| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399943 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 14:53 |
|
Alex wrote:
> At 12:14:06 on 22/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>> "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?
No, only that each bank should associate a merchant blacklist with each
customer account. For the vast majority of customer accounts this list
would have zero entries. For the vast majority of the remaining cases,
it would have very few entries, typically one. The blacklist could
operate to exclude all payment requests from a particular merchant, or
only continuing-authority ones.
The storage and processing requirements would therefore be dirt-cheap,
each incoming payment request would need only to be "run past" a tiny
list of blacklisted merchants.
The scheme could operate in a similar way to that in which chargeback
requests work at the moment, except that they'd operate automatically
in advance of the transaction showing up on the customer's statement
instead of afterwards with the customer having to advise explicitly
on a per-transaction basis.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399948 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 16:41 |
|
> > > > > 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?
> >
> "Tim":
> > Because the merchant has no need to
> > be given the updated details, when
> > the CCA authority has been revoked.
>
"Alex" wrote
> And how does the bank know which particular
> worldwide merchant you mean when they
> have no direct relationship with them?
They should know, because they should
be told which merchant it is in the request
which is passed through the system.
> > "Alex" wrote
> > > ... and if there are any issues you
> > > instruct your bank to sort it out.
> >
> "Tim":
> > You shouldn't need to have to mess about doing that,
>
"Alex" wrote
> 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.
Those sort of issues are ones where
a legitimate mistake has been made.
But the one we're talking about here is due to the bank
*deliberately* disclosing the new details to the merchant
How do you think the card company would like it,
if a cardholder didn't tell them that they'd moved
house, and continued to rack up purchases -- but
stopped paying back even the minimum payment?
They would "put things right" when they are
asked -- but, of course, the card company
"shouldn't need to mess about tracing them"...
> > > "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?
> >
> "Tim":
> > Why on earth do you think that they'd need to do that?!
>
"Alex" wrote
> Because they need to know exactly which merchant to look out
> for amongst the myriad number of merchants with similar names.
Nope, just with *exactly* the same name.
> "Tim":
> > All they need is a very short list indeed, just of the merchants
> > whom that particular cardholder has revoked their CCA.
>
"Alex" wrote
> And how do they do that, exactly, when the request comes
> via VISA or Mastercard from a bank, not from a merchant?
It doesn't matter how many places the request passes
through, or indeed the exact source of the request. All
that matters is that the request contains the required info!
> > > > "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.
> >
> "Tim":
> > The things that their system is "geared
> > around" are entirely at the banks own choice!
>
"Alex" wrote
> So you think that their systems *should* be
> geared around customers of other organisations?
I think that they should be *better* geared
around their *own* customers. That means
being able to take notice of their requests!
> "Tim":
> > They could easily change their systems to do
> > other things if they wanted to, without needing
> > VISA/Mastercard to agree to anything.
>
"Alex" wrote
> Since you are now clearly demonstrating
> a massive lack of understanding of how
> this works, there's no point continuing.
I'm not talking about how it *currently* works,
I'm talking about how it *should* work...
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399952 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 20:11 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> writes:
> Since you are now clearly demonstrating a massive lack of
> understanding of how this works, there's no point continuing.
But the way things work can change, or be forced to change. If
someone[1] were to take the credit card issuer to court to stop them
making the payments and the court ruled in favour of the customer,
then the 'way things work' would have to change.
[1] Having fulfilled any minimum contractual requirements and
attempted to get the merchant (who may not be in the UK, so not an
easy 'target' for legal action) to cancel the service and CCA.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399954 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 20:27 |
|
In message <NumdnR6csI3agV_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d [at] bt.com>, Tim <me [at] home.uk>
writes
>The things that their system is "geared
>around" are entirely at the banks own choice!
No. The system is client driven. If it wasnt then the network would not
have developed. the system allows customers to fulfil their instant
satisfactions.
>
>They could easily
easily? balderdash.
>change their systems to do
>other things if they wanted to, without needing
>VISA/Mastercard to agree to anything.
? How could it be done without V/M agreeing?
>
>> "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.
Silly? That is grossly unfair and unworthy of you and is also an
unworthy description of Alex.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399955 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 20:32 |
|
In message <87r70dldb9.fsf [at] newton.gmurray.org.uk>, Graham Murray
<newspost [at] gmurray.org.uk> writes
>. If
>someone[1] were to take the credit card issuer to court to stop them
>making the payments and the court ruled in favour of the customer,
>then the 'way things work' would have to change.
True. But I think that is unlikely at the moment due to the line of
responsibility. If the court ruled as you suggest then all CCAs and all
'no card present' usage would be suspended because the technology ist
yet available.
>
>[1] Having fulfilled any minimum contractual requirements and
>attempted to get the merchant (who may not be in the UK, so not an
>easy 'target' for legal action) to cancel the service and CCA.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399969 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 11:08 |
|
> "Tim" wrote
> >The things that their system is "geared
> >around" are entirely at the banks own choice!
>
"John Boyle" wrote
> No. The system is client driven.
And the bank has a choice whether to give their
clients (customers) what they want or not [see below].
"John Boyle" wrote
> ... the system allows customers
> to fulfil their instant satisfactions.
Well, obviously not - that's what we're
discussing here. The system does *not*
allow satisfaction of the customer's desire
to "have the card company cancel a CCA".
> "Tim" wrote
> >... change their systems to do other
> >things if they wanted to, without needing
> >VISA/Mastercard to agree to anything.
>
"John Boyle" wrote
> ? How could it be done without V/M agreeing?
V/M don't control the way the
bank does things **internally**.
As long as the "interface" between the bank
and V/M obeys the standard protocols (set
by V/M), then there should be no problem.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #399970 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 11:24 |
|
> >"Alex" wrote
> >> Why are you suggesting that they keep up-to-date
> >> records of every merchant worldwide?
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> >I'm not - that's your own silly idea.
>
"John Boyle" wrote
> Silly? That is grossly unfair and unworthy of you...
Wasn't it "grossly unfair and unworthy" of
Alex to say that I had suggested such a
bizarre idea, when I had done no such thing?
"John Boyle" wrote
> ... and is also an unworthy description of Alex.
But it *wasn't* a description of Alex,
it was a description of the idea!
Further, Alex even seems to *agree* that the idea is silly...
|
|
|
