A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP 
for work they carried out which I think should have been done at their 
cost.  About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it 
created little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from 
my bank account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of 
paying regular bills) without my permission.  I have had several 
conversations with their representatives, made difficult by their poor 
English comprehension and my deafness.  At one point I specifically 
mentioned to them that not only did I dispute the fact I owed them money 
but that they should not have implied to my bank that they had my 
permission to take the money (presumably a breach of their contract with 
the bank).  About two months ago I had a letter from them promising to 
pay me back the money but not addressing whether they were withdrawing 
the claim or merely regularising their position with respect to the 
direct debit guarantee the banks and user companies promise to abide by. 
Needless to say (did I mention that they were a large b. t. company?) I 
have not received the money.   I do not want to bring the bank into this 
dispute.   Can I usefully sue for the return of my money on the grounds 
the original debt was not valid?  Does their breach of the direct debit 
guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to ignore this in my 
claim?
-- 
Roger Hayter

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:50:09 +0100, Roger Hayter put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP 
>for work they carried out which I think should have been done at their 
>cost.  About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it 
>created little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from 
>my bank account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of 
>paying regular bills) without my permission.  I have had several 
>conversations with their representatives, made difficult by their poor 
>English comprehension and my deafness.  At one point I specifically 
>mentioned to them that not only did I dispute the fact I owed them money 
>but that they should not have implied to my bank that they had my 
>permission to take the money (presumably a breach of their contract with 
>the bank).  About two months ago I had a letter from them promising to 
>pay me back the money but not addressing whether they were withdrawing 
>the claim or merely regularising their position with respect to the 
>direct debit guarantee the banks and user companies promise to abide by. 
>Needless to say (did I mention that they were a large b. t. company?) I 
>have not received the money.   I do not want to bring the bank into this 
>dispute.   Can I usefully sue for the return of my money on the grounds 
>the original debt was not valid?  Does their breach of the direct debit 
>guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to ignore this in my 
>claim?

The Direct Debit Guarantee is made by the bank, not the supplier. So,
if you choose to take action against the supplier, the DDG is entirely
irrelevent and cannot be part of your action - the supplier hasn't
breached it, because the supplier isn't a party to it. (The supplier
may be in breach of their own contract with the bank, but that's for
them and the bank to sort out - you can't get involved in that).

Having said that, if you think that money has been taken out of your
account in circumstances where you could invoke the DDG in order to
get it returned, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you don't want to
invoke it. There's no point going to the effort and possible expense
of legal action when a simple phone call or letter to your bank will
suffice. You could even find that failing to invoke the DDG could
adversely affect your claim, as you would be expected to take steps to
mitigate your loss prior to taking legal action. The courts do not
tend to look favourably on claims that could easily have been settled
before reaching them.

Mark

>A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP for 
>work they carried out which I think should have been done at their cost. 
>About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it created 
>little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from my bank 
>account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of paying regular 
>bills) without my permission.  I have had several conversations with their 
>representatives, made difficult by their poor English comprehension and my 
>deafness.  At one point I specifically mentioned to them that not only did 
>I dispute the fact I owed them money but that they should not have implied 
>to my bank that they had my permission to take the money (presumably a 
>breach of their contract with the bank).  About two months ago I had a 
>letter from them promising to pay me back the money but not addressing 
>whether they were withdrawing the claim or merely regularising their 
>position with respect to the direct debit guarantee the banks and user 
>companies promise to abide by. Needless to say (did I mention that they 
>were a large b. t. company?) I have not received the money.   I do not want 
>to bring the bank into this dispute.   Can I usefully sue for the return of 
>my money on the grounds the original debt was not valid?  Does their breach 
>of the direct debit guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to 
>ignore this in my claim?


You almost certainly gave BT a variable DD authority which means they can 
charge any amount that they have billed and given you notice of so you are 
unlikely to get anywhere with claiming a breach of contract. The sensible 
way to get the money back is to invoke the DD guarantee with your bank. They 
may query why it has taken so long for you to claim but they are obliged to 
return the money to you. They then debit BT for the amount. You need to 
remember that invoking the DD guarantee also closes the DD authority so if 
you want to continue paying by DD you have to set up a new authority. Since 
you have a simple means of recovering the money it would be foolish to go to 
court.

