Stopping DD with MBNA

Not to worry. I just thought my experience (which had no particularly serious or expensive consequences) might be of use to someone.

Rob

In message , Jonathan Bryce writes

Why didn't you just set up the DD to collect the full payment?

In message , GSV Three Minds in a Can writes

It allows them to set up phone DDs etc where no signature is required. It may seem a bit risky, but the banks always seem (surprisingly) on top of it when correcting such c*ck-ups, and if it happens too often with a company they could theoretically withdraw their ability to set up DDs although how often this happens is another matter!

In message , john boyle writes

I can't see why standing orders should be any more expensive to manage. You just send an instruction to the bank saying on X day pay Y amount to Z account until instructed otherwise.

Surely that has to be less expensive than giving someone access to an account to take variable amounts on variable dates.

The expense arises at the recipient end, where all these credits just arrive, and have to be matched up manually with their membership lists. It's much simpler for the payee to know what's due from whom and to pull the right amount at the right time, than to have a pile of SOs or cheques dumped on the desk.

In message , " snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net" writes

It isnt my opinion, it is a fact.

No. SOs are hugely labour intensive at the branch end. DDs require no human intervetion at the branch.

With regard to the recipient of an SO the reconciliation is a more expensive task especially when dealing with amounts that come in with wrong details (a surprisingly large amount), wrong amounts and on wrong and erratic days days. Changes of amounts suffer a 30% error rate from clients.

DD Originators, on the other hand, credit the client in their books on the day or origination and that is the end of it. Unpaid DDs amount to less than 1% of all claimed.

In message , john boyle writes

Why? The branch either receives a piece of paper with in and out account details, an amount and a date, or a piece of paper with in and out account details and scarily no amount nor date. Alternatively the branch receives nothing because people set it up online. From the bank's point of view the standing order has to be less risky. With the SO it is fairly clear that there is an instruction to make payments. With the DD companies take the wrong amounts on the wrong days then the bank has to sort that with the company, and claim payments back.

The only issue we have with the wrong amounts (barring one c*ck-up by Shabbey) is people cancelling them, which could quite as easily apply with the DD.

Being able to receive DD is much more expensive (for a small person/company) because of the risks involved and having to provide whatever guarantees the bank will insist upon, whereas any normal bank account can receiving money via SO.

Fair enough, but that isn't what the standing order is for.

To be fair, SOs require no human intervention at the branch or anywhere in te sender's bank if they've been set up by the customer using online banking, do they?

I don't believe this statistic. Cheques don't suffer such a high error rate, do they? Would you not expect the rates to be similar?

In message , " snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net" writes

And how do you think the piece of paper gets turned into a SO? And nowadays the bank doesnt even get the DD mandate.

No. It is the exact opposite. With a DD the bank cant make a mistake, with a SO it can (and often did). E.g. an AA annual premium being paid daily!

No the bank doesnt have to do that

No, the indemnity scheme is very rarely needed.

Yes I agree. Dds are only for large enterprises.

I dont understand. You mean mortgage rates cant change and rates bills cant go up?

Thats correct.

ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR SIR! Pistols at dawn Sir! I demand Satisfaction!

I didnt make it up. It came from a specific large feasibility study in which I was unbelievably closely involved with a Large Northern Metropolitan Borough whose Rates (as it was then) were collected by Standing Order. The study was to see if switching to DD would have been worthwhile. The DD system was beneficial to all parties by a very very large amount indeed. As an example, on the day that the rates bill SO was due to be received each month the branch would receive an 'error' printout of 'unapplied credits' that was (no exaggeration), over 15 feet long. It would take 4 clerks a day to sort them out and a similar number at the council. These were the results of customers of other branches and banks amending their Sos but getting something wrong (usually confusing the account number with the reference number) so they had to be handled by hand when received at the branch.

I dont know of a way of checking.

No. Its like comparing an organ with a piano.

In message , john boyle writes

The bank can't make a mistake?!!!! ROTFLMAO. To the customer it little matters whether the mistake is at the bank or the organisation that is using the DD to take money out.

When a DD goes wrong you normally have to kick and shout quite loudly and wave the DD guarantee thing in people's faces before it is corrected.

In message , " snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net" writes

So you accept that the bank cant make a mistake?

You dont know how the system works. In your original post you said it was the clients back that has to claim the dosh back. I am saying that you usually get the dosh back from the originator. You are confusing the interbank indemnity scheme with the DD Guarantee.

In message , john boyle writes

Of course not.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but in the process of the kicking and screaming to get an erroneous DD sorted out all sorts of permutations are possible.

In my experience a phone call or a secure message through online banking is sufficient. Of course, some banks must be better at it than others. You should compare it to the hassle of getting your money back if you send a standing order to an incorrect account.