Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Orange Direct Debit Issues


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5229 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

Apologies if I'm starting a new thread when one already exists on this, I did check the first 10 or so pages and couldn't see anything relating to my problem, so am starting a new one!!

 

Orange billed me incorrectly on my last bill for 2 x Non-Direct Debit charges (amounting to around £7), despite the fact that I'd set up direct debit payment (this was the first month I'd done that) and they were going to take the money by DD.

 

I called them on 15th November to tell them about the error. After some initial disputing from them, they agreed the charge shouldn't have been made, but said there was only 1 Non-DD charge, not 2. I figured I must have read my bill wrong and left it at that. On checking my bill again, I discovered I was right and so called them back on 17th November, spoke to a very helpful guy, explained that there should have been another credit for the 2nd Non-DD charge, he agreed and said it was "all sorted".

 

When I checked my bank account today, I found that they'd taken the full direct debit amount. The upshot of this was that a subsequent DD that came out today, the day before my pay day, had taken me £4 overdrawn and my bank had returned the DD (we don't usually sail this close to the wind with our bank account, but this month I'd worked it out almost to the penny as we had a lot of expense!). I'll now be charged by my bank for going overdrawn, for the returned DD and no doubt charged by the company whose DD 'bounced'. If Orange had charged me correctly, as I assumed they would after me highlighting the error, my account would not have gone overdrawn and so I feel Orange should compensate me for the charges.

 

I spoke to Orange today and they couldn't care less, they said the credit would appear on next month's bill. I've asked for a supervisor to call me back (I wanted to speak to one there and then, but 'none were available').

 

Has anyone else had this problem with them and did you manage to get bank / third party charges refunded?

 

Thanks

 

Lisa

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also just realised that for 9 months now, they've been charging us two non-direct debit charges - 1 per phone, on the same account (amounting to around £7 per month). Am I right in thinking that we should be able to reclaim 1 of those charges per month from Orange as well?

 

Any help would be very gratefully received!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the fee was billed incorrectly then you are due a refund, but I'd suggest you do this in writing and not over the phone. I'd also suggest that if you are so close to the wire, a DD is not your best payment option. You have no control over what the originator will take, and unless you have some cushioning funds, you will always be in this situation and life is too short. (To spend it chasing refunds and apologising to the bank for an error you hadn't made).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to write to Orange today and attempt to get a refund of the charges my bank will make. I've written to the bank already asking for some leniency and explaining the situation to them - as we were only £4 overdrawn and just for 1 day as I'm paid today and as it was due to a DD error, I'm hoping they might waive some / all of the charges, but we'll see!

 

We opted for the direct debit option to save money (so we could avoid the non-DD charge). So far it's cost us far more than the charge would have done, so maybe you're right and we should go back to paying the bill the 'traditional' way!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

I'd consider asking for a refund via your bank. Part of the direct debit guarantee states:

"If an error is made in the payment of your Direct Debit, by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are entitled to a full and immediate refund of the amount paid from your bank or building society"

The ombudsman is quite clear on this too financial ombudsman - direct debit guarantee

Given the incorrect billing by Orange has caused knock on problems and charges, requesting a refund of that particular transaction from your bank would mean you haven't now gone overdrawn and so unravels the charges. If they refuse or try to pass you back to Orange then, not only would this make them in breach of the guarantee, but, they would in fact be seeking to profit from their breach with the subsequent charges.

Edited by trashedboy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I'd consider asking for a refund via your bank. Part of the direct debit guarantee states:

"If an error is made in the payment of your Direct Debit, by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are entitled to a full and immediate refund of the amount paid from your bank or building society"

The ombudsman is quite clear on this too financial ombudsman - direct debit guarantee

Given the incorrect billing by Orange has caused knock on problems and charges, requesting a refund of that particular transaction from your bank would mean you haven't now gone overdrawn and so unravels the charges. If they refuse or try to pass you back to Orange then, not only would this make them in breach of the guarantee, but, they would in fact be seeking to profit from their breach with the subsequent charges.

 

 

That arguement wouldn't work, as when he was billed. The fees where included in the bill so therefore the guarantee does not apply here as they took out what they billed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That arguement wouldn't work, as when he was billed. The fees where included in the bill so therefore the guarantee does not apply here as they took out what they billed!

 

Correct. When you agree to pay by direct debit, you agree that you'll sort out any problems AFTER you've paid up. Because you can't reverse part of the direct debit, have the lot reversed and you're in breach of contract, because you haven't paid what you owed.

 

In addition any bank charges you incur as a result of a payee's error are your responsibility. Neither the bank nor the payee is obliged to reimburse you.

 

Direct debit is often an expensive and time consuming way to pay people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the fact Trixiewillis contacted Orange to dispute the amount prior to the direct debit being collected not make a difference? Surely doing this effectively withdrew permission to take the billed amount. The Orange agent saying "all sorted" would also seem to imply a revision to the billed amount.

 

I accept I may be being totally naive here and that the DD guarantee is almost meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. It does indeed withdraw their permission to take the amount on the bill. They should take the agreed amount.

 

However if they proceed to take the higher amount, and you then have the direct debit reversed, you haven't corrected the situation - e.g. paid the right amount. You've paid nothing.