Peter Crosland

In message , 
Mark Goodge  writes
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:50:09 +0100, Roger Hayter put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP
>>for work they carried out which I think should have been done at their
>>cost.  About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it
>>created little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from
>>my bank account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of
>>paying regular bills) without my permission.  I have had several
>>conversations with their representatives, made difficult by their poor
>>English comprehension and my deafness.  At one point I specifically
>>mentioned to them that not only did I dispute the fact I owed them money
>>but that they should not have implied to my bank that they had my
>>permission to take the money (presumably a breach of their contract with
>>the bank).  About two months ago I had a letter from them promising to
>>pay me back the money but not addressing whether they were withdrawing
>>the claim or merely regularising their position with respect to the
>>direct debit guarantee the banks and user companies promise to abide by.
>>Needless to say (did I mention that they were a large b. t. company?) I
>>have not received the money.   I do not want to bring the bank into this
>>dispute.   Can I usefully sue for the return of my money on the grounds
>>the original debt was not valid?  Does their breach of the direct debit
>>guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to ignore this in my
>>claim?
>
>The Direct Debit Guarantee is made by the bank, not the supplier. So,
>if you choose to take action against the supplier, the DDG is entirely
>irrelevent and cannot be part of your action - the supplier hasn't
>breached it, because the supplier isn't a party to it. (The supplier
>may be in breach of their own contract with the bank, but that's for
>them and the bank to sort out - you can't get involved in that).
>
>Having said that, if you think that money has been taken out of your
>account in circumstances where you could invoke the DDG in order to
>get it returned, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you don't want to
>invoke it. There's no point going to the effort and possible expense
>of legal action when a simple phone call or letter to your bank will
>suffice. You could even find that failing to invoke the DDG could
>adversely affect your claim, as you would be expected to take steps to
>mitigate your loss prior to taking legal action. The courts do not
>tend to look favourably on claims that could easily have been settled
>before reaching them.
>
>Mark
>

That is a very interesting point.  Of course, I would only be in 
possession of the cash and it would not resolve the question of whether 
I owe the money to the company.  I am also reluctant to annoy the 
company too much as they are a monopoly supplier[1]  and I feel they 
might decide mutual trust has broken down if I invoke the direct debit 
guarantee.  How likely does anyone else think it that a court would 
expect me to get my cash back and leave it for the company to sue me - 
or terminate its contract with me.

[1]  Please accept that the particular combination of rural exchange, 
long line and ISP preference I have is such that I *need* a phone 
contract with this particular supplier.
-- 
Roger Hayter

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:50:09 +0100, Roger Hayter
 wrote:

>A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP 
>for work they carried out which I think should have been done at their 
>cost.  About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it 
>created little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from 
>my bank account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of 
>paying regular bills) without my permission.  I have had several 
>conversations with their representatives, made difficult by their poor 
>English comprehension and my deafness.  At one point I specifically 
>mentioned to them that not only did I dispute the fact I owed them money 
>but that they should not have implied to my bank that they had my 
>permission to take the money (presumably a breach of their contract with 
>the bank).  About two months ago I had a letter from them promising to 
>pay me back the money but not addressing whether they were withdrawing 
>the claim or merely regularising their position with respect to the 
>direct debit guarantee the banks and user companies promise to abide by. 
>Needless to say (did I mention that they were a large b. t. company?) I 
>have not received the money.   I do not want to bring the bank into this 
>dispute.

Are you willing to say why?  I ask, because that's by far the simplest
way of recovering your money.  All you have to do is tell the bank
that you didn't authorise the debit and the bank are obliged to refund
it immediately, without question.

>Can I usefully sue for the return of my money on the grounds 
>the original debt was not valid?  Does their breach of the direct debit 
>guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to ignore this in my 
>claim?

Others can answer this better but I suspect you'll have difficulty in
demonstrating that the direct debit authority was breached.  The telco
will simply argue that you'd provided authority for them to raise
direct debits in relation to your account with them.  This doesn't
change your right to obtain a refund from the bank (who'll then claw
it back from the telco), but I doubt it will add any weight to your
proposed action in the county court.

Mike.

