Rossendales acting illegally?

[gemini]

We owe council tax from last year. It is in my husband's name and had been assigned to Rossendale's by Leeds City Council. At the end of April we paid a lump sum of £500 off, but to do this we had to use my debit card as my husband does not have a full bank account. The person I spoke to (a thoroughly nasty individual) asked my husband if he could speak to me as he couldn't accept the payment without my authorisation, which I duly gave for that payment.

Last week I checked my bank account and found that they had taken another payment for £102.50 using my debit card number but I had not authorised this one. Apparently my husband had been contacted for a further payment and he had said it would be okay as long as they took it on the 25th May, his payday, but they must have taken it on the 18th May as it showed on my account on the 20th. How come he didn't contact me for authorisation on this one, it is my account and are they allowed to do this? The worry is that they have my debit card number and could apply at any time. It ended up taking me over my overdraft limit by 88p and costing me £39 charges as other things were due to go through before the 25th. I have also now ended up with a late payment charge against me on a credit card! Also, they are charging £2.50 per transaction which I wasn't told about.

Should I go to the council or can I report Rossendale's to a governing body? Any advice would be gratefully received.

[Rob S]

I would contact your bank first of all and inform them that you did not authorise the collection of the payment on the 18th May. State that you authorised the earlier payment of £500 and that they spoke to you to verify the payment, but you did not authorise the £102.50.

[whatamuppet]

If you gave your husband the authority to act on your behalf then unless you stipulated previously they can take his word as yours.

2.5% will be the transaction costs. most banks charge it but with shops etc this cost is integrated into the price of the product you buy.

in my opinion i wouldnt say they acted illegally but i would say they had acted unfairly. dont know what you could do about it though. probably just pay as quick as pos and have nothing further to do with them!

[Rob S]

If you read Gemini's post you will see that when the £500 was paid, she was asked to speak to the bailiffs to authorise the transaction. As it was on a debit card, it does not give them the right to process as many transactions as they like. The OP's husband would have no authority to action another transaction on an account that is not his. The bailiff should have contacted the OP to confirm that she was authorising the transaction.

The 2.5% transaction fee doesn't apply to debit cards, there is usually a flat rate fee for these.

[whatamuppet]

If you read Gemini's post you will see that when the £500 was paid, she was asked to speak to the bailiffs to authorise the transaction

Gemini says that they asked her husband if it was ok to process the second payment. if she has given her husband authority to act previously then it is it not unreasonable to assume that he still has that authority?

The 2.5% transaction fee doesn't apply to debit cards, there is usually a flat rate fee for these. ermmm. not sure about this one now. what if it was a credit card? is that not 2.5%?

[Rob S]

No, it is not reasonable for them to assume that. Just because she agreed one transaction doesn't mean they can assume she would agree to another. It's her account, not her husbands.

She specifically said debit card, just go back and re-read her post, it is clear enough.

[demon_x_slash]

'whatamuppet':

Mr and Mrs Muppet go into Tescos. Mrs Muppet decides to use her debit card to pay for it, and hands it to Mr Muppet, who then hands it to the cashier and enters the PIN, as he knows it. Cashier's fine with this - Mrs Muppet is clearly there, got the card from her wallet, and passed it over - she gave her consent for the card to be used.

The next day, Mr Muppet comes in by himself and buys another load of shopping. He gets to the same cashier, and again, hands over Mrs Muppet's card to pay. The cashier has seen Mrs Muppet authorise her card usage before. However, Mrs Muppet is not there to give the cashier specific authority to process her card.

Would you expect the cashier to accept the card on the second occasion, with Mrs Muppet not present? No? Why not? How does the cashier know that in this instance, Mrs Muppet has given her authorisation? The answer is that they don't. If they go ahead and process the card, knowing that the card does not belong to Mr Muppet, being unable to ascertain whether the cardholder's permission has been given or not, they will commit fraud.

The bank shoud refund the second payment with minimal fuss, gemini. If they drag their heels over it, then the FSO may be able to help.

[Robdblynd]

Another point worth noting is that people are not allowed to retain debit/credit card details after a transaction has been authorised over the telephone.

According to my heating oil supplier it is against the law to retain the data beyond the point at which the transaction is authorised.

I got this information because I paid for a supply of oil one month and rang to order another supply a couple of months later and said "You have my card details" and was then told that they're not allowed, by law, to retain the info, it must be destroyed immediately after the transacation is completed.

[whatamuppet]

Originally Posted by demon_x_slash

'whatamuppet':

Mr and Mrs Muppet go into Tescos. Mrs Muppet decides to use her debit card to pay for it, and hands it to Mr Muppet, who then hands it to the cashier and enters the PIN, as he knows it. Cashier's fine with this - Mrs Muppet is clearly there, got the card from her wallet, and passed it over - she gave her consent for the card to be used.

The next day, Mr Muppet comes in by himself and buys another load of shopping. He gets to the same cashier, and again, hands over Mrs Muppet's card to pay. The cashier has seen Mrs Muppet authorise her card usage before. However, Mrs Muppet is not there to give the cashier specific authority to process her card.

Would you expect the cashier to accept the card on the second occasion, with Mrs Muppet not present? No? Why not? How does the cashier know that in this instance, Mrs Muppet has given her authorisation? The answer is that they don't. If they go ahead and process the card, knowing that the card does not belong to Mr Muppet, being unable to ascertain whether the cardholder's permission has been given or not, they will commit fraud.

The bank shoud refund the second payment with minimal fuss, gemini. If they drag their heels over it, then the FSO may be able to help.

Using your logic that would mean Gemini's husband has committed fraud by using her card without permission?

[ducatibabe]

Originally Posted by whatamuppet

Using your logic that would mean Gemini's husband has committed fraud by using her card without permission?

not geminis husband but the bailiff company as they didnt check his authority

[whatamuppet]

well why is not theft on the husbands part? if you are saying he didnt have permission to use the card, that is surely theft. Paying off your own debts with somebody elses card???

[gemini]

My husband says he got a phone call from the bailliff at Rossendales. He wanted to come round to collect another payment, but my husband told him no as we would probably pay round about the 25th (that was his pay date) and would be paid by debit card again. But they took it out a week early, with no details being given out as I had my card. Therefore I presume they have kept the debit card details.

[alanfromderby]

There are certainly data protection issues over the retention of the card details - I would also suggest that they are in breach of their agreement for processing debit card payments.

I would suggest a phone call to the Information Commissioners Office, and then take the matter up with your bank and Trading Standards.

[gemini]

Thanks Alanfromderby, I will do as you suggest.

[demon_x_slash]

Originally Posted by whatamuppet

Using your logic that would mean Gemini's husband has committed fraud by using her card without permission?

Certainly not. The bailiff company/debt collector has acted fraudulently in taking a second, unauthorised transaction. The first was authorised by the cardholder. The second was not. Therefore, the second is fraudulent and the person/s responsible for instigating/processing this payment are (likely, ahem) guilty of fraud. The bailiff/debt collector seemingly acted alone - they are (likely, ahem) soley responsible.

Good luck gemini, let us know how you get on.

[gemini]

Should I contact the Information Commissioners office first before I contact my bank and Trading Standards. I want to do this right.

[alanfromderby]

They will advise you on whether you should make a formal complaint to them - this information will be useful for then dealing with the bank and Trading Standards.