Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

wwwchildsexcom, conradelektronik detektiv anwesend?, pro vorsorge plus 4u liberty Europe fonds, einkommensteuervorauszahlung in skr03 buchen, einkommensteuer vorauszahlung buchen skr 04, was bedeutet über eine etwaige verrechnung des restguthabens mit gegenansprüchen erhalten sie eine besondere mitteilung, daumenschiene auto fahren, bverwverfg, steuerbescheid verrechnung des restguthabens mit gegenabsprüchen, verzugszinsen deliktsrecht

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-11 16:40:29 by Graham Murray

Ronald Raygun &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; writes:

&gt; It would be impractical, because the repeat system is just tagged on to
&gt; 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?

Report this message

#2: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-11 16:54:01 by Ronald Raygun

Graham Murray wrote:

&gt; Ronald Raygun &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; writes:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; It would be impractical, because the repeat system is just tagged on to
&gt;&gt; the normal one-off system.
&gt;
&gt; In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not present) transaction
&gt; be declined if the expiry date is wrong, the wrong security code is
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#3: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 13:03:32 by Tim

&gt; &gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt; It would be impractical, because the repeat system
&gt; &gt;&gt; is just tagged on to the normal one-off system.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; Graham Murray wrote:
&gt; &gt; In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
&gt; &gt; present) transaction be declined if the expiry
&gt; &gt; date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
&gt; &gt; etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
&gt;
&quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
&gt; transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if used.
&gt;
&gt; In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
&gt; at the time authority was first given, and the details would
&gt; 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 &quot;one-off&quot;, yet a CCA will be honoured but a
&quot;one-off&quot; will be declined; how do they know whether to
honour or decline, given the same (now invalid) details?

Report this message

#4: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 14:00:13 by Ronald Raygun

Tim wrote:

&gt;&gt; &gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; It would be impractical, because the repeat system
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; is just tagged on to the normal one-off system.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; Graham Murray wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt; In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
&gt;&gt; &gt; present) transaction be declined if the expiry
&gt;&gt; &gt; date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
&gt;&gt; &gt; etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
&gt;&gt;
&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
&gt;&gt; transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if used.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
&gt;&gt; at the time authority was first given, and the details would
&gt;&gt; then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.
&gt;
&gt; When the retailer provides those same details to the card
&gt; co *after* the expiry date (so they are now invalid), then
&gt; how does the card co know to honour the transaction?

I don't know. It could be that your assumption &quot;so they are
now invalid&quot; 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).

&gt; You've suggested that they don't know whether it is a
&gt; CCA or a &quot;one-off&quot;, yet a CCA will be honoured but a
&gt; &quot;one-off&quot; will be declined; how do they know whether to
&gt; honour or decline, given the same (now invalid) details?

See above. &quot;Now invalid&quot; 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.

Report this message

#5: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 14:06:58 by BrianW

Ronald Raygun wrote:
&gt; Tim wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; It would be impractical, because the repeat system
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; is just tagged on to the normal one-off system.
&gt;&gt;&gt; Graham Murray wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; present) transaction be declined if the expiry
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
&gt;&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt;&gt; Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
&gt;&gt;&gt; transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if used.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
&gt;&gt;&gt; at the time authority was first given, and the details would
&gt;&gt;&gt; then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.
&gt;&gt; When the retailer provides those same details to the card
&gt;&gt; co *after* the expiry date (so they are now invalid), then
&gt;&gt; how does the card co know to honour the transaction?
&gt;
&gt; I don't know. It could be that your assumption &quot;so they are
&gt; now invalid&quot; is false, i.e. that the mere fact that the
&gt; expiry date has passed is insufficient to render a transaction
&gt; invalid, provided the authorisation by the customer was
&gt; given before that date (and presumably that date accompanies
&gt; the request for funds).
&gt;
&gt;&gt; You've suggested that they don't know whether it is a
&gt;&gt; CCA or a &quot;one-off&quot;, yet a CCA will be honoured but a
&gt;&gt; &quot;one-off&quot; will be declined; how do they know whether to
&gt;&gt; honour or decline, given the same (now invalid) details?
&gt;
&gt; See above. &quot;Now invalid&quot; might be false. Consider also the
&gt; case of pre-authorised one-offs. Suppose you hire a car.
&gt; You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment to cover
&gt; a damage deposit, which won't actually get charged until and
&gt; unless you return the car full of dents and scratches.
&gt; Suppose further that the hire period begins during the last
&gt; validity month of the card, but ends during the first or even
&gt; second months thereafter. Technically, a payment request for
&gt; the deposit might be declined on the basis that it's a month
&gt; or two too late.
&gt;
&gt; I'm just speculating. I don't really know how they do it or
&gt; whether they distinguish. One possibility is that there is
&gt; a two stage process. First you obtain authorisation from the
&gt; card company (on line or by phone) and are given an authorisation
&gt; reference number. This number may or may not then be used to
&gt; request a payment. In the case of normal one-off shopping
&gt; transactions the payment *might* be requested at the same time as
&gt; the authorisation, or the payment requests may be deferred, e.g.
&gt; by being accumulated into weekly or monthly batches, or they may
&gt; be deferred pending some conditional event (such as a call being
&gt; made against a deposit). Or it might never be used (if the deposit
&gt; is not required).
&gt;
&gt; I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time the
&gt; authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation code
&gt; remains valid forever, and can be re-used. OK, in that case,
&gt; if the card company keeps track of whether it's been used before,
&gt; then it would, as a side-effect of this, know that it was a CCA
&gt; transaction.
&gt;
There are two options which the acquiring bank (card issuer) can
specify. One is &quot;accept prevalid if authorised&quot; and &quot;accept expired if
authorised&quot;. These particularly apply to CATs (continuous authority
transactions). In these cases the transaction will be referred.

The authorisation code is not &quot;carried over&quot;. It's either provided
automatically by the &quot;terminal&quot; or - if authorisation is required - by
the authorisation centre.

---
Brian

Report this message

#6: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 14:22:20 by alex

At 12:03:32 on 12/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; It would be impractical, because the repeat system
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; is just tagged on to the normal one-off system.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Graham Murray wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
&gt; &gt; &gt; present) transaction be declined if the expiry
&gt; &gt; &gt; date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
&gt; &gt; &gt; etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
&gt; &gt; transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if used.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
&gt; &gt; at the time authority was first given, and the details would
&gt; &gt; then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.
&gt;
&gt; When the retailer provides those same details to the card
&gt; co after the expiry date (so they are now invalid), then
&gt; how does the card co know to honour the transaction?

There's a CCA flag, certainly with UK transactions.

&gt; You've suggested that they don't know whether it is a
&gt; CCA or a &quot;one-off&quot;, yet a CCA will be honoured but a
&gt; &quot;one-off&quot; will be declined; how do they know whether to
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#7: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 14:34:06 by Ronald Raygun

Alex wrote:

&gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now submit a
&gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective issuers. The
&gt; 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?

Report this message

#8: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 14:52:04 by alex

At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
announcing:

&gt; Alex wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now submit a
&gt; &gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective issuers.
&gt; &gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
&gt;
&gt; Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active CCAs, and
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#9: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 16:15:41 by John

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
&gt; announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Alex wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now submit a
&gt;&gt; &gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective issuers.
&gt;&gt; &gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active CCAs, and
&gt;&gt; that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
&gt;
&gt; No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details so
&gt; there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it lost/stolen
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#10: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 16:22:21 by alex

At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt; At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
&gt; &gt; announcing:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Alex wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now
&gt; submit a &gt;&gt;&gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective
&gt; issuers. &gt;&gt;&gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the
&gt; card details.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
&gt; &gt; &gt; CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details so
&gt; &gt; there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
&gt; &gt; lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
&gt;
&gt; Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for services
&gt; that have been cancelled.

No.

&gt; It beats me why they need this facility on accounts that are payed in
&gt; advance.

I'm not sure I understand this comment.

Report this message

#11: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 16:41:59 by John

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4hkesoFmenU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hkesoFmenU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt; At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
&gt;&gt; &gt; announcing:
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Alex wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now
&gt;&gt; submit a &gt;&gt;&gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective
&gt;&gt; issuers. &gt;&gt;&gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the
&gt;&gt; card details.
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details so
&gt;&gt; &gt; there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
&gt;&gt; &gt; lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for services
&gt;&gt; that have been cancelled.
&gt;
&gt; No.

Thats what they have done to me. Fortunately in the past changing the card
issue has prevented this.

&gt;
&gt;&gt; It beats me why they need this facility on accounts that are payed in
&gt;&gt; advance.
&gt;
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#12: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 17:35:58 by alex

At 15:41:59 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hkesoFmenU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hkesoFmenU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt; At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; &gt; &gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; announcing:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Alex wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now
&gt; &gt;&gt;submit a &gt;&gt;&gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective
&gt; &gt;&gt;issuers. &gt;&gt;&gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the
&gt; &gt; &gt; card details.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be
&gt; deleted?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details
&gt; so &gt;&gt;&gt; there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for
&gt; &gt; &gt; services that have been cancelled.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; No.
&gt;
&gt; Thats what they have done to me. Fortunately in the past changing the
&gt; 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.

&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; It beats me why they need this facility on accounts that are
&gt; &gt; &gt; payed in advance.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; I'm not sure I understand this comment.
&gt;
&gt; No I'm not surprised you don't understand. If a service is paid for
&gt; in advance why do companies need to have the right to take money from
&gt; 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.

&gt; I liked the traditional model where the customer pays in advance and
&gt; the service is provided,or the customer does not pay in advance the
&gt; 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.

&gt; Simple, so why do we need to involve debt
&gt; collectors?

Erm, we don't?

&gt; It seems to me that the model of a customer paying in advance to
&gt; continue a service if he is happy and not paying if he is not is a
&gt; good one.
&gt;
&gt; The model
&gt; The model where a customer is pursued by debt collectors for a
&gt; service that he didn't want (and could have been canceled as soon as
&gt; the advance payment was missed) is not a good one.

