|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397766 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 22:09 |
|
Alex wrote:
[snip]
> This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now submit a
> file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective issuers.
> The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
How do the issuers "correct" the card details ?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397767 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 10:12 |
|
On 14 Jul 2006 20:21:08 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>At 21:05:31 on 14/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.legal by
>announcing:
>
>> On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>> > That's why you're notified well in advance.
>> >
>> Rubbish. I regularly receive invoices regarding a DD for Lloyds Ideal
>> that has only one or two days notice.
>
>Then you should contact them. Their own website states that "You'll
>also be given plenty of time to check the bill before the payment is
>made."
Well in advance might be a couple of hours to some people
>
>> >> Add in the chance of someone
>> >> adding a couple of zeros to the amount due to a typing error
>> >
>> > then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
>>
>> Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
>
>Then you should follow the complaints procedure and contact the
>ombudsman.
Still doesn't get your immediate problem solved.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397772 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 12:56 |
|
At 21:09:35 on 15/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:
> Alex wrote:
> [snip]
> > This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now submit a
> > file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective issuers.
> > The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
>
> How do the issuers "correct" the card details ?
Is this a trick question? They send the correct details back to the
retailer.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397774 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 13:39 |
|
> > Alex wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > This system has apparently recently changed.
> > > Retailers now submit a file of all their CCAs which
> > > are sent to the respective issuers. The issuers
> > > respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
> >
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > How do the issuers "correct" the card details ?
>
"Alex" wrote
> Is this a trick question? They send
> the correct details back to the retailer.
Do they ask the cardholder if they are happy with this,
before they go distributing their personal details to
someone they may no longer have a relationship with?
[DPA implications?]
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397777 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 13:40 |
|
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...
Wouldn't that be against the T&C of the card?
The cardholder agrees not to make transactions that
exceed the credit limit; therefore, (s)he *cannot*
(properly) authorise a payment of a "non-specific" amount...
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> I'm just speculating. I don't really know how they do it
> or whether they distinguish. One possibility is that there is
> a two stage process. First you obtain authorisation from
> the card company (on line or by phone) and are given an
> authorisation reference number. This number may or may
> not then be used to request a payment. In the case of normal
> one-off shopping transactions the payment *might* be requested
> at the same time as the authorisation, or the payment requests
> may be deferred, e.g. by being accumulated into weekly or
> monthly batches, or they may be deferred pending some
> conditional event (such as a call being made against a deposit).
> Or it might never be used (if the deposit is not required).
>
> I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
> the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
> code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...
Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn
a "one-off" into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... OK, in that case, if the card company keeps track
> of whether it's been used before, then it would, as a
> side-effect of this, know that it was a CCA transaction.
But it wouldn't know if the cardholder had given such authority!
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397782 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 14:21 |
|
Tim wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...
>
> Wouldn't that be against the T&C of the card?
> The cardholder agrees not to make transactions that
> exceed the credit limit; therefore, (s)he *cannot*
> (properly) authorise a payment of a "non-specific" amount...
He can if we take "non-specific" to mean "not fully specified",
e.g. that there is understood to exist an upper bound on the
amount authorised.
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
>> the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
>> code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...
>
> Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn
> a "one-off" into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
Yes it would, but not of course lawfully, it not having been agreed
that they be permitted to do so.
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> ... OK, in that case, if the card company keeps track
>> of whether it's been used before, then it would, as a
>> side-effect of this, know that it was a CCA transaction.
>
> But it wouldn't know if the cardholder had given such authority!
Indeed not. That comes later with the recriminations. If the merchant
gets charged back, he would normally challenge the chargeback by
providing evidence (a) that the cardholder had duly given continuing
authority (which incidentally is by definition non-specific), and (b)
that the amounts charged were in fact due.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397783 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 14:40 |
|
Peter Saxton wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:02:32 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>>Peter Saxton wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>>> <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The DD guarantee is cast-iron and absolutely safe.
>>>>CCAs, on the other hand, are best avoided.
>>>
>>> What's wrong with paying online at a time convenient to you?
>>
>>1) It's more tedious than it happening automatically
>
> I have a system where I go to my online bank every morning and I don't
> find it tedious.
Good for you for being well-disciplined and for having a routine
which you always stick to. Me? I too am methodical and have a
routine, albeit with some latitude, so there will be occasional
gaps. But then I probably have a rather lower transaction
turnover than you.
>>2) It can be forgotten
>
> I have a tray with payments due which I look at every morning.
I have a tray on my desk too, but with a printer, two screens and
keyboards, desk space is a ta premium, and the tray soon becomes
all-purpose and gets covered with other papers and things, and so
sometimes "current" stuff does get pushed into temporary oblivion.
>>3) You can make a mistake
>>
> I can't remember any case of me making a mistake
Fine. I don't make them very often either. This makes you better
than me in this respect, but I reckon I'm probably still hugely
better than average. People in general do tend to make mistakes
quite often, if JB's incredible statistics are to be believed.
> whereas I remember
> several cases of suppliers making mistakes with DDs.
You have high standards and it's perhaps a little unfair to judge
lesser mortals by them. People do make mistakes, it's a fact of
life. They should make the effort to make fewer mistakes, but what
matters even more is how forthcomingly they deal with putting
things right when the mistakes are discovered and pointed out.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397784 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 14:57 |
|
At 12:39:55 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> > > Alex wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > This system has apparently recently changed.
> > > > Retailers now submit a file of all their CCAs which
> > > > are sent to the respective issuers. The issuers
> > > > respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
> > >
> > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > How do the issuers "correct" the card details ?
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > Is this a trick question? They send
> > the correct details back to the retailer.
>
> Do they ask the cardholder if they are happy with this,
> before they go distributing their personal details to
> someone they may no longer have a relationship with?
It's not the cardholder's personal details. It's the details of the
card, which remains the property of the card issuer at all times. It's
a much more sensible way to do it than the old method of sending a
blank expiry date; this was, as you'll appreciate, wide open to abuse.
If you no longer have a relationship with the retailer or service
provider then you will, of course, already have cancelled the CCA with
them.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397788 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 15:12 |
|
> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >> You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Wouldn't that be against the T&C of the card?
> > The cardholder agrees not to make transactions that
> > exceed the credit limit; therefore, (s)he *cannot*
> > (properly) authorise a payment of a "non-specific" amount...
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> He can if we take "non-specific" to mean
> "not fully specified", e.g. that there is understood
> to exist an upper bound on the amount authorised.
What sort of "upper bound" do hire car companies quote?
> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >> I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
> >> the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
> >> code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn
> > a "one-off" into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Yes it would...
A little earlier, Graham Murray asked the following:
<QUOTE>
> Graham Murray wrote:
> > In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
> > present) transaction be declined if the expiry
> > date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
> > etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
</QUOTE>
to which you replied:
<QUOTE>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
> transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if used.
>
> In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
> at the time authority was first given, and the details would
> then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.
</QUOTE>
Can you now actually answer Graham's question :- How would
the card company know to decline a transaction as a "one-off",
if the retailer had simply provided the same details again?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397789 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 15:24 |
|
> > > > Alex wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > This system has apparently recently changed.
> > > > > Retailers now submit a file of all their CCAs which
> > > > > are sent to the respective issuers. The issuers
> > > > > respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
> > > >
> > > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > > How do the issuers "correct" the card details ?
> > >
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > Is this a trick question? They send
> > > the correct details back to the retailer.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Do they ask the cardholder if they are happy with this,
> > before they go distributing their personal details to
> > someone they may no longer have a relationship with?
>
"Alex" wrote
> It's not the cardholder's personal details. It's the details of the
> card, which remains the property of the card issuer at all times.
Of course. But if the card company provides those details to
third parties, then the card company cannot expect the cardholder
to pay any charges that have appeared on the account because
of the said disclosure **by the card co** of the card details!
"Alex" wrote
> If you no longer have a relationship with the
> retailer or service provider then you will, of
> course, already have cancelled the CCA with them.
Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
the card company continue to provide new details to them?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397790 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 15:32 |
|
At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> > > > > Alex wrote:
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > This system has apparently recently changed.
> > > > > > Retailers now submit a file of all their CCAs which
> > > > > > are sent to the respective issuers. The issuers
> > > > > > respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
> > > > >
> > > > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > > > How do the issuers "correct" the card details ?
> > > >
> > > "Alex" wrote
> > > > Is this a trick question? They send
> > > > the correct details back to the retailer.
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote:
> > > Do they ask the cardholder if they are happy with this,
> > > before they go distributing their personal details to
> > > someone they may no longer have a relationship with?
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > It's not the cardholder's personal details. It's the details of the
> > card, which remains the property of the card issuer at all times.
>
> Of course. But if the card company provides those details to
> third parties, then the card company cannot expect the cardholder
> to pay any charges that have appeared on the account because
> of the said disclosure **by the card co** of the card details!
You misunderstand the point of the exercise. The card details are
already known by the merchant. In the event that the details have
expired (through regular expiration or lost/stolen) then the card
details are updated. No details are provided unless the merchant
already had a record of a valid account. The fact that the request
comes via VISA/Mastercard from the merchant's acquiring bank means it
must be an authorised merchant in the first place.
> "Alex" wrote
> > If you no longer have a relationship with the
> > retailer or service provider then you will, of
> > course, already have cancelled the CCA with them.
>
> Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
> company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
> instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
> fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
> the card company continue to provide new details to them?
I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the customer has
cancelled the CCA.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397791 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 15:33 |
|
At 14:12:40 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> > > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> > >> You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote:
> > > Wouldn't that be against the T&C of the card?
> > > The cardholder agrees not to make transactions that
> > > exceed the credit limit; therefore, (s)he cannot
> > > (properly) authorise a payment of a "non-specific" amount...
> >
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> > He can if we take "non-specific" to mean
> > "not fully specified", e.g. that there is understood
> > to exist an upper bound on the amount authorised.
>
> What sort of "upper bound" do hire car companies quote?
>
>
> > > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> > >> I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
> > >> the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
> > >> code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote:
> > > Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could unilaterally turn
> > > a "one-off" into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
> >
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> > Yes it would...
>
> A little earlier, Graham Murray asked the following:
>
>
> <QUOTE>
> > Graham Murray wrote:
> > > In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
> > > present) transaction be declined if the expiry
> > > date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
> > > etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
> </QUOTE>
>
> to which you replied:
>
> <QUOTE>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> > Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
> > transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if
> used. >
> > In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
> > at the time authority was first given, and the details would
> > then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.
>
> </QUOTE>
>
> Can you now actually answer Graham's question :- How would
> the card company know to decline a transaction as a "one-off",
> if the retailer had simply provided the same details again?
It would not be presented as a CCA.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397792 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 15:54 |
|
> > > "Tim" wrote:
> > > > Do they ask the cardholder if they are happy with this,
> > > > before they go distributing their personal details to
> > > > someone they may no longer have a relationship with?
> > >
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > It's not the cardholder's personal details. It's the details of the
> > > card, which remains the property of the card issuer at all times.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Of course. But if the card company provides those details to
> > third parties, then the card company cannot expect the cardholder
> > to pay any charges that have appeared on the account because
> > of the said disclosure **by the card co** of the card details!
>
"Alex" wrote
> You misunderstand the point of the exercise...
No no, I think you misunderstand the issue I'm pointing out...
[See below.]
"Alex" wrote
> ... The card details are already known by the merchant.
Well, obviously *not* -- or they wouldn't need them "updating"!
"Alex" wrote
> In the event that the details have expired (through regular
> expiration or lost/stolen) then the card details are updated.
Exactly - previously, the up-to-date details were *not* known by the
merchant...
"Alex" wrote
> No details are provided unless the merchant
> already had a record of a valid account. The fact
> that the request comes via VISA/Mastercard
> from the merchant's acquiring bank means it
> must be an authorised merchant in the first place.
Suppose I bought *one* item, some time ago, from a
potentially dodgy merchant -- and I gave them a credit card
with only a month left to expiry. I then watched the card
statements very carefully for a couple of months, and no
unusual transactions appeared. Fine, I can rest easy that
they won't be able to charge any more transactions ... but
then the stupid card company gives them the up-to-date
details, without even letting me know or asking me!
Just because I paid for that one item years ago,
does *not* mean that I am happy for the retailer
to have the current up-to-date card details as well!
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > If you no longer have a relationship with the
> > > retailer or service provider then you will, of
> > > course, already have cancelled the CCA with them.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
> > company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
> > instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
> > fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
> > the card company continue to provide new details to them?
>
"Alex" wrote
> I don't see why not. They have no idea whether
> or not the customer has cancelled the CCA.
So, let's get this straight :-
The card company will give up-to-date card
details to merchants whose CCA has been
cancelled, and whom the cardholder no longer
authorises payment to, and you think that is fine?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397793 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 16:12 |
|
At 14:54:21 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> "Alex" wrote
> > No details are provided unless the merchant
> > already had a record of a valid account. The fact
> > that the request comes via VISA/Mastercard
> > from the merchant's acquiring bank means it
> > must be an authorised merchant in the first place.
>
> Suppose I bought one item, some time ago, from a
> potentially dodgy merchant -- and I gave them a credit card
> with only a month left to expiry. I then watched the card
> statements very carefully for a couple of months, and no
> unusual transactions appeared. Fine, I can rest easy that
> they won't be able to charge any more transactions ... but
> then the stupid card company gives them the up-to-date
> details, without even letting me know or asking me!
Not every merchant is authorised to set up CCAs. And why is the card
company stupid by responding to a request from another bank?
> Just because I paid for that one item years ago,
> does not mean that I am happy for the retailer
> to have the current up-to-date card details as well!
And they will only have the new details if they have sent a CCA report
via their own acquiring bank.
> > > "Alex" wrote
> > > > If you no longer have a relationship with the
> > > > retailer or service provider then you will, of
> > > > course, already have cancelled the CCA with them.
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote:
> > > Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
> > > company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
> > > instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
> > > fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
> > > the card company continue to provide new details to them?
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > I don't see why not. They have no idea whether
> > or not the customer has cancelled the CCA.
>
> So, let's get this straight :-
> The card company will give up-to-date card
> details to merchants whose CCA has been
> cancelled, and whom the cardholder no longer
> authorises payment to, and you think that is fine?
If the CCA has been cancelled then it should not be on the merchant's
CCA file which they send through their acquirer. If it is sent through
following cancellation then it is handled like any other unauthorised
transaction and a chargeback is initiated once the cardholder notifies
their card issuer.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397798 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 17:35 |
|
In message <cPadnbKeFYN4uCfZRVnysw [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk> writes
>Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn a
>"one-off" into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
They can indeed. I've had this happen to me.
--
Mike_B
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397799 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 17:38 |
|
At 16:35:13 on 16/07/2006, Mike_B delighted uk.legal by announcing:
> In message <cPadnbKeFYN4uCfZRVnysw [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk> writes
>
> > Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could unilaterally turn a
> > "one-off" into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
>
> They can indeed. I've had this happen to me.
This would be a clear breach of card scheme rules. Could it be you
just didn't understand you were entering into a CCA? Did you report it?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397800 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 18:04 |
|
Tim wrote:
>> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> >> You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...
>> >
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > Wouldn't that be against the T&C of the card?
>> > The cardholder agrees not to make transactions that
>> > exceed the credit limit; therefore, (s)he *cannot*
>> > (properly) authorise a payment of a "non-specific" amount...
>>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> He can if we take "non-specific" to mean
>> "not fully specified", e.g. that there is understood
>> to exist an upper bound on the amount authorised.
>
> What sort of "upper bound" do hire car companies quote?