>>>A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP
>>>for work they carried out which I think should have been done at their
>>>cost.  About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it
>>>created little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from
>>>my bank account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of
>>>paying regular bills) without my permission.  I have had several
>>>conversations with their representatives, made difficult by their poor
>>>English comprehension and my deafness.  At one point I specifically
>>>mentioned to them that not only did I dispute the fact I owed them money
>>>but that they should not have implied to my bank that they had my
>>>permission to take the money (presumably a breach of their contract with
>>>the bank).  About two months ago I had a letter from them promising to
>>>pay me back the money but not addressing whether they were withdrawing
>>>the claim or merely regularising their position with respect to the
>>>direct debit guarantee the banks and user companies promise to abide by.
>>>Needless to say (did I mention that they were a large b. t. company?) I
>>>have not received the money.   I do not want to bring the bank into this
>>>dispute.   Can I usefully sue for the return of my money on the grounds
>>>the original debt was not valid?  Does their breach of the direct debit
>>>guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to ignore this in my
>>>claim?
>>
>>The Direct Debit Guarantee is made by the bank, not the supplier. So,
>>if you choose to take action against the supplier, the DDG is entirely
>>irrelevent and cannot be part of your action - the supplier hasn't
>>breached it, because the supplier isn't a party to it. (The supplier
>>may be in breach of their own contract with the bank, but that's for
>>them and the bank to sort out - you can't get involved in that).
>>
>>Having said that, if you think that money has been taken out of your
>>account in circumstances where you could invoke the DDG in order to
>>get it returned, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you don't want to
>>invoke it. There's no point going to the effort and possible expense
>>of legal action when a simple phone call or letter to your bank will
>>suffice. You could even find that failing to invoke the DDG could
>>adversely affect your claim, as you would be expected to take steps to
>>mitigate your loss prior to taking legal action. The courts do not
>>tend to look favourably on claims that could easily have been settled
>>before reaching them.
>>
>>Mark
>>
>
> That is a very interesting point.  Of course, I would only be in 
> possession of the cash and it would not resolve the question of whether I 
> owe the money to the company.  I am also reluctant to annoy the company 
> too much as they are a monopoly supplier[1]  and I feel they might decide 
> mutual trust has broken down if I invoke the direct debit guarantee.  How 
> likely does anyone else think it that a court would expect me to get my 
> cash back and leave it for the company to sue me - or terminate its 
> contract with me.



As Mark has correctly said the courts don't take kindly to claimants that 
could easily have recovered the money by other means. Litigation really 
should be a very last resort. Why do you think BT would prefer to be sued 
when they might get bad publicity in a public forum rather than a private 
one of the DD guarantee? BT have to supply you with telephone service 
provided you pay so the question of them refusing to do so does not really 
enter into the equation.

Peter Crosland

Roger Hayter wrote:
> I am also reluctant to annoy the
> company too much as they are a monopoly supplier[1]  and I feel they 
> might decide mutual trust has broken down if I invoke the direct debit 
> guarantee. 

If you are talking about a certain "monopoly supplier" then they also 
have a Universal Service Obligation, so AFAIAA cannot refuse to supply 
you simply because they don't like you.

Getting the DD reversed by going through your bank is the simplest and 
quickest way of getting your money back. You can then argue about who 
owes what to whom later and separately, but that is going to have to be 
dealt with anyway. But if they have your money they aren't going to be 
willing to talk about it.

It's also worth observing that a personal letter to the Chief Exec's 
office can produce useful and rapid results. You can usually get his 
name and address from the corporate info section of the website.

Owain

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:25:05 +0100, Roger Hayter put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In message , 
>Mark Goodge  writes
>>
>>Having said that, if you think that money has been taken out of your
>>account in circumstances where you could invoke the DDG in order to
>>get it returned, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you don't want to
>>invoke it. There's no point going to the effort and possible expense
>>of legal action when a simple phone call or letter to your bank will
>>suffice. You could even find that failing to invoke the DDG could
>>adversely affect your claim, as you would be expected to take steps to
>>mitigate your loss prior to taking legal action. The courts do not
>>tend to look favourably on claims that could easily have been settled
>>before reaching them.
>
>That is a very interesting point.  Of course, I would only be in 
>possession of the cash and it would not resolve the question of whether 
>I owe the money to the company.

No, but it seems that you may already be working towards a win on that
one in your continued discussions with their customer disservice
department.