Then cancel it as per the terms you agreed to.

Report this message

#13: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 18:11:28 by John

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4hkj6uF1epqU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hkj6uF1epqU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; At 15:41:59 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hkesoFmenU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hkesoFmenU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt; At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; announcing:
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Alex wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;submit a &gt;&gt;&gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;issuers. &gt;&gt;&gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; card details.
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be
&gt;&gt; deleted?
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; No. It means that retailers always have the correct card details
&gt;&gt; so &gt;&gt;&gt; there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; services that have been cancelled.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; No.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Thats what they have done to me. Fortunately in the past changing the
&gt;&gt; card issue has prevented this.
&gt;
&gt; And if you had cancelled the CCA then you could have instructed your
&gt; card issuer to charge the amount back.
&gt;

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.


&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; It beats me why they need this facility on accounts that are
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; payed in advance.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; I'm not sure I understand this comment.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; No I'm not surprised you don't understand. If a service is paid for
&gt;&gt; in advance why do companies need to have the right to take money from
&gt;&gt; a customer's account against the customer's wishes.
&gt;
&gt; If you signed up for a CCA then it's not against your wishes. If you
&gt; wish to cancel a CCA then you should do so with the retailer.
&gt;

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.

&gt;&gt; I liked the traditional model where the customer pays in advance and
&gt;&gt; the service is provided,or the customer does not pay in advance the
&gt;&gt; service is not provided.
&gt;
&gt; And if it's a recurring service you can use SO, DD or CCA rather than
&gt; contact the service provider each period.
&gt;

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.


&gt;&gt; Simple, so why do we need to involve debt
&gt;&gt; collectors?
&gt;
&gt; Erm, we don't?
&gt;

No no one needs to lose out. The companies are pushing credit onto people
who don't want it.

&gt;&gt; It seems to me that the model of a customer paying in advance to
&gt;&gt; continue a service if he is happy and not paying if he is not is a
&gt;&gt; good one.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; The model
&gt;&gt; The model where a customer is pursued by debt collectors for a
&gt;&gt; service that he didn't want (and could have been canceled as soon as
&gt;&gt; the advance payment was missed) is not a good one.
&gt;
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#14: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 18:24:53 by alex

At 17:11:28 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.legal by announcing:

&gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hkj6uF1epqU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hkj6uF1epqU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt; At 15:41:59 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; &gt; &gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hkesoFmenU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hkesoFmenU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; At 15:15:41 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.finance by
&gt; announcing:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hk9jiF1s687pU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; announcing:
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Alex wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;submit a &gt;&gt;&gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the
&gt; respective &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;issuers. &gt;&gt;&gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or
&gt; correct the &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; card details.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; CCAs, and that customers can ask for specific ones to be
&gt; &gt; &gt; deleted?
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; No. It means that retailers always have the correct card
&gt; details &gt;&gt;so &gt;&gt;&gt; there's none of this trying to cancel the card or
&gt; report it &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Or do you mean retailers can continue to bill customers for
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; services that have been cancelled.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; No.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Thats what they have done to me. Fortunately in the past changing
&gt; &gt; &gt; the card issue has prevented this.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; And if you had cancelled the CCA then you could have instructed your
&gt; &gt; card issuer to charge the amount back.
&gt; &gt;
&gt;
&gt; I canceled the account. I owed them nothing they should have taken
&gt; nothing. I don't know if that is the same as cancelling the CCA. As
&gt; it was I didn't have to spend a lot of time and effort working out
&gt; 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?

&gt; &gt; &gt; I liked the traditional model where the customer pays in advance
&gt; &gt; &gt; and the service is provided,or the customer does not pay in
&gt; &gt; &gt; advance the service is not provided.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; And if it's a recurring service you can use SO, DD or CCA rather
&gt; &gt; than contact the service provider each period.
&gt; &gt;
&gt;
&gt; No this isn't true many companies do not offer SO.

They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
&quot;phone/internet banking&quot; or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
won't even know it *is* a SO.

&gt; I chose a credit
&gt; card payment because naively I thought it safer than a DD. I would
&gt; never chose either DD or CCA if I could pay in another way or get the
&gt; 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.

&gt; &gt; &gt; Simple, so why do we need to involve debt
&gt; &gt; &gt; collectors?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Erm, we don't?
&gt; &gt;
&gt;
&gt; No no one needs to lose out. The companies are pushing credit onto
&gt; people who don't want it.

I meant &quot;What debt collectors?&quot;

Report this message

#15: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-12 23:48:22 by John

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4hkm2kF1vprU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hkm2kF1vprU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; At 17:11:28 on 12/07/2006, John delighted uk.legal by announcing:

&gt;&gt; No this isn't true many companies do not offer SO.
&gt;
&gt; They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
&gt; &quot;phone/internet banking&quot; or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
&gt; won't even know it *is* a SO.
&gt;

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.

&gt;
&gt; I meant &quot;What debt collectors?&quot;

The OP was being threatened with debt collectors.

Report this message

#16: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 01:29:49 by axel

In uk.legal John &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;spam.co.uk" target="_blank">John&#64;spam.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&gt; They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
&gt;&gt; &quot;phone/internet banking&quot; or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
&gt;&gt; won't even know it *is* a SO.

&gt; Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the only
&gt; supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to pay DD or CCA.
&gt; If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain. But not only do the insist
&gt; that they can take an unlimited amount of money from my account they
&gt; 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

Report this message

#17: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 01:36:53 by Sharky

<a href="mailto:axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk" target="_blank">axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk</a> wrote:
&gt; In uk.legal John &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;spam.co.uk" target="_blank">John&#64;spam.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;phone/internet banking&quot; or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
&gt;&gt;&gt; won't even know it *is* a SO.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the only
&gt;&gt; supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to pay DD or CCA.
&gt;&gt; If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain. But not only do the insist
&gt;&gt; that they can take an unlimited amount of money from my account they
&gt;&gt; regularly mess it up.
&gt;
&gt; An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an extra
&gt; few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
&gt;
&gt; This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly position...
&gt; Telewest being a prime example.
&gt;
&gt; This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
&gt; is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of money
&gt; in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may even not
&gt; have a suitable bank account.
&gt;
&gt; Axel
&gt;
&lt;flame proof suit on&gt; ;-)

Well if they can't afford DD, they can't afford cable tv then!

Report this message

#18: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 02:15:05 by axel

In uk.legal Sharky &lt;<a href="mailto:bill&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">bill&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; <a href="mailto:axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk" target="_blank">axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk</a> wrote:

&gt;&gt; An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an extra
&gt;&gt; few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.

&gt;&gt; This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly position...
&gt;&gt; Telewest being a prime example.

&gt;&gt; This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
&gt;&gt; is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of money
&gt;&gt; in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may even not
&gt;&gt; have a suitable bank account.

&gt; &lt;flame proof suit on&gt; ;-)

Acknowledged.

&gt; 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

Report this message

#19: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 07:26:41 by Mike_B

In message &lt;<a href="mailto:4hlff4F5jieU1&#64;individual.net" target="_blank">4hlff4F5jieU1&#64;individual.net</a>&gt;, Sharky &lt;<a href="mailto:bill&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">bill&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt;
writes
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&lt;flame proof suit on&gt; ;-)
&gt;
&gt;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
&quot;want&quot; and &quot;need&quot;. 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

Report this message

#20: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 13:07:52 by AlanG

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, <a href="mailto:axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk" target="_blank">axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk</a> wrote:

&gt;In uk.legal John &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;spam.co.uk" target="_blank">John&#64;spam.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a payment via
&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;phone/internet banking&quot; or direct transfer will accept a SO and they
&gt;&gt;&gt; won't even know it *is* a SO.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the only
&gt;&gt; supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to pay DD or CCA.
&gt;&gt; If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain. But not only do the insist
&gt;&gt; that they can take an unlimited amount of money from my account they
&gt;&gt; regularly mess it up.
&gt;
&gt;An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an extra
&gt;few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
&gt;
&gt;This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly position...
&gt;Telewest being a prime example.
&gt;
&gt;This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
&gt;is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of money
&gt;in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may even not
&gt;have a suitable bank account.
&gt;
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 <a href="http://www.teranews.com" target="_blank">http://www.teranews.com</a>

Report this message

#21: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 13:12:25 by alex

At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:

&gt; On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, <a href="mailto:axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk" target="_blank">axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk</a> wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;In uk.legal John &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;spam.co.uk" target="_blank">John&#64;spam.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a
&gt; payment via &gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;phone/internet banking&quot; or direct transfer will
&gt; accept a SO and they &gt;&gt;&gt; won't even know it is a SO.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the
&gt; only &gt;&gt; supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to
&gt; pay DD or CCA. &gt;&gt; If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain.
&gt; But not only do the insist &gt;&gt; that they can take an unlimited amount
&gt; of money from my account they &gt;&gt; regularly mess it up.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an
&gt; &gt; extra few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly
&gt; &gt; position... Telewest being a prime example.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
&gt; &gt; is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of
&gt; &gt; money in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may
&gt; &gt; even not have a suitable bank account.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental to
&gt; £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that vary
&gt; from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how much is
&gt; needed to be left in the bank account.

That's why you're notified well in advance.

&gt; Add in the chance of someone
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#22: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 15:59:03 by AlanG

On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
&gt;


&gt;&gt; I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental to
&gt;&gt; £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that vary
&gt;&gt; from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how much is
&gt;&gt; needed to be left in the bank account.
&gt;
&gt;That's why you're notified well in advance.

Not with variable monthly bills.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Add in the chance of someone
&gt;&gt; adding a couple of zeros to the amount due to a typing error
&gt;
&gt;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 <a href="http://www.teranews.com" target="_blank">http://www.teranews.com</a>

Report this message

#23: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 16:02:08 by alex

At 14:59:03 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
&gt; &gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental
&gt; to &gt;&gt; £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that
&gt; vary &gt;&gt; from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how
&gt; much is &gt;&gt; needed to be left in the bank account.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; That's why you're notified well in advance.
&gt;
&gt; Not with variable monthly bills.