Probably a few hundred pounds, whatever the level of the insurance
excess is. If you prang the car, you are liable for the full cost
of the repair if below that level, otherwise for that amount.
Or you could opt for the collision damage waiver they try to flog.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397801 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 18:14 |
|
Tim wrote:
>> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> >> I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
>> >> the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
>> >> code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...
>> >
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn
>> > a "one-off" into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
>>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> Yes it would...
>
> A little earlier, Graham Murray asked the following:
>
>
> <QUOTE>
> > Graham Murray wrote:
> > > In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
> > > present) transaction be declined if the expiry
> > > date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
> > > etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
> </QUOTE>
>
> to which you replied:
>
> <QUOTE>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> > Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
> > transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if used.
> >
> > In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
> > at the time authority was first given, and the details would
> > then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.
>
> </QUOTE>
>
> Can you now actually answer Graham's question :- How would
> the card company know to decline a transaction as a "one-off",
> if the retailer had simply provided the same details again?
This is all academic since someone else has meanwhile kindly confirmed
that there is in fact a distinction between one-off and continuing
requests.
However, I took the thrust of Graham's question not to be so much
why a one-off could be declined, but why a non-one-off would not be.
To that, I meant my answer to say that the transaction in *both*
cases would be declined if the details are wrong, in other words that
the proviso in his question ("paid regardless") was incorrect. In the
case of the CCA, the details would have to be right at the time of first
validation, but not necessarily on each subsequent use, and that such
subsequent requests for payment would be accompanied by a validation
reference in addition to (or perhaps instead of) the base card details.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397802 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 18:19 |
|
In message <4hv4s0F1dcu3U1 [at] individual.net>, Alex <no.spam [at] mail.com>
writes
>At 16:35:13 on 16/07/2006, Mike_B delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>
>> In message <cPadnbKeFYN4uCfZRVnysw [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk> writes
>>
>> > Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could unilaterally turn a
>> > "one-off" into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
>>
>> They can indeed. I've had this happen to me.
>
>This would be a clear breach of card scheme rules. Could it be you
>just didn't understand you were entering into a CCA? Did you report it?
It was an Internet purchase by a company in the US. It was a one-off
purchase of about $20 that was turned into a monthly payment of $39.99
with the supplier claiming to have CCA despite there never having been
one. Yes, I reported it and I got a full refund of the monies taken, but
not without a ridiculous argument by the credit card company along the
lines of "Well if they say they've got continuous authority then they
have", despite having no evidence of it whatsoever.
--
Mike_B
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397803 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 18:19 |
|
"Alex" wrote
> Could it be you just didn't understand you were entering into a CCA?
How can one possibly "enter into a CCA" without knowing about it?
If you didn't know about it, then you didn't "enter into" it, did you?
Contracts require a "meeting of minds", and all that...
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397804 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 18:27 |
|
At 17:19:26 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> "Alex" wrote
> > Could it be you just didn't understand you were entering into a CCA?
>
> How can one possibly "enter into a CCA" without knowing about it?
By not reading Ts & Cs correctly before signing or clicking on the "I
agree" button. It's not particularly uncommon to do that. I suspect
most people who have installed Windows, for instance, have agreed to an
EULA they've never read.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397830 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 22:37 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:19:26 +0100, "Tim" <me [at] home.uk> wrote:
>"Alex" wrote
>> Could it be you just didn't understand you were entering into a CCA?
>
>How can one possibly "enter into a CCA" without knowing about it?
>If you didn't know about it, then you didn't "enter into" it, did you?
>
>Contracts require a "meeting of minds", and all that...
>
Contracts don't require a meeting of minds they just require some
level of agreement.
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397832 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 22:32 |
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:40:37 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>Peter Saxton wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:02:32 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>> <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Saxton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>>>> <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The DD guarantee is cast-iron and absolutely safe.
>>>>>CCAs, on the other hand, are best avoided.
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with paying online at a time convenient to you?
>>>
>>>1) It's more tedious than it happening automatically
>>
>> I have a system where I go to my online bank every morning and I don't
>> find it tedious.
>
>Good for you for being well-disciplined and for having a routine
>which you always stick to. Me? I too am methodical and have a
>routine, albeit with some latitude, so there will be occasional
>gaps. But then I probably have a rather lower transaction
>turnover than you.
>
I don't have that many online bank transactions. I just keep a check
on the accounts when I get up in a morning. It saves a panic if I
forget. My wife usually pays checks in and goes to the post office to
send letters so we tend to pay over the counter with cash when we can.
>>>2) It can be forgotten
>>
>> I have a tray with payments due which I look at every morning.
>
>I have a tray on my desk too, but with a printer, two screens and
>keyboards, desk space is a ta premium, and the tray soon becomes
>all-purpose and gets covered with other papers and things, and so
>sometimes "current" stuff does get pushed into temporary oblivion.
>
The advantage of having a purpose built office is you tend to have
more room. I have high cupboards along one side of the room and low
drawers on the other side which have my printer, scanner, fax, copier
and computer on top of them. I even have my monitor on a separate desk
to my work desk which is totally empty until it gets taken over with
papers!
>>>3) You can make a mistake
>>>
>> I can't remember any case of me making a mistake
>
>Fine. I don't make them very often either. This makes you better
>than me in this respect, but I reckon I'm probably still hugely
>better than average. People in general do tend to make mistakes
>quite often, if JB's incredible statistics are to be believed.
