|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #396413] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 16:40 |
|
Ronald Raygun <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> writes:
> It would be impractical, because the repeat system is just tagged on to
> the normal one-off system.
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?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #396419 ] |
Di, 11 Juli 2006 16:54 |
|
Graham Murray wrote:
> Ronald Raygun <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> writes:
>
>> It would be impractical, because the repeat system is just tagged on to
>> the normal one-off system.
>
> 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?
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397527 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 13:03 |
|
> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> >> It would be impractical, because the repeat system
> >> is just tagged on to the normal one-off system.
> >
> 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?
>
"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.
When the retailer provides those same details to the card
co *after* the expiry date (so they are now invalid), then
how does the card co know to honour the transaction?
You've suggested that they don't know whether it is a
CCA or a "one-off", yet a CCA will be honoured but a
"one-off" will be declined; how do they know whether to
honour or decline, given the same (now invalid) details?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397529 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 14:00 |
|
Tim wrote:
>> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
>> >> It would be impractical, because the repeat system
>> >> is just tagged on to the normal one-off system.
>> >
>> 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?
>>
> "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.
>
> When the retailer provides those same details to the card
> co *after* the expiry date (so they are now invalid), then
> how does the card co know to honour the transaction?
I don't know. It could be that your assumption "so they are
now invalid" is false, i.e. that the mere fact that the
expiry date has passed is insufficient to render a transaction
invalid, provided the authorisation by the customer was
given before that date (and presumably that date accompanies
the request for funds).
> You've suggested that they don't know whether it is a
> CCA or a "one-off", yet a CCA will be honoured but a
> "one-off" will be declined; how do they know whether to
> honour or decline, given the same (now invalid) details?
See above. "Now invalid" might be false. Consider also the
case of pre-authorised one-offs. Suppose you hire a car.
You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment to cover
a damage deposit, which won't actually get charged until and
unless you return the car full of dents and scratches.
Suppose further that the hire period begins during the last
validity month of the card, but ends during the first or even
second months thereafter. Technically, a payment request for
the deposit might be declined on the basis that it's a month
or two too late.
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. 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397530 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 14:06 |
|
Ronald Raygun wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
>>>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
>>>>> It would be impractical, because the repeat system
>>>>> is just tagged on to the normal one-off system.
>>> 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?
>> "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.
>> When the retailer provides those same details to the card
>> co *after* the expiry date (so they are now invalid), then
>> how does the card co know to honour the transaction?
>
> I don't know. It could be that your assumption "so they are
> now invalid" is false, i.e. that the mere fact that the
> expiry date has passed is insufficient to render a transaction
> invalid, provided the authorisation by the customer was
> given before that date (and presumably that date accompanies
> the request for funds).
>
>> You've suggested that they don't know whether it is a
>> CCA or a "one-off", yet a CCA will be honoured but a
>> "one-off" will be declined; how do they know whether to
>> honour or decline, given the same (now invalid) details?
>
> See above. "Now invalid" might be false. Consider also the
> case of pre-authorised one-offs. Suppose you hire a car.
> You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment to cover
> a damage deposit, which won't actually get charged until and
> unless you return the car full of dents and scratches.
> Suppose further that the hire period begins during the last
> validity month of the card, but ends during the first or even
> second months thereafter. Technically, a payment request for
> the deposit might be declined on the basis that it's a month
> or two too late.
>
> 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. 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.
>
There are two options which the acquiring bank (card issuer) can
specify. One is "accept prevalid if authorised" and "accept expired if
authorised". These particularly apply to CATs (continuous authority
transactions). In these cases the transaction will be referred.
The authorisation code is not "carried over". It's either provided
automatically by the "terminal" or - if authorisation is required - by
the authorisation centre.
---
Brian
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397531 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 14:22 |
|
At 12:03:32 on 12/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> > > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> > >> It would be impractical, because the repeat system
> > >> is just tagged on to the normal one-off system.
> > >
> > 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?
> >
> "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.
>
> When the retailer provides those same details to the card
> co after the expiry date (so they are now invalid), then
> how does the card co know to honour the transaction?
There's a CCA flag, certainly with UK transactions.
> You've suggested that they don't know whether it is a
> CCA or a "one-off", yet a CCA will be honoured but a
> "one-off" will be declined; how do they know whether to
> honour or decline, given the same (now invalid) details?
