debit card without authority of account holder?

Impromptue renditions of Gilbert and Sullivan's greatest hits are a common problem in the modern customer service environment.

Am I being nieve in thinking said bank was the one without a clue, and had to be provided with one by the customer.

Actually devious or clueless, PeteM's remark fits.

I have never had any such confidence.

I *am* confident that if you know about the code, and are willing to stand up for your rights, then their own rules will help you.

But I am also fully aware that they only introduced that code in the first place in an attempt to stave off legislation that would have had a similar effect.

And you *do* have to be prepared to not back down at the start.

"Alex Heney" wrote

Ermmm - M&S did that, didn't they? And they still got into trouble!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

But wasn't that the exact situation with M&S - the people who they sent the CCs to weren't just anyone, it was people that had previously had some kind of card from M&S (but not the new CC, which was still counted as unsolicited)?

I think you are, yes.

I believe that the bank will try it on until they discover that the customer is aware of their rights.

True.

"Alex Heney" wrote

Can they prove that you received the letter(s) ?

At 02:01:44 on 03/11/2005, Tool Bar delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Worked fine in mine too.

And it was sent out without any advance warning and opportunity to decline.

I thought M&S just sent the cards out, without any advance opportunity to decline them.

I don't think that silence can or should be taken as assent in commercial matters. This can allow liabilities to be imposed on people without their consent and they should be under no obligtion to take action themselves to avoid such liabilities.

This is a well established rule in contract law.

Axel

I buy a lot of books from Amazon... that does not give them the right to suddenly tell me that they will start sending me a 'book of the month' (to be paid for obviously) unless I inform them otherwise.

Axel

In article , axel@white- eagle.invalid.uk writes

Hmmm. Orange don't think so.

That's what I always thought.

Where you are taking on liabilities, then I agree that you *should* always have to agree explicitly.

But the law doesn't necessarily agree - and in this case there were no liabilities anyhow, it would just have given him easier access to his account.

No.

That is why the law needed to be enacted to prevent "inertia selling" by sending out unsolicited goods.

Until that law was introduced, you could become liable just by not returning the items.

I suggest rather you get newsreader that works. Both url's above work fine with thunderbird.

Alex Heney wrote: ...

...

Huh? We did, they don't, and I keep getting their junk mail.

Actually, rereading it, it does only say that they'll /ask/ whether we want their junk. It doesn't say they'll pay any attention :-)

Don't tempt me :-) I just happen to have one of those voices that carries quite well; that's all.

How did I manage to read that section three times, and still not see that bit?

I managed to read it as all applying to whether they allow third parties to contact you.

I'd have objected to the £50. If they hadn't backed down on that it would be change banks time.