3 - Cancel mobile contract?

[wdaf2004]

..

Edited August 20, 2008 by wdaf2004

[buzby]

No - there is no variation to the use of your mobile. It was your choice to pay by DD and the way these systems are set up it can really take up to 5 days to stop a payment being taken. Brinkmanship is not advisable when DDs are concerned, and it is often better to stay in control yourself, than run the risk of suffering the ignominy of being hit with bank charges (a separate issue).

 

IF 3UK charged you for the bounce of the DD, I'd most certainly dispute this as you made an alternative arrangement prior to the debit, but to attempt cancellation of your contract simply because you didn't have the cash in your account is a long stretch!

[livelylad]

Thread moved to telecomms forum.

[OrangePrimate]

contact your bank and claim the funds back under the Direct Debit indemnity guarantee.

 

explain to your bank that the bill had been paid 3 days earlier to the company and they (the company) had asured you the direct debit would not be requested (the reason you did not cancel/suspend D/D yourself with bank, in case they ask!!)

 

the bank will then claw back those funds making the company explain why they think they should get paid it anyway - they obviously wont be able to because you dont owe them anything as paid by other method! this will in turn stop the bank from being able to charge you (or refnd if already done so) overdraft fees/charges because the D/D shouldnt have been taken in first place leaving you in this situation.

 

If you do suffer any fees because of the error of 3, send them a copy of bank statement and they should refund you any charges.

 

(wasnt a mobile network, but been there, done it!!)

[freakyleaky]

Don't you have to be over 18 to take out a mobile phone contract?

[chrisgilly]

I was declared bankrupt in Feb '08. I have had my 3 mobile contract since March '07. I've upgraded, 18mth contract, in the last few weeks but now they have cancelled my contract due to the bankruptcy. Should they have let me upgrade and would the upgrade account count as a new account? Thanks

[Hoose]

DD guarantee should get your funds back immediatley, and cancel any charges, chrisgilly, I have replied to you on your thread

[buzby]

The DD Guarantee doesn't cover for this, so I've no idea where Hoose is coming from... perhaps he could expand?

 

Sorry to hear about your predicament, as for 3UK, your contract would effectively have restarted with the upgrade. As for whether they should have let you, this is a two way street - should you have upgraded? Would this not break the terms of your agreement with your trustee?

 

That said, since it was Three UK who decided they did not wish to have you as a customer, it would be extremely unfair from them to terminate your contract then expect you to pay any outstandings as a result of the new contract, as they were the instigators of the termination.

 

If all they want is to end their association (you can always go on to PAYG anyway) and close the account fine, that is their prerogative. However if they attempt to recover the full value of the contract and the remaining months due, that is unfair and should be challenged. Their T&Cs should fill you in on what their policies are in this situation.

[Hoose]

sorry buzby, my comment about dd was for the thread starter, I have replied on chrisgilly's thread in relation to his issue. sorry for any confusion

[buzby]

Ah! my mistake - but in the absence of cancelling the DD, how did the debit break any of the DD rules as covered by the guarantee. Only if the debit 'breaks the terms of the agreement' - thed OP agreed to the DD, and didn't have enough funds for it to go through. The only solution would have been to fund the account the DD would be taken from, not offer an alternative means,, as anything less than 5 days won't cause the debit to be skipped!

[Hoose]

the DD was taken in error, so therefore can be claimed back.

 

I had this when I changed my car over once, had a new DD set up, and they took from the old one as well.

 

went down the branch, said they shouldnt have taken from that one, they refunded it there and then.

[buzby]

What you describe WAS an error. What happened to the OP WASN'T and I'm surprised you fail to see this. A DD mandate was completed and was due to be taken each month for variable amounts on variable dates. Just because you pay an additional amount from a different source does not invalidate the original instructions given as they are seldom if ever processed on the day - there is a lag for the instructions to be processed on the appropriate day. However this is NOT an error, simply the processing time required.

 

As the DD had not been cancelled (and themerchant gave due notice of the debit) there are no further exclusions within the DD 'guarantee' that can be relied upon, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

[jonni2bad]

It may not have been an error on the part of the bank (clearly they were not informed separately) and thus not an error of the DD itself, but it was nonetheless an error. The company agreed not to take money by DD on this occasion so there is course for recompense if this resulted in charges.

 

If it were not capable of doing this, it should not have been offered to the customer.

 

Incidentally, the time required for cancellation of a DD is not 5 days, it can be cancelled up to and including the date of payment due (see here) although if you can give more time, then it would always be wiser to do so.

[Hoose]

jonni, that is correct and a much more eloquent way of putting the point i was trying to make.

 

this was not the fault of the bank, this was the fault of the originator, so therefore under the DD guarantee, it can be claimed back. at no point have i laid blame at the banks door, and if i have then I apologise.

