Cahoot has just failed to pay a direct debit of mine saying it had 'expired'
as it had not been used for some time (just over 2 years) - this is despite
it appearing on my list of existing direct debits.
Has anyone else experienced banks refusing to pay a Direct Debit due to it
not having been used for too long a period?
Yes, the Debiting organisation should be aware they could expire is not used
for 1 year + 1 month.
A good bank should write to inform you that they are about to expire.
They will normally still appear as active but trigger a chain of events if
debited and rejected, i.e. the Debitor is alerted and the customer maybe
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:24:18 -0000, "Jerry"
Where is this explained to cusomers?
But Cahoot do not write to customers AFAIK.
It seems deliberately misleading for an expired DD authority to be
shown as active.. Is there a reason for it?
Removes one of the advantages of Direct Debits - the ability to know that a
bill will be paid automatically. Something I find very useful as I travel a
lot (currently in Thailand) and can't pay bills when they pop through the
However Cahoot neither remove the Direct Debit from the account list nor
notify you that they are not paying. And on the other side the collecting
organisation was Nationwide, you might expect them to know about the new
rules and not try to collect but notify me that a new Direct Debit was due?
For me a mess that has to be sorted out on return to the UK.
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:13:50 +0700, "Mark BR"
I agree. I also live in Asia, and I rely on the direct debit system to
keep UK bills paid on time. It might be better if they gave the
customer the option of choosing whether or not a direct debit
agreement would be allowed to expire at the time it was set up.
The customer does not set up DDs. DDs are set up by the "originator"
(the collecting organisation), having previously obtained the
customer's authority. It should be a simple matter for the originator
to know whether the last time an existing DD arrangement was used was
too long ago, and simply to set it up afresh, perhaps using a slightly
different reference number.
If the direct debit had been activated at any time in the 13 month period it
would not be cancelled so your argument of paying bills by this system falls
How many bills do you have that do not require payment over a 13 month
What would? Using a new reference number? Certainly not.
When I ask my bank for a list of active DDs, some (well, OK, one)
of the payees comes up as several instances (actually it's the
NICO for my Class 2 NI).
Activating a DD doesn't actually require the originator to physically
present (and give up) the original mandate document, does it? After
all, it is possible to issue mandates over the phone these days, or
so I understand, and so there doesn't need to be one.
I have credit cards for which DDs are in force to pay themselves from
my current account. It could well happen that I use one of the cards
rarely enough that I get null bills for 13 months in a row.
It would avoid problems, of course, if the system allowed DD payment
requests for £0.00 to go through, the sole purpose of which would be
to prevent them going stale.
In message , Ronald
I was not referring to the bit about new reference numbers but to the
bit about setting it up afresh. But now that you refer to new reference
numbers I answer that quite simply, the changing of a refno makes no
difference to the DD in the circs you describe.
But to reactivate a stale DD mandate then a*new* one has to be
established by one of the methods you describe.
I have to admit that I think it is illogical, and I have fallen foul of
this myself where a CC card tried to collect the minimum amount and the
bank denied it because it was >13months since the last debit. Luckily I
had paid the balance less the minimum within the payment period and so I
On the other hand I hear the argument from the DirectDebitoPhobes who
get scared that the AA can still have a Direct Debit Mandate on your
account, and reserve the ability to use it, years after you resigned
because you had definitely given up the demon drink for ever this time,
The banks have had to react to this type of thinking.
I blame Ann Robinson and many of the neurotic anti Direct Debit posters
we see in this group
Similar. I have 4 credit cards, only 2 of which are in normal everyday use.
The rest are in case the normal cards can't be used, they go faulty, bank
refuses authorisation, stolen, lost etc.
As I travel for the majority of the year and UK banks almost always refuse
to send replacement cards overseas it has saved me a trip to the UK to
collect new cards when my wallet was stolen.
I have several. Its not just regular bills that direct debits are used
for, they can be used for things such as transferring money from
accounts at one financial organisation to another. ING Direct, for
example, use that system.
Also, some credit cards which I seldom use except for things like
special offers are affected by this.
But that would defeat the whole purpose of the dormancy rule, which is
to protect customers who had forgotten that a direct debit is still in
force from being surprised that money had been debited from their
But, given that authority can be given orally, how would an old and
a new one be distinguished in practice? Doesn't the originator
simply have to assert that "authority has been given", and all will
be well unless and until a dispute arises, such as the customer
trying to deny having given or renewed it.