Welcome Finance took payment without authorisation

[fairclaire]

I have posted details of my problems with Welcome on another thread but though I should now start my own as I need some advice about this.

 

The background is I have had 3 loans from welcome. Well 1 loan and a further 2 top-ups. I stopped repayments about 18 months ago due to financial difficulties and came to an agreement to pay reduced amounts every month which I have been doing ever since. I was sort of bullied into this as they were constantly contacting me at work and even speaking to colleagues in my absence! They telephone just before payday to ask for authorisation and so on...

 

I recently decided to sort this situation out after months of asking for a statement of how much I owed and not recieving it and then eventually being told verbally that the amount I owe is now more than I ever borrowed in the first place.

 

I started by sending a SAR and a CCA request, none of which I have had a reply to as yet. I also sent a letter explaining that I wouldn't be making any further payments until I had the information I requested. I also requested that they stop contacting me by telephone and correspond by writing from now on.

 

The only contact number they have for me is my work one. When i moved I refused to give them my new home number.

 

Despite all my correspondence they have today taken a payment from my debit card. They have no authorisation for this as I have been off work sick for 3 weeks and therefore have not spoken to them. I've checked with a colleague at work and they did ring yesterday ans were told I was off sick until after new year at least.

 

I was concerned that this would happen and I know that the best thing would have been to get a new debit card before they had the chance, and I will do this before the end of January. With being ill and christmas etc I didn't get round to having my debit card replaced.

 

Is there anything that I can do about them taking payment without my permission? They can't claim that they did have permission as they were unable to speak to me and I can prove it.

 

I'm not all that surprised and am resigned to the fact that I probably won't get this payment back.....well not yet anyway! Nothing that this company does surprises me anymore.

 

I also want to do something about the fact that they are still phoning my work despite my request for them not to. I sent the letter recorded delivery and tracked it so I know that they recieved it.

 

Any thoughts/suggestions gratefully recieved

[spotnot]

Inform the bank and get them to do a charge back. They CANNOT take funds from you without permission!! There is another thread with a very similar situation. I'll find it and post the link here.

[spotnot]

Here's the link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-bailiffs-advice/23687-theft-fraud.html

 

This was relating to a DCA taking the money but the principle is the same.

[Bookworm]

Well, that depends, actually. It depends on WHAT permission they have. If it is a rolling authorisation, a) they can take payment as OP would have authorised it (it will be somewhere in the T&Cs), and b) replacing the card will make no difference, as the rolling authorisation will carry on despite the card being changed (as anyone with AOL will know ).

 

Claire, you need to find out what is the "agreed" method of payment. If it is as I described above, not only you will not be able to get that payment back, but they will be able to keep on helping themselves for aslong as they want, as they are the only ones who can stop the payments. Rolling authorisations are even worse than direct debits.

 

Either way, contact the bank and see if they'll put a block on the payments, but be careful, the bank often will be incapable to stop the payments in that scenario.

[fairclaire]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I really have no idea what sort of agreement this is. It was all set up by telephone so I have no T&Cs (stupid....i know now, but I didn't then) I don't think it is a rolling agreement tho for 2 reasons

 

1. when my last debit card expired and I got a new one with a new number they tried to take a payment ( I had forgotten to tell them I had a new card) it was obviously declined and I had to give them my new card number.

 

2. they phone me every single month to ask if it's ok to take payment. Surely they wouldn't bother doing this if they didn't need to

 

anyway I have just telephoned the bank who are sending me some dispute forms so we'll see what happens from there

 

Thanks for the replies

[demon_x_slash]

But if it was a rolling authorisation, why did they have to ring her and ask permission each time? Wouldn't that mean they had to obtain permission? as you know what these companies are like, if they don't have to do anything they won't.

 

Plus, speaking to colleagues is not on, it's a breach of OFT debt collection guidelines, and the Data Protection Act at a push... also, non-compliance with the CCA and Data Protection Act request - when did you send these, fairclaire? Have you reported them for non-compliance?

[Bookworm]

1. when my last debit card expired and I got a new one with a new number they tried to take a payment ( I had forgotten to tell them I had a new card) it was obviously declined and I had to give them my new card number.

 

That is the best sign you could hope for. An expired card would have made no difference to a rolling authorisation, as I explained previously. If that's the case, you have very good grounds to go after your bank for having the amount reversed to your account, and to make a stinkaroo to WF for doing this.

[buzby]

Sorry, I disagree. An authorisation only refers to that card - the banks do not allow creditors on a fishing expedition as without a Sord Code and Account number, they cannot instruct the bank to search for an alternative. The card number you give along with its expiry date, is what the creditor uses, if that expiry date changes, the authorisation ends. There is a continuous card mandate, this only works with that card, there is no other type of agreement 'rolling' or otherwise for credit OR debit cards.

[fairclaire]

all these letters were sent on 4th dec. My very reason for sending them was that I was sick of the embarassment being caused to me at work.