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397532 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 14:34 |
|
Alex wrote:
> 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.
Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active CCAs, and
that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397533 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 14:52 |
|
At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
announcing:
> Alex wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active CCAs, and
> that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details so
there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it lost/stolen
to try to get out of a CCA.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397543 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 16:15 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
news:4hk9jiF1s687pU1 [at] individual.net...
> At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
> announcing:
>
>> Alex wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active CCAs, and
>> that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
>
> No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details so
> there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it lost/stolen
> to try to get out of a CCA.
Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for services that
have been cancelled.
It beats me why they need this facility on accounts that are payed in
advance.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397544 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 16:22 |
|
At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>
> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4hk9jiF1s687pU1 [at] individual.net...
> > At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
> > announcing:
> >
> > > Alex wrote:
> > >
> >>> 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.
> > >
> > > Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
> > > CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
> >
> > No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details so
> > there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
> > lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
>
> Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for services
> that have been cancelled.
No.
> It beats me why they need this facility on accounts that are payed in
> advance.
I'm not sure I understand this comment.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397545 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 16:41 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
news:4hkesoFmenU1 [at] individual.net...
> At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>
>>
>> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4hk9jiF1s687pU1 [at] individual.net...
>> > At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
>> > announcing:
>> >
>> > > Alex wrote:
>> > >
>> >>> 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.
>> > >
>> > > Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
>> > > CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
>> >
>> > No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details so
>> > there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
>> > lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
>>
>> Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for services
>> that have been cancelled.
>
> No.
Thats what they have done to me. Fortunately in the past changing the card
issue has prevented this.
>
>> It beats me why they need this facility on accounts that are payed in
>> advance.
>
> I'm not sure I understand this comment.
No I'm not surprised you don't understand. If a service is paid for in
advance why do companies need to have the right to take money from a
customer's account against the customer's wishes.
I liked the traditional model where the customer pays in advance and the
service is provided,or the customer does not pay in advance the service is
not provided. Simple, so why do we need to involve debt collectors?
It seems to me that the model of a customer paying in advance to continue a
service if he is happy and not paying if he is not is a good one.
The model
The model where a customer is pursued by debt collectors for a service that
he didn't want (and could have been canceled as soon as the advance payment
was missed) is not a good one.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397547 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 17:35 |
|
At 15:41:59 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>
> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4hkesoFmenU1 [at] individual.net...
> > At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> >
> > >
> >>"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4hk9jiF1s687pU1 [at] individual.net...
> >>> At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
> >>> announcing:
> > > >
> >>> > Alex wrote:
> >>> >
> >>>>> 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.
> >>> >
> >>> > Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
> >>> > CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be
> deleted?
> > > >
> >>> No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details
> so >>> there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
> >>> lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
> > >
> > > Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for
> > > services that have been cancelled.
> >
> > No.
>
> Thats what they have done to me. Fortunately in the past changing the
> card issue has prevented this.
And if you had cancelled the CCA then you could have instructed your
card issuer to charge the amount back.
> >
> > > It beats me why they need this facility on accounts that are
> > > payed in advance.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand this comment.
>
> No I'm not surprised you don't understand. If a service is paid for
> in advance why do companies need to have the right to take money from
> a customer's account against the customer's wishes.
If you signed up for a CCA then it's not against your wishes. If you
wish to cancel a CCA then you should do so with the retailer.
> I liked the traditional model where the customer pays in advance and
> the service is provided,or the customer does not pay in advance the
> service is not provided.
And if it's a recurring service you can use SO, DD or CCA rather than
contact the service provider each period.
> Simple, so why do we need to involve debt
> collectors?
Erm, we don't?
> It seems to me that the model of a customer paying in advance to
> continue a service if he is happy and not paying if he is not is a
> good one.
>
> The model
> The model where a customer is pursued by debt collectors for a
> service that he didn't want (and could have been canceled as soon as
> the advance payment was missed) is not a good one.
Then cancel it as per the terms you agreed to.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397548 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 18:11 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
news:4hkj6uF1epqU1 [at] individual.net...
> At 15:41:59 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>
>>
>> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4hkesoFmenU1 [at] individual.net...
