Fuel card spam - seems they just cave!

My reply to them:-

Thank you for your letter.

I am rather puzzled by "We do everything in our control to ensure that we do not send any unwanted e mails i.e. we always ensure that we follow strict processes and will only purchase data from reputable sources who guarantee that addresses are not unsolicited as your letter suggests."

You cannot "purchase" my email address in any way that allows you to send such emails.

For you to comply with the law *you* would need consent from *me*. No consent I give to a third party meets that. Any consent I give to some third party (which I have not) is not something you can buy. I am concerned that you do not understand this point. None of the addresses you buy that may be individual subscribers can legally be sent unsolicited marketing emails.

Any email address you have purchased that is an individual subscriber and to which you send unsolicited marketing emails means you are criminally breaking the law. It is as simple as that. It makes you a criminal. And it means the victim can claim compensation as well as requiring the ICO to exercise enforcement action and pursue criminal charges and penalties.

If you are agreeing to comply with the law, and pay me the amount you offer of £50, I am prepared to agree that I will not pursue a claim against you in the county court for compensation for your emails to me at adrian@titanic.co.uk, advertising a fuel card/discount for WM Morrisons fuel purchases.

Payment will need to be made to myself by bank transfer, sort code 20-16-99, 20556858, ref PENC-MORRISON.


  1. I must be drunk as I mean PECN, but WTF. If they pay, they then need to negotiate for the Tescos fuel card spam. I'll let you know if they pay.

  2. I'm not entirely sure you should put your sort code and account number out there -- Jeremy Clarkson fell foul of that once. It turns out that banks are not as rigorous as they could be when checking the signatures on direct debit mandates. Whodathunkit?

    1. I think Jeremy Clarkson mis-handled that whole incident massively. Banks do not check signatures on DDs. Even when DDs are done on paper, the bank do not see the paper for almost all DDs unless the originator sends it when there is a dispute. Most DDs do not have a signature as they are done on-line. The whole system of DDs is one of exceptions, so anyone could DD me, yes, and I could get an immediate refund of any such DDs and compensation for any consequences. You give your bank details every time you send money to someone or want someone to send money to you. They are actually printed on cheques and many bank cards. Yes, someone could be an arse, but they would cause some minor hassle for me, and probably a lot of hassle for the originator.

      In Jeremy Clarkson's shoes, where I believe we has signed up for DD to a charity by some idiot, I would have clawed back the DD payment as per the DD scheme to show how simple that is, but made a donation to the charity anyway.

    2. As far as I know, the DD guarantee only says they have to refund the DD itself - you're still out of pocket for any expenses that were incurred because of it.

    3. The immediate refund is for the collected DD, yes. You have to claim consequential losses separately. The originator has to provide an unlimited indemnity against such claims.

  3. Is it wise posting your bank details to the blog given that if someone knew enough information about you they may be able to setup a direct debt using them.

  4. " I could get an immediate refund of any such DDs and compensation for any consequences."


    No. It doesn't work. I'm still fighting with Demon Internet over a DD that they just restarted of their own volition. HSBC aren't even remotely interested in getting it sorted out.

    1. I am sorry, but the rules are very clear on this, and the bank make a guarantee that they will give a refund. I have clawed back DDs on many occasions because so many people seem unable to follow the simple rules.

      HSBC don't have to "sort it out". They, like all the banks, have a very simple process. It refunds your account. It is a matter between them and the originator for them to claim the money back, but that is not your concern. They have to refund you immediately. Even so, the DDIC process is now also a completely automatic BACS process (it used to me manual and involve paper until a few year ago). The money simply comes our of demon's account when it is clawed back.

      If you do not have a refund you simply take the matter to the banking ombudsman.

    2. By "sort it out" I meant do the refund. We're talking about a phantom DD that was setup in 2005. Unfortunately a single payments once a year, easily missed but the bank have basically said not our problem. I presume that the ombudsman will force you to go via the bank's complaint procedure first?

      AFAIAA the DD guarantee isn't a binding agreement for the banks, it's a set of guidelines.

    3. AFAIK it is a binding agreement by the bank. It is a guarantee. The DD form says that the banks offer a guarantee. That is binding.

      I once had a slight difficulty (many many years ago) getting a refund on a DD, and it was because I had written a limit on the DD itself (back when DDs were all paper). The bank were adamant that I could not do that, i.e. that DDs did not allow a limit to be set. I pointed out that the DD was accepted, and they said they cannot accept such a DD as it was not valid with that change on it. They even got the lodged DD paper copy faxed over while I waited.

      The conversation then went very simple - if the DD was not valid, what authority did the bank or the originator have to take money out of my account *AT ALL*? If they had no authority to take the money then every single DD on that mandate, going back many years, would need to be returned, while I waited. I was sat in a nice open plan bank that was rather busy and talking a tad more loudly. Suddenly they were able to refund the one DD I was arguing about.

      At the end of the day, you only signed (or otherwise agreed) any authority to allow the money to go out in the first place on the basis of that guarantee. If they don't honour it, then they have to refund as they do not have your agreement in the first place.

      The whole DD scheme works by allowing immediate refunds almost on a whim. Yes, there are rules on why you can get it back, but they take your work for that - if you say you did not (re)sign the instruction, then they have to believe you. The originator has some option to counter claim, but not if it was an on-line DD (i.e. no actual signature), but your refund has to be immediate.

    4. Try telling that to The Halifax. They refused to make a "full and immediate" refund of a DD they'd paid out until they had "investigated the matter". Whilst I was standing in the banking hall, I kept calm, but spoke loudly. The manager came out and I was point blank refused a "full and immediate" refund as per the DD guarantee. The manager also refused to write down on letterheaded paper exactly what we were asking for and that he had refused. To make matters worse, we were asked politely to leave the building. We closed our account the next week and moved to First Direct who have been superb. The DD was refunded three weeks or so later.
      In situations like that, it's hard to know what to do - they made it clear that they weren't about to make a refund and we had to be somewhere else a little later on. At least I am satisfied that, if the odds are on my side, I have another 40 years or so on this planet and that that's the best part of 15,000 days I can spend telling people what a bunch of ^£$*%$£%$^s The Halifax (or whatever they're called these days) are.

  5. Or alternatively, only give out bank account details for an instant savings account that does not allow any DDs to be set up, and no cheques (real or fake) can be drawn from it, thus the DD issue is null and void.


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.

NOTSCO (Not TOTSCO) One Touch Switching test platform (now launched)

I posted about how inept TOTSCO seem to be, and the call today with them was no improvement. It seems they have test stages... A "simul...