[Gllug] how safe is linux against identity thief

[John Winters]

> [1] As further proof of this, I learned recently that direct debits no
>     longer need a signed mandate from me. The bank will just pay the
>     money out of my account if a suitable party asks for it, trusting
>     them to have acquired authorization from me beforehand. The mind
>     boggles...

I'm not entirely happy about this facility (although I can see why it is
useful) but you do at least have the DD guarantee.  This states that if
you ever dispute *any* DD payment from your account the bank must
immediately give the money back.  I have used this on a number of
occasions.  The front-counter operatives do sometimes have to be reminded
(or indeed, informed) of the rule but it's always worked for me.

You don't have to give any reason, much less any proof that it's a
mistake.  You just have to tell the to reverse it, and the bank refunds
your money - it's not a case of asking the payee for it back.  It's then
the bank's job to go chasing the payee, but that's their problem not
yours.  When Demon's accounts dept went completely rogue a few years ago I
used the rule a couple of times and was aware that the bank were still
chasing Demon several months later (because they asked me for background
information) but it wasn't my problem.

If you're ever in that position, insist on an *immediate* refund.  Don't
accept anything like, "We'll need to contact the payee." or a request for
proof.  The rules say that they must give you a refund immediately on your
say so.  It's then up to the payee to contact you and request payment by
another method if they think that you do in fact owe the money.

John

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug