Are there any alternatives similar to Cahoot's WebCard?

Although it is a great idea the webcard isn't really that useful, for most online purchases it is better to use a credit card in order to get the extra protection offered ,i.e. chargeback.

It would be nice if there was a credit card offering a similar facility but I haven't found one.

"Nick" wrote

Eh? Are you suggesting that you lose Section 75 protection when using the Webcard?

So the WebCard isn't actually a credit card then? Is it a Debit Card?

wrote

They do both -- Webcard for credit card, and Webcard for debit card...

They haven't offered a credit card to new customers for over a year and a half.

"Nick" wrote

Maybe so, but existing customers can still use Webcard on their credit cards!

Yes. I guess it was stupid of me to suppose that someone trying to sign up to Cahoot would be interested in the products they offer today as opposed to the products they offered a few years ago.

That's an interesting question, but another issue with the Webcard that makes me cautious about using it is with getting refunds.

I had a lot of trouble once getting a refund on an airline ticket I purchased online with the Cahoot's Webcard. I later needed to cancel that flight and the airline's ticket office at the airport insisted that I produce the credit card used so that they could process a refund. Of course I couldn't do that so they refused to process the transaction.

Chris

There's an interesting problem there. The rules set by the card companies themselves (which the airline was simply following, under the terms of its contract which requires it to do so) insist that the vendor *must* have sight of the card when performing any face-to-face transaction. They're only allowed to process a transaction without seeing the card when it's a CNP (Cardholder Not Present) transaction, such as an online or telesales purchase. By creating a product which renders it physically impossible for such a rule to be observed, Cahoot appear to have placed both themselves, their cardholders and vendors in a Catch-22 situation.

I suspect that Cahoot failed to foresee the possibility of an online purchase being followed by a face-to-face refund. Obviously, you can't use the webcard to make a face-to-face purchase, so there's no issue there with regard to breaking the rules. But there may well be occasions where an order is placed online, but is then cancelled in person at the vendor's premises. I think the solution is that the vendor would have to tell you to go away and cancel by phone or online, so that they can legitimately process the refund as a CNP transaction, but not all customer service staff are necessarily going to think sufficientlly laterally to be able to suggest that.

Having said that, the Cahoot webcard FAQ does specifically mention airline tickets as being an example of the type of thing you shouldn't use the card for, as it's normal for airlines (and other online ticket sellers, such as thatre and cinema operators) to want to see the card as proof of identity.

Mark

"Mark Goodge" wrote

Is it actually necessary to "go away" first? Can't the customer simply stay at the vendor's premises, wip out their mobile phone, call the vendor up and cancel over the phone? Or is that against the terms of the contract you refer to?

From my recollection of the wording, they say that you have to see the card if the customer is on the premises. "Cardholder Not Present" means that the cardholder isn't physically there; it's not about how they communicate with you if they are there.

I'm not quite sure how "on the premises" is interpreted in the case of, say, an airline ticket desk at an airport - is it enough to merely be away from the desk, or would you have to leave the terminal or even the airport itself? I suspect that there are guidelines to cover that kind of scenario, but, never having worked in that type of sitation, I don't know what they are.

Mark

"Mark Goodge" wrote

That would be quite onerous on the merchant -- how are they meant to know whether the caller is on the premises (however defined) or not? Especially if the premises were defined as the airport itself in the case above -- the desk clerk would need to run around the entire airport looking for the caller ... !!

Presumably "premises" are defined as that area owned or leased by the merchant for carrying out their business. In the case of an airport ticketing office it would be limited to the boundaries of the space made available to the airline for that purpose by the airport authorities.

In practice, I suspect that as long as the cardholder is not physically in sight of the merchant then they would be entitled to assume they were "Not Present". In my case, walking around to the back of the ticketing booth and calling from a mobile there would probably have been sufficient.

Chris

"Chris Blunt" wrote

That's what I would have thought, but it's still onerous on the merchant...

"Chris Blunt" wrote

But whenever a customer phones them out of the blue, how do they know if they are on the premises or not? Even if they are looking right at them, they might not know it is them...

As long as the merchant is unaware of their presence, then they could reasonably assume they're "Not Present".

Chris

"Chris Blunt" wrote

But how do the terms of the contract that Mark mentioned, specify how the merchant's "awareness" is determined?

Is it just up to the merchant to say? [In which case, not much point in having the clause there.]

Is it whether the other party to the contract

*thinks* the merchant was aware? [In which case, might be open to abuse.]

Is it whether they "should have been" aware? [If so, they need to make sure they look out each time...]

No, they don't.

I suspect that, if it came to court, it would rest on whether the vendor's belief that the customer was not present was reasonable.

Mark

"Mark Goodge" wrote

"Mark Goodge" wrote

If they hadn't looked around (and aren't required to do so), then isn't the most reasonable belief always going to be that the customer *isn't* present? [Assuming that they haven't just been talking to the customer in person.]

With this in mind, couldn't the merchant/vendor just

*never* bother looking up when they take a call, and thereby *always* perform the transaction as 'CNP' ? [Then there's not much point in having the clause there!]

Then, when a merchant refuses to do the refund without the (Webcard) card, because the cardholder is there in person, then they wouldn't need to go away. Just wip out their mobile phone, call up and hope they get another member of staff instead of the one they just spoke to in person. [If they are put through to the same member of staff, they can just hang up and call again until they get someone else!] Beat's standing around the corner in the rain!!

As with any contract, its never possible to define every clause so precisely that it specifies in that degree of detail how every possible scenario imaginable should be handled. As Mark says, at the end of the day, if it comes to a dispute then it would be down to a court to decide whether all parties had reasonably acted within the terms of the contract.

Chris