>
I meant with online banking!
>> whereas I remember
>> several cases of suppliers making mistakes with DDs.
>
>You have high standards and it's perhaps a little unfair to judge
>lesser mortals by them. People do make mistakes, it's a fact of
>life. They should make the effort to make fewer mistakes, but what
>matters even more is how forthcomingly they deal with putting
>things right when the mistakes are discovered and pointed out.
If I make a mistake it affects me. If an employee in a large company
makes a mistake management are too incompetent to even notice.
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399739 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 08:13 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
news:4hutf7F1c3s8U1 [at] individual.net...
> At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
[snip]
>
>> Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
>> company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
>> instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
>> fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
>> the card company continue to provide new details to them?
>
> I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the customer has
> cancelled the CCA.
A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399740 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 08:23 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
news:4huvq6F1b67uU1 [at] individual.net...
[snip]
> Not every merchant is authorised to set up CCAs.
What are the criteria for
a) obtaining such authorisation
b) losing it
> And why is the card
> company stupid by responding to a request from another bank?
Your implication is that such requests must be answered wily-nilly.
> If the CCA has been cancelled then it should not be on the merchant's
> CCA file which they send through their acquirer.
How is this policed ? That is, what is the procedure for verifying the
merchant's CCA file ?
>If it is sent through
> following cancellation then it is handled like any other unauthorised
> transaction and a chargeback is initiated once the cardholder notifies
> their card issuer.
How does cancellation occur ?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399745 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 11:36 |
|
At 07:23:17 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:
> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4huvq6F1b67uU1 [at] individual.net... [snip]
> > Not every merchant is authorised to set up CCAs.
>
> What are the criteria for
>
> a) obtaining such authorisation
I've no idea. It will be an agreement between the bank and its
customer.
> b) losing it
Misuse of the facility, for one.
> > And why is the card
> > company stupid by responding to a request from another bank?
>
> Your implication is that such requests must be answered wily-nilly.
The request comes via the card scheme from the acquiring bank. The
request is answered. I'm not sure what makes you think that's
'willy-nilly'.
> > If the CCA has been cancelled then it should not be on the
> > merchant's CCA file which they send through their acquirer.
>
> How is this policed ? That is, what is the procedure for verifying
> the merchant's CCA file ?
If a request for payment comes through, assuming the details supplied
were correct at the time the authorisation was given, the payment is
made - much like any other transaction. If that request results in a
chargeback then the merchant must pursue the cardholder for payment by
other means. Too many chargebacks and they risk losing the facility.
> > If it is sent through
> > following cancellation then it is handled like any other
> > unauthorised transaction and a chargeback is initiated once the
> > cardholder notifies their card issuer.
>
> How does cancellation occur ?
You contact the retailer, normally in writing.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399746 ] |
Mo, 17 Juli 2006 11:38 |
|
At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:
> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4hutf7F1c3s8U1 [at] individual.net...
> > At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> [snip]
> >
> > > Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
> > > company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
> > > instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
> > > fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
> > > the card company continue to provide new details to them?
> >
> > I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the customer
> > has cancelled the CCA.
>
> A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
How so? And before you say "it's easy to have a database of every
retailer in the world" think about the practicalities and cost of this
and weigh it against the net benefit to everyone.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399807 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 19:09 |
|
"Mike_B" <usenet [at] localhosts.net> wrote in message
news:zWoMdzSWcmuEFw8U [at] localhosts.net...
[snip]
>Yes, I reported it and I got a full refund of the monies taken, but not
>without a ridiculous argument by the credit card company along the lines
>of "Well if they say they've got continuous authority then they have",
[snip]
The problem in a nutshell.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399828 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 16:34 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
news:4i145eF1lif6U1 [at] individual.net...
> At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
> announcing:
>
>> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4hutf7F1c3s8U1 [at] individual.net...
>> > At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > > Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
>> > > company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
>> > > instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
>> > > fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
>> > > the card company continue to provide new details to them?
>> >
>> > I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the customer
>> > has cancelled the CCA.
>>
>> A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
>
> How so?
Because the card company refuses to accept the information when offered, it
seems.
> And before you say "it's easy to have a database of every
> retailer in the world"
(I wonder who was going to say that).
>think about the practicalities and cost of this
> and weigh it against the net benefit to everyone.
I do wonder about the benefit of a system so open to such damaging abuse,
abuse which is facilitated by the "self-imposed ignorance" to which I refer
above.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399844 ] |
Mi, 19 Juli 2006 18:15 |
|
At 15:34:44 on 18/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:
> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4i145eF1lif6U1 [at] individual.net...
> > At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
> > announcing:
> >
> >>"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4hutf7F1c3s8U1 [at] individual.net...
> >>> At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> >>> > Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
> >>> > company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
> >>> > instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
> >>> > fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
> >>> > the card company continue to provide new details to them?
> > > >
> >>> I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the
> customer >>> has cancelled the CCA.
> > >
> > > A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Because the card company refuses to accept the information when
> offered, it seems.
But they don't refuse to accept it at all. They do exactly what
they're supposed to do with it; they respond to a request from another
bank as per the rules of the card scheme they've signed up to.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399876 ] |
Do, 20 Juli 2006 16:12 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
news:4i7453F2fr0nU1 [at] individual.net...
