charette" wrote in message
news
Thanks John,

My approach is that I've asked for the two transactions to be reversed.
If a third appears next month I will request under the freedom of
information act details of all correspondence with respect to how they
have proactively investigated the reported fraud and who they have
reported it to in order to catch the miscreants and as a part of their
fraud reduction initiatives. The two reversals is evidence to support my
claim that it should at least be investigated as a potential fraud, but I
suspect they do nothing because there is no potential for them to lose any
money.

I will also ask them for details of their standing instructions as to how
they deal with this type of notification. If it is clear that they
basically ignore it I'll pursue an enquiry through the FSA and any other
suitable publicity vehicle. There is still clearly a misunderstanding
about the fact that direct debits do not exist in the same way as for bank
accounts.

You will need to understand the Freedom of Information Act.
"The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to ask for official
information from public authorities."
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/fre...formation.aspx
So I would not have thought that the FoI Act applies to anything you are
mentioning.

What you are probably referring to (at the top) is making a Subject Access
Request under the Data Protection Act. This normally gives you access to
all personal information about yourself, as a living individual. This will
give you more information about your rights under the DPA:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...on/toolkit.pdf
Regarding the copies of correspondence concerning this, you probably are
entitled to see it as there may not be a third party involved. You may want
to confirm this with the Information Commissioner's Office first.

Hopefully the CC company will have a policy that they should be able to let
you have. Otherwise the FSA may have a standard one.

Iain

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:18:49 -0000, "Iain" wrote:

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

Then the CC company have broken the terms of the DD guarantee which
require 2 weeks notice of any change in the amount (for CC the amount will
change every month).

This is one of the major problems with (credit) cards; the cardholder has no
control over this. A credit card 'direct debit' is a complete fallacy - it
simply does not exist.

Once a continuing authority has been established, it is only the
organisation with whom the arrangement has been made who can cancel - not
the cardholder; any amount can be deducted at any time. This is unless the
cardholder can show that the other party has, for instance, reneged on the
agreement, eg. has not supplied the service.

You have to be in a position to trust the organisation and that their
accounting is accurate. There are some organisations that I do not even
allow (even with the guarantee) direct debit access to my bank account.

Same here - now - since my previous bank once refused to reverse a
incorrect direct debit. No amount of reminding them of the guarantee
made any difference. I don't bank with them anymore.

A credit card continuing authority (incorrectly and misleadingly referred to
as a direct debit) is something to be avoided.

Correct. Direct Debits only apply to current (bank) accounts and
definitely do not apply to Credit Cards.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"Iain" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Once a continuing authority has been established, it is only the
organisation with whom the arrangement has been made who can cancel - not
the cardholder; any amount can be deducted at any time. This is unless
the cardholder can show that the other party has, for instance, reneged on
the agreement, eg. has not supplied the service.
[snip]

That may be (probably is with most CC companies) the practice, but IMHO is
not one which the FOS or a court would endorse.

Once the cardholder establishes that there is a bona fide dispute as to the
validity of the debit, the CC company is obliged to reverse the transaction.

It does not matter if the T&C say otherwise (mine don't, as it happens) or
that the CC company may have a contractual problem with the merchant or
intermediaries, its entitlement to take cash from the CC holder does not
exist.

IMHO.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)

Please note that this post is not advice. Do not act upon it without
obtaining an opinion based on the full facts of your situation.

"Mark" wrote
... my previous bank once refused to reverse a incorrect
direct debit. No amount of reminding them of the guarantee
made any difference. I don't bank with them anymore.

So, what happened when you took your case to the Ombudsman?

"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
"Iain" wrote in message
...
[snip]
Once a continuing authority has been established, it is only the
organisation with whom the arrangement has been made who can cancel - not
the cardholder; any amount can be deducted at any time. This is unless
the cardholder can show that the other party has, for instance, reneged
on the agreement, eg. has not supplied the service.
[snip]

That may be (probably is with most CC companies) the practice, but IMHO is
not one which the FOS or a court would endorse.

Once the cardholder establishes that there is a bona fide dispute as to
the validity of the debit, the CC company is obliged to reverse the
transaction.

It does not matter if the T&C say otherwise (mine don't, as it happens) or
that the CC company may have a contractual problem with the merchant or
intermediaries, its entitlement to take cash from the CC holder does not
exist.

