Is it possible to block previously authorized ACH access?
I had a similar situation a while ago, and here's what I learned: What are our options here to ensure that this company can't retry to take our money again via ACH? Close existing account and create a new one that has different account number? Yes. As a temporary solution keep ~$0 balance in the account so that their request for $840 can't be fulfilled? However, would our bank incur any fees because of insufficient funds each time the other company tries to charge us again? Bad idea. You may incur penalties for returned payment, or the bank may honor the payment and charge you overdraft fees. Provide to our bank the service termination notice that proves that we   are not in business with the other company anymore and effectively   block them. However, termination notice has only our signature Bank doesn't care. ACH withdrawal is akin to a check. The assumption is that the other side has entitlement. You can put stop payment once its processed and try to reverse it claiming fraud, but the end result will be #1: you'll end up getting a new account set up, while they try to recover the money. This is one of the reasons I'm reluctant allowing standing ACH authorizations any more. Generally, the American banking system is very much geared against the consumers, and in many ways is very retarded. In a more advanced countries (which is almost any other country than the US), the standing withdrawal authorization goes through your bank and can be revoked.
Agreed.  Its speculative and not worth the time for now. In the past few months, Bitcoin has transformed into a BottleneckCoin with transaction time taking days (unless you pay a premium to miners to process it ASAP) and previously attractive processing-fee has skyrocketed.  Lastly, there is also a real threat that Bitcoin might bifurcate into two versions by August 2017.   Why?  Miners want to increase the size of Bitcoin blocks and the core developers who are the defacto ‘overseers’ do not welcome this. Likewise, the de facto overseers that are instrumental in upholding Bitcoin’s bug-proof software, want to manage some of its data outside the main network to reduce congestion and allow projects such as smart contracts to be built on top of Bitcoin. My reason for not using direct debit is #4 on Dheer's list. I just don't know where exactly I'm going to have what balance on what day, because I usually don't leave more than $100-$200 on my checking, all my cash is in Savings. I also don't want to direct debit from Savings in order to not break the 6-withdrawals limit accidentally. I use direct debit to my credit card where its available, but most places charge for that and I don't want to pay the extra fee. So, I prefer to pay my bills manually. What I don't understand is the people who pay the credit card bills when the statement arrives. I haven't received a credit card statement in years. Don't they have on-line access? Can't they set reminders there? If so - throw the card away, and get a normal one. Same with mailing checks, by the way. I'm still not even half done with the free checks I got from Washington Mutual 5 years ago. I almost never write checks. All the bills are paid online, whether through bill-pay service or an ACH transfer. "To begin with, bear in mind that over the time horizon you are talking about, the practical impact of inflation will be quite limited. Inflation for 2017 is forecast at 2.7%, and since you are talking about a bit less than all of 2017, and on average you'll be withdrawing your money halfway through, the overall impact will be <1.3% of your savings. You should consider whether the effort and risk involved in an alternative is worth a few hundred pounds. If you still want to beat inflation, the best suggestion I have is to look at peer-to-peer lending. That comes with some risk, but I think over the course of 1 year, it's quite limited. For example, Zopa is currently offering 3.1% on their ""Access"" product, and RateSetter are offering 2.9% on the ""Everyday"" product. Both of these are advertised as instant access, albeit with some caveats. These aren't FSCS-guaranteed bank deposits, and they do come with some risk. Firstly, although both RateSetter and Zopa have a significant level of provision against bad debt, it's always possible that this won't be enough and you'll lose some of your money. I think this is quite unlikely over a one-year time horizon, as there's no sign of trouble yet. Secondly, there's ""liquidity"" risk. Although the products are advertised as instant access, they are actually backed by longer-duration loans made to people who want to borrow money. For you to be able to cash out, someone else has to be there ready to take your place. Again, this is very likely to be possible in practice, but there's no absolute guarantee." If they have your account numbers (which are necessary for direct deposits) they could possibly initiate ACH withdrawals from your accounts too (requires some setup but they may have accomplices). Note that even if you didn't have money there, depending on the local bank rules you may be still on the hook for overdrafts they create, at least by default. You may be able to prove later that this was fraud but the burden of proof will be on you, and in the meantime they might be gone with the money.   They could use your documents to either establish other accounts in your name (identity theft) or take over your accounts (e.g. by contacting customer service of the bank and claiming to be you, and presenting the documents you sent as a proof), request credits under your identity (possibly using the money on the account as a collateral since the bank may not know where the money is from), etc. This is even easier given you will give them all the documents and information needed for a loan, your signature, etc.  And the fact that they ask you to send documents to a specific address doesn't mean they could be found at that address when the problems start - it may be rented short-term, belong to either knowing or unknowing accomplice, be a forwarding service, etc. Could be money laundering of course too. That's just what comes to mind after a short while thinking about it. With Mint you are without a doubt telling a third party your username and password.  If mint gets compromised, or hires a bad actor, technically there isn't anything to stop shenanigans.  You simply must be vigilant and be aware of your rights and the legal protections you have against fraud. For all the technical expertise and careful security they put in place, we the customers have to know that there is not, nor will there ever be, a perfectly secure system. The trade off is what you can do for the increased risk.  And when taken into the picture of all the Other* ways you banking information is exposed, and how little you can do about it, mint.com is only a minor increase in risk in my opinion. *See paypal, a check's routing numbers, any e-commerce site you shop at, every bank that has an online facing system, your HR dept's direct deposit and every time you swipe your debit / credit card somewhere. These are all technically risks, some of which are beyond your control to change.  Short of keeping your money in your mattress you can't avoid risk.  (And then your mattress catches fire.) "The only way to prevent it is to not use PayPal. The terms of usage are draconian, and by using the service you agree to them. I'm sure that when the case gets to a court of law, they will find where it is authorized. Paypal is not a bank, and the money there is basically ""entrusted"" with the company and is not insured by anyone. They don't need or have to be subject to the regulations on the banking industry, and they're no different than your neighbour carrying money for you to the grocery store when you're sick. Other options are wire transfer, services like Western Union or Moneygram, checks (better certified/cashier's checks), money orders or even cash. You can also charge via credit card, but you can get similar problems there (although it is still safer than PayPal because with credit card - the card owner must initiate the charge back, it doesn't appear on its own because they feel like it)." I'm pretty sure, especially if he works for a bank, he wouldn't be allowed to give you that kind of thing. I know at Citi, where I work, you can't but we have a reputation of being real anal about this stuff. Makes sense if you know everything that goes on :) Hate to burst your bubble OP, but the average banker has ZERO control over corporate's relationship with equifax. It's silly to suggest that demanding those answers from your bottom-of-the-corporate-ladder teller or financial advisor is going to warrant you any real answers. Source: am banker.