>> > At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>> >
>> > >
>> >>"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:4hk9jiF1s687pU1 [at] individual.net...
>> >>> At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
>> >>> announcing:
>> > > >
>> >>> > Alex wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
>> >>> > CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be
>> deleted?
>> > > >
>> >>> No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details
>> so >>> there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
>> >>> lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
>> > >
>> > > Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for
>> > > services that have been cancelled.
>> >
>> > No.
>>
>> Thats what they have done to me. Fortunately in the past changing the
>> card issue has prevented this.
>
> And if you had cancelled the CCA then you could have instructed your
> card issuer to charge the amount back.
>
I canceled the account. I owed them nothing they should have taken nothing.
I don't know if that is the same as cancelling the CCA. As it was I didn't
have to spend a lot of time and effort working out how to get my money back
because they never got it in the first place.
>> >
>> > > It beats me why they need this facility on accounts that are
>> > > payed in advance.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I understand this comment.
>>
>> No I'm not surprised you don't understand. If a service is paid for
>> in advance why do companies need to have the right to take money from
>> a customer's account against the customer's wishes.
>
> If you signed up for a CCA then it's not against your wishes. If you
> wish to cancel a CCA then you should do so with the retailer.
>
As I said I did. In fact on the only two occasions that I have canceled CCA
contracts the company has overcharged (or tried to) me at the end of the
contract. Not much, but still annoying.
>> I liked the traditional model where the customer pays in advance and
>> the service is provided,or the customer does not pay in advance the
>> service is not provided.
>
> And if it's a recurring service you can use SO, DD or CCA rather than
> contact the service provider each period.
>
No this isn't true many companies do not offer SO. I chose a credit card
payment because naively I thought it safer than a DD. I would never chose
either DD or CCA if I could pay in another way or get the service elsewhere.
>> Simple, so why do we need to involve debt
>> collectors?
>
> Erm, we don't?
>
No no one needs to lose out. The companies are pushing credit onto people
who don't want it.
>> It seems to me that the model of a customer paying in advance to
>> continue a service if he is happy and not paying if he is not is a
>> good one.
>>
>> The model
>> The model where a customer is pursued by debt collectors for a
>> service that he didn't want (and could have been canceled as soon as
>> the advance payment was missed) is not a good one.
>
> Then cancel it as per the terms you agreed to.
As I said I did. But the whole model is a con to get people to stop thinking
about how much they are paying and to get them to pay for stuff they don't
want.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397549 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 18:24 |
|
At 17:11:28 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>
> "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> news:4hkj6uF1epqU1 [at] individual.net...
> > At 15:41:59 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> >
> > >
> >>"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4hkesoFmenU1 [at] individual.net...
> >>> At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by
> announcing:
> > > >
> >>> >
> >>>>"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
> >>> > news:4hk9jiF1s687pU1 [at] individual.net...
> >>>>> At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
> >>>>> announcing:
> >>> > >
> >>>>> > Alex wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
> >>>>> > CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be
> > > deleted?
> >>> > >
> >>>>> No. It means that retailers always have the correct card
> details >>so >>> there's none of this trying to cancel the card or
> report it >>>>> lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
> >>> >
> >>> > Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for
> >>> > services that have been cancelled.
> > > >
> >>> No.
> > >
> > > Thats what they have done to me. Fortunately in the past changing
> > > the card issue has prevented this.
> >
> > And if you had cancelled the CCA then you could have instructed your
> > card issuer to charge the amount back.
> >
>
> I canceled the account. I owed them nothing they should have taken
> nothing. I don't know if that is the same as cancelling the CCA. As
> it was I didn't have to spend a lot of time and effort working out
> how to get my money back because they never got it in the first place.
Then I don't understand the problem. Weren't we talking about
retailers taking money after cancelling CCAs?
> > > I liked the traditional model where the customer pays in advance
> > > and the service is provided,or the customer does not pay in
> > > advance the service is not provided.
> >
> > And if it's a recurring service you can use SO, DD or CCA rather
> > than contact the service provider each period.
> >
>
> No this isn't true many companies do not offer SO.
They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
"phone/internet banking" or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
won't even know it *is* a SO.
> I chose a credit
> card payment because naively I thought it safer than a DD. I would
> never chose either DD or CCA if I could pay in another way or get the
> service elsewhere.
