WHEN WYLDECREST STEAL MONEY FROM YOUR ACCOUNT......

We don`t - and will probably never know - the extent of the fraud that`s associated to the Direct Debit Mandates that Wyldecrest residents entered into in good faith – only find those authorisations fraudulently abused - and recent events involving one highly vulnerable resident starkly examples…….

Here, we`ll call her Anne, – not her real name - but several months ago she tragically lost her husband - the blow having wider implications because with her own significant disabilities, her husband always did everything for them, including paying Wyldecrest`s bills by Direct Debit.

Not well off, it`s since taken many months for a helpful neighbour to rearrange Ann`s finances after her husbands income ceased and to find that they`d occasionally fallen behind in some payments – and Wyldecrest had collected what amounts to a three figure sum in payment surcharges ,leaving them even worse off.

Call it what you like – call it an unauthorised transaction – but because there is NO reference whatsoever in her contract ( Written Statement ) to any payments surcharges that might at any time become due, the various sums had thus been stolen.

THE CORRESPONDING FACTS….

Taking money by Direct Debit that is not due is generally classified as an unauthorised transaction or fraud, which is illegal and acts similarly to theft. If a company takes money that is not owed, it is a breach of the Direct Debit Guarantee and is handled as a fraudulent payment. 

Here`s a breakdown of the legal and protective aspects:

• Unauthorised Payment/Fraud: If a company takes money without a valid Direct Debit mandate, takes an incorrect amount, or takes money on the wrong date, it is considered an error or fraudulent activity.

• Theft Act 1968 (UK): While technical definitions vary, taking money without authorisation falls under "dishonest appropriation of property," which is the core of theft.

• Criminality: If money is taken through deception or by a criminal acting fraudulently, it is a crime that should be reported to the police and the bank. 

  
  

2. Your Rights and Protections

• The Direct Debit Guarantee: This protects you against any payment taken in error or without proper authorisation.

• Immediate Refund: Under this guarantee, you are entitled to a full and immediate refund from your bank or building society if an unauthorised payment is taken.

• No Time Limit: There is technically no time limit for making a claim for unauthorised direct debits. 

  
  

3. What To Do Immediately if money was taken that was not due:

1. Contact your bank immediately: Tell them the payment was not authorised. They will initiate an "indemnity claim" to refund you.

   Cancel the Direct Debit: You can do this through your bank or by phone.

   Report the Fraud: If it was a deliberate, unauthorised taking of money, contact your local police asking them to whom its should be reported, emphasising that it is NOT a civil mette4

   Do not use third-party "reclaim" services: Always deal directly with your bank

If the payment was due but incorrect (e.g., a wrong amount), it is still considered an error under the guarantee, and you are entitled to a refund, though you may still owe the correct amount

THE PERSISTENT WYLDECREST SWINDLE

Most home-owners of Wyldecrest sites fell into the hands of this crooked regime through park acquisitions, when Wyldecrest inherited the terms contained in the occupiers pre-existing Written Statements.

They`ve since introduced additional and seriously onerous terms into their own Written Statements and also persuaded some who shouldn`t have to agree them. And when taking over the sites, they issued notification to homes, referring to a table of payment surcharges that would become due if the their payment terms were not adhered to …

BUT THERE`S A GREAT BIG HOVERING HOWEVER….

If those payments surcharges are NOT defined within your Written Agreement, they need not be paid - and importantly, if they have, as set out above, they`re recoverable.

BEST ADVICE - CANCEL YOUR DIRECT DEBIT IN FAVOUR OF WYLDECREST

.

No-one aware of the documented facts and histrionics can harbour any doubts about Wyldecrest fraudulent trading practices – nor the common theme about `birds of a feather` – so it`s reasonable to refer to the risks associated to authorising crooks to access and collect monies from your own account not least where it`s more than very likely that the collecting company consists of straw alongside insolvency, meaning that getting your money back will almost certainly pose a problem.

So, First check your Written Statement for details about any payment surcharges. If there are none or none that apply, ,ask your bank cancel your Direct Debit, notify Wyldecrest that you`ve done so ( no explanation needed ) and that you`ll be paying your future bills by phone and card – AVOIDING 084 or other premium rate numbers that Wyldecrest unlawfully provide,

Paying by phone and card is for YOUR security and costs you nothing. Tell them them amount your paying, what it`s for and obtain a payment reference number. You can later check you account to ensure the correct amount has been taken. If not, re-read this item.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS NEXT ITEM IS NOT A WYLDECREST STORY BUT YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE ABOUT CROOKS AND DIRECT DEBIT MANDATES.

After being diagnosed with dementia, Margaret moved into a nursing home.

Three years later, at a point when Margaret could no longer care for herself, two direct debits were set up using her bank account details.

Over the next four years more than £14,000 of Margaret's money was stolen to pay the direct debits and it was only after she died that her daughter Sue discovered what had happened.

Sue began trying to find out what had happened but was told by her mother's bank, Lloyds, that it had carried out an investigation and it had concluded the direct debits had been "legitimately" set up so it would not be refunding any money.

Most of the money stolen from Margaret's account was used to pay Vodafone, but the company told Sue it was unable to help or provide any details of who was receiving its services because of "data protection" rules.

Sue also contacted her local police force. It referred her to Action Fraud which said it was unlikely any further action would be taken