Barclaycard....Advice needed

"Alex" wrote

My point is *not* invalidated by the fact that Ronald may have been wrong, when he said: "If merchants make mistakes, they will not only get chargebacks, but will also earn black marks..." !

At 17:12:06 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.legal by announcing:

But since you were both talking about completely different things, the points aren't relevant to each other.

In message , Tim writes

Cancelled??? by telling whom? the bank or the merchant?

No you are getting over enthusiastic with the * & ! and are playing with words. rethink my point here, it will stop the service ever being provided in the first place.

yes I did.

no you are selective in your quotes. in full you said "when the card company *does* give out the details, and *this* results in an invalid charge on the card"

Giving out the right details does NOT result in an invalid charge. The customer authority is not card detail specific, it is account specific.

eh? How?

Logic lost there, I'm, afraid. I can see how you have come to this conclusion, but your route is flawed. You seem to think for some reason that the cardholders authority is based on a specific card and the details thereon, when in fact it refers to a specific account.

err,,, they do. In addition a cheque guarantee card does NOT show the account name. Have you ever seen a cheque card for a joint account which shows the name of both account holders??

Charges the cheques to a new account in the clients name and then chases him for the dosh. I merely introduced the concept of the joint account as an example of the bank changing the account details in order to complete the transaction and this was a result of me challenging your erroneous 'photocopy of a cheque' analogy.

As said above, you seem to be confusing the clients relationship with the card relationship.

In message , Tim writes

I am not putting my wallet to such exposure. arent you getting a bit over excited? No checks? eh? crooked merchants? I dont deal with any, do you?

Your sounding more like Ann Robinson every day.... :-)

In message , Tim writes

You really should check something out before you contradict it.

Read the print, it only works for web based sales.

In message , Tim writes

Go back up the thread. The point, AIUI, in question is those CCAs which the merchant claims are CCAs but which the client claims is a single purchase. Therefore all single purchases are in scope just in case the merchant process them as CCAs.

Sometimes I get the feeling you are arguing for the sake of it.

"John Boyle" wrote

Eh? Are you trying to suggest that I made an incorrect statement?

"John Boyle" wrote

So what? I didn't suggest it didn't!

Anyway, merchants *can* make a "face-to-face" sale using PayPal, simply by entering the website themselves (of course, this will be treated as a "cardholder not present" sale, but doesn't stop the sale occurring!).

"John Boyle" wrote

Then why did you tell Fergus that:- "...clients want a system which puts their wallets at the disposal of crooked merchants..."

In message , Tim writes

Nom they are 'merchants' on the sense we are discussing, they are just 'clients of PayPal'.

"John Boyle" wrote

I thought it was obvious : the merchant -- as the bank won't entertain such a request!

"John Boyle" wrote

It shouldn't stop that at all, should it? It might stop the service after the card's expiry date is passed, but that only requires the cardholder to update the details they've provided to the merchant every couple of years or so.

"John Boyle" wrote

Exactly. This is in the situation after the cardholder has cancelled the authority with the merchant (otherwise the charge would not be invalid).

"John Boyle" wrote

But if the retailer did not use the up-to-date details, isn't the transaction request declined?

"John Boyle" wrote

When did that change? If it *hasn't* changed, then why did the banks previously give cardholder's the impression that the authority ends at the expiry date of the card, by (previously) requiring the cardholder to give the updated details to the merchant?

"John Boyle" wrote

I was talking about the situation after the cardholder had cancelled the CCA with the merchant. So the charge *was* invalid. If the cardholder *hadn't* cancelled the CCA, how could the transaction be invalid?

"John Boyle" wrote

It really doesn't matter either way, because the situation I was describing was after the cardholder had cancelled the CCA with the merchant.

"John Boyle" wrote

All three of mine do. [Of course, they are also debit & cash machine cards combined.

"John Boyle" wrote

Isn't their relationship with the cardholder one of a merchant?

At 11:13:00 on 27/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.legal by announcing:

It didn't.

They didn't. Previously, if a card had expired, the merchant could leave the expiry date, issue number, etc. blank for a CCA transaction.

"Alex" wrote

"Alex" wrote

Hmmm... Then I wonder why many merchants didn't do that, and instead asked the cardholder for the up-to-date details when the card expired...

At 11:53:15 on 27/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.legal by announcing:

Because they would prefer to have the correct details, perhaps?

"Alex" wrote

Why would they have wanted them, if it didn't make any difference?

To put it another way, what *incentive* did they have to waste their time getting the details, when they weren't needed?

Or to put it yet another way, how does the "cost/benefit analysis" stack up? ;-)

At 12:20:30 on 27/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Perhaps it costs more? Perhaps they'd have to do it manually because their system doesn't accept an invalid expiry date? All sorts of reasons.

Could it be that they were not in fact using a proper CCA, but rather an informal arrangement with your permission, whereby they kept your card details on file and submitted them repeatedly as one-offs?

At 14:21:09 on 27/07/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

That's certainly another possibility. I have one of these right now, in fact, with the final payment due next month.