I have no problems with choosing DD. Any problems are sorted with a 2
minute call to the bank requesting the refund they're obliged to give.
I've never had a problem with CCAs either and I enjoy getting the
cashback on regular bills.
> > > Simple, so why do we need to involve debt
> > > collectors?
> >
> > Erm, we don't?
> >
>
> No no one needs to lose out. The companies are pushing credit onto
> people who don't want it.
I meant "What debt collectors?"
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397575 ] |
Mi, 12 Juli 2006 23:48 |
|
"Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote in message
news:4hkm2kF1vprU1 [at] individual.net...
> At 17:11:28 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>> No this isn't true many companies do not offer SO.
>
> They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
> "phone/internet banking" or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
> won't even know it *is* a SO.
>
Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the only
supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to pay DD or CCA.
If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain. But not only do the insist
that they can take an unlimited amount of money from my account they
regularly mess it up.
>
> I meant "What debt collectors?"
The OP was being threatened with debt collectors.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397577 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 01:29 |
|
In uk.legal John <John [at] spam.co.uk> wrote:
>> They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
>> "phone/internet banking" or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
>> won't even know it *is* a SO.
> Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the only
> supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to pay DD or CCA.
> If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain. But not only do the insist
> that they can take an unlimited amount of money from my account they
> regularly mess it up.
An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an extra
few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly position...
Telewest being a prime example.
This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of money
in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may even not
have a suitable bank account.
Axel
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397578 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 01:36 |
|
axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
> In uk.legal John <John [at] spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
>>> "phone/internet banking" or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
>>> won't even know it *is* a SO.
>
>> Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the only
>> supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to pay DD or CCA.
>> If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain. But not only do the insist
>> that they can take an unlimited amount of money from my account they
>> regularly mess it up.
>
> An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an extra
> few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
>
> This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly position...
> Telewest being a prime example.
>
> This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
> is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of money
> in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may even not
> have a suitable bank account.
>
> Axel
>
<flame proof suit on> ;-)
Well if they can't afford DD, they can't afford cable tv then!
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397579 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 02:15 |
|
In uk.legal Sharky <bill [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
>> An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an extra
>> few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
>> This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly position...
>> Telewest being a prime example.
>> This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
>> is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of money
>> in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may even not
>> have a suitable bank account.
> <flame proof suit on> ;-)
Acknowledged.
> Well if they can't afford DD, they can't afford cable tv then!
No. What is happening is that they can afford cable TV (or telephone
or Internet)... the service would be cut off if they could not...
but are just not in a position for it to be paid automatically from
a specific bank account and are being charged extra for paying it
from other accounts or maybe in cash.
Some people can afford to have a couple of hundred pounds sitting
around in a current account (I used to have substantially more than
that until I overcame my natural laziness to actually put it somewhere
more profitable) just in case of sudden spikes in their phone bill.
I am very cautious of allowing anyone to access one of my bank
accounts without my say so for every transaction. It is my business
how I pay a bill, not the business of a utility to rummage in my
bank account and perhaps extract more than I was expecting and
creating a chain reaction when I attempt to write cheques elsewhere
without realising that they might be bounced or that I might incur
charges for an unauthorised overdraft.
Axel
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397580 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 07:26 |
|
In message <4hlff4F5jieU1 [at] individual.net>, Sharky <bill [at] hotmail.com>
writes
>>
><flame proof suit on> ;-)
>
>Well if they can't afford DD, they can't afford cable tv then!
There's a fairly valid point behind that comment insofar as knowledge of
household budgeting amongst those on lowest incomes and deepest in debt
is usually quite low. Financial education is vital and I regularly need
to talk to people struggling with money about the difference between
"want" and "need". I recall one man, subject to a possession order on
his house but steadfastly refusing to give up his Sky Television package
in order to free up some money as he felt it was essential for the
children. I was left trying to get the point across to him by expressing
the hope that the owner of whichever shop doorway he and his children
ended up living in would allow him to put his sky dish up there.
--
Mike_B
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397587 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 13:07 |
|
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
>In uk.legal John <John [at] spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
>>> "phone/internet banking" or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
>>> won't even know it *is* a SO.
>
>> Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the only
>> supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to pay DD or CCA.