> At 15:34:44 on 18/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
> announcing:
>
>> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4i145eF1lif6U1 [at] individual.net...
>> > At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
>> > announcing:
>> >
>> >>"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:4hutf7F1c3s8U1 [at] individual.net...
>> >>> At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>> > > [snip]
>> > > >
>> >>> > Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
>> >>> > company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
>> >>> > instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
>> >>> > fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
>> >>> > the card company continue to provide new details to them?
>> > > >
>> >>> I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the
>> customer >>> has cancelled the CCA.
>> > >
>> > > A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
>> >
>> > How so?
>>
>> Because the card company refuses to accept the information when
>> offered, it seems.
>
> But they don't refuse to accept it at all. They do exactly what
> they're supposed to do with it; they respond to a request from another
> bank as per the rules of the card scheme they've signed up to.
And refuse to respond appropriately to a request from the customer who has
signed up with them.
Ths customer gives them the information and they say "don't tell us".
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399878 ] |
Do, 20 Juli 2006 17:59 |
|
At 15:12:53 on 20/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:
> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4i7453F2fr0nU1 [at] individual.net...
> > At 15:34:44 on 18/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
> > announcing:
> >
> >>"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4i145eF1lif6U1 [at] individual.net...
> >>> At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
> >>> announcing:
> > > >
> >>>>"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> >>> > news:4hutf7F1c3s8U1 [at] individual.net...
> >>>>> At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by
> announcing: >>> > [snip]
> >>> > >
> >>>>> > Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
> >>>>> > company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
> >>>>> > instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
> >>>>> > fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
> >>>>> > the card company continue to provide new details to them?
> >>> > >
> >>>>> I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the
> >>customer >>> has cancelled the CCA.
> >>> >
> >>> > A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
> > > >
> >>> How so?
> > >
> > > Because the card company refuses to accept the information when
> > > offered, it seems.
> >
> > But they don't refuse to accept it at all. They do exactly what
> > they're supposed to do with it; they respond to a request from
> > another bank as per the rules of the card scheme they've signed up
> > to.
>
> And refuse to respond appropriately to a request from the customer
> who has signed up with them.
>
> Ths customer gives them the information and they say "don't tell us".
That's an entirely appropriate response. What are they supposed to do
with the information? And again, bear in mind how the interchange
system actually works.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399886 ] |
Do, 20 Juli 2006 21:51 |
|
> > >>>>> "Tim" wrote:
> > >>>>> > Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
> > >>>>> > company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
> > >>>>> > instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
> > >>>>> > fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
> > >>>>> > the card company continue to provide new details to them?
> > >>> > >
> > >>>>"Alex" wrote
> > >>>>> I don't see why not. They have no idea whether
> > >>>>> or not the customer has cancelled the CCA.
> > >>> >
> > >>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > >>> > A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
> > > > >
> > >>"Alex" wrote
> > >>> How so?
> > > >
> > > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > > Because the card company refuses to
> > > > accept the information when offered, it seems.
> > >
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > But they don't refuse to accept it at all. They do
> > > exactly what they're supposed to do with it; they
> > > respond to a request from another bank as per
> > > the rules of the card scheme they've signed up to.
> >
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > And refuse to respond appropriately to a request
> > from the customer who has signed up with them.
> >
> > Ths customer gives them the
> > information and they say "don't tell us".
>
"Alex" wrote
> That's an entirely appropriate response.
Hardly...
They totally ignore the fact of whether the genuine
cardholder continues to give authority to the retailer
or not, and accept the retailer's say-so instead!
"Alex" wrote
> What are they supposed to do with the information?
They're supposed to **use it**, by having an
appropriate system in place that will allow them to!
"Alex" wrote
> And again, bear in mind how the
> interchange system actually works.
Remind us this - who was it that
designed *their* system? The banks?!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399888 ] |
Do, 20 Juli 2006 22:34 |
|
At 20:51:00 on 20/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> > > >>>>> "Tim" wrote:
> > > >>>>> > Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
> > > >>>>> > company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant
> > > >>>>> > instead". So, when the merchant subsequently (either
> > > >>>>> > fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
> > > >>>>> > the card company continue to provide new details to them?
> > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > "Alex" wrote
> > > >>>>> I don't see why not. They have no idea whether
> > > >>>>> or not the customer has cancelled the CCA.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > >>> > A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > "Alex" wrote
> > > >>> How so?
> > > > >
> > > > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > > > Because the card company refuses to
> > > > > accept the information when offered, it seems.
> > > >
> > > "Alex" wrote
> > > > But they don't refuse to accept it at all. They do
> > > > exactly what they're supposed to do with it; they
> > > > respond to a request from another bank as per
> > > > the rules of the card scheme they've signed up to.
> > >
> > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > And refuse to respond appropriately to a request
> > > from the customer who has signed up with them.
> > >
> > > Ths customer gives them the
> > > information and they say "don't tell us".
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > That's an entirely appropriate response.
>
> Hardly...
> They totally ignore the fact of whether the genuine
> cardholder continues to give authority to the retailer
> or not, and accept the retailer's say-so instead!
They do nothing of the sort. They accept the acquiring bank's say-so
via the card scheme's network.
> "Alex" wrote
> > What are they supposed to do with the information?