 

the guarantee does not only apply to errors made by the bank, it protects the customer from errors made anywhere along the chain

[buzby]

It may have been eloquent, but it is also completely wrong.

 

Lets dispense with one argument, that there has been 'an error'. There certainly has been, and the OP was ill-advised, but this does not breach the terms of the DD Guarantee because at no time was there any problem with it.... only the fact the OP did not have enough money in his account.

 

Also, there was no issue over 'cancellation' of a DD, the 5 days I refer to equates to the processing time taken for the debit once initiated to reach the banking system and be actioned. The section you quote is simply BACS's advice on there being no restrictions in cancelling, which is perfectly true. However, if a debit is in the system, there is nothing they can do to cancel it, it will be actioned as a bulk transfer with all the other customers on the due datw.

 

Now lets move onto why this was an alternative means of payment offered to the customer. Putting incompetence aside for the moment, the network's call centre staff want to be helpful, so if the OP knew there was no money to pay them by the chosen method, the staff would clearly not want the customer to be shown to have missed or paid late. They provided an alternative means of doing so and the customer was not in default.

 

The problem of the DD still going through then bouncing, is a matter between the OP and his bank, as it would not be within the gift of a CS employee to wave a magic wand and cancel a debit being taken so close to the calling date for funds. Sure, they might agree some compromise to keep the customer happy, but that will be at their discretion.

 

I hold the DD system in high disregard, it is inflexible and weighed against the consumer, however as I noted earlier, if the system doesn't work the way people imagine it, who'se fault is that - the network, the banks - or the OP?

 

Of course the DD guarantee covers the merchant as well as the banks, how else could you get a repayment when a merchant takes a payment twice in succession, these are legitimate errors. Explaining in a phone call to a merchant not to take a DD payment and to skip (not cancel) it is fanciful - there can be no other scenario, just doesn't work close to the billing date.

 

If the bank charges a fee for bouncing the DD, they did because the funds were called for and the debit refused. The REAL laugh will be if the network similarly makes a charge for the bounce, even after an alternate payment method was used AND the standard additional fee for not paying by DD.

[saintly_1]

What I would like to know is how the op managed to get a mobile phone contract when under 16yrs old as I thought that you had to be 18 to sign for a contract

[jonni2bad]

...Incidentally, the time required for cancellation of a DD is not 5 days, it can be cancelled up to and including the date of payment due (see here) ...

 

...It may have been eloquent, but it is also completely wrong...the 5 days I refer to equates to the processing time taken for the debit once initiated to reach the banking system...

 

Well, in that case, you really do need to make your posts clear, because the following don't suggest this, in the slightest...

 

... and the way these systems are set up it can really take up to 5 days to stop a payment being taken...

 

... as anything less than 5 days won't cause the debit to be skipped!

 

But it's OK, we will forgive you. For clarity, I am not attempting to say that the DD Scheme is in any way responsible, merely that the timescale required to cancel is not 5 days.

 

On the main subject there was an error and no defending will correct it.

 

A company employs staff to advise it's customers, and those staff tell a customer that they can make an alternative payment and not worry about the DD.

 

You may believe that the OP should have realised this could not be the case (me too), but to be told it would be fine by the customer service rep is misleading, and they (the company) have a duty to the customer because of that. The staff member made an error - either in fact or in judgment, but an error was made.

 

Should the company now decide (upon complaint) to retrain - or simply train - its staff, then so be it. There is no get out clause for them to say something along the lines of "the CSR should not have said that, so it is not our fault".

 

They were advised, they took the advice, made the payment and were then still hit by a charge because they had been misled.

 

I do understand that this is often a hard concept for you to grasp - but you don't actually have to roll over and you can actually fight your corner.

 

I would suggest to the OP that they do just that. Make a complaint about the advice given, make clear what this resulted in, and demand a repayment of any fees incurred.

 

There's no harm in talking to the bank also, although I can't see that they are in any way at fault. Sometimes a little common sense does prevail with them though, and they can see that it would be good practice to waive the fee.

[OrangePrimate]

As stated in my post #4, the Bank dont have to be at fault to claim on DD indemnity. You simply go in and let the bank know that a claim for payment was made on D/D by x company that was not owing to them as the debt had been paid. the bank will then contact the company concerned, claim the funds back and all resolved.

 

Why does there have to be 'fault' laid everywhere? simple errors happen, thats why these guarantees/indemnities exist!

 

To answer Saintly 1 - it is possible, there are quite a few accounts taken out by parents/ family members for kids under 18, they are then given access to the contract account for these kinds of queries and set up D/D from their own bank accounts. works very well and if a responsible teenager, can be cheaper than payg (again, been there, done that, with 2 of them!!!)