>  I am also reluctant to annoy the 
>company too much as they are a monopoly supplier[1]  and I feel they 
>might decide mutual trust has broken down if I invoke the direct debit 
>guarantee.

They accepted that risk when they chose to accept DD payments. 

I invoked the DDG when I had a similar issue with NTL. Rather than
causing them to sue me or threaten to cut me off, it actually
persuaded them to back down completely on their original claim.

(I then left them, but that's another issue).

Mark

In message <DbSdnQlV4Mz5YRnVnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Peter 
Crosland  writes
>>A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP for
>>work they carried out which I think should have been done at their cost.
>>About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it created
>>little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from my bank
>>account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of paying regular
>>bills) without my permission.  I have had several conversations with their
>>representatives, made difficult by their poor English comprehension and my
>>deafness.  At one point I specifically mentioned to them that not only did
>>I dispute the fact I owed them money but that they should not have implied
>>to my bank that they had my permission to take the money (presumably a
>>breach of their contract with the bank).  About two months ago I had a
>>letter from them promising to pay me back the money but not addressing
>>whether they were withdrawing the claim or merely regularising their
>>position with respect to the direct debit guarantee the banks and user
>>companies promise to abide by. Needless to say (did I mention that they
>>were a large b. t. company?) I have not received the money.   I do not want
>>to bring the bank into this dispute.   Can I usefully sue for the return of
>>my money on the grounds the original debt was not valid?  Does their breach
>>of the direct debit guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to
>>ignore this in my claim?
>
>
>You almost certainly gave BT a variable DD authority which means they can
>charge any amount that they have billed and given you notice of so you are
>unlikely to get anywhere with claiming a breach of contract. The sensible
>way to get the money back is to invoke the DD guarantee with your bank. They
>may query why it has taken so long for you to claim but they are obliged to
>return the money to you. They then debit BT for the amount. You need to
>remember that invoking the DD guarantee also closes the DD authority so if
>you want to continue paying by DD you have to set up a new authority. Since
>you have a simple means of recovering the money it would be foolish to go to
>court.
>
>
Presumably there is no likelihood the bank will refuse to set up a new 
DD, but might BT refuse to accept one?  Then I lose the DD discount they 
offer (about 18GBP a year) and the convenience.  I am beginning to think 
my best bet is to keep phoning them until they give the money back on 
the basis of their misuse of the DD rather than the merits of the debt.

Of course, when I talk of taking them to court I am rather hoping they 
would capitulate on receiving the court papers, but perhaps they are 
incapable of such swift action.  I think they would want to capitulate 
for fear of losing to me in court affecting a significant revenue 
stream.  I know such a case would not set a formal precedent, but 
insurance companies might well hear of it.

-- 
Roger Hayter

Mike wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:50:09 +0100, Roger Hayter
>  wrote:
> 
>> A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP 
>> for work they carried out which I think should have been done at their 
>> cost.  About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it 
>> created little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from 
>> my bank account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of 
>> paying regular bills) without my permission.  I have had several 
>> conversations with their representatives, made difficult by their poor 
>> English comprehension and my deafness.  At one point I specifically 
>> mentioned to them that not only did I dispute the fact I owed them money 
>> but that they should not have implied to my bank that they had my 
>> permission to take the money (presumably a breach of their contract with 
>> the bank).  About two months ago I had a letter from them promising to 
>> pay me back the money but not addressing whether they were withdrawing 
>> the claim or merely regularising their position with respect to the 
>> direct debit guarantee the banks and user companies promise to abide by. 
>> Needless to say (did I mention that they were a large b. t. company?) I 
>> have not received the money.   I do not want to bring the bank into this 
>> dispute.
> 
> Are you willing to say why?  I ask, because that's by far the simplest
> way of recovering your money.  All you have to do is tell the bank
> that you didn't authorise the debit and the bank are obliged to refund
> it immediately, without question.
> 
>> Can I usefully sue for the return of my money on the grounds 
>> the original debt was not valid?  Does their breach of the direct debit 
>> guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to ignore this in my 
>> claim?
> 
> Others can answer this better but I suspect you'll have difficulty in
> demonstrating that the direct debit authority was breached.  The telco
> will simply argue that you'd provided authority for them to raise
> direct debits in relation to your account with them.  This doesn't
> change your right to obtain a refund from the bank (who'll then claw
> it back from the telco), but I doubt it will add any weight to your
> proposed action in the county court.
> 
> Mike.
> 
> 
Is there any guarantee with a direct-debit? As the account holder can 
stop any payment for any reason by applying to their bank there can be 
no guarantee. As for any discontinuing of the direct-debit - this is up 
to the account holder, the receiver, or the bank. Would a direct-debit 
be discontinued if there was a simple billing error one month?
Apply to the bank - get your money back. The you'll find the Company 
will listen.