 

I didn't really know I could do anything about it until i discovered this website and realised I didn't have to put up with it any more.

 

I have no intention of paying them anymore money until I get the SAR and CCA requests if I can possibly help it. I intend to request a new card from the bank anyway then I'll be able to see if they can take money without my permission or not. I have a feeeling they can't and just got to hope I'm right.

 

In the meantime I will write to them to let them know that I am seriously unhappy at what they have done. I will also be re-iterating my request for them to stop contacting me by telephone

[demon_x_slash]

Don't just 'let them know you're unhappy' - DEMAND a refund of the unauthorised amount from your bank. It may not quite fit the legal definition of theft (hells, I think it does) but it's damn near close to it. You can prove that you were not contacted for authorisation - therefore they have taken your money without your permission.

[fairclaire]

you're right...I will demand

 

welcome are a law unto themselves from my own experiences and from what I've read of other's experiences of them on here. I definately won't be letting this one go.

 

I think my best chance of getting the payment back is from the bank...even though it is Barclays and I've always found nothing is simple where they are concerned!

 

As for welcome, I will be adding this to list of other thing I intened to take them to task over - mis-sold PPI, ludicrous charges etc. etc I will also be making sure that they don't get another penny from me until this mess is all sorted out. Even if that means having my salary paid into my parachute account so that there is no money for them to take

[Bookworm]

Sorry, I disagree. An authorisation only refers to that card - the banks do not allow creditors on a fishing expedition as without a Sord Code and Account number, they cannot instruct the bank to search for an alternative. The card number you give along with its expiry date, is what the creditor uses, if that expiry date changes, the authorisation ends. There is a continuous card mandate, this only works with that card, there is no other type of agreement 'rolling' or otherwise for credit OR debit cards.

 

 

Disagree to your heart's contents, won't be the first time. AOL in particular do exactly that. I found out how difficult it was to get it stopped when my card was cloned a year ago, and the thieves used it to set up an AOL account. Despite my card being cancelled, replaced and a bar put on it, the payments kept on coming off for 4 months. It might not be called rolling authorisation, that's what my bank called it, but the system exists regardless of its name.

[LancerQRL]

welcome apperently record all calls to and from branch - request a copy of these as part of the s.a.r.- they do not seem to understand that they have to supply all the data they hold on you

[buzby]

This may be a problem based on experience from a particular bank, as a card number can only be accepted or declined, no further negotiation is possible. This begs the question, WHO is providing the updated numbers to the creditors? My own bank do not - when thew card ends, so do the debits. Anyone who has changed cards should clearly seek advice from their bankers and if disclosure has been made, seek appropriate recourse.

 

FWIW, before I ceased allowing recurring mandates, when a card expired, all creditors without exception called to say the card was declined and requesting an update/replacement.

[fairclaire]

This has been my experience with barclays also. There have been a few occasions besides with welcome that I have had to update card details with companies who have my card numbers. None are financial companies but certainly had to update with Amazon, paypal and others.

 

For my sake I hope this is the case so Welcome can't get their grubby mits on my money without asking again!

[tim2718281]

Disagree to your heart's contents, won't be the first time. AOL in particular do exactly that. I found out how difficult it was to get it stopped when my card was cloned a year ago, and the thieves used it to set up an AOL account. Despite my card being cancelled, replaced and a bar put on it, the payments kept on coming off for 4 months. It might not be called rolling authorisation, that's what my bank called it, but the system exists regardless of its name.

 

The question then arises, what does the cardholder do differently for a "rolling authorisation" compared with a "one-off" authorisation?

 

Or to put it another way: how does the bank know whether an authorisation is a one-off or a rolling authorisation?

 

Suppose you order something by phone and give the merchant your card details. The transaction goes through fine.

 

Five years later, the merchant requests £5000 from your bank, giving the same card details. Should the bank pay up or not?

 

If the bank pays the merchant, and you then dispute that you authorised the payment, what happens?

 

Is it really the case that once we have given a merchant our card details, that merchant can obtain whatever amounts it likes from our accounts whenever it likes, and the bank will not stop it?

 

*I* think that if the account-holder gives new instructions to a bank, they supersede any previous instructions. So regardless of what you have agreed with a merchant, your later instruction to the bank not to pay them supersedes any previous instructions to pay.

 

Perhaps I should write to my bank and ask them to confirm they agree with my interpretation.

 

Tim

[Guest NATTIE]

Bookworm, I agree and disagree with you on this one. A rolling mandate on a credit card would carry on but on a debit card the PAN would change with expiry date and therefore no claim could be made although I may need to check rolling mandates but am fairly certain it cannot be done on debit cards. Demon, if someone demanded the money back from the bank we would say NO unless there is fraud(crime reference number required). Hope that clarifies partially the rolling mandate unless another BW can clarify further

[demon_x_slash]

There is fraud because she did not give her permission. Would you be happy if your electricity company, for example, decided they'd take your bill payment twice in one month, and your bank just paid out to them, no question, because you have made similar transactions in the past? Are you happy with the bank taking certain things 'on faith' when it involves your money? I'm sure the OP would be quite happy to get a crime ref. number for this.

