Funding Cwf

[John V]

I think I have now added a second button, which gives options for setting up a £12 or £24 annual payment, hit f5 and it should appear.

 

Cant seem to find a way of adding a 'make annual' tickbox like the 'make monthly' tick box, to allow a user-set annual amount, although I can set up a number of fixed amounts for monthly/annual 'subscriptions' allowing a drop-down choice of various fixed amounts.

 

 

Daniel

That's great Dan, but I won't be trying it till next time

[DHutch]

That's great Dan, but I won't be trying it till next time

Can't fault that.

 

 

Daniel

[David Schweizer]

We have just got back from a couple of weeks cruising with very limited internet connection and no ability to post anything, so all this fund raising has comne as news to me.

 

It is encouraging that so many people are making a donation to Dan's operational costs, but I have to agree with those people who are unhappy about posting lists of contributors. I am not going to declare whether I have, or have not, made any sort of contributiion, and would be happier if others adopted the same route. A routine update from Ange to let us know how contributions are stacking up, might be interesting, but there is then the risk that contributions to cover future costs may cease, if the fund starts to become embarassingly big.

 

With regard to Pay Pal charges, unless the conditions have changed recently, I have always understood that Pay Pal do not charge the recipient, if the payer already has sufficient funds in their account to cover the payment. If that is still the case, payers could put sufficient money into their Pay pal account before making the payment in order to avoid the service charges.

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Schweizer

[DHutch]

Paypal have extended free transfers to include not only the paypal balance, but also money paid form linked bank acounts and debit cards (but not credit cards) however this only applies to personal transfers not business transactions.

 

 

Daniel

[DHutch]

Lwe have done ok out of this, should now have just about enough to sustain us.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=77153

 

 

Bedtime. Shattered!

 

 

Daniel

[Ange]

Just to reiterate donations are totally private unless the donor decides to make it public.

 

Any information we are privy to, along with that from the member database, is confidential and will never be divulged to anyone outside of the site staff.

[ditchcrawler]

Just to reiterate donations are totally private unless the donor decides to make it public.

 

Any information we are privy to, along with that from the member database, is confidential and will never be divulged to anyone outside of the site staff.

Well said that person

[George94]

Blimey still more peeps to credit!

 

Thanks to the latest members to set up a scheduled monthly contribution, Scholar Gypsy, Giant, NB Ellisiana, Bloomsbury, Davidb, BruceinSanity, and possibly TimYoung who implies it but didn't actually say so! Tim?

 

And the several more who have said they'll do it when they get to a desktop PC, or when payday comes around... Wanted, Keble, Saltysplash, Cuthound.

 

 

For those asking for a bank account to set up a standing order instead of PayPal, this isn't going to happen. Publishing a bank account and sort code is too much of a risk and PayPal is the way chosen to insulate the CWF bank account from this risk. I appreciate this reduces the CWF income a little but that's the price being paid for better security. I hope those of you kindly offering standing orders etc will understand.

 

 

MtB

 

In what way is it a risk?

 

Every time you give somebody a cheque you are giving them your bank account name, number and sort code. And I have never heard "it's too much of a risk" used as an excuse for not handing over a cheque. I've heard all the other excuses though.

 

Plenty of organisations publish their bank details, and I have yet to hear of any problems.

 

The fact is that it's very easy to set up a separate bank account, and to arrange for the balance to be transferred to another account at the end of the day. Doing that would make it easier for people to set up standing orders, and it would be totally risk-free.

[MtB]

 

In what way is it a risk?

 

Every time you give somebody a cheque you are giving them your bank account name, number and sort code. And I have never heard "it's too much of a risk" used as an excuse for not handing over a cheque. I've heard all the other excuses though.

 

Plenty of organisations publish their bank details, and I have yet to hear of any problems.

 

The fact is that it's very easy to set up a separate bank account, and to arrange for the balance to be transferred to another account at the end of the day. Doing that would make it easier for people to set up standing orders, and it would be totally risk-free.

