Thats not the way the law works. IN general, anything is allowed unless the law says otherwise. Since I'm saying that its not illegal, it follows that there doesn't need to be a law permitting it. You're claiming its illegal, and yet, other than a general "Banking Laws", you haven't produced the law that confirms the point of view.
So, which particular law, specifically, and where in it, do you claim gives justification for your claim that its illegal?
Brian
Not necessarily at all. The Theft Act requires *dishonesty*, not simply carelessness or inadequate internal procedures, even if they could be applied in such a case. You simply wouldn't have a cat's chance in hell of doing that.
Brian
I'm not going to get into a Chapter & Verse of which Law is or not relevant!!
You can either accept that the Banking Laws require the Banks to ensure that ONLY Authorised access is permitted to a Customer's money or you can ignore it - your choice, your decision!!
You can either accept that A.N.Other Company who tries to submit an unauthorised DD Mandate & alleges that it is authorised, with the intent to obtain money is illegal because it is obtaining it by deception (i.e. Fraudulent) or you can ignore it - your choice, your decision!!
The ONLY situation that I can conceive where a Bank has the Authority to remove money from your account without your Authorisation would be if a Court Order were to be taken out against you - I don't think that the original poster was suggesting that Tiscalli had taken out a Court Order against him.
Regards, John
Fair enough. But you won't have made your case.
I neither accept it nor ignore it. I'm simply saying that its not theft, and the law agrees. Where is the dishonest intent?
Brian
Cancel the DD by writing to your bank then.
R
They must have got your bank details from somewhere. Maybe this is not a case of fraud by Tiscali, but a customer posing as you that does have your bank details. They canot magic your details from somewhere.
They also have to pay any fees you may incur if you go overdrawn due to their mistake.
Because sometimes in life we have to pay for calls to sort out problems. Its not fair, but life isnt fair :-)
You really have missed the point! For the behaviour to be fraudulent there has to be proof that there was intent to defraud and not just a stupid clerical mistake. It would be very difficult to provide such proof.
Or, to put it another way, mens rea is required ("a guilty mind"), in addition to actus reus (the act concerned).
You are replying to the wrong person!!!
I was asked a "Generalised" question, which I answered. I was NOT the original Poster, who has the problem with Tiscalli!! (One of the problems about a long thread, it is sometimes difficult to keep track of who said what!!).
Regards, John
No I haven't missed the point!! Perhaps you could go back to the context of the original poster (O.P.).
This is all according to the O.P. :-
1) Tiscalli, by their own admission, obtained his Bank Details from their records, NOT from either the O.P. or from anyone posing as him. 2) Although Tiscalli sent the O.P. an advice (correctly so), they made it difficult for him to contact them to countermand it. 3) The O.P. was extremely concerned that Tiscalli would STILL proceed (in FULL knowledge that it was incorrect) to try & debit his account.It was that final concern that pushes it into the possibility of Fraud!! At that point, it changes from being an Admin "foul-up" to being a deliberate & "knowing" action. (NB obviously, at this stage, we don't know if Tiscalli will do this, but the response was based on the O.P.'s concern).
Where I TOTALLY agree with you is whether it is "provable" - on that basis I would fully support your comment of:- "It would be very difficult to provide such proof".
Regards, John
No, it doesn't.
So what? There's still no action that there's any *dishonesty*
Brian
Yes but not everybody knows Latin! I thought Latin terms had now been removed from the legal lexicon but maybe I am mistaken.
Non omnia possumus omnes.
I am the OP, apparently they had my details from an old 'pay as you go' account with a company they took over, which is garbage because PAYG accounts don't use direct debits. I did however have a dial up unmetered account which was paid by direct debit. It will take time and money to sort it out at national rate so I will be sending them a electronic message asking them to explain them selves. If they ignore my message they will recieve a recorded delivery copy. It really is quite a mess and they don't appear to know what they are doing. Apparently a bank has to be satisfied that a company if fit to administer DD's, it hard to see how Tiscali is a suitable candidate. I remember from when I was with them that their billing was totally eratic , with long periods before debits then a bunch of them. Its one of the reasons I left, I also remember it was impossible to contact them
>
Aside from fraud, the organisations using DD's are ment to be vetted by the bank so that they are suitable and compedant, this hardly seems the case with Tiscali.
Sorry, Brian, I think we are just going to have to "agree to differ"!!
I happen to think that someone "Knowingly" & "Deliberately" taking money that they "know" they are not entitled to is dishonest, you obviously don't!! Although I don't see what you would describe it - certainly it is no longer a "Admin Error"!! (Although I totally accept that the likelyhood of getting a conviction is probably zero!!).
Regards, John
Thats not mentioned in the DD guarantee.
>
It seem to be pretty fair if you are a company, all the law is in favour of companies, too many people just seem to accept that it is OK for big companies get away with anything.
It they are at fault they should reimburse my costs in sorting it out.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.