[Bookworm]

Bookworm, I agree and disagree with you on this one. A rolling mandate on a credit card would carry on but on a debit card the PAN would change with expiry date and therefore no claim could be made although I may need to check rolling mandates but am fairly certain it cannot be done on debit cards.

 

Natty, me luv, the AOL fraud of which I spoke was with a debit card, and my subscription with Lovefilm is (was) with a debit card, and in fact, it comes to me that even the CreditExpert thing I had was set up that way. Now, of course, the common point is that these all are online companies, and maybe this is why things are different? I really don't know, but there you go, one more thing to worry about!

[fairclaire]

Just an update

 

Someone from Barclays has telephoned me today to tell me that they are not willing to dispute the unauthorised payment. Their reason is that I given have Welcome my card number and that entitles them to take payment. I argued that they usually ask for authorisation every month(why? if they do not need it) and that I did not want this payment to be taken etc...

 

The conversation droned on like this for ages and ended up with the person on the other end speaking absolute twaddle. I said that over the past few years I have given my debit card number to hundreds of organisations...shops, online retailers and a whole host of others....does that mean that any one of them is entitled to take money from me whenever they like?? Her unbelievable answer was 'I suppose in theory they could, but they're not likely to are they?'!! I gave up with her at that point as it was obvious I was on a hiding to nothing. I plan now to go to my branch in the hopes I can speak to someone reasonable and see where that gets me.

 

As for the debit card, the goon I was speaking to said that changing the card would not make any difference. She put me through to their card services dept. Thankfully, the guy there seemed to know what he was talking about and was very helpful and pleasant. He wasn't sure about the state of play with changing debit cards but suggested it was certainly worth a try and from what I'd said about what happened when my last debit card expired...there was a good chance a new debit card might solve the problem. So They have now cancelled my current card and I await an new one.

 

Just have to wait until payday to see what happens.

 

In the meantime I will continue to pursue the bank over the unauthorised payment.

[Movingon]

This may be a problem based on experience from a particular bank, as a card number can only be accepted or declined, no further negotiation is possible. This begs the question, WHO is providing the updated numbers to the creditors? My own bank do not - when thew card ends, so do the debits. Anyone who has changed cards should clearly seek advice from their bankers and if disclosure has been made, seek appropriate recourse.

 

FWIW, before I ceased allowing recurring mandates, when a card expired, all creditors without exception called to say the card was declined and requesting an update/replacement.

 

Another case in point:

 

A member of my family were with AOL for some years until I finally told them to get shut of them. When they did, AOL continued to take money from their credit card, so she CLOSED THE CARD ACCOUNT and sent the card back to the organisation who issued it in six pieces as per the Ts & Cs. Six months later she got a call from the CC issuer saying that she owed them money; she stated that she absolutely did not as she had written confirmation from them that the account was closed and that the balance was zero and that her liability to them ended there and then.

 

They got really pushy and threatened court action and she said "Ok then go for it". They started listening soon after and realised that AOL were still taking money on a "Rolling Authoristation". From that point the CC Provider took up a "Fraud" investigation and AOL finally wrote to her (and to the provider) apologising profusely and returning all the money.

 

Rolling Authorisation is very much alive and does NOT depend on a particular card (or even a particular agreement or account) being in existence. It just keeps on swimming. Friends Reunited use it too...

[Bookworm]

Thank you, Tom, I was starting to feel alone here!!!

[buzby]

Disagree entirely. (are you surprised?)

 

I was referring to a debit card, you are talking about a Credit card, and what you outlines is quite correct for that type of card. You can cut the card into 1000 pieces and sent it to Mars, close the account BUT the continuing mandate will STILL allow the company to take a payment UNLESS the card holder has written to them and specifically requested the manded be recinded.

 

This debater stated on how, after a card had been cancelled/replaced that the creditor was able to take a payment. Since there was a NEW number for the card, the ONLY way it could be debited with the new number was with the collusion of the banks in providing this data, but this has not happened. It is them accessing the same card number, and the banks are contracturally bound to make the payment requested and - if the CC account is closed - pursue the former cardholder for payment, whilst at the same time reactivating their charges and penalties if it is not paid on time. This is one of the iniquities of credit cards that do not apply to debit cards. Having Section 75 protection comes at a price, but ONLY if you are foolish enough to agree to a rolling/recurring mandate for CC payments.

[Bookworm]

I do not have a credit card. The AOL fraud happened with a DEBIT card. As already stated.

[Guest NATTIE]

I come back to this thread later, but bookworm and stonelaughter, with regards to Debit Cards specifically- what happens if the card is stolen and a marker is placed on the card. The new PAN number will not be known to the organisation who has those details. How can they get authorisation on a stolen card?