>> If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain. But not only do the insist
>> that they can take an unlimited amount of money from my account they
>> regularly mess it up.
>
>An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an extra
>few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
>
>This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly position...
>Telewest being a prime example.
>
>This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
>is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of money
>in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may even not
>have a suitable bank account.
>
I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental to
£15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that vary
from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how much is
needed to be left in the bank account. Add in the chance of someone
adding a couple of zeros to the amount due to a typing error I reckon
DD for phone bills are dangerous.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397588 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 13:12 |
|
At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
>
> >In uk.legal John <John [at] spam.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a
> payment via >>> "phone/internet banking" or direct transfer will
> accept a SO and they >>> won't even know it is a SO.
> >
> >> Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the
> only >> supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to
> pay DD or CCA. >> If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain.
> But not only do the insist >> that they can take an unlimited amount
> of money from my account they >> regularly mess it up.
> >
> > An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an
> > extra few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
> >
> > This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly
> > position... Telewest being a prime example.
> >
> > This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
> > is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of
> > money in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may
> > even not have a suitable bank account.
> >
> I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental to
> £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that vary
> from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how much is
> needed to be left in the bank account.
That's why you're notified well in advance.
> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397593 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 15:59 |
|
On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>
>> I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental to
>> £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that vary
>> from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how much is
>> needed to be left in the bank account.
>
>That's why you're notified well in advance.
Not with variable monthly bills.
>
>> 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.
Only if you can prove it was wrongly taken. A phone company claiming
£100 instead of £25 would be in very strong position to argue the
bill was correct even if it was wrong. The customer has no way of
proving otherwise.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397594 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 16:02 |
|
At 14:59:03 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>
> > At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
> >
>
>
> >> I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental
> to >> £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that
> vary >> from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how
> much is >> needed to be left in the bank account.
> >
> > That's why you're notified well in advance.
>
> Not with variable monthly bills.
Yes. In such cases you will receive a monthly statement in advance of
the payment being taken.
> >> 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.
>
> Only if you can prove it was wrongly taken.
Wrong! You do not have to prove any such thing.
> A phone company claiming
> £100 instead of £25 would be in very strong position to argue the
> bill was correct even if it was wrong. The customer has no way of
> proving otherwise.
The phone company is perfectly entitled to pursue you for the amount by
other means but that is not under debate.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397595 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 16:09 |
|
Alex wrote:
> At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
> announcing:
>
>> Alex wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active CCAs,
>> and that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
>
> No.
What do the card companies do with the CCA files submitted, then ?
>It means that retailers always have the correct card details so
> there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
> lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
Pshaw !
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397604 ] |
Do, 13 Juli 2006 19:01 |
|
On 13 Jul 2006 14:02:08 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>At 14:59:03 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>
>> On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>> >
>>
>>
>> >> I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental
>> to >> £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that
>> vary >> from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how
>> much is >> needed to be left in the bank account.
>> >
>> > That's why you're notified well in advance.
>>
>> Not with variable monthly bills.
>
>Yes. In such cases you will receive a monthly statement in advance of
>the payment being taken.
And when you complain you will be ignored.
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Only if you can prove it was wrongly taken.
>
>Wrong! You do not have to prove any such thing.
Wanna bet?
Been there.
That's why I don't use DD or that bank anymore.
>
>> A phone company claiming
>> £100 instead of £25 would be in very strong position to argue the
>> bill was correct even if it was wrong. The customer has no way of
>> proving otherwise.
>
>The phone company is perfectly entitled to pursue you for the amount by
>other means but that is not under debate.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397689 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 21:44 |
|
On 12 Jul 2006 16:24:53 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>I have no problems with choosing DD. Any problems are sorted with a 2
>minute call to the bank requesting the refund they're obliged to give.
>I've never had a problem with CCAs either and I enjoy getting the
>cashback on regular bills.
>
If only it was that simple.
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397690 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 22:02 |
|
At 20:44:42 on 14/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.legal by
announcing:
> On 12 Jul 2006 16:24:53 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I have no problems with choosing DD. Any problems are sorted with
> > a 2 minute call to the bank requesting the refund they're obliged
> > to give. I've never had a problem with CCAs either and I enjoy
> > getting the cashback on regular bills.