Yes. In such cases you will receive a monthly statement in advance of
the payment being taken.

&gt; &gt;&gt; Add in the chance of someone
&gt; &gt;&gt; adding a couple of zeros to the amount due to a typing error
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
&gt;
&gt; Only if you can prove it was wrongly taken.

Wrong! You do not have to prove any such thing.

&gt; A phone company claiming
&gt; £100 instead of £25 would be in very strong position to argue the
&gt; bill was correct even if it was wrong. The customer has no way of
&gt; proving otherwise.

The phone company is perfectly entitled to pursue you for the amount by
other means but that is not under debate.

Report this message

#24: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 16:09:45 by callasberrGANSPAM

Alex wrote:
&gt; At 13:34:06 on 12/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.legal by
&gt; announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Alex wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now submit a
&gt;&gt;&gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective issuers.
&gt;&gt;&gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Wow! Does that mean card companies now have lists of active CCAs,
&gt;&gt; and that customers can ask for specific ones to be deleted?
&gt;
&gt; No.

What do the card companies do with the CCA files submitted, then ?

&gt;It means that retailers always have the correct card details so
&gt; there's none of this trying to cancel the card or report it
&gt; lost/stolen to try to get out of a CCA.

Pshaw !

Report this message

#25: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-13 19:01:55 by AlanG

On 13 Jul 2006 14:02:08 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;At 14:59:03 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental
&gt;&gt; to &gt;&gt; £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that
&gt;&gt; vary &gt;&gt; from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how
&gt;&gt; much is &gt;&gt; needed to be left in the bank account.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; That's why you're notified well in advance.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Not with variable monthly bills.
&gt;
&gt;Yes. In such cases you will receive a monthly statement in advance of
&gt;the payment being taken.

And when you complain you will be ignored.

&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Add in the chance of someone
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; adding a couple of zeros to the amount due to a typing error
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Only if you can prove it was wrongly taken.
&gt;
&gt;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.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; A phone company claiming
&gt;&gt; £100 instead of £25 would be in very strong position to argue the
&gt;&gt; bill was correct even if it was wrong. The customer has no way of
&gt;&gt; proving otherwise.
&gt;
&gt;The phone company is perfectly entitled to pursue you for the amount by
&gt;other means but that is not under debate.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from <a href="http://www.teranews.com" target="_blank">http://www.teranews.com</a>

Report this message

#26: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-14 21:44:42 by Peter Saxton

On 12 Jul 2006 16:24:53 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:


&gt;I have no problems with choosing DD. Any problems are sorted with a 2
&gt;minute call to the bank requesting the refund they're obliged to give.
&gt;I've never had a problem with CCAs either and I enjoy getting the
&gt;cashback on regular bills.
&gt;
If only it was that simple.

--
Peter Saxton from London
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#27: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-14 22:02:30 by alex

At 20:44:42 on 14/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.legal by
announcing:

&gt; On 12 Jul 2006 16:24:53 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &gt; I have no problems with choosing DD. Any problems are sorted with
&gt; &gt; a 2 minute call to the bank requesting the refund they're obliged
&gt; &gt; to give. I've never had a problem with CCAs either and I enjoy
&gt; &gt; getting the cashback on regular bills.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#28: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-14 22:02:50 by Peter Saxton

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:15:05 GMT, <a href="mailto:axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk" target="_blank">axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk</a> wrote:

&gt;In uk.legal Sharky &lt;<a href="mailto:bill&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">bill&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; <a href="mailto:axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk" target="_blank">axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk</a> wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an extra
&gt;&gt;&gt; few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly position...
&gt;&gt;&gt; Telewest being a prime example.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
&gt;&gt;&gt; is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of money
&gt;&gt;&gt; in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may even not
&gt;&gt;&gt; have a suitable bank account.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; &lt;flame proof suit on&gt; ;-)
&gt;
&gt;Acknowledged.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Well if they can't afford DD, they can't afford cable tv then!
&gt;
&gt;No. What is happening is that they can afford cable TV (or telephone
&gt;or Internet)... the service would be cut off if they could not...
&gt;but are just not in a position for it to be paid automatically from
&gt;a specific bank account and are being charged extra for paying it
&gt;from other accounts or maybe in cash.
&gt;
&gt;Some people can afford to have a couple of hundred pounds sitting
&gt;around in a current account (I used to have substantially more than
&gt;that until I overcame my natural laziness to actually put it somewhere
&gt;more profitable) just in case of sudden spikes in their phone bill.
&gt;
&gt;I am very cautious of allowing anyone to access one of my bank
&gt;accounts without my say so for every transaction. It is my business
&gt;how I pay a bill, not the business of a utility to rummage in my
&gt;bank account and perhaps extract more than I was expecting and
&gt;creating a chain reaction when I attempt to write cheques elsewhere
&gt;without realising that they might be bounced or that I might incur
&gt;charges for an unauthorised overdraft.
&gt;
&gt;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 &quot;we haven't charged your account&quot;! 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
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#29: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-14 22:05:31 by Peter Saxton

On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, <a href="mailto:axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk" target="_blank">axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk</a> wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;In uk.legal John &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;spam.co.uk" target="_blank">John&#64;spam.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a
&gt;&gt; payment via &gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;phone/internet banking&quot; or direct transfer will
&gt;&gt; accept a SO and they &gt;&gt;&gt; won't even know it is a SO.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the
&gt;&gt; only &gt;&gt; supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree to
&gt;&gt; pay DD or CCA. &gt;&gt; If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't complain.
&gt;&gt; But not only do the insist &gt;&gt; that they can take an unlimited amount
&gt;&gt; of money from my account they &gt;&gt; regularly mess it up.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an
&gt;&gt; &gt; extra few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly
&gt;&gt; &gt; position... Telewest being a prime example.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most... that
&gt;&gt; &gt; is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient amount of
&gt;&gt; &gt; money in a particular bank account to meet bills by DD. Or they may
&gt;&gt; &gt; even not have a suitable bank account.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental to
&gt;&gt; £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that vary
&gt;&gt; from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how much is
&gt;&gt; needed to be left in the bank account.
&gt;
&gt;That's why you're notified well in advance.
&gt;
Rubbish. I regularly receive invoices regarding a DD for Lloyds Ideal
that has only one or two days notice.

&gt;&gt; Add in the chance of someone
&gt;&gt; adding a couple of zeros to the amount due to a typing error
&gt;
&gt;then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.

Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.

--
Peter Saxton from London
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#30: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-14 22:10:26 by Peter Saxton

On 14 Jul 2006 20:02:30 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;At 20:44:42 on 14/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.legal by
&gt;announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On 12 Jul 2006 16:24:53 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; I have no problems with choosing DD. Any problems are sorted with
&gt;&gt; &gt; a 2 minute call to the bank requesting the refund they're obliged
&gt;&gt; &gt; to give. I've never had a problem with CCAs either and I enjoy
&gt;&gt; &gt; getting the cashback on regular bills.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; If only it was that simple.
&gt;
&gt;Oh, it is. Like I said, I've never had any problems which weren't
&gt;rectified with a very short phone call.

Plenty of other people have.

--
Peter Saxton from London
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#31: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-14 22:21:08 by alex

At 21:05:31 on 14/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.legal by
announcing:

&gt; On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, <a href="mailto:axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk" target="_blank">axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk</a>
&gt; wrote: &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;In uk.legal John &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;spam.co.uk" target="_blank">John&#64;spam.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a
&gt; &gt;&gt; payment via &gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;phone/internet banking&quot; or direct transfer will
&gt; &gt;&gt; accept a SO and they &gt;&gt;&gt; won't even know it is a SO.
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the
&gt; &gt;&gt; only &gt;&gt; supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree
&gt; to &gt;&gt; pay DD or CCA. &gt;&gt; If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't
&gt; complain. &gt;&gt; But not only do the insist &gt;&gt; that they can take an
&gt; unlimited amount &gt;&gt; of money from my account they &gt;&gt; regularly mess
&gt; it up. &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; extra few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; position... Telewest being a prime example.
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most...
&gt; that &gt;&gt; &gt; is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient
&gt; amount of &gt;&gt; &gt; money in a particular bank account to meet bills by
&gt; DD. Or they may &gt;&gt; &gt; even not have a suitable bank account.
&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental
&gt; to &gt;&gt; £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that
&gt; vary &gt;&gt; from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how
&gt; much is &gt;&gt; needed to be left in the bank account.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; That's why you're notified well in advance.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; Rubbish. I regularly receive invoices regarding a DD for Lloyds Ideal
&gt; that has only one or two days notice.

Then you should contact them. Their own website states that &quot;You'll
also be given plenty of time to check the bill before the payment is
made.&quot;

&gt; &gt;&gt; Add in the chance of someone
&gt; &gt;&gt; adding a couple of zeros to the amount due to a typing error
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
&gt;
&gt; Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.

Then you should follow the complaints procedure and contact the
ombudsman.

Report this message

#32: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-14 23:12:16 by Ronald Raygun

Peter Saxton wrote:

&gt; On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;That's why you're notified well in advance.
&gt;&gt;
&gt; Rubbish. I regularly receive invoices regarding a DD for Lloyds Ideal
&gt; that has only one or two days notice.

Then they are breaching the rules and deserve to have their knuckles
rapped.

&gt;&gt;then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
&gt;
&gt; Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.

Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts, and
jeopardising their DD licence.

