Barclaycard....Advice needed

A self-imposed ignorance, apparently.

Reply to
Fergus O'Rourke
Loading thread data ...

What are the criteria for

a) obtaining such authorisation

b) losing it

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

How is this policed ? That is, what is the procedure for verifying the merchant's CCA file ?

How does cancellation occur ?

Reply to
Fergus O'Rourke

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

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

Misuse of the facility, for one.

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'.

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.

You contact the retailer, normally in writing.

Reply to
Alex

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

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

Reply to
Alex

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

(I wonder who was going to say that).

I do wonder about the benefit of a system so open to such damaging abuse, abuse which is facilitated by the "self-imposed ignorance" to which I refer above.

Reply to
Fergus O'Rourke

The problem in a nutshell.

Reply to
Fergus O'Rourke

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

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.

Reply to
Alex

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 "don't tell us".

Reply to
Fergus O'Rourke

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

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.

Reply to
Alex

"Alex" wrote

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!

"Alex" wrote

They're supposed to **use it**, by having an appropriate system in place that will allow them to!

"Alex" wrote

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

Reply to
Tim

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

They do nothing of the sort. They accept the acquiring bank's say-so via the card scheme's network.

No. VISA and Mastercard.

Reply to
Alex

[snip]

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 ?

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

Why should I ? How it works is a choice, and apparently a bad one, by the card companies.

Reply to
Fergus O'Rourke

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

When you understand how the process works, you'll understand why it cannot do anything with this information.

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 & Mastercard not your bank)?

Reply to
Alex

"Alex" wrote

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

"Alex" wrote

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

"Alex" wrote

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 "interchange and settlement system", 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?

Reply to
Tim

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

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.

So you now suggest that each bank keeps a record of the name of every card-enabled merchant worldwide?

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. The internal systems are geared around dealing with customers *and* other banks, not customers *of* other banks.

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.

Reply to
Alex

"Alex" wrote

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

"Alex" wrote

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!

"Alex" wrote

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!

"Alex" wrote

Hehe. Yeh, right.

"Alex" wrote

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?

"Alex" wrote

The things that their system is "geared around" 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.

"Alex" wrote

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

Reply to
Tim

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

And how does the bank know which particular worldwide merchant you mean when they have no direct relationship with them?

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.

Because they need to know exactly which merchant to look out for amongst the myriad number of merchants with similar names.

And how do they do that, exactly, when the request comes via VISA or Mastercard from a bank, not from a merchant?

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

Since you are now clearly demonstrating a massive lack of understanding of how this works, there's no point continuing.

Reply to
Alex

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 "run past" 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.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

"Alex" wrote

They should know, because they should be told which merchant it is in the request which is passed through the system.

"Alex" wrote

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 "put things right" when they are asked -- but, of course, the card company "shouldn't need to mess about tracing them"...

"Alex" wrote

Nope, just with *exactly* the same name.

"Alex" wrote

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!

"Alex" wrote

I think that they should be *better* geared around their *own* customers. That means being able to take notice of their requests!

"Alex" wrote

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

Reply to
Tim

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.
Reply to
Graham Murray

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.