 

So you're in breach of contract, because you needed to pay the sums due. Just because you agreed that the payee could collect the money from you doesn't relieve you of your obligation to make sure it gets to them.

 

The direct debit guarantee is meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. DD is highly automated. Depending on their back officde systems, the billing system creates a debit file that is either couriered to their bank, or played in to their finds processor. This usually happens in tandem with the invoice being generated, so even if you had contacted them on receipt of the bill and disputed it, the debit would still proceed. As MB points out - if this is not what you want DON'T USE DIRECT DEBIT. By doing so, your financial affairs are managed by others.

 

As for the agen t saying it was 'sorted'. This can also mean a credit is now applied, and will show on your NEXT bill. Expecting it to somehow reduce the amount previously notified would be an assumption, and probably incorrectl.

Edited by buzby
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have thought (naivety again?) that the mechanics of how direct debits are processed are irrelevant, and ultimately should be the supplier/banks' problem. Economically, it certainly makes sense to make it the consumer's problem as they will get away with it most of the time regardless of correctness.

 

The wording of the direct debit guarantee does not make the association of "direct debit amount = billed amount therefore correct", but rather states "if an error is made by us or by your bank...". Billing the wrong amount is just as much an error in my mind as taking a different amount to that billed.

 

Is anyone aware of any case law or, better still, ombudsman rulings for this situation?

 

I agree, the meaning of "its sorted" is wide open to interpretation as well as being somewhat unprofessional. What is it reasonable for the average consumer, who has not been in this situation before, nor worked in the industry, to take it to mean? If, say, the phone call commences "I've been billed the wrong amount" and ends "its sorted" then the assumption that the bill has been corrected is extremely reasonable.

 

Mark Blackpool's comment regarding reversal vs obligation to pay could be very relevant, especially given the way everything is run on automatic - would a reversal, even with a manual payment, then reinstate the non-DD fee or other penalties thus rendering the guarantee protection meaningless.

 

Given the seemingly limited, or even irrelevant, protection of the guarantee, it is a shame companies are allowed to make such large penalties/discounts for direct debit payments. As you say Buzby, life is too short to be chasing refunds yet often the price difference means those of us who can least afford it when it goes wrong feel we have limited choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it is more relevant that folk have been fooled into believing that it is somehow in their best interest to lose fiscal control and give away on a whm. That's the travesty. Once done so, it is up to the hapless consumer to beg for their money back, on the basis that they don't have it, and are at the mercy of faceless others to hopefully agree. THEN if they are, you get hit with DD failure charges for institutingf a reversal, and of course, a DD amount can be processed again with minimal formality if the original debit did not complete (unless someone had the good sense to cancel the mandate in total, therefore removing this risk).

 

As to a problem being 'sorted' - again - what the customer assumes is irrelevant. This should be followed by "Does this mean you will take the RIGHT amount THIS month", only to have it explained no, we'll be taking a lesser amount NEXT month would explain the process - but expecting CS staff to volunteer such information would be nothing more than an aspiration.

 

As to your last paragraph - we have already seen CAG members admitting that even IF they opted out of DD and paid the higher basic charge, they would still be ahead of the game - and in control. It is the false premise of 'saving' coupled with the 'DD Guarantee' mantra, that suckers the masses.

 

As you say, the evil is the carrots being used to enforce compliance - and OFCOM is still to report on the matter, with the hope that billing differning amounts that bear no relation to the processing cost will be outlawed, indeed how has this situation been allowed to even take a foothold? I pay by whatever means suits me, and the firm pays whatever cost they negotiated - yet now, I'm supposed to pay them for this, AND to send me a bil, which I also have to pay for (or forego, to save money).

 

They must be laughing at how quick we'll want to save a few quid a year and accept it without complaint!

Link to post
Share on other sites

One by one the very few safeguards that ever existed with Direct debit are being removed.

 

You used to get ten days notice - ten working days, minimum, before an amount could be debited.

 

Now any payee can override that and dictate those terms. For instance with BT it's "up to 10 days". NOT 10 working days.

 

The next aspect which will be removed will be the ability to have a DD reversed by your Bank. In the event of double charging or overcharging, you'll have to plead with the supplier for a refund, and more likely will be given a credit on your account instead rather than your money back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Mark, these safeguards were imaginary. When DD's commenced, they were to replace SO's, and as such had the same element of restrictions, DATES AND AMOUNTS were specified - unless on the odd occasion they were 'unspecified'. Spin forward a few years and DD mandates because to specifically mention debits could be taken on/for 'unspecified dates and amounts. Meanwhile, the 'guarantee' remained unaltered.

 

Now, ALL DD's are unspecified, add to this removal of any requirement to sign a mandate and have if forwarded to your bank, was the opening of the free-for-all. Because it was sone in stages - effectively by stealth - the actual result of the cumulative changes were hidden from the consumer under the smokescreen of the 'guarantee' and along with it, the lack of any consequential loss rights.

 

Unless users have a spare £1k sloshing around in their account to take up the slack, I would advise anyone to cancel ALL DD's with immediate effect, and take responsibility for their own financial affairs directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...