Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

In message <>
writes
>At 23:46:46 on 09/07/2006, John Boyle delighted uk.finance by
>announcing:
>
>> In message <>
>> writes
>> > >
>> > > What do you mean "handled by"? Do you mean why have CCA's rather
>> > > than DD's?
>> >
>> > I meant 'like' rather than 'by'.
>>
>> Thats a bit like saying ' why cant DDs be handled like Standing
>> Orders'.
>
>No, it's nothing like that. Standing Orders and Direct Debits perform
>two distinct functions; the former allows the customer to control the
>date and amount of each payment whilst the latter hands this control to
>the merchant. CCAs perform the latter role but without the protection
>offered by the Direct Debit.

Ere, thanks for the egg sucking lesson for my mother, The difference and
usage between DDs and CCAs is as substantial as the difference between
SOs and DDs.
--
John Boyle

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Alex Heney wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:48:12 +0100, John Boyle
> <> wrote:
>
>>In message <>, Alex Heney
>><> writes
>>>>>No, it's nothing like that. Standing Orders and Direct Debits perform
>>>>>two distinct functions; the former allows the customer to control the
>>>>>date and amount of each payment whilst the latter hands this control to
>>>>>the merchant. CCAs perform the latter role but without the protection
>>>>>offered by the Direct Debit.
>>>>
>>>>Ere, thanks for the egg sucking lesson for my mother, The difference and
>>>>usage between DDs and CCAs is as substantial as the difference between
>>>>SOs and DDs.
>>>
>>>But it shouldn't be.
>>
>>But it is. Sorry.
>
> I now it *is*.
>
> I am saying the system needs changing.

It would be impractical, because the repeat system is just tagged on to
the normal one-off system. Fundamentally there is no list of approved
payees associated with every card account, as is the case with DD. It's
arguable whether it's feasible to implement the facility for repeat
transactions. In fact, there isn't even (is there?) any way of telling
whether any particular incoming charge request is one-off or repeat.

At best, I think, one could implement a blacklist system, whereby
specific retailers are barred from charging an account, but that is
not without its problems either, quite apart from it needing to be
implemented on an international scale.

> There should not be *any* repeat transaction that is not cancelable
> by telling your bank/card provider.

There isn't. All transactions are cancellable after the fact. Just
dispute them and then it's up to the retailer to prove they had the
authority to make the charge; this is exactly the same as with one-off
transactions.

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

"Ronald Raygun" <> wrote in message
news:kxKsg.99895$
> Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:48:12 +0100, John Boyle
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <>, Alex Heney
>>><> writes
>>>>>>No, it's nothing like that. Standing Orders and Direct Debits perform
>>>>>>two distinct functions; the former allows the customer to control the
>>>>>>date and amount of each payment whilst the latter hands this control
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>the merchant. CCAs perform the latter role but without the protection
>>>>>>offered by the Direct Debit.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ere, thanks for the egg sucking lesson for my mother, The difference
>>>>>and
>>>>>usage between DDs and CCAs is as substantial as the difference between
>>>>>SOs and DDs.
>>>>
>>>>But it shouldn't be.
>>>
>>>But it is. Sorry.
>>
>> I now it *is*.
>>
>> I am saying the system needs changing.
>
> It would be impractical, because the repeat system is just tagged on to
> the normal one-off system. Fundamentally there is no list of approved
> payees associated with every card account, as is the case with DD. It's
> arguable whether it's feasible to implement the facility for repeat
> transactions. In fact, there isn't even (is there?) any way of telling
> whether any particular incoming charge request is one-off or repeat.
>
> At best, I think, one could implement a blacklist system, whereby
> specific retailers are barred from charging an account, but that is
> not without its problems either, quite apart from it needing to be
> implemented on an international scale.
>

At best? How about closing the account as in the case of the OP. Seems
simple to me. The whole exercise appears to be designed to trick people into
continuing with an agreement when they do not wish to. There was no need for
credit to be extended and no reason for the OP to be in debt.

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

John wrote:

> "Ronald Raygun" <> wrote in message
> news:kxKsg.99895$
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> I am saying the system needs changing.
>>
>> It would be impractical, because the repeat system is just tagged on to
>> the normal one-off system. Fundamentally there is no list of approved
>> payees associated with every card account, as is the case with DD. It's
>> arguable whether it's feasible to implement the facility for repeat
>> transactions. In fact, there isn't even (is there?) any way of telling
>> whether any particular incoming charge request is one-off or repeat.
>>
>> At best, I think, one could implement a blacklist system, whereby
>> specific retailers are barred from charging an account, but that is
>> not without its problems either, quite apart from it needing to be
>> implemented on an international scale.
>
> At best? How about closing the account as in the case of the OP. Seems
> simple to me. The whole exercise appears to be designed to trick people
> into continuing with an agreement when they do not wish to. There was no
> need for credit to be extended and no reason for the OP to be in debt.

Oh yes, I agree, if you atually close a card account down, this should
automatically "blacklist everyone", i.e. implicitly withdraw authority
for further payments originated from that date on.

I was thinking about the normal where you wanted to keep the card but
just to get rid of one awkward merchant.