>
> They're supposed to **use it**, by having an
> appropriate system in place that will allow them to!
>
> "Alex" wrote
> > And again, bear in mind how the
> > interchange system actually works.
>
> Remind us this - who was it that
> designed their system? The banks?!!!
No. VISA and Mastercard.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399935 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 10:41 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
news:4i9njkF2mfilU1 [at] individual.net...
> At 15:12:53 on 20/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
> announcing:
[snip]
>> Ths customer gives them the information and they say "don't tell us".
>
> That's an entirely appropriate response.
Are you seriously maintaining the position that a commercial organisation
should tell its customers that it does not want to know information
relevant to the transactions between it and the customer ?
> What are they supposed to do with the information ?
Act on it. The customer says "I do not want you to make any payment to
Merchant X". The card company should record that request and ensure that
no such payment is made. It is not unreasonable for the card company to
require the customer to notify the merchant as well. It is unreasonable to
ignore the notification to itself.
>And again, bear in mind how the interchange system actually works.
Why should I ? How it works is a choice, and apparently a bad one, by the
card companies.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399936 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 12:16 |
|
At 09:41:36 on 22/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:
> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4i9njkF2mfilU1 [at] individual.net...
> > At 15:12:53 on 20/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
> > announcing:
> [snip]
> > > Ths customer gives them the information and they say "don't tell
> > > us".
> >
> > That's an entirely appropriate response.
>
> Are you seriously maintaining the position that a commercial
> organisation should tell its customers that it does not want to know
> information relevant to the transactions between it and the customer ?
When you understand how the process works, you'll understand why it
cannot do anything with this information.
> > What are they supposed to do with the information ?
>
> Act on it. The customer says "I do not want you to make any payment
> to Merchant X". The card company should record that request and
> ensure that no such payment is made.
How? How do you propose that the bank even knows who the merchant is
without changing the whole interchange and settlement system (for which
you would need to lobby VISA & Mastercard not your bank)?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399937 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 13:14 |
|
> > > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > > Ths customer gives them the
> > > > information and they say "don't tell us".
> > >
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > That's an entirely appropriate response.
> >
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote
> > Are you seriously maintaining the position that a
> > commercial organisation should tell its customers
> > that it does not want to know information relevant
> > to the transactions between it and the customer ?
>
"Alex" wrote
> When you understand how the process works, you'll
> understand why it cannot do anything with this information.
When *you* understand that "how the process
works" is actually unreasonable, then you'll
understand that it should be changed!
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > What are they supposed to do with the information ?
> >
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > Act on it. The customer says "I do not want you to make
> > any payment to Merchant X". The card company should
> > record that request and ensure that no such payment is made.
>
"Alex" wrote
> How? How do you propose that the
> bank even knows who the merchant is ...
Well, they *must* know who the merchant is,
because they put their name on our card statements!
"Alex" wrote
> ... without changing the whole interchange and
> settlement system (for which you would need
> to lobby VISA & Mastercard not your bank)?
Are you trying to suggest that VISA/Mastercard
not only control the *interchange* system,
but also the banks' own internal systems?
When the bank finally gets the request for payment, having
been passed through the "interchange and settlement
system", it is now in the bank's own system - is it
not? Why are you suggesting that they can't then
pull out the invalid transactions using their own system?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399939 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 13:49 |
|
At 12:14:06 on 22/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> > > > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > > > Ths customer gives them the
> > > > > information and they say "don't tell us".
> > > >
> > > "Alex" wrote
> > > > That's an entirely appropriate response.
> > >
> > Fergus O'Rourke wrote
> > > Are you seriously maintaining the position that a
> > > commercial organisation should tell its customers
> > > that it does not want to know information relevant
> > > to the transactions between it and the customer ?
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > When you understand how the process works, you'll
> > understand why it cannot do anything with this information.
>
> When you understand that "how the process
> works" is actually unreasonable, then you'll
> understand that it should be changed!
Why is it unreasonable? You cancel the CCA with the merchant, as per
your contract with them, and if there are any issues you instruct your
bank to sort it out. Remember that in the case of credit cards, it's
the bank's money and their responsibility.
> > > "Alex" wrote
> > > > What are they supposed to do with the information ?
> > >
> > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > Act on it. The customer says "I do not want you to make
> > > any payment to Merchant X". The card company should
> > > record that request and ensure that no such payment is made.
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > How? How do you propose that the
> > bank even knows who the merchant is ...
>
> Well, they must know who the merchant is,
> because they put their name on our card statements!
So you now suggest that each bank keeps a record of the name of every
card-enabled merchant worldwide?
> "Alex" wrote
> > ... without changing the whole interchange and
> > settlement system (for which you would need
> > to lobby VISA & Mastercard not your bank)?
>
> Are you trying to suggest that VISA/Mastercard
> not only control the interchange system,
> but also the banks' own internal systems?
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. The internal systems are geared
around dealing with customers *and* other banks, not customers *of*
other banks.
> When the bank finally gets the request for payment, having
> been passed through the "interchange and settlement
> system", it is now in the bank's own system - is it
> not? Why are you suggesting that they can't then
> pull out the invalid transactions using their own system?