 

 

 

All these points have been discussed earlier in the thread. Have a read back.

 

MtB

[George94]

 

 

 

All these points have been discussed earlier in the thread. Have a read back.

 

MtB

 

So presumably they will be acted on.

I have seen a few posts on here refusing to use Paypal, can anyone explain why?

Our business runs with Paypal and 99% of it is payments are through that system, its one of the most easy and efficient payment systems out there and leaves others in its wake. You don't have to have an account to use it either.

Why would anyone not want to use it?

 

Because it costs money, whereas a standing order would not.

 

Some people are reluctant to put even more money into the hands of unethical American companies.

[MtB]

 

So presumably they will be acted on.

 

Because it costs money, whereas a standing order would not.

 

Some people are reluctant to put even more money into the hands of unethical American companies.

 

 

And for some people, whatever method of donating is requested, will not be good enough.

 

The two sets known as "Boaters" and "The Awkward squad" have a rather large intersection in my opinion.

 

Dan appears to be willing to forgo donations from the latter. If you'd like to donate, then PayPal is Dan's chosen method. It's currently not negotiable.

[David Mack]

The fact is that it's very easy to set up a separate bank account, and to arrange for the balance to be transferred to another account at the end of the day. Doing that would make it easier for people to set up standing orders, and it would be totally risk-free.

What sort of bank account would that be then? If it is another personal account in Dan's name, then would expose him to exactly the same risk as publicising his exisitng account details. If it is some sort of business account then it will come with a raft of charges and terms and conditions which may well be less appealing than the paypal costs of the current arrangement.

[George94]

What sort of bank account would that be then? If it is another personal account in Dan's name, then would expose him to exactly the same risk as publicising his exisitng account details. If it is some sort of business account then it will come with a raft of charges and terms and conditions which may well be less appealing than the paypal costs of the current arrangement.

 

What risk?

 

Millions of standing orders go through British banks every day. The risk is negligible.

[Paul C]

 

What risk?

 

Millions of standing orders go through British banks every day. The risk is negligible.

 

See previous posts on this thread. If you still believe there's no risk, post your own sort code and account number.

[Guest]

 

What risk?

 

Millions of standing orders go through British banks every day. The risk is negligible.

 

Clarkson similarly thought this and posted his bank details in a national newspaper.

 

Somebody used the information to set up a direct debit to withdraw money from his account apparently.

[David Mack]

 

What risk?

 

Millions of standing orders go through British banks every day. The risk is negligible.

 

This one?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574781/Jeremy-Clarkson-eats-his-words-over-ID-theft.html

[RLWP]

 

This one?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574781/Jeremy-Clarkson-eats-his-words-over-ID-theft.html

 

 

An unidentified reader copied his details and set up a £500 direct debit from his account payable to the British Diabetic Association.

The charity is one of many organisations which does not need a signature to set up a direct debit.

 

Interesting - what organisations can set up a direct debit without a signature? Am I one?

 

Richard

 

MORE: Something here: http://www.directdebit.co.uk/DirectDebitExplained/FAQs/Pages/SettingUpADirectDebit.aspx

 

 

 

Under the rules of the Direct Debit Scheme the organisation you are paying is responsible for checking all the information contained on your Direct Debit Instruction and satisfying themselves that they have sufficient identification. If your bank has any reason to doubt the authenticity they may request a copy of the Direct Debit Instruction from the organisation.

Edited July 1, 2015 by RLWP

[George94]

Oh dear.

 

You need to read what actually happened to Clarkson.

 

Somebody set up a bogus direct debit in favour of a charity. They didn't benefit themselves; they were just having a go at Clarkson.

 

It is only highly respectable organisations that can set up direct debits without evidence of authorisation, and if Clarkson hadn't spotted it immediately it would have come to light as soon as the BDA checked their account.

 

This is NOT a way for criminals to benefit themselves.

 

The risk of an SO going wrong is negligible. That means it is a very small risk that most of us feel is worth taking.

 

Now if somebody hacks PayPal, you could lose a great deal. Nothing is 100% safe.