> >
> If only it was that simple.
Oh, it is. Like I said, I've never had any problems which weren't
rectified with a very short phone call.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397691 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 22:02 |
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:15:05 GMT, axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
>In uk.legal Sharky <bill [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
>
>>> An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an extra
>>> few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
>
>>> This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly position...
>>> Telewest being a prime example.
>
>>> This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
>>> is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of money
>>> in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may even not
>>> have a suitable bank account.
>
>> <flame proof suit on> ;-)
>
>Acknowledged.
>
>> Well if they can't afford DD, they can't afford cable tv then!
>
>No. What is happening is that they can afford cable TV (or telephone
>or Internet)... the service would be cut off if they could not...
>but are just not in a position for it to be paid automatically from
>a specific bank account and are being charged extra for paying it
>from other accounts or maybe in cash.
>
>Some people can afford to have a couple of hundred pounds sitting
>around in a current account (I used to have substantially more than
>that until I overcame my natural laziness to actually put it somewhere
>more profitable) just in case of sudden spikes in their phone bill.
>
>I am very cautious of allowing anyone to access one of my bank
>accounts without my say so for every transaction. It is my business
>how I pay a bill, not the business of a utility to rummage in my
>bank account and perhaps extract more than I was expecting and
>creating a chain reaction when I attempt to write cheques elsewhere
>without realising that they might be bounced or that I might incur
>charges for an unauthorised overdraft.
>
>Axel
EDF Energy had spent two years providing letters for a company that
had nothing to do with the real supply of electricity and then started
making up a different supply address also. When I complained (it took
them two years!) it would appear that the only solution they could
come up with was to cancel the account and make a refund directly into
a bank account and then print bills for a new account. They didn't
send the bills because they wanted to send a letter with the bill but
forgot to send the letter or the bills. They attempted to take the
money out of a bank account that had very little money in it and 70
pounds bank charges were incurred. I complained and they said they
would credit the account with the bank charges on the next bill. The
next bill arrived with no credit so I decided to cancel the direct
debits. EDF Energy are one of these companies that employs many
undertrained and underintelligent call monkeys. One of them couldn't
understand the concept of bank charges being charged by a bank and
kept saying "we haven't charged your account"! They also would send
letters saying they were going to merge the two accounts into one and
then not doing it. When I called them to talk about the merging of the
accounts they said they couldn't do it. Despite this, more letters
continued to be received saying they were going to merge the accounts!
I have had other examples of EDF Energy Ltd. staff being unable to
understand what their invoicing system does, ridiculous bills being
altered and printed out for three years because three months of bills
were at the wrong rate and then when queried nobody would be able to
deal with it and people avoided returning calls and didn't put notes
on the system.
Until large businesses can be run with a modicum of efficiency I will
not trust DD's.
CCA's are set up without people being aware of the effect. They should
be banned.
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397692 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 22:05 |
|
On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk wrote:
>>
>> >In uk.legal John <John [at] spam.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a
>> payment via >>> "phone/internet banking" or direct transfer will
>> accept a SO and they >>> won't even know it is a SO.
>> >
>> >> Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the
>> only >> supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to
>> pay DD or CCA. >> If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain.
>> But not only do the insist >> that they can take an unlimited amount
>> of money from my account they >> regularly mess it up.
>> >
>> > An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an
>> > extra few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
>> >
>> > This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly
>> > position... Telewest being a prime example.
>> >
>> > This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
>> > is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of
>> > money in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may
>> > even not have a suitable bank account.
>> >
>> I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental to
>> £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that vary
>> from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how much is
>> needed to be left in the bank account.
>
>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.
>> 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.
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397694 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 22:10 |
|
On 14 Jul 2006 20:02:30 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>At 20:44:42 on 14/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.legal by
>announcing:
>
>> On 12 Jul 2006 16:24:53 GMT, "Alex" <no.spam [at] mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I have no problems with choosing DD. Any problems are sorted with
>> > a 2 minute call to the bank requesting the refund they're obliged
>> > to give. I've never had a problem with CCAs either and I enjoy
>> > getting the cashback on regular bills.
>> >
>> If only it was that simple.
>
>Oh, it is. Like I said, I've never had any problems which weren't
>rectified with a very short phone call.
