He can if we take "non-specific" to mean "not fully specified", e.g. that there is understood to exist an upper bound on the amount authorised.
Yes it would, but not of course lawfully, it not having been agreed that they be permitted to do so.
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.
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.
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 "current" stuff does get pushed into temporary oblivion.
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.
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.
At 12:39:55 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
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.
What sort of "upper bound" do hire car companies quote?
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
A little earlier, Graham Murray asked the following:
to which you replied:
"Ronald Raygun" wrote > Because presumably the expiry date was correct when the initial > transaction was charged, and likewise the security code, if used. > > In other words, what matters is that the card was valid > at the time authority was first given, and the details would > then be kept on file to be used for repeat transactions.
Can you now actually answer Graham's question :- How would the card company know to decline a transaction as a "one-off", if the retailer had simply provided the same details again?
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!
"Alex" wrote
Agreed. And previously, when contacted, the card company will have said "don't tell us, tell the merchant instead". 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?
At 14:24:02 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
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.
I don't see why not. They have no idea whether or not the customer has cancelled the CCA.
No no, I think you misunderstand the issue I'm pointing out... [See below.]
"Alex" wrote
Well, obviously *not* -- or they wouldn't need them "updating"!
"Alex" wrote
Exactly - previously, the up-to-date details were *not* known by the merchant...
"Alex" wrote
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!
"Alex" wrote
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?
At 14:54:21 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
Not every merchant is authorised to set up CCAs. And why is the card company stupid by responding to a request from another bank?
And they will only have the new details if they have sent a CCA report via their own acquiring bank.
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.
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.
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 ("paid regardless") 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.
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 "Well if they say they've got continuous authority then they have", despite having no evidence of it whatsoever.
At 17:19:26 on 16/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
By not reading Ts & Cs correctly before signing or clicking on the "I agree" 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.
The secret number is the wife's birth date. Everyone knows that. And of course the wife is in on the prank and knows where to find the husband's account numbers and the details of all his DDs.
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.
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!
I meant with online banking!
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.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.