[buzby]

But it's OK, we will forgive you. For clarity, I am not attempting to say that the DD Scheme is in any way responsible, merely that the timescale required to cancel is not 5 days.

 

I'll be generous and suggest we're talking at cross purposes. The issue is not about the cancellation of a DD, but of somehow 'stopping' a payment close to the debit date, This is not possible, the banking 'system' and the methodology used by the merchant to process DDs (daily tapes or data transfer requests in bulk stored and ready to run is how it works, it is not a real-time process unless SWIFT or the other instant money 'telegraph' services are used at an increased cost.

 

A company employs staff to advise it's customers, and those staff tell a customer that they can make an alternative payment and not worry about the DD.

 

You heard a transcript of the conversation and know this transpired? I'd certainly believe the offer of an alternative means of payment. but even if the 'not to worry' comment existed, I'm surprised you think this alludes to being told the debit wouldn;t happen. To me, the 'worry' element was in having the mobile account in default.

 

You may believe that the OP should have realised this could not be the case (me too), but to be told it would be fine by the customer service rep is misleading, and they (the company) have a duty to the customer because of that. The staff member made an error - either in fact or in judgment, but an error was made.

 

Afraid I can still see no error on the part of the network. If there was a stated assurance that the bebit would not be processed for that month, then I might agree, but I seriously doubt this happened, so in the absence of corroboration, lets deal with what happens when this situation arises close to the 'automatic' debit. It gets processed.

 

They were advised, they took the advice, made the payment and were then still hit by a charge because they had been misled.

 

Again, you make assumtions you cannot prove as you weren't there at the time. You opinion is noted, but there's little to be gained by imagining a scenario and your response to it, then presenting it here as 'fact'. I've outlined how the system works, you've simply responded by filling in gaps the OP hasn't outlined in an effort to support his contention. Why give false hope for a scenario of your own making?

 

I do understand that this is often a hard concept for you to grasp - but you don't actually have to roll over and you can actually fight your corner.

I'm fighting the fantasy your painting this issue with - your stance will make those who believe DDs are wonderful erroneously feel even more secure, which is not the case.

 

I would suggest to the OP that they do just that. Make a complaint about the advice given, make clear what this resulted in, and demand a repayment of any fees incurred.

 

By all means. but should they fall over laughing, don't be too disappointed. It was a long shot anyway.

[jonni2bad]

...You heard a transcript of the conversation and know this transpired? I'd certainly believe the offer of an alternative means of payment. but even if the 'not to worry' comment existed, I'm surprised you think this alludes to being told the debit wouldn;t happen...

 

As you can see if you read the opening post, Buzby, there is a situation described by the OP. I don't think it wise for me to create a discussion based on anything but that, so I shall repeat what was written for you if this makes it easier

 

...Afraid I can still see no error on the part of the network. If there was a stated assurance that the bebit would not be processed for that month, then I might agree...

 

i rang up 3 on 19th july 2008 saying i had insufficient funds in my bank account and could i pay on my other debit card ,they said yes no problem and was assured that the Direct debit wouldn't go out...

 

...Again, you make assumtions you cannot prove as you weren't there at the time. You opinion is noted, but there's little to be gained by imagining a scenario and your response to it, then presenting it here as 'fact'... Why give false hope for a scenario of your own making?

 

So I'm afraid you are imagining things - I am responding to the precise scenario as outlined by the OP, nothing more, nothing less.

 

...I'm fighting the fantasy your painting this issue with - your stance will make those who believe DDs are wonderful erroneously feel even more secure, which is not the case...

 

You must have misunderstood me - I have made it quite clear that I do not believe, in the slightest, the either the DD scheme nor the bank were at fault in any way. Would it help if I requoted that for you also?

 

I have clearly stated that the company who made this statement to the OP was in error, and that this error should be corrected, perhaps by way of training of the staff who deal with customers in this context.

 

IF the op had been told something more accurate, like "sorry but we can't stop that payment being applied for" then it is feasible that the OP would have tried to do something else, thus possibly avoiding the failed DD and subsequent charge.

 

That is not fantasy, not by a long shot.

 

Since the OP has not returned to this thread since the opening post, I doubt we have much chance of finding out, but you never know.

[buzby]

I'm aware of what the OP said - but this is hardly authoritive of what transpired. Your take, following this one-sided exchange simply amplifies what the OP said. As there are two sides to any story, reiterating the same side to which you were not a party to is less than helpful as it isn't objective. Sorry to burst that bubble.

[jonni2bad]

Responding to a post, Buzby, is what this forum is all about. If we were to sit and wait for the other party to tell us their side before we offer advice, we would have a very quite place.

 

I take it that you can now see I was responding to the point raised by the OP though, and not making things up as you suggested?