On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:14:58 +0100, brightside S9 passed an empty day by
writing:

> On 09 Jun 2008 19:26:21 GMT, Klunk  wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:46:11 +0100, Andy Pandy passed an empty day by
>>writing:
>>
>>With respect to you I am unable to read your response. The layout is
>>such a mess that I gave up.
>>
>>Indeed Tesco's had given me notice. I had telephoned them, and written
>>to them believing telling them I was not renewing. In hindsight I should
>>have closed down the DD, but as use(d) them for home insurance too,
>>closing that off would have meant they could not collect.
>>
>>I am happy I was not fobbed off at all. I tend to feel that my small
>>business bank manager, whom I have known as a friend for more years than
>>I can recall, is most likely to give me the best and correct advice as
>>opposed to a usenet poster trying to argue the toss over Direct Debit.
>>
>>As far as credit and debit cards go yes, I have them. I never use them
>>for anything at all other than cash withdrawal. When I need to use a
>>card online I stick with a pre-paid Virgin Mastercard and add funds to
>>it for just that transaction. It may seem an expensive and quirky way to
>>do it - but that is how I operate.
>>
>>There is no valid argument for direct debit being of any benefit to the
>>customer. The idea of 'set it and forget it' is clearly abused by some
>>companies. If a company needs to give you a couple of weeks notice
>>before they call for funds by direct debit then they might as well send
>>a paper bill! Perhaps they could then give you a discount for prompt
>>payment via online banking. The amount is direct and to the same
>>account, but the control stays with the customer.
>>
>>
>>
> What Andy Pandy said was that if the money has been taken without *all*
> the DD conditions imposed then *your* bank must reimburse the money into
> *your* account immediately.
> 
> There is no need for *you* to contact the company concerned. there is no
> need for *you* to wait until the your bank gets the money back from the
> company.
> 
> If that is not a valid argument that is a benefit to the customer then I
> don't know what is?
> 
> Reading the information available on DD will explain what should happen.
>  The problem is that the some bank staff don't understand it. You should
> understand the guarantee and then, if necessary, force it to be
> implemented in the case of DD errors.
> 
> Lately you have been criticising Kraftee for his supposed ignorance in
> the use of his test equipment.  May I suggest you bring yourself up to
> speed about DDs and stop using examples of failure of bank staff as
> evidence that DDs are "dangerous to an individuals wealth".

I fail to see that correcting a problem after it has occurred offers any 
attractiveness over a system that does allow exploitation in the first 
place. Spin it any way you like, the key benefit is for the company - not 
for the customer.

As for your remarks regarding Kraftee and his proved ignorance in the use 
of his test equipment, they have no relevance to this thread. I have not 
claimed anywhere that a DD is "dangerous to an individuals wealth". If 
you wish to quote me please RTP and get it right.

I am suggesting that DD is less safe and potentially more inconvenient 
(as I have found) than a system where you *don't* give a third party 
direct access to your bank account. Even getting a refund on a DD that 
meets the guarantee criteria does not negate the impact it may have had 
elsewhere if you have not spotted the rogue transaction. 

Example 1: suppose Tesco Insurance take £1200 leaving you £30 behind. It 
is Monday, you have not spotted it as you won't be going to the cashpoint 
until Friday. On Thursday you get a letter from Sky saying they have not 
been paid. You try and go online to look at your bank balance but find 
your broadband is down. You call them, they have not been paid. You find 
out that because Tesco took £1200 you had not authorised that all your 
other direct debits have crashed due to insufficient funds. Each one 
attracting a number of £25 bank charges for 'returning an unpaid 
instruction' or making a 'request for an unauthorised overdraft' or a 
plain old 'admin' fee. It takes time and aggravation to resolve and is 
inconvenient. NOT setting up the direct debit in the first place and 
using a method of payment where the customer calls the shots would have 
avoided it.

Example 2: You sign up for Pipex broadband, filling in the online DD 
mandate that seems to be required by every company. Several months later 
you spot a transaction for £150 DD. It turns out they didn't set the DD 
up and have failed to charge you for six months. As the DD means the 
amount can be varied, as can the dates, they took 6 months worth of 
payments without warning - they were entitled to do so. The following 
year they took 12 months instead of 1 month by DD, the mistake took 4 
days to correct as it went unnoticed.

If the best advice is to cancel the DD mandate for old agreements then 
perhaps it would be wiser to avoid them in the first instance?