Report this message

#33: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-15 03:06:36 by Peter Saxton

On 14 Jul 2006 20:21:08 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;At 21:05:31 on 14/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.legal by
&gt;announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; At 12:07:52 on 13/07/2006, AlanG delighted uk.legal by announcing:
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:29:49 GMT, <a href="mailto:axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk" target="_blank">axel&#64;white-eagle.invalid.uk</a>
&gt;&gt; wrote: &gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;In uk.legal John &lt;<a href="mailto:John&#64;spam.co.uk" target="_blank">John&#64;spam.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; They can't really refuse them. Any company that accepts a
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; payment via &gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;phone/internet banking&quot; or direct transfer will
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; accept a SO and they &gt;&gt;&gt; won't even know it is a SO.
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Many companies such as ISPs (BT Openworld in my case, then the
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; only &gt;&gt; supplier) only allow an account to be opened if you agree
&gt;&gt; to &gt;&gt; pay DD or CCA. &gt;&gt; If I could choose to pay SO I wouldn't
&gt;&gt; complain. &gt;&gt; But not only do the insist &gt;&gt; that they can take an
&gt;&gt; unlimited amount &gt;&gt; of money from my account they &gt;&gt; regularly mess
&gt;&gt; it up. &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; An increasingly common ploy is for a company to start charging an
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; extra few pounds for payments unless they are made by DD.
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; This is a major problem when the company is in a monopoly
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; position... Telewest being a prime example.
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; This sort of thing hits the poorer members of society most...
&gt;&gt; that &gt;&gt; &gt; is those people who cannot guarantee having a sufficient
&gt;&gt; amount of &gt;&gt; &gt; money in a particular bank account to meet bills by
&gt;&gt; DD. Or they may &gt;&gt; &gt; even not have a suitable bank account.
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I've just cancelled my NTL account after they upped my line rental
&gt;&gt; to &gt;&gt; £15 a month because I don't pay by DD. I won't pay bills that
&gt;&gt; vary &gt;&gt; from month to month by DD because I never know exactly how
&gt;&gt; much is &gt;&gt; needed to be left in the bank account.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; That's why you're notified well in advance.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; Rubbish. I regularly receive invoices regarding a DD for Lloyds Ideal
&gt;&gt; that has only one or two days notice.
&gt;
&gt;Then you should contact them. Their own website states that &quot;You'll
&gt;also be given plenty of time to check the bill before the payment is
&gt;made.&quot;
&gt;
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.

&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Add in the chance of someone
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; adding a couple of zeros to the amount due to a typing error
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
&gt;
&gt;Then you should follow the complaints procedure and contact the
&gt;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
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#34: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-15 03:13:45 by Peter Saxton

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;That's why you're notified well in advance.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Rubbish. I regularly receive invoices regarding a DD for Lloyds Ideal
&gt;&gt; that has only one or two days notice.
&gt;
&gt;Then they are breaching the rules and deserve to have their knuckles
&gt;rapped.
&gt;
That still doesnt mean I am not inconvenienced by direct debit.

&gt;&gt;&gt;then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
&gt;
&gt;Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts, and
&gt;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
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#35: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-15 10:33:05 by callasberr

Alex wrote:
&gt; At 12:03:32 on 12/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; There's a CCA flag, certainly with UK transactions.
[snip]

We were told otherwise before, IIRC, so thanks for clearing that one up.

Report this message

#36: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-15 21:09:41 by Ronald Raygun

Peter Saxton wrote:

&gt; On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts, and
&gt;&gt;jeopardising their DD licence.
&gt;
&gt; No it doesn't. An obligation doesn't mean that you should mindlessly
&gt; assume that companies adhere to their obligations. The whole point I
&gt; am making is that, despite a few people saying that DDs are good
&gt; because there are rules, having rules doesn't mean that everyone will
&gt; take notice of them. You sound like one of these people who thinks
&gt; that there are rules against bank robberies so that must mean that
&gt; 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 &quot;a training issue&quot; 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.

Report this message

#37: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-15 22:09:35 by callasberr

Alex wrote:
[snip]
&gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now submit a
&gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective issuers.
&gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the card details.

How do the issuers &quot;correct&quot; the card details ?

Report this message

#38: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-15 23:33:53 by Peter Saxton

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts, and
&gt;&gt;&gt;jeopardising their DD licence.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; No it doesn't. An obligation doesn't mean that you should mindlessly
&gt;&gt; assume that companies adhere to their obligations. The whole point I
&gt;&gt; am making is that, despite a few people saying that DDs are good
&gt;&gt; because there are rules, having rules doesn't mean that everyone will
&gt;&gt; take notice of them. You sound like one of these people who thinks
&gt;&gt; that there are rules against bank robberies so that must mean that
&gt;&gt; nobody will try to rob a bank!
&gt;
&gt;Banks get robbed by people who willingly break the law.
&gt;
&gt;But *banks* cannot get away with deliberately refusing to
&gt;honour the DD guarantee. Yes, there are the occasional idiots
&gt;to be found in the lower echelons of bank staff who mistakenly think
&gt;you need to provide evidence that you have been wronged, and it must
&gt;be scrutinised before a refund is considered, or who will try to
&gt;fob you off by asking you to take the matter up with the merchant,
&gt;but this is &quot;a training issue&quot; and these things are sent to try us
&gt;and it's up to us to escalate the matter where necessary to get the
&gt;monkeys trained.
&gt;
&gt;The DD guarantee is cast-iron and absolutely safe.
&gt;CCAs, on the other hand, are best avoided.

What's wrong with paying online at a time convenient to you?

--
Peter Saxton from London
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#39: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 00:35:04 by alex

At 22:33:53 on 15/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:12:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt; &gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Yes it does. Either that or being dragged through the courts,
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; and jeopardising their DD licence.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; No it doesn't. An obligation doesn't mean that you should
&gt; mindlessly &gt;&gt; assume that companies adhere to their obligations. The
&gt; whole point I &gt;&gt; am making is that, despite a few people saying that
&gt; DDs are good &gt;&gt; because there are rules, having rules doesn't mean
&gt; that everyone will &gt;&gt; take notice of them. You sound like one of
&gt; these people who thinks &gt;&gt; that there are rules against bank
&gt; robberies so that must mean that &gt;&gt; nobody will try to rob a bank!
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Banks get robbed by people who willingly break the law.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; But banks cannot get away with deliberately refusing to
&gt; &gt; honour the DD guarantee. Yes, there are the occasional idiots
&gt; &gt; to be found in the lower echelons of bank staff who mistakenly think
&gt; &gt; you need to provide evidence that you have been wronged, and it must
&gt; &gt; be scrutinised before a refund is considered, or who will try to
&gt; &gt; fob you off by asking you to take the matter up with the merchant,
&gt; &gt; but this is &quot;a training issue&quot; and these things are sent to try us
&gt; &gt; and it's up to us to escalate the matter where necessary to get the
&gt; &gt; monkeys trained.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; The DD guarantee is cast-iron and absolutely safe.
&gt; &gt; CCAs, on the other hand, are best avoided.
&gt;
&gt; 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!

Report this message

#40: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 01:02:32 by Ronald Raygun

Peter Saxton wrote:

&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;The DD guarantee is cast-iron and absolutely safe.
&gt;&gt;CCAs, on the other hand, are best avoided.
&gt;
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#41: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 03:30:59 by Peter Saxton

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:02:32 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;The DD guarantee is cast-iron and absolutely safe.
&gt;&gt;&gt;CCAs, on the other hand, are best avoided.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; What's wrong with paying online at a time convenient to you?
&gt;
&gt;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.

&gt;2) It can be forgotten

I have a tray with payments due which I look at every morning.

&gt;3) You can make a mistake
&gt;
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
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#42: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 10:12:52 by AlanG

On 14 Jul 2006 20:21:08 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;At 21:05:31 on 14/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.legal by
&gt;announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On 13 Jul 2006 11:12:25 GMT, &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote:


&gt;&gt; &gt; That's why you're notified well in advance.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; Rubbish. I regularly receive invoices regarding a DD for Lloyds Ideal
&gt;&gt; that has only one or two days notice.
&gt;
&gt;Then you should contact them. Their own website states that &quot;You'll
&gt;also be given plenty of time to check the bill before the payment is
&gt;made.&quot;

Well in advance might be a couple of hours to some people

&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Add in the chance of someone
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; adding a couple of zeros to the amount due to a typing error
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; then your bank is obliged to immediately refund the amount in full.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Being obliged to doesn't mean they will.
&gt;
&gt;Then you should follow the complaints procedure and contact the
&gt;ombudsman.

Still doesn't get your immediate problem solved.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from <a href="http://www.teranews.com" target="_blank">http://www.teranews.com</a>

Report this message

#43: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 12:56:00 by alex

At 21:09:35 on 15/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

&gt; Alex wrote:
&gt; [snip]
&gt; &gt; This system has apparently recently changed. Retailers now submit a
&gt; &gt; file of all their CCAs which are sent to the respective issuers.
&gt; &gt; The issuers respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
&gt;
&gt; How do the issuers &quot;correct&quot; the card details ?

Is this a trick question? They send the correct details back to the
retailer.

Report this message

#44: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 13:39:55 by Tim

&gt; &gt; Alex wrote:
&gt; &gt; [snip]
&gt; &gt; &gt; This system has apparently recently changed.
&gt; &gt; &gt; Retailers now submit a file of all their CCAs which
&gt; &gt; &gt; are sent to the respective issuers. The issuers
&gt; &gt; &gt; respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; How do the issuers &quot;correct&quot; the card details ?
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; Is this a trick question? They send
&gt; 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?]

Report this message

#45: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 13:40:13 by Tim

&quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...

Wouldn't that be against the T&amp;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 &quot;non-specific&quot; amount...

&quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; I'm just speculating. I don't really know how they do it
&gt; or whether they distinguish. One possibility is that there is
&gt; a two stage process. First you obtain authorisation from
&gt; the card company (on line or by phone) and are given an
&gt; authorisation reference number. This number may or may
&gt; not then be used to request a payment. In the case of normal
&gt; one-off shopping transactions the payment *might* be requested
&gt; at the same time as the authorisation, or the payment requests
&gt; may be deferred, e.g. by being accumulated into weekly or
&gt; monthly batches, or they may be deferred pending some
&gt; conditional event (such as a call being made against a deposit).
&gt; Or it might never be used (if the deposit is not required).
&gt;
&gt; I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
&gt; the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
&gt; code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...

Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn
a &quot;one-off&quot; into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?

&quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; ... OK, in that case, if the card company keeps track
&gt; of whether it's been used before, then it would, as a
&gt; side-effect of this, know that it was a CCA transaction.

But it wouldn't know if the cardholder had given such authority!

Report this message

#46: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 14:21:52 by Ronald Raygun

Tim wrote:

&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...
&gt;
&gt; Wouldn't that be against the T&amp;C of the card?
&gt; The cardholder agrees not to make transactions that
&gt; exceed the credit limit; therefore, (s)he *cannot*
&gt; (properly) authorise a payment of a &quot;non-specific&quot; amount...

He can if we take &quot;non-specific&quot; to mean &quot;not fully specified&quot;,
e.g. that there is understood to exist an upper bound on the
amount authorised.

&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
&gt;&gt; the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
&gt;&gt; code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...
&gt;
&gt; Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn
&gt; a &quot;one-off&quot; 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.

&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; ... OK, in that case, if the card company keeps track
&gt;&gt; of whether it's been used before, then it would, as a
&gt;&gt; side-effect of this, know that it was a CCA transaction.
&gt;
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#47: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 14:40:37 by Ronald Raygun

Peter Saxton wrote:

&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:02:32 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The DD guarantee is cast-iron and absolutely safe.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;CCAs, on the other hand, are best avoided.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; What's wrong with paying online at a time convenient to you?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;1) It's more tedious than it happening automatically
&gt;
&gt; I have a system where I go to my online bank every morning and I don't
&gt; 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.

&gt;&gt;2) It can be forgotten
&gt;
&gt; 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 &quot;current&quot; stuff does get pushed into temporary oblivion.

&gt;&gt;3) You can make a mistake
&gt;&gt;
&gt; 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.

&gt; whereas I remember
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#48: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 14:57:50 by alex

At 12:39:55 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; &gt; &gt; Alex wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; [snip]
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; This system has apparently recently changed.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Retailers now submit a file of all their CCAs which
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; are sent to the respective issuers. The issuers
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; How do the issuers &quot;correct&quot; the card details ?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; Is this a trick question? They send
&gt; &gt; the correct details back to the retailer.
&gt;
&gt; Do they ask the cardholder if they are happy with this,
&gt; before they go distributing their personal details to
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#49: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:12:40 by Tim

&gt; &gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt;&gt; You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; Wouldn't that be against the T&amp;C of the card?
&gt; &gt; The cardholder agrees not to make transactions that
&gt; &gt; exceed the credit limit; therefore, (s)he *cannot*
&gt; &gt; (properly) authorise a payment of a &quot;non-specific&quot; amount...
&gt;
&quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; He can if we take &quot;non-specific&quot; to mean
&gt; &quot;not fully specified&quot;, e.g. that there is understood
&gt; to exist an upper bound on the amount authorised.

What sort of &quot;upper bound&quot; do hire car companies quote?


&gt; &gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt;&gt; I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
&gt; &gt;&gt; the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
&gt; &gt;&gt; code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn
&gt; &gt; a &quot;one-off&quot; into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
&gt;
&quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; Yes it would...

A little earlier, Graham Murray asked the following:


&lt;QUOTE&gt;
&gt; Graham Murray wrote:
&gt; &gt; In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
&gt; &gt; present) transaction be declined if the expiry
&gt; &gt; date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
&gt; &gt; etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
&lt;/QUOTE&gt;

to which you replied:

&lt;QUOTE&gt;
&quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
&gt; transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if used.
&gt;
&gt; In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
&gt; at the time authority was first given, and the details would
&gt; then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.

&lt;/QUOTE&gt;

Can you now actually answer Graham's question :- How would
the card company know to decline a transaction as a &quot;one-off&quot;,
if the retailer had simply provided the same details again?

Report this message

#50: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:24:02 by Tim

&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Alex wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; [snip]
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; This system has apparently recently changed.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Retailers now submit a file of all their CCAs which
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; are sent to the respective issuers. The issuers
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; How do the issuers &quot;correct&quot; the card details ?
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; Is this a trick question? They send
&gt; &gt; &gt; the correct details back to the retailer.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; Do they ask the cardholder if they are happy with this,
&gt; &gt; before they go distributing their personal details to
&gt; &gt; someone they may no longer have a relationship with?
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; It's not the cardholder's personal details. It's the details of the
&gt; 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!

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; If you no longer have a relationship with the
&gt; retailer or service provider then you will, of
&gt; course, already have cancelled the CCA with them.

Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
instead&quot;. 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?

Report this message

#51: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:32:24 by alex

At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Alex wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; [snip]
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; This system has apparently recently changed.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Retailers now submit a file of all their CCAs which
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; are sent to the respective issuers. The issuers
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; respond to either confirm or correct the card details.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; How do the issuers &quot;correct&quot; the card details ?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Is this a trick question? They send
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; the correct details back to the retailer.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; Do they ask the cardholder if they are happy with this,
&gt; &gt; &gt; before they go distributing their personal details to
&gt; &gt; &gt; someone they may no longer have a relationship with?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; It's not the cardholder's personal details. It's the details of the
&gt; &gt; card, which remains the property of the card issuer at all times.
&gt;
&gt; Of course. But if the card company provides those details to
&gt; third parties, then the card company cannot expect the cardholder
&gt; to pay any charges that have appeared on the account because
&gt; 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.

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; If you no longer have a relationship with the
&gt; &gt; retailer or service provider then you will, of
&gt; &gt; course, already have cancelled the CCA with them.
&gt;
&gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#52: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:33:50 by alex

At 14:12:40 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; Wouldn't that be against the T&amp;C of the card?
&gt; &gt; &gt; The cardholder agrees not to make transactions that
&gt; &gt; &gt; exceed the credit limit; therefore, (s)he cannot
&gt; &gt; &gt; (properly) authorise a payment of a &quot;non-specific&quot; amount...
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; He can if we take &quot;non-specific&quot; to mean
&gt; &gt; &quot;not fully specified&quot;, e.g. that there is understood
&gt; &gt; to exist an upper bound on the amount authorised.
&gt;
&gt; What sort of &quot;upper bound&quot; do hire car companies quote?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could unilaterally turn
&gt; &gt; &gt; a &quot;one-off&quot; into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; Yes it would...
&gt;
&gt; A little earlier, Graham Murray asked the following:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &lt;QUOTE&gt;
&gt; &gt; Graham Murray wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
&gt; &gt; &gt; present) transaction be declined if the expiry
&gt; &gt; &gt; date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
&gt; &gt; &gt; etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
&gt; &lt;/QUOTE&gt;
&gt;
&gt; to which you replied:
&gt;
&gt; &lt;QUOTE&gt;
&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
&gt; &gt; transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if
&gt; used. &gt;
&gt; &gt; In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
&gt; &gt; at the time authority was first given, and the details would
&gt; &gt; then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.
&gt;
&gt; &lt;/QUOTE&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Can you now actually answer Graham's question :- How would
&gt; the card company know to decline a transaction as a &quot;one-off&quot;,
&gt; if the retailer had simply provided the same details again?

It would not be presented as a CCA.

Report this message

#53: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 15:54:21 by Tim

&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Do they ask the cardholder if they are happy with this,
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; before they go distributing their personal details to
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; someone they may no longer have a relationship with?
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; It's not the cardholder's personal details. It's the details of the
&gt; &gt; &gt; card, which remains the property of the card issuer at all times.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; Of course. But if the card company provides those details to
&gt; &gt; third parties, then the card company cannot expect the cardholder
&gt; &gt; to pay any charges that have appeared on the account because
&gt; &gt; of the said disclosure **by the card co** of the card details!
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; You misunderstand the point of the exercise...

No no, I think you misunderstand the issue I'm pointing out...
[See below.]

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; ... The card details are already known by the merchant.

Well, obviously *not* -- or they wouldn't need them &quot;updating&quot;!

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; In the event that the details have expired (through regular
&gt; expiration or lost/stolen) then the card details are updated.

Exactly - previously, the up-to-date details were *not* known by the
merchant...

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; No details are provided unless the merchant
&gt; already had a record of a valid account. The fact
&gt; that the request comes via VISA/Mastercard
&gt; from the merchant's acquiring bank means it
&gt; 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!

&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; If you no longer have a relationship with the
&gt; &gt; &gt; retailer or service provider then you will, of
&gt; &gt; &gt; course, already have cancelled the CCA with them.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt; &gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt; &gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt; &gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt; &gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether
&gt; 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?

Report this message

#54: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 16:12:23 by alex

At 14:54:21 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; No details are provided unless the merchant
&gt; &gt; already had a record of a valid account. The fact
&gt; &gt; that the request comes via VISA/Mastercard
&gt; &gt; from the merchant's acquiring bank means it
&gt; &gt; must be an authorised merchant in the first place.
&gt;
&gt; Suppose I bought one item, some time ago, from a
&gt; potentially dodgy merchant -- and I gave them a credit card
&gt; with only a month left to expiry. I then watched the card
&gt; statements very carefully for a couple of months, and no
&gt; unusual transactions appeared. Fine, I can rest easy that
&gt; they won't be able to charge any more transactions ... but
&gt; then the stupid card company gives them the up-to-date
&gt; 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?

&gt; Just because I paid for that one item years ago,
&gt; does not mean that I am happy for the retailer
&gt; 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.

&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; If you no longer have a relationship with the
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; retailer or service provider then you will, of
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; course, already have cancelled the CCA with them.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt; &gt; &gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt; &gt; &gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt; &gt; &gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt; &gt; &gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether
&gt; &gt; or not the customer has cancelled the CCA.
&gt;
&gt; So, let's get this straight :-
&gt; The card company will give up-to-date card
&gt; details to merchants whose CCA has been
&gt; cancelled, and whom the cardholder no longer
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#55: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 17:35:13 by Mike_B

In message &lt;<a href="mailto:cPadnbKeFYN4uCfZRVnysw&#64;bt.com" target="_blank">cPadnbKeFYN4uCfZRVnysw&#64;bt.com</a>&gt;, Tim &lt;<a href="mailto:me&#64;home.uk" target="_blank">me&#64;home.uk</a>&gt; writes

&gt;Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn a
&gt;&quot;one-off&quot; into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?