[Keeping Up]

A few years ago when the Satellite TV maintenance company that we had been subscribing to went bust, they sold their customer lists with all its bank details to a large number of people who each set up a bogus Satellite TV maintenance company. Each of these then set up a direct debit, for an amount equal to the original monthly payment, to each of the names on the list; as a result we had a few dozen bogus DD's against our bank account in the first month and a few more every month for several months. The bank (Co-Op) never bothered to check the authenticity of any of these companies, and informed us in writing, when I complained, that not only was it my own responsibility to monitor my account daily for any unauthorised payments but also because I had NOT authorised these direct debits they were not covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee Scheme which applies only to authorized DD's so if any money actually left my account I would have to try to reclaim it through the civil courts without any help from the bank.

 

I changed my Bank soon afterwards.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Keeping Up

[David Mack]

A few years ago when the Satellite TV maintenance company that we had been subscribing to went bust, they sold their customer lists with all its bank details to a large number of people who each set up a bogus Satellite TV maintenance company. Each of these then set up a direct debit, for an amount equal to the original monthly payment, to each of the names on the list; as a result we had a few dozen bogus DD's against our bank account in the first month and a few more every month for several months. The bank (Co-Op) never bothered to check the authenticity of any of these companies, and informed us in writing, when I complained, that not only was it my own responsibility to monitor my account daily for any unauthorised payments but also because I had NOT authorised these direct debits they were not covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee Scheme which applies only to authorized DD's so if any money actually left my account I would have to try to reclaim it through the civil courts without any help from the bank.

 

I changed my Bank soon afterwards.

Surely deducting money from your accoun twhen they don't have reasonable grounds for believing that you have authorised it is a breach of the account terms on their part. So while they might not spot the bogus DD initially they should block it immediately, and refund paymentsincorrectly made as soon as you notify them - either that or produce the evidence to demonstrate that you have authorised the payments.

[Paul C]

Oh dear.

 

You need to read what actually happened to Clarkson.

 

Somebody set up a bogus direct debit in favour of a charity. They didn't benefit themselves; they were just having a go at Clarkson.

 

It is only highly respectable organisations that can set up direct debits without evidence of authorisation, and if Clarkson hadn't spotted it immediately it would have come to light as soon as the BDA checked their account.

 

This is NOT a way for criminals to benefit themselves.

 

The risk of an SO going wrong is negligible. That means it is a very small risk that most of us feel is worth taking.

 

Now if somebody hacks PayPal, you could lose a great deal. Nothing is 100% safe.

 

Still a bit shy of posting your own details then?

[David Mack]

it would have come to light as soon as the BDA checked their account.

 

But would they have cancelled the DD and returned the money, or just written to him to thank him for his generous support?

[George94]

But would they have cancelled the DD and returned the money, or just written to him to thank him for his generous support?

 

They wouldn't have to. It's the bank's duty to refund the DD, which they would do immediately.

 

Anyway, what does this have to do with standing orders?

 

Still a bit shy of posting your own details then?

 

Not at all, but at the moment I have no reason to. I am not soliciting contributions to a website. Or did you perhaps think that everybody on here should publish their bank details because somebody called Paul C says so?

 

Bizarre.

Edited July 1, 2015 by George94

[Paul C]

 

 

 

Not at all, but at the moment I have no reason to. I am not soliciting contributions to a website. Or did you perhaps think that everybody on here should publish their bank details because somebody called Paul C says so?

 

Bizarre.

 

Kinda proves my point, and undermines yours.....

[George94]

Surely deducting money from your accoun twhen they don't have reasonable grounds for believing that you have authorised it is a breach of the account terms on their part. So while they might not spot the bogus DD initially they should block it immediately, and refund paymentsincorrectly made as soon as you notify them - either that or produce the evidence to demonstrate that you have authorised the payments.

 

Absolutely right. A call to the banking ombudsman would have soon sorted that out.

 

Kinda proves my point, and undermines yours.....

Being a site administrator seems to have gone to your head.