IMHO.

That sounds more like the Direct Debit Guarantee. It would be good if it
operated thus for cards. I suppose that it depends how much proof there
needs to be for the CC company to accept that there is a bona fide dispute.
From posts that I have seen in the past, this acceptance does not come
easily and seems to include form-filling and then going back to the
merchant. This all has quite a long lead time.

With a DD, frequently a firm phone call can do the trick. Maybe it _is_ the
same for CC companies (or maybe should be). It could be that people are not
firm enough with them to demand the appropriate action. But as I have said
elsewhere, with card payments, and especially continuing authorities, the
cardholder seems to have little control over their own account.

Iain

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:03:46 -0000, "Tim" wrote:

"Mark" wrote
... my previous bank once refused to reverse a incorrect
direct debit. No amount of reminding them of the guarantee
made any difference. I don't bank with them anymore.

So, what happened when you took your case to the Ombudsman?

I didn't involve the Ombudsman. The company that took the money
eventually refunded it directly.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Dan Charette wrote:

Thanks John,

My approach is that I've asked for the two transactions to be reversed.
If a third appears next month I will request under the freedom of
information act details of all correspondence with respect to how they
have proactively investigated the reported fraud and who they have
reported it to in order to catch the miscreants and as a part of their
fraud reduction initiatives. The two reversals is evidence to support my
claim that it should at least be investigated as a potential fraud, but I
suspect they do nothing because there is no potential for them to lose any
money.

It's the Data Protection Act you want. The Freedom of Information Act
applies to government bodies, and excludes any personally identifiable
information. I don't think RBS, Lloyds or Northern Rock necessarily count
as government bodies anyway.

"Iain" wrote in message
...
"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

Then the CC company have broken the terms of the DD guarantee which
require 2 weeks notice of any change in the amount (for CC the
amount will change every month).

This is one of the major problems with (credit) cards; the
cardholder has no control over this. A credit card 'direct debit'
is a complete fallacy - it simply does not exist.

You misunderstand. We were discussing the situation where someone has
a DD, a proper, real DD on his current account, to pay the CC off in
full.

--
Andy

"John Burke" wrote in message
...
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Dan Charette" wrote in message
o.uk...

I gave clear details in my OP. Believe me - it is a fraud.

But you don't have a clue as who the fraudster is.

As if that makes any difference whatsoever, ffs.

Of course it makes a difference. The OP was whinging that his bank
won't stop transactions to a "fraudulent" company, when in all
likelyhood the company isn't fraudulent.

If you really
think a company can set up merchant facilities and go round making
only fraudulent transactions then you really haven't got a clue.

That's just a contrived insult - the OP hasn't claimed anywhere to
know the
method or instrument used.

He claimed that 'The "company "(I'm 99% sure) is set up simply to
direct debit
credit cards until they are noticed.'

A
few other people suffering fraud via the same company proves
nothing,

And you say the OP hasn't a clue...

Well he's got more of one than you, I'll give him that.

The company could have 1000 transactions per week on a CNP basis. They
are almost certain to get a few fraudulent ones. CNP is prone to fraud
by its nature, particularly for stuff like downloads where a delivery
address isn't required.

When the CC companies try to make it more secure (eg Verified by VISA
etc) you get people whinging that by making it more secure the CC
company make it more likely that if the security is breached they'll
have more of a case for arguing that it wasn't actually fraud and the
cardholder did in fact make the transaction. So many people seem to
like it being insecure for this reason.

...it probably just indicates they use CNP transactions and are
prepared
to take the risk of the occasional fraud.

What absolute twaddle, as if.

Are you really that stupid? If a retailer makes a 10% profit margin on
a product then they won't be bothered if 0.1% of transactions are
fraudulent. It reduces their profit margin to 9.9%

The OP raised a matter of valid concern for people who are
responsible
with their money and you've got nothing better to do than flame
him.

I already replied to him point by point, explaining why some of his
concerns are misplaced. He then replies with a one-liner which doesn't
address my points. And the likes of you comes along with nothing to
add except the usual "yes isn't it terrible" useless bull****.

You can go in my killfile now and I suggest the OP does the same.

Good. No more useless replies to me from a waste of bandwidth.

--
Andy