Why are you suggesting that they keep up-to-date records of every
merchant worldwide? The only organisations who could do this (even if
they were inclined to do so) would be the card schemes themselves.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399941 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 14:37 |
|
> > > Fergus O'Rourke wrote
> > > > Are you seriously maintaining the position that a
> > > > commercial organisation should tell its customers
> > > > that it does not want to know information relevant
> > > > to the transactions between it and the customer ?
> > >
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > When you understand how the process works, you'll
> > > understand why it cannot do anything with this information.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > When you understand that "how the process
> > works" is actually unreasonable, then you'll
> > understand that it should be changed!
>
"Alex" wrote
> Why is it unreasonable?
Because the merchant has no need to be given the updated
details, when the CCA authority has been revoked.
"Alex" wrote
> You cancel the CCA with the merchant,
> as per your contract with them, ...
You also have a contract with the card company.
*They* expect *you* only to disclose your card
details in the process of legitimate transactions;
Similarly, *you* don't expect *them* to start disclosing
those details to people who have no need for them!
"Alex" wrote
> ... and if there are any issues you
> instruct your bank to sort it out.
You shouldn't *need* to have to mess about doing that,
because the issue should not have arisen in the first place
-- because the card co should not have given out the new
card details to someone who shouldn't have had them!
"Alex" wrote
> Remember that in the case of credit cards, it's
> the bank's money and their responsibility.
Hehe. Yeh, right.
> > > > "Alex" wrote
> > > > > What are they supposed to do with the information ?
> > > >
> > > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > > > Act on it. The customer says "I do not want you to make
> > > > any payment to Merchant X". The card company should
> > > > record that request and ensure that no such payment is made.
> > >
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > How? How do you propose that the
> > > bank even knows who the merchant is ...
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Well, they must know who the merchant is,
> > because they put their name on our card statements!
>
"Alex" wrote
> So you now suggest that each bank keeps a record of
> the name of every card-enabled merchant worldwide?
Why on earth do you think that they'd need to do that?!
All they need is a very short list indeed, just of the merchants
whom that particular cardholder has revoked their CCA.
Why would the bank need details of any other merchants?
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > ... without changing the whole interchange and
> > > settlement system (for which you would need
> > > to lobby VISA & Mastercard not your bank)?
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Are you trying to suggest that VISA/Mastercard
> > not only control the interchange system,
> > but also the banks' own internal systems?
>
"Alex" wrote
> I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. The internal
> systems are geared around dealing with customers
> *and* other banks, not customers *of* other banks.
The things that their system is "geared
around" are entirely at the banks own choice!
They could easily change their systems to do
other things if they wanted to, without needing
VISA/Mastercard to agree to anything.
> "Tim" wrote:
> > When the bank finally gets the request for payment, having
> > been passed through the "interchange and settlement
> > system", it is now in the bank's own system - is it
> > not? Why are you suggesting that they can't then
> > pull out the invalid transactions using their own system?
>
"Alex" wrote
> Why are you suggesting that they keep up-to-date
> records of every merchant worldwide?
I'm not - that's your own silly idea.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399942 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 14:47 |
|
At 13:37:04 on 22/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> > > > Fergus O'Rourke wrote
> > > > > Are you seriously maintaining the position that a
> > > > > commercial organisation should tell its customers
> > > > > that it does not want to know information relevant
> > > > > to the transactions between it and the customer ?
> > > >
> > > "Alex" wrote
> > > > When you understand how the process works, you'll
> > > > understand why it cannot do anything with this information.
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote:
> > > When you understand that "how the process
> > > works" is actually unreasonable, then you'll
> > > understand that it should be changed!
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > Why is it unreasonable?
>
> Because the merchant has no need to be given the updated
> details, when the CCA authority has been revoked.
And how does the bank know which particular worldwide merchant you mean
when they have no direct relationship with them?
> "Alex" wrote
> > ... and if there are any issues you
> > instruct your bank to sort it out.
>
> You shouldn't need to have to mess about doing that,
And generally speaking, you don't. Just as generally speaking, people
don't need to invoke the DD guarantee. Or generally speaking, people
don't need to claim on warranties. Etc.
> > "Tim" wrote:
> > > Well, they must know who the merchant is,
> > > because they put their name on our card statements!
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > So you now suggest that each bank keeps a record of
> > the name of every card-enabled merchant worldwide?
>
> Why on earth do you think that they'd need to do that?!
Because they need to know exactly which merchant to look out for
amongst the myriad number of merchants with similar names.
> All they need is a very short list indeed, just of the merchants
> whom that particular cardholder has revoked their CCA.
And how do they do that, exactly, when the request comes via VISA or
Mastercard from a bank, not from a merchant?
> > > "Alex" wrote
> > > > ... without changing the whole interchange and
> > > > settlement system (for which you would need
> > > > to lobby VISA & Mastercard not your bank)?
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote:
> > > Are you trying to suggest that VISA/Mastercard
> > > not only control the interchange system,
> > > but also the banks' own internal systems?
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. The internal
> > systems are geared around dealing with customers
> > and other banks, not customers of other banks.
>
> The things that their system is "geared
> around" are entirely at the banks own choice!
So you think that their systems *should* be geared around customers of
other organisations?
> They could easily change their systems to do
> other things if they wanted to, without needing
> VISA/Mastercard to agree to anything.
Since you are now clearly demonstrating a massive lack of understanding
of how this works, there's no point continuing.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Feb 4 20:28:13 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03811 Sekunden |