Plenty of other people have.
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397696 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 22:21 |
|
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:
>
> > At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk
> wrote: >>
> >> >In uk.legal John <John [at] spam.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a
> >> payment via >>> "phone/internet banking" or direct transfer will
> >> accept a SO and they >>> won't even know it is a SO.
> >> >
> >> >> Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the
> >> only >> supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree
> to >> pay DD or CCA. >> If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't
> complain. >> But not only do the insist >> that they can take an
> unlimited amount >> of money from my account they >> regularly mess
> it up. >> >
> >> > An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an
> >> > extra few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
> >> >
> >> > This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly
> >> > position... Telewest being a prime example.
> >> >
> >> > This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most...
> that >> > is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient
> amount of >> > money in a particular bank account to meet bills by
> DD. Or they may >> > even not have a suitable bank account.
> >> >
> >> I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental
> to >> £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that
> vary >> from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how
> much is >> needed to be left in the bank account.
> >
> > 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."
> >> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397701 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 23:12 |
|
Peter Saxton wrote:
> 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 they are breaching the rules and deserve to have their knuckles
rapped.
>>then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
>
> Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts, and
jeopardising their DD licence.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397702 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 03:06 |
|
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:
>>
>> > At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, axel [at] white-eagle.invalid.uk
>> wrote: >>
>> >> >In uk.legal John <John [at] spam.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>> They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a
>> >> payment via >>> "phone/internet banking" or direct transfer will
>> >> accept a SO and they >>> won't even know it is a SO.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the
>> >> only >> supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree
>> to >> pay DD or CCA. >> If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't
>> complain. >> But not only do the insist >> that they can take an
>> unlimited amount >> of money from my account they >> regularly mess
>> it up. >> >
>> >> > An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an
>> >> > extra few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly
>> >> > position... Telewest being a prime example.
>> >> >
>> >> > This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most...
>> that >> > is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient
>> amount of >> > money in a particular bank account to meet bills by
>> DD. Or they may >> > even not have a suitable bank account.
>> >> >
>> >> I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental
>> to >> £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that
>> vary >> from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how
>> much is >> needed to be left in the bank account.
>> >
>> > 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."
>
You think I don't contact them? They are run by idiots. Many websites
are full of statements that are not true. They said that it was the
fault of Royal Mail. I said they chose to use Royal Mail, they should
use a supplier that delivers quicker. They said they could send the
bill by email. I said yes but I also wanted a paper copy (due to the
need to prove address). They said they couldn't do that. Another
example of incompetence - their computer system only allowed one
choice of delivery.
>> >> 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.
That makes paying by direct debit a lot of hassle and a perfect reason
to try to avoid paying by that method.
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397703 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 03:13 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>Peter Saxton wrote:
>
>> 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 they are breaching the rules and deserve to have their knuckles
>rapped.
>
That still doesnt mean I am not inconvenienced by direct debit.
>>>then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
>>
>> Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
>
>Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts, and
>jeopardising their DD licence.
No it doesn't. An obligation doesn't mean that you should mindlessly
assume that companies adhere to their obligations. The whole point I
am making is that, despite a few people saying that DDs are good
because there are rules, having rules doesn't mean that everyone will
take notice of them. You sound like one of these people who thinks
that there are rules against bank robberies so that must mean that
nobody will try to rob a bank!
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397708 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 10:33 |
|
Alex wrote:
> At 12:03:32 on 12/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>
>
> There's a CCA flag, certainly with UK transactions.
[snip]
We were told otherwise before, IIRC, so thanks for clearing that one up.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397743 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 21:09 |
|
Peter Saxton wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>Peter Saxton wrote:
>>>
>>> Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
>>
>>Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts, and
>>jeopardising their DD licence.
>
> No it doesn't. An obligation doesn't mean that you should mindlessly
> assume that companies adhere to their obligations. The whole point I
> am making is that, despite a few people saying that DDs are good
> because there are rules, having rules doesn't mean that everyone will
> take notice of them. You sound like one of these people who thinks
> that there are rules against bank robberies so that must mean that
> nobody will try to rob a bank!
Banks get robbed by people who willingly break the law.