-- 
gbh
gbh04 is a spamtrap - all post is deleted at server

>>> A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP 
>>> for work they carried out which I think should have been done at their 
>>> cost.  About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it 
>>> created little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from 
>>> my bank account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of 
>>> paying regular bills) without my permission.  I have had several 
>>> conversations with their representatives, made difficult by their poor 
>>> English comprehension and my deafness.  At one point I specifically 
>>> mentioned to them that not only did I dispute the fact I owed them money 
>>> but that they should not have implied to my bank that they had my 
>>> permission to take the money (presumably a breach of their contract with 
>>> the bank).  About two months ago I had a letter from them promising to 
>>> pay me back the money but not addressing whether they were withdrawing 
>>> the claim or merely regularising their position with respect to the 
>>> direct debit guarantee the banks and user companies promise to abide by. 
>>> Needless to say (did I mention that they were a large b. t. company?) I 
>>> have not received the money.   I do not want to bring the bank into this 
>>> dispute.
>>
>> Are you willing to say why?  I ask, because that's by far the simplest
>> way of recovering your money.  All you have to do is tell the bank
>> that you didn't authorise the debit and the bank are obliged to refund
>> it immediately, without question.
>>
>>> Can I usefully sue for the return of my money on the grounds the 
>>> original debt was not valid?  Does their breach of the direct debit 
>>> guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to ignore this in my 
>>> claim?
>>
>> Others can answer this better but I suspect you'll have difficulty in
>> demonstrating that the direct debit authority was breached.  The telco
>> will simply argue that you'd provided authority for them to raise
>> direct debits in relation to your account with them.  This doesn't
>> change your right to obtain a refund from the bank (who'll then claw
>> it back from the telco), but I doubt it will add any weight to your
>> proposed action in the county court.
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>>
> Is there any guarantee with a direct-debit?
Of course there is. The guarantee is to the bank accoutn holder that if an 
unauthorised payment is taken they will be refunded promptly. The details 
are set out in the document sent to the customer each time they set up a DD.

>As the account holder can stop any payment for any reason by applying to 
>their bank there can be no guarantee.

What do you mean by this statement?

>As for any discontinuing of the direct-debit - this is up to the account 
>holder, the receiver, or the bank.

If a customer makes a claim under the DD Guarantee the bank will 
automatically cancel the agreement.

>Would a direct-debit be discontinued if there was a simple billing error 
>one month?

If the customer chose to claim under the DD guarantee then the answer would 
be yes.

Peter Crosland

>>>A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP for
>>>work they carried out which I think should have been done at their cost.
>>>About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it created
>>>little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from my bank
>>>account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of paying 
>>>regular
>>>bills) without my permission.  I have had several conversations with 
>>>their
>>>representatives, made difficult by their poor English comprehension and 
>>>my
>>>deafness.  At one point I specifically mentioned to them that not only 
>>>did
>>>I dispute the fact I owed them money but that they should not have 
>>>implied
>>>to my bank that they had my permission to take the money (presumably a
>>>breach of their contract with the bank).  About two months ago I had a
>>>letter from them promising to pay me back the money but not addressing
>>>whether they were withdrawing the claim or merely regularising their
>>>position with respect to the direct debit guarantee the banks and user
>>>companies promise to abide by. Needless to say (did I mention that they
>>>were a large b. t. company?) I have not received the money.   I do not 
>>>want
>>>to bring the bank into this dispute.   Can I usefully sue for the return 
>>>of
>>>my money on the grounds the original debt was not valid?  Does their 
>>>breach
>>>of the direct debit guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to
>>>ignore this in my claim?
>>
>>
>>You almost certainly gave BT a variable DD authority which means they can
>>charge any amount that they have billed and given you notice of so you are
>>unlikely to get anywhere with claiming a breach of contract. The sensible
>>way to get the money back is to invoke the DD guarantee with your bank. 
>>They
>>may query why it has taken so long for you to claim but they are obliged 
>>to
>>return the money to you. They then debit BT for the amount. You need to
>>remember that invoking the DD guarantee also closes the DD authority so if
>>you want to continue paying by DD you have to set up a new authority. 
>>Since
>>you have a simple means of recovering the money it would be foolish to go 
>>to
>>court.
>>
>>
> Presumably there is no likelihood the bank will refuse to set up a new DD, 
> but might BT refuse to accept one?