They can indeed. I've had this happen to me.

--
Mike_B

Report this message

#56: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 17:38:40 by alex

At 16:35:13 on 16/07/2006, Mike_B delighted uk.legal by announcing:

&gt; In message &lt;<a href="mailto:cPadnbKeFYN4uCfZRVnysw&#64;bt.com" target="_blank">cPadnbKeFYN4uCfZRVnysw&#64;bt.com</a>&gt;, Tim &lt;<a href="mailto:me&#64;home.uk" target="_blank">me&#64;home.uk</a>&gt; writes
&gt;
&gt; &gt; Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could unilaterally turn a
&gt; &gt; &quot;one-off&quot; into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
&gt;
&gt; 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?

Report this message

#57: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:04:33 by Ronald Raygun

Tim wrote:

&gt;&gt; &gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; You may be asked to authorise a non-specific payment...
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt; Wouldn't that be against the T&amp;C of the card?
&gt;&gt; &gt; The cardholder agrees not to make transactions that
&gt;&gt; &gt; exceed the credit limit; therefore, (s)he *cannot*
&gt;&gt; &gt; (properly) authorise a payment of a &quot;non-specific&quot; amount...
&gt;&gt;
&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; He can if we take &quot;non-specific&quot; to mean
&gt;&gt; &quot;not fully specified&quot;, e.g. that there is understood
&gt;&gt; to exist an upper bound on the amount authorised.
&gt;
&gt; What sort of &quot;upper bound&quot; 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.

Report this message

#58: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:14:41 by Ronald Raygun

Tim wrote:

&gt;&gt; &gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I imagine that provided the card was in date at the time
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; the authorisation reference was obtained, this authorisation
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; code remains valid forever, and can be re-used...
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt; Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could *unilaterally* turn
&gt;&gt; &gt; a &quot;one-off&quot; into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
&gt;&gt;
&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; Yes it would...
&gt;
&gt; A little earlier, Graham Murray asked the following:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &lt;QUOTE&gt;
&gt; &gt; Graham Murray wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; In that case, why can a one-off (cardholder not
&gt; &gt; &gt; present) transaction be declined if the expiry
&gt; &gt; &gt; date is wrong, the wrong security code is quoted
&gt; &gt; &gt; etc, yet a CCA is always paid regardless?
&gt; &lt;/QUOTE&gt;
&gt;
&gt; to which you replied:
&gt;
&gt; &lt;QUOTE&gt;
&gt; &quot;Ronald Raygun&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial
&gt; &gt; transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if used.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; In other words, what matters is that the card was valid
&gt; &gt; at the time authority was first given, and the details would
&gt; &gt; then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.
&gt;
&gt; &lt;/QUOTE&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Can you now actually answer Graham's question :- How would
&gt; the card company know to decline a transaction as a &quot;one-off&quot;,
&gt; 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 (&quot;paid regardless&quot;) 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.

Report this message

#59: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:19:26 by Tim

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; Could it be you just didn't understand you were entering into a CCA?

How can one possibly &quot;enter into a CCA&quot; without knowing about it?
If you didn't know about it, then you didn't &quot;enter into&quot; it, did you?

Contracts require a &quot;meeting of minds&quot;, and all that...

Report this message

#60: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:19:35 by Mike_B

In message &lt;<a href="mailto:4hv4s0F1dcu3U1&#64;individual.net" target="_blank">4hv4s0F1dcu3U1&#64;individual.net</a>&gt;, Alex &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt;
writes
&gt;At 16:35:13 on 16/07/2006, Mike_B delighted uk.legal by announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; In message &lt;<a href="mailto:cPadnbKeFYN4uCfZRVnysw&#64;bt.com" target="_blank">cPadnbKeFYN4uCfZRVnysw&#64;bt.com</a>&gt;, Tim &lt;<a href="mailto:me&#64;home.uk" target="_blank">me&#64;home.uk</a>&gt; writes
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; Wouldn't that mean that the retailer could unilaterally turn a
&gt;&gt; &gt; &quot;one-off&quot; into a CCA, without the cardholder's authority?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; They can indeed. I've had this happen to me.
&gt;
&gt;This would be a clear breach of card scheme rules. Could it be you
&gt;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 &quot;Well if they say they've got continuous authority then they
have&quot;, despite having no evidence of it whatsoever.


--
Mike_B

Report this message

#61: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 18:27:45 by alex

At 17:19:26 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; Could it be you just didn't understand you were entering into a CCA?
&gt;
&gt; How can one possibly &quot;enter into a CCA&quot; without knowing about it?

By not reading Ts &amp; Cs correctly before signing or clicking on the &quot;I
agree&quot; 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.

Report this message

#62: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:32:33 by Peter Saxton

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:40:37 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:02:32 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Peter Saxton wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:09:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;localhost.localdomain</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The DD guarantee is cast-iron and absolutely safe.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;CCAs, on the other hand, are best avoided.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; What's wrong with paying online at a time convenient to you?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;1) It's more tedious than it happening automatically
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I have a system where I go to my online bank every morning and I don't
&gt;&gt; find it tedious.
&gt;
&gt;Good for you for being well-disciplined and for having a routine
&gt;which you always stick to. Me? I too am methodical and have a
&gt;routine, albeit with some latitude, so there will be occasional
&gt;gaps. But then I probably have a rather lower transaction
&gt;turnover than you.
&gt;
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.

&gt;&gt;&gt;2) It can be forgotten
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I have a tray with payments due which I look at every morning.
&gt;
&gt;I have a tray on my desk too, but with a printer, two screens and
&gt;keyboards, desk space is a ta premium, and the tray soon becomes
&gt;all-purpose and gets covered with other papers and things, and so
&gt;sometimes &quot;current&quot; stuff does get pushed into temporary oblivion.
&gt;
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!

&gt;&gt;&gt;3) You can make a mistake
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I can't remember any case of me making a mistake
&gt;
&gt;Fine. I don't make them very often either. This makes you better
&gt;than me in this respect, but I reckon I'm probably still hugely
&gt;better than average. People in general do tend to make mistakes
&gt;quite often, if JB's incredible statistics are to be believed.
&gt;
I meant with online banking!

&gt;&gt; whereas I remember
&gt;&gt; several cases of suppliers making mistakes with DDs.
&gt;
&gt;You have high standards and it's perhaps a little unfair to judge
&gt;lesser mortals by them. People do make mistakes, it's a fact of
&gt;life. They should make the effort to make fewer mistakes, but what
&gt;matters even more is how forthcomingly they deal with putting
&gt;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
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#63: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-16 22:37:42 by Peter Saxton

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:19:26 +0100, &quot;Tim&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:me&#64;home.uk" target="_blank">me&#64;home.uk</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; Could it be you just didn't understand you were entering into a CCA?
&gt;
&gt;How can one possibly &quot;enter into a CCA&quot; without knowing about it?
&gt;If you didn't know about it, then you didn't &quot;enter into&quot; it, did you?
&gt;
&gt;Contracts require a &quot;meeting of minds&quot;, and all that...
&gt;
Contracts don't require a meeting of minds they just require some
level of agreement.

--
Peter Saxton from London
<a href="mailto:peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk" target="_blank">peter&#64;petersaxton.co.uk</a>

Report this message

#64: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-17 08:13:36 by callasberr

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
[snip]
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt;&gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt;&gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt;&gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt;&gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt;
&gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the customer has
&gt; cancelled the CCA.

A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.

Report this message

#65: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-17 08:23:17 by callasberr

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4huvq6F1b67uU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4huvq6F1b67uU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
[snip]
&gt; Not every merchant is authorised to set up CCAs.

What are the criteria for

a) obtaining such authorisation

b) losing it

&gt; And why is the card
&gt; company stupid by responding to a request from another bank?

Your implication is that such requests must be answered wily-nilly.

&gt; If the CCA has been cancelled then it should not be on the merchant's
&gt; 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 ?

&gt;If it is sent through
&gt; following cancellation then it is handled like any other unauthorised
&gt; transaction and a chargeback is initiated once the cardholder notifies
&gt; their card issuer.

How does cancellation occur ?

Report this message

#66: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-17 11:36:38 by alex

At 07:23:17 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4huvq6F1b67uU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4huvq6F1b67uU1&#64;individual.net...</a> [snip]
&gt; &gt; Not every merchant is authorised to set up CCAs.
&gt;
&gt; What are the criteria for
&gt;
&gt; a) obtaining such authorisation

I've no idea. It will be an agreement between the bank and its
customer.

&gt; b) losing it

Misuse of the facility, for one.

&gt; &gt; And why is the card
&gt; &gt; company stupid by responding to a request from another bank?
&gt;
&gt; 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'.

&gt; &gt; If the CCA has been cancelled then it should not be on the
&gt; &gt; merchant's CCA file which they send through their acquirer.
&gt;
&gt; How is this policed ? That is, what is the procedure for verifying
&gt; 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.

&gt; &gt; If it is sent through
&gt; &gt; following cancellation then it is handled like any other
&gt; &gt; unauthorised transaction and a chargeback is initiated once the
&gt; &gt; cardholder notifies their card issuer.
&gt;
&gt; How does cancellation occur ?

You contact the retailer, normally in writing.

Report this message

#67: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-17 11:38:54 by alex

At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt; At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt; [snip]
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt; &gt; &gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt; &gt; &gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt; &gt; &gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt; &gt; &gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the customer
&gt; &gt; has cancelled the CCA.
&gt;
&gt; A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.

How so? And before you say &quot;it's easy to have a database of every
retailer in the world&quot; think about the practicalities and cost of this
and weigh it against the net benefit to everyone.

Report this message

#68: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-18 16:34:44 by callasberrGANSPAM

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4i145eF1lif6U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i145eF1lif6U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
&gt; announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt; At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt;&gt; [snip]
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the customer
&gt;&gt; &gt; has cancelled the CCA.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
&gt;
&gt; How so?