But *banks* cannot get away with deliberately refusing to
honour the DD guarantee. Yes, there are the occasional idiots
to be found in the lower echelons of bank staff who mistakenly think
you need to provide evidence that you have been wronged, and it must
be scrutinised before a refund is considered, or who will try to
fob you off by asking you to take the matter up with the merchant,
but this is "a training issue" and these things are sent to try us
and it's up to us to escalate the matter where necessary to get the
monkeys trained.
The DD guarantee is cast-iron and absolutely safe.
CCAs, on the other hand, are best avoided.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397752 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 23:33 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>Peter Saxton wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>> <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>>Peter Saxton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
>>>
>>>Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts, and
>>>jeopardising their DD licence.
>>
>> No it doesn't. An obligation doesn't mean that you should mindlessly
>> assume that companies adhere to their obligations. The whole point I
>> am making is that, despite a few people saying that DDs are good
>> because there are rules, having rules doesn't mean that everyone will
>> take notice of them. You sound like one of these people who thinks
>> that there are rules against bank robberies so that must mean that
>> nobody will try to rob a bank!
>
>Banks get robbed by people who willingly break the law.
>
>But *banks* cannot get away with deliberately refusing to
>honour the DD guarantee. Yes, there are the occasional idiots
>to be found in the lower echelons of bank staff who mistakenly think
>you need to provide evidence that you have been wronged, and it must
>be scrutinised before a refund is considered, or who will try to
>fob you off by asking you to take the matter up with the merchant,
>but this is "a training issue" and these things are sent to try us
>and it's up to us to escalate the matter where necessary to get the
>monkeys trained.
>
>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?
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397757 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 00:35 |
|
At 22:33:53 on 15/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.finance by
announcing:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> > Peter Saxton wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> >> <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> > > > Peter Saxton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
> > > >
> > > > Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts,
> > > > and jeopardising their DD licence.
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. An obligation doesn't mean that you should
> mindlessly >> assume that companies adhere to their obligations. The
> whole point I >> am making is that, despite a few people saying that
> DDs are good >> because there are rules, having rules doesn't mean
> that everyone will >> take notice of them. You sound like one of
> these people who thinks >> that there are rules against bank
> robberies so that must mean that >> nobody will try to rob a bank!
> >
> > Banks get robbed by people who willingly break the law.
> >
> > But banks cannot get away with deliberately refusing to
> > honour the DD guarantee. Yes, there are the occasional idiots
> > to be found in the lower echelons of bank staff who mistakenly think
> > you need to provide evidence that you have been wronged, and it must
> > be scrutinised before a refund is considered, or who will try to
> > fob you off by asking you to take the matter up with the merchant,
> > but this is "a training issue" and these things are sent to try us
> > and it's up to us to escalate the matter where necessary to get the
> > monkeys trained.
> >
> > 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?
DDs for certain services can reduce your bill, but otherwise nothing.
Of course, there are still those strange people who don't have (or
trust) that interweb. Some people still pay everything by cheque!
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397758 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 01:02 |
|
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
2) It can be forgotten
3) You can make a mistake
I have one of my credit cards set up to DD the full balance from my
bank each month. Never any problem. I have another card set up so
that I have to make the payment explicitly. Usually, after the bill
comes, I go online and schedule the payment in advance, to take place
a few days before it is due, which is exactly what you are suggesting.
(Actually I didn't really get into online banking until about 5 years
ago or so, previously I always made the explicit payments by cheque
over the counter at a bank).
Sometimes, I put the bill aside to pay it later but then (2) happens.
To mitigate the dire consequences of this I then changed it to DD the
minimum payment each month, so I still have to manually remit the
difference between the full balance and the minimum payment, but if I
forget, at most I pay some interest, but no penalty/admin charges.
Recently I fell victim to (3) and not only forgot to subtract the
minimum payment, but I also managed to transpose two digits in the
amount, as a result of which my card account was overpaid to the
tune of nearly £100.
|
|
|
| Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed [message #397759 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 03:30 |
|
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.
>2) It can be forgotten
I have a tray with payments due which I look at every morning.
>3) You can make a mistake
>
I can't remember any case of me making a mistake whereas I remember
several cases of suppliers making mistakes with DDs.
--
Peter Saxton from London
peter [at] petersaxton.co.uk
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mi Sep 8 12:42:40 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07041 Sekunden |
