Is that really better, when they’re planning to relax their criteria in the months to come? A refusal seems more permanent rather than a ‘not right now’. My credit history is decent (no negatives, reasonable limits, perfect payment history; but a lack of product diversity and low average age of accounts), and I fully expect to see an offer in a later, more relaxed, round. A ‘no’ now would be… off-putting for no reason.
1 Like
I don’t think the process is a retry as much S it is a recall. As a direct debit might be paid initially but can be recalled later in the day (either by the bank or the customer) depending on the reason.
I guess it depends on the person, really. I would generally take a no as a ‘try again in the future, when you’re credit report doesn’t look like you’ll run away with all our money’.
Liam
But that’s what I mean, exactly. A no implies, to me at least, exactly that… that something about your credit report needs to change. Whereas the current situation is that many not eligible now will become eligible as they become less risk-averse in their criteria.
1 Like
I may now actually have a late notice on my credit file as I asked for a direct debit to be moved to Monzo. They cancelled the existing one but never actually set up the new one for Monzo. And I didn’t realise this until an email stating I had received a late fee 
1 Like
Yeah, I get what you mean. But Monzo is an edge case right now, so I’d personally understand.
Surely your issuer will remove that if you ask, seeing as it’s their fault? Otherwise you could send a correction to the relevant agencies.
1 Like
The issue is they sent me an in account message saying they couldn’t set it up and that I had to do something. But I hadn’t logged in and so didn’t see the message. If a late notice does appear I will ask if it can be removed though. I paid it as soon as I was notified.
This is exactly the type of situation I meant above when I said I would expect that, while not implicit in the guarantee, should be covered by most banks (I wouldn’t expect all to…) if a Direct Debit fails. Talk to them. They should remove the fee and any credit report marks, at a minimum.
Additionally, if they won’t, since it was their failure, dispute the credit report entries if they are there. I’d also be tempted to take them to court for the fee purely out of spite, but that’s me…
2 Likes
I’m genuinely struggling to see the reasoning here, and I hate that feeling. Maybe I’m just too dumb, but if the supplier failed to set up the dd, then how can the bank get involved? And most of all how can it prevent the report? I’m genuinely not getting the thought behind this.
@frankiejr I was once affected by the same thing. After much back and forth the supplier eventually retracted the report and waived the fee. So: be persistent!
1 Like
Yeah the direct debit never failed, it was never re-set up. I have not yet dig into why but for now it’s back with my legacy bank to avoid the mishap in future.
And yeah I will be persistent but it may be another month or so before anything appears, if It appears.
Sorry, maybe I was unclear, I’d expect things to be made right by the at-fault party, in this case the supplier. If the bank was at fault, I’d expect them to do what they could to make things right (notify the supplier the fault was on their end to try and claw back any credit reporting, negotiate or cover the fees on my behalf, etc). It’s called taking responsibility for your mistakes.
P.S. I just realised part of why I was confusing, when I said ‘by most banks’ it was because most of my DD’s are to banks (for credit card payments) and the one time I had a failure, it was to a bank.
2 Likes
OK, thanks. Now, that makes some sense to me, but I still don’t think the dd guarantee will cover it, as the dd guarantee is offered by the sending bank to refund any incorrect debits by the receiving bank. That said, I’d also expect the at fault party to make good any mistakes, but that’s outside the scope of the dd guarantee. Which is essentially what you said anyway…
Exactly, maybe I just confused it by referencing the DD guarantee. I don’t mean to suggest it’s explicit in the guarantee. Rather that courts in England (other countries’ courts can work very differently) would, in my non-professional view, likely consider the DD guarantee and the marketing around it as evidence the customer had a reasonable expectation they wouldn’t be held responsible for a failure of the DD process.
Furthermore, even if they disagreed, I think most corporate lawyers would want to prevent getting to this point… It’s one of those things where a judgement against them is a risk they’d rather avoid.
Thus I believe any customer willing to file a lawsuit is likely to have a satisfactory outcome.
We are basically saying the exact same thing.
2 Likes
In terms of people concerned about having a direct debit rejected because of insufficient funds, I got this alert today:
So looks like the system to warn us is properly working. 
9 Likes
I am still not sure that appears unless you have an overdraft in place. Unless you don’t have an overdraft?
Is this only a notification or do you also get something in the app?
And if you have multiple DDs due out does it group them in the notification as a single amount?
This is where it would be good to have an FAQ with this sort of detail in. Then we wouldn’t be making as many assumptions.
2 Likes
No, I don’t have an overdraft. I don’t think this message is related to overdraft status.
Only a notification. When I swipe it, it just takes me to the app, but there’s no message there. I agree, it would be really useful to have a banner in the app warning you of the impending DD and funds shortfall.
I have no idea regarding grouping, as I only have the one DD due.
4 Likes
Does this work for standing orders?
Edit: by the fact it states scheduled payments rather than direct debit I would have thought so.
1 Like