Because the card company refuses to accept the information when offered, it
seems.

&gt; And before you say &quot;it's easy to have a database of every
&gt; retailer in the world&quot;

(I wonder who was going to say that).

&gt;think about the practicalities and cost of this
&gt; 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 &quot;self-imposed ignorance&quot; to which I refer
above.

Report this message

#69: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-18 19:09:00 by callasberr

&quot;Mike_B&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:usenet&#64;localhosts.net" target="_blank">usenet&#64;localhosts.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:zWoMdzSWcmuEFw8U&#64;localhosts.net..." target="_blank">zWoMdzSWcmuEFw8U&#64;localhosts.net...</a>
[snip]
&gt;Yes, I reported it and I got a full refund of the monies taken, but not
&gt;without a ridiculous argument by the credit card company along the lines
&gt;of &quot;Well if they say they've got continuous authority then they have&quot;,
[snip]

The problem in a nutshell.

Report this message

#70: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-19 18:15:32 by alex

At 15:34:44 on 18/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4i145eF1lif6U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i145eF1lif6U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt; At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
&gt; &gt; announcing:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; &gt; &gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt; &gt; &gt; [snip]
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the
&gt; customer &gt;&gt;&gt; has cancelled the CCA.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; How so?
&gt;
&gt; Because the card company refuses to accept the information when
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#71: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-20 16:12:53 by callasberrGANSPAM

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4i7453F2fr0nU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i7453F2fr0nU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; At 15:34:44 on 18/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
&gt; announcing:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4i145eF1lif6U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i145eF1lif6U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt; At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
&gt;&gt; &gt; announcing:
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; [snip]
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the
&gt;&gt; customer &gt;&gt;&gt; has cancelled the CCA.
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; How so?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Because the card company refuses to accept the information when
&gt;&gt; offered, it seems.
&gt;
&gt; But they don't refuse to accept it at all. They do exactly what
&gt; they're supposed to do with it; they respond to a request from another
&gt; 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 &quot;don't tell us&quot;.

Report this message

#72: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-20 17:59:48 by alex

At 15:12:53 on 20/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4i7453F2fr0nU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i7453F2fr0nU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt; At 15:34:44 on 18/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
&gt; &gt; announcing:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; &gt; &gt; news:<a href="mailto:4i145eF1lif6U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i145eF1lif6U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; At 07:13:36 on 17/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; announcing:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; news:<a href="mailto:4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4hutf7F1c3s8U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by
&gt; announcing: &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; [snip]
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the
&gt; &gt;&gt;customer &gt;&gt;&gt; has cancelled the CCA.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; How so?
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Because the card company refuses to accept the information when
&gt; &gt; &gt; offered, it seems.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; But they don't refuse to accept it at all. They do exactly what
&gt; &gt; they're supposed to do with it; they respond to a request from
&gt; &gt; another bank as per the rules of the card scheme they've signed up
&gt; &gt; to.
&gt;
&gt; And refuse to respond appropriately to a request from the customer
&gt; who has signed up with them.
&gt;
&gt; Ths customer gives them the information and they say &quot;don't tell us&quot;.

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.

Report this message

#73: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-20 21:51:00 by Tim

&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; or not the customer has cancelled the CCA.
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; How so?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Because the card company refuses to
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; accept the information when offered, it seems.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; But they don't refuse to accept it at all. They do
&gt; &gt; &gt; exactly what they're supposed to do with it; they
&gt; &gt; &gt; respond to a request from another bank as per
&gt; &gt; &gt; the rules of the card scheme they've signed up to.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; And refuse to respond appropriately to a request
&gt; &gt; from the customer who has signed up with them.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Ths customer gives them the
&gt; &gt; information and they say &quot;don't tell us&quot;.
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; 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!

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; 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!

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; And again, bear in mind how the
&gt; interchange system actually works.

Remind us this - who was it that
designed *their* system? The banks?!!!

Report this message

#74: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-20 22:34:44 by alex

At 20:51:00 on 20/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; company will have said &quot;don't tell us, tell the merchant
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; instead&quot;. So, when the merchant subsequently (either
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; fraudulently or by mistake) continues to use the CCA, will
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the card company continue to provide new details to them?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I don't see why not. They have no idea whether
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; or not the customer has cancelled the CCA.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; How so?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Because the card company refuses to
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; accept the information when offered, it seems.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; But they don't refuse to accept it at all. They do
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; exactly what they're supposed to do with it; they
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; respond to a request from another bank as per
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; the rules of the card scheme they've signed up to.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; And refuse to respond appropriately to a request
&gt; &gt; &gt; from the customer who has signed up with them.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Ths customer gives them the
&gt; &gt; &gt; information and they say &quot;don't tell us&quot;.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; That's an entirely appropriate response.
&gt;
&gt; Hardly...
&gt; They totally ignore the fact of whether the genuine
&gt; cardholder continues to give authority to the retailer
&gt; 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.

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; What are they supposed to do with the information?
&gt;
&gt; They're supposed to **use it**, by having an
&gt; appropriate system in place that will allow them to!
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; And again, bear in mind how the
&gt; &gt; interchange system actually works.
&gt;
&gt; Remind us this - who was it that
&gt; designed their system? The banks?!!!

No. VISA and Mastercard.

Report this message

#75: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 10:41:36 by callasberr

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4i9njkF2mfilU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i9njkF2mfilU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; At 15:12:53 on 20/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
&gt; announcing:
[snip]
&gt;&gt; Ths customer gives them the information and they say &quot;don't tell us&quot;.
&gt;
&gt; 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 ?

&gt; What are they supposed to do with the information ?

Act on it. The customer says &quot;I do not want you to make any payment to
Merchant X&quot;. 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.

&gt;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.

Report this message

#76: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 12:16:23 by alex

At 09:41:36 on 22/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4i9njkF2mfilU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4i9njkF2mfilU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt; At 15:12:53 on 20/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by
&gt; &gt; announcing:
&gt; [snip]
&gt; &gt; &gt; Ths customer gives them the information and they say &quot;don't tell
&gt; &gt; &gt; us&quot;.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; That's an entirely appropriate response.
&gt;
&gt; Are you seriously maintaining the position that a commercial
&gt; organisation should tell its customers that it does not want to know
&gt; 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.

&gt; &gt; What are they supposed to do with the information ?
&gt;
&gt; Act on it. The customer says &quot;I do not want you to make any payment
&gt; to Merchant X&quot;. The card company should record that request and
&gt; 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 &amp; Mastercard not your bank)?

Report this message

#77: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 13:14:06 by Tim

&gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Ths customer gives them the
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; information and they say &quot;don't tell us&quot;.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; That's an entirely appropriate response.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote
&gt; &gt; Are you seriously maintaining the position that a
&gt; &gt; commercial organisation should tell its customers
&gt; &gt; that it does not want to know information relevant
&gt; &gt; to the transactions between it and the customer ?
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; When you understand how the process works, you'll
&gt; understand why it cannot do anything with this information.

When *you* understand that &quot;how the process
works&quot; is actually unreasonable, then you'll
understand that it should be changed!

&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; What are they supposed to do with the information ?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; Act on it. The customer says &quot;I do not want you to make
&gt; &gt; any payment to Merchant X&quot;. The card company should
&gt; &gt; record that request and ensure that no such payment is made.
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; How? How do you propose that the
&gt; bank even knows who the merchant is ...

Well, they *must* know who the merchant is,
because they put their name on our card statements!

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; ... without changing the whole interchange and
&gt; settlement system (for which you would need
&gt; to lobby VISA &amp; 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 &quot;interchange and settlement
system&quot;, 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?

Report this message

#78: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 13:49:08 by alex

At 12:14:06 on 22/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Ths customer gives them the
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; information and they say &quot;don't tell us&quot;.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; That's an entirely appropriate response.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; Are you seriously maintaining the position that a
&gt; &gt; &gt; commercial organisation should tell its customers
&gt; &gt; &gt; that it does not want to know information relevant
&gt; &gt; &gt; to the transactions between it and the customer ?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; When you understand how the process works, you'll
&gt; &gt; understand why it cannot do anything with this information.
&gt;
&gt; When you understand that &quot;how the process
&gt; works&quot; is actually unreasonable, then you'll
&gt; 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.

&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; What are they supposed to do with the information ?
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; Act on it. The customer says &quot;I do not want you to make
&gt; &gt; &gt; any payment to Merchant X&quot;. The card company should
&gt; &gt; &gt; record that request and ensure that no such payment is made.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; How? How do you propose that the
&gt; &gt; bank even knows who the merchant is ...
&gt;
&gt; Well, they must know who the merchant is,
&gt; 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?

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; ... without changing the whole interchange and
&gt; &gt; settlement system (for which you would need
&gt; &gt; to lobby VISA &amp; Mastercard not your bank)?
&gt;
&gt; Are you trying to suggest that VISA/Mastercard
&gt; not only control the interchange system,
&gt; 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.

&gt; When the bank finally gets the request for payment, having
&gt; been passed through the &quot;interchange and settlement
&gt; system&quot;, it is now in the bank's own system - is it
&gt; not? Why are you suggesting that they can't then
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#79: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 14:37:04 by Tim

&gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Are you seriously maintaining the position that a
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; commercial organisation should tell its customers
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; that it does not want to know information relevant
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; to the transactions between it and the customer ?
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; When you understand how the process works, you'll
&gt; &gt; &gt; understand why it cannot do anything with this information.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; When you understand that &quot;how the process
&gt; &gt; works&quot; is actually unreasonable, then you'll
&gt; &gt; understand that it should be changed!
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; Why is it unreasonable?

Because the merchant has no need to be given the updated
details, when the CCA authority has been revoked.

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; You cancel the CCA with the merchant,
&gt; 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!

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; ... and if there are any issues you
&gt; 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!

&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; Remember that in the case of credit cards, it's
&gt; the bank's money and their responsibility.