Very unlikely. In fact I had no problem doing so with BT.

>Then I lose the DD discount they offer (about 18GBP a year) and the 
>convenience.  I am beginning to think my best bet is to keep phoning them 
>until they give the money back on the basis of their misuse of the DD 
>rather than the merits of the debt.

How exactly have BT misused the DD system if you gave them the authority and 
they have used it?


> Of course, when I talk of taking them to court I am rather hoping they 
> would capitulate on receiving the court papers, but perhaps they are 
> incapable of such swift action.  I think they would want to capitulate for 
> fear of losing to me in court affecting a significant revenue stream.  I 
> know such a case would not set a formal precedent, but insurance companies 
> might well hear of it.

Taking BT to court when you have another, easier and quicker method, makes 
no sense at all. All you will do is have to pay the court fee yourself. How 
are an insurance company involved anyway?



Peter Crosland

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:30:07 +0100, gbh  wrote:

[a reply to a newsgroup posting]

May I ask why you emailed your posting to me as well as posting it to
the newsgroup?  Perhaps you don't realise that your software is doing
this, in which case would you please investigate how to turn it off,
especially when you're sending email from a spam-trapped address.

While I'm happy to accept email correspondence (and I'm one of the few
people who has always posted with a valid email address), there's no
point in duplicating newgoup postings to email, especially when you
don't accept emailed replies.

Mike.

In message <8KadnSpFj7CPMBjVnZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Peter 
Crosland  writes
snip
>> Presumably there is no likelihood the bank will refuse to set up a new DD,
>> but might BT refuse to accept one?
>
>Very unlikely. In fact I had no problem doing so with BT.
>
>>Then I lose the DD discount they offer (about 18GBP a year) and the
>>convenience.  I am beginning to think my best bet is to keep phoning them
>>until they give the money back on the basis of their misuse of the DD
>>rather than the merits of the debt.
>
>How exactly have BT misused the DD system if you gave them the authority and
>they have used it?

The way it works is they send me a bill every month with a proposal to 
take this sum by DD and if I say nothing they take this as implied 
permission to do so.  With the sum in question I immediately disputed 
it, which means, under the DD guarantee scheme, they have no right to 
take it by DD.  If I had agreed the debt but refused to allow them to 
use DD then they should still seek another payment modality from me 
rather than take the  sum from my account.  This is the basis on which 
the banks were very successful in selling DD to a somewhat suspicious 
public, who could foresee the likelihood of (then) public utilities 
suddenly deciding Mr Jones owed them 5 000 000GBP, and without the DD 
guarantee this might have had serious effects on Mr Jones' cash flow 
while the existence of the debt was interminably debated with a clerk in 
Kirkby or whatever.

-- 
Roger Hayter

>>> Presumably there is no likelihood the bank will refuse to set up a new 
>>> DD,
>>> but might BT refuse to accept one?
>>
>>Very unlikely. In fact I had no problem doing so with BT.
>>
>>>Then I lose the DD discount they offer (about 18GBP a year) and the
>>>convenience.  I am beginning to think my best bet is to keep phoning them
>>>until they give the money back on the basis of their misuse of the DD
>>>rather than the merits of the debt.
>>
>>How exactly have BT misused the DD system if you gave them the authority 
>>and
>>they have used it?
>
> The way it works is they send me a bill every month with a proposal to 
> take this sum by DD and if I say nothing they take this as implied 
> permission to do so.  With the sum in question I immediately disputed it, 
> which means, under the DD guarantee scheme, they have no right to take it 
> by DD.

Which is exactly why you should have asked for an refund under the DD 
guarantee. Of course BT should not have claimed an item that is in dispute 
but you did have an immediate remedy.

Peter Crosland