Hehe. Yeh, right.

&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; What are they supposed to do with the information ?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Act on it. The customer says &quot;I do not want you to make
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; any payment to Merchant X&quot;. The card company should
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; record that request and ensure that no such payment is made.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; How? How do you propose that the
&gt; &gt; &gt; bank even knows who the merchant is ...
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; Well, they must know who the merchant is,
&gt; &gt; because they put their name on our card statements!
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; So you now suggest that each bank keeps a record of
&gt; 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?

&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; ... without changing the whole interchange and
&gt; &gt; &gt; settlement system (for which you would need
&gt; &gt; &gt; to lobby VISA &amp; Mastercard not your bank)?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; Are you trying to suggest that VISA/Mastercard
&gt; &gt; not only control the interchange system,
&gt; &gt; but also the banks' own internal systems?
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. The internal
&gt; systems are geared around dealing with customers
&gt; *and* other banks, not customers *of* other banks.

The things that their system is &quot;geared
around&quot; 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.

&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; When the bank finally gets the request for payment, having
&gt; &gt; been passed through the &quot;interchange and settlement
&gt; &gt; system&quot;, it is now in the bank's own system - is it
&gt; &gt; not? Why are you suggesting that they can't then
&gt; &gt; pull out the invalid transactions using their own system?
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; Why are you suggesting that they keep up-to-date
&gt; records of every merchant worldwide?

I'm not - that's your own silly idea.

Report this message

#80: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 14:47:14 by alex

At 13:37:04 on 22/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Are you seriously maintaining the position that a
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; commercial organisation should tell its customers
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; that it does not want to know information relevant
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; to the transactions between it and the customer ?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; When you understand how the process works, you'll
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; understand why it cannot do anything with this information.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; When you understand that &quot;how the process
&gt; &gt; &gt; works&quot; is actually unreasonable, then you'll
&gt; &gt; &gt; understand that it should be changed!
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; Why is it unreasonable?
&gt;
&gt; Because the merchant has no need to be given the updated
&gt; 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?

&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; ... and if there are any issues you
&gt; &gt; instruct your bank to sort it out.
&gt;
&gt; 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.

&gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; Well, they must know who the merchant is,
&gt; &gt; &gt; because they put their name on our card statements!
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; So you now suggest that each bank keeps a record of
&gt; &gt; the name of every card-enabled merchant worldwide?
&gt;
&gt; 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.

&gt; All they need is a very short list indeed, just of the merchants
&gt; 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?

&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; ... without changing the whole interchange and
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; settlement system (for which you would need
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; to lobby VISA &amp; Mastercard not your bank)?
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; Are you trying to suggest that VISA/Mastercard
&gt; &gt; &gt; not only control the interchange system,
&gt; &gt; &gt; but also the banks' own internal systems?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. The internal
&gt; &gt; systems are geared around dealing with customers
&gt; &gt; and other banks, not customers of other banks.
&gt;
&gt; The things that their system is &quot;geared
&gt; around&quot; are entirely at the banks own choice!

So you think that their systems *should* be geared around customers of
other organisations?

&gt; They could easily change their systems to do
&gt; other things if they wanted to, without needing
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#81: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 14:53:28 by Ronald Raygun

Alex wrote:

&gt; At 12:14:06 on 22/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
&gt;&gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; &gt; How? How do you propose that the
&gt;&gt; &gt; bank even knows who the merchant is ...
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Well, they must know who the merchant is,
&gt;&gt; because they put their name on our card statements!
&gt;
&gt; So you now suggest that each bank keeps a record of the name of every
&gt; 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 &quot;run past&quot; 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.

Report this message

#82: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 16:41:07 by Tim

&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Fergus O'Rourke wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Are you seriously maintaining the position
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; that a commercial organisation should
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; tell its customers that it does not want
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; to know information relevant to the
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; transactions between it and the customer ?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; When you understand how the process
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; works, you'll understand why it cannot
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; do anything with this information.
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; When you understand that &quot;how the process
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; works&quot; is actually unreasonable, then you'll
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; understand that it should be changed!
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; Why is it unreasonable?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot;:
&gt; &gt; Because the merchant has no need to
&gt; &gt; be given the updated details, when
&gt; &gt; the CCA authority has been revoked.
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; And how does the bank know which particular
&gt; worldwide merchant you mean when they
&gt; 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.

&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; ... and if there are any issues you
&gt; &gt; &gt; instruct your bank to sort it out.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot;:
&gt; &gt; You shouldn't need to have to mess about doing that,
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; And generally speaking, you don't. Just as
&gt; generally speaking, people don't need to invoke
&gt; the DD guarantee. Or generally speaking,
&gt; 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 &quot;put things right&quot; when they are
asked -- but, of course, the card company
&quot;shouldn't need to mess about tracing them&quot;...

&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Well, they must know who the merchant is,
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; because they put their name on our card statements!
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; So you now suggest that each bank keeps a record of
&gt; &gt; &gt; the name of every card-enabled merchant worldwide?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot;:
&gt; &gt; Why on earth do you think that they'd need to do that?!
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; Because they need to know exactly which merchant to look out
&gt; for amongst the myriad number of merchants with similar names.

Nope, just with *exactly* the same name.

&gt; &quot;Tim&quot;:
&gt; &gt; All they need is a very short list indeed, just of the merchants
&gt; &gt; whom that particular cardholder has revoked their CCA.
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; And how do they do that, exactly, when the request comes
&gt; 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!

&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; ... without changing the whole interchange and
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; settlement system (for which you would need
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; to lobby VISA &amp; Mastercard not your bank)?
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Are you trying to suggest that VISA/Mastercard
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; not only control the interchange system,
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; but also the banks' own internal systems?
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt; &gt; I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. The internal
&gt; &gt; &gt; systems are geared around dealing with customers
&gt; &gt; &gt; and other banks, not customers of other banks.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot;:
&gt; &gt; The things that their system is &quot;geared
&gt; &gt; around&quot; are entirely at the banks own choice!
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; So you think that their systems *should* be
&gt; 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!

&gt; &quot;Tim&quot;:
&gt; &gt; They could easily change their systems to do
&gt; &gt; other things if they wanted to, without needing
&gt; &gt; VISA/Mastercard to agree to anything.
&gt;
&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; Since you are now clearly demonstrating
&gt; a massive lack of understanding of how
&gt; this works, there's no point continuing.

I'm not talking about how it *currently* works,
I'm talking about how it *should* work...

Report this message

#83: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 20:11:38 by Graham Murray

&quot;Alex&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:no.spam&#64;mail.com" target="_blank">no.spam&#64;mail.com</a>&gt; writes:

&gt; Since you are now clearly demonstrating a massive lack of
&gt; 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.

Report this message

#84: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 20:27:28 by john boyle

In message &lt;<a href="mailto:NumdnR6csI3agV_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d&#64;bt.com" target="_blank">NumdnR6csI3agV_ZnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d&#64;bt.com</a>&gt;, Tim &lt;<a href="mailto:me&#64;home.uk" target="_blank">me&#64;home.uk</a>&gt;
writes
&gt;The things that their system is &quot;geared
&gt;around&quot; 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.
&gt;
&gt;They could easily

easily? balderdash.

&gt;change their systems to do
&gt;other things if they wanted to, without needing
&gt;VISA/Mastercard to agree to anything.

? How could it be done without V/M agreeing?
&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt; When the bank finally gets the request for payment, having
&gt;&gt; &gt; been passed through the &quot;interchange and settlement
&gt;&gt; &gt; system&quot;, it is now in the bank's own system - is it
&gt;&gt; &gt; not? Why are you suggesting that they can't then
&gt;&gt; &gt; pull out the invalid transactions using their own system?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt;&gt; Why are you suggesting that they keep up-to-date
&gt;&gt; records of every merchant worldwide?
&gt;
&gt;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

Report this message

#85: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-22 20:32:10 by john boyle

In message &lt;<a href="mailto:87r70dldb9.fsf&#64;newton.gmurray.org.uk" target="_blank">87r70dldb9.fsf&#64;newton.gmurray.org.uk</a>&gt;, Graham Murray
&lt;<a href="mailto:newspost&#64;gmurray.org.uk" target="_blank">newspost&#64;gmurray.org.uk</a>&gt; writes
&gt;. If
&gt;someone[1] were to take the credit card issuer to court to stop them
&gt;making the payments and the court ruled in favour of the customer,
&gt;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.
&gt;
&gt;[1] Having fulfilled any minimum contractual requirements and
&gt;attempted to get the merchant (who may not be in the UK, so not an
&gt;easy 'target' for legal action) to cancel the service and CCA.

--
John Boyle

Report this message

#86: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-23 11:08:33 by Tim

&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt;The things that their system is &quot;geared
&gt; &gt;around&quot; are entirely at the banks own choice!
&gt;
&quot;John Boyle&quot; wrote
&gt; 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].

&quot;John Boyle&quot; wrote
&gt; ... the system allows customers
&gt; 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 &quot;have the card company cancel a CCA&quot;.

&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt;... change their systems to do other
&gt; &gt;things if they wanted to, without needing
&gt; &gt;VISA/Mastercard to agree to anything.
&gt;
&quot;John Boyle&quot; wrote
&gt; ? 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 &quot;interface&quot; between the bank
and V/M obeys the standard protocols (set
by V/M), then there should be no problem.

Report this message

#87: Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Posted on 2006-07-23 11:24:20 by Tim

&gt; &gt;&quot;Alex&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt;&gt; Why are you suggesting that they keep up-to-date
&gt; &gt;&gt; records of every merchant worldwide?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &quot;Tim&quot; wrote
&gt; &gt;I'm not - that's your own silly idea.
&gt;
&quot;John Boyle&quot; wrote
&gt; Silly? That is grossly unfair and unworthy of you...

Wasn't it &quot;grossly unfair and unworthy&quot; of
Alex to say that I had suggested such a
bizarre idea, when I had done no such thing?

&quot;John Boyle&quot; wrote
&gt; ... 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...

Report this message