In message , Tim writes
No. The system is client driven. If it wasnt then the network would not have developed. the system allows customers to fulfil their instant satisfactions.
easily? balderdash.
? How could it be done without V/M agreeing?
Silly? That is grossly unfair and unworthy of you and is also an unworthy description of Alex.
In message , Graham Murray writes
True. But I think that is unlikely at the moment due to the line of responsibility. If the court ruled as you suggest then all CCAs and all 'no card present' usage would be suspended because the technology ist yet available.
"John Boyle" wrote
And the bank has a choice whether to give their clients (customers) what they want or not [see below].
"John Boyle" wrote
Well, obviously not - that's what we're discussing here. The system does *not* allow satisfaction of the customer's desire to "have the card company cancel a CCA".
"John Boyle" wrote
V/M don't control the way the bank does things **internally**.
As long as the "interface" between the bank and V/M obeys the standard protocols (set by V/M), then there should be no problem.
"John Boyle" wrote
Wasn't it "grossly unfair and unworthy" of Alex to say that I had suggested such a bizarre idea, when I had done no such thing?
"John Boyle" wrote
But it *wasn't* a description of Alex, it was a description of the idea!
Further, Alex even seems to *agree* that the idea is silly...
If that is so, it is not a system which is "fit for purpose"
Are you seriously suggesting that it is satisfactory that a bank should accept a demand for your money from a party unknown to the bank, and should then put the onus on you to recover that money if it was illicitly demanded ? After you warned the bank that it was going to happen ?
I would not accept that attitude to my property from the Left Luggage people at Victoria Station. Can you explain why I should accept it from a bank ?
Can anyone explain why the FSA permits it (if it does) ?
In message , Fergus O'Rourke writes
Yes, its quite feasible.
Yep, to compare it with the left luggage scenario, you receipt says, give the luggage to whoever has this slip, no matter what'.
Because it is all quite logical and all conducted within the terms and conditions. The point is that once the card is used the transaction becomes irrevocable, like using a cheque guarantee card and issuing a number of cheques.
"John Boyle" wrote
Ah, but Fergus didn't ask if it was "feasible", he asked if it was *satisfactory*.
"John Boyle" wrote
To extend the analogy, it also says "give it to anyone with a *photocopy* of this slip"!
"John Boyle" wrote
T&C can be shown to be Unfair, and hence invalid!
"John Boyle" wrote
Hold on - Alex said that a "subsequent CCA" transaction could, and would, be reversed when the cardholder dipsuted it!
"John Boyle" wrote
There was me thinking that a recipient of a cheque was not allowed to photocopy it and use it more than once...!
In message , Tim writes
No, that is not a valid analogy, only originals.
Yes, but they arent unfair and the concept of a guaranteed payment is what the client wants, otherwise he wouldnt get his service.
Yes, it can be 'reversed' but not "stopped" in advance by instructing the bank. i.e. the transaction completes.
You are right! (as said, it isnt a valid analogy, the fact that you think it is shows you have misunderstood the concept.
Who do you think the customer really is ?
At 21:38:07 on 24/07/2006, Fergus O'Rourke delighted uk.finance by announcing:
Well the customer of Barclays Merchant Services certainly isn't Joe Bloggs with his Halifax VISA. And similarly, the customer of Lloyds TSB isn't (in this example) FredCo Ltd. So I'll rephrase the question above.
Do you think that BMS's systems should be geared around Halifax's customers? Or Lloyds TSB's systems should be geared around Natwest Streamline's customers? Or do you think that each organisation should gear their systems around their *own* customers and around the common interfaces (APACS for regular banking and VISA/Mastercard/etc. for card payments)?
"John Boyle" wrote
I disagree. When the card company gives the retailer "updated card details", and the retailer then uses *those* for a subsequent CCA request, then they have *not* received these from the cardholder him/herself. They are therefore just a copy!
"John Boyle" wrote
The cardholder wants the card company *not* to give up-to-date card details to retailers without the cardholder's agreement. So when the card company *does* give out the details, and *this* results in an invalid charge on the card, isn't that unfair?
"John Boyle" wrote
Your previous use of the word "irrevocable" suggested that it could not be reversed!
"John Boyle" wrote
OK, then what action in the "cheque analogy" do *you* think is equivalent (in the credit card case) to the retailer trying to collect a subsequent payment by suggesting that they have a CCA (even if they don't, and especially if they didn't even have up-to-date card details but were given these by the card company!) ?
[snip]
Are you seriously suggesting that clients wanted a system which puts their wallets at the disposal of crooked merchants and prevented the credit card issuer from doing anything about it ?
Whose client? The client of the merchant card service company or the client of the card issuer?
At 13:02:28 on 25/07/2006, Graham Murray delighted uk.finance by announcing:
Which system?
In message , Fergus O'Rourke writes
err, yes. its obvious isnt it?
client of the card issuer.
In message , Tim writes
The authority under which they are used is the original.
Why should they? It stops the cardholder receiving the service they are paying for.
No, because the cardholders original authority is still valid.
I stand by that. the transaction is completed. The subsequent reversal is a separate matter. Its like a cheque being paid, but the drawee agreeing separately to sort it with the collecting bank,to refund it later.
The bit that would be equivalent would be if the drawer issued a number of cheques in conjunction with the cheque guarantee card that were to presented as the drawer used the services of the payee. The drawer then does two things. The first is that he legitimately stops using the services of the payee before all the cheques have been used. The second is that he closes his account and opens a new joint account with his new darling wife for which their is a joint & several mandate for 'either to sign'.
The payee stills presents the cheques for payment. Assuming the cheques have been drawn accordance with the cheque guarantee scheme rules the drawee would still have to pay the cheques however the account number upon which they are drawn is no longer valid and so the bank alters the account number to that of the joint account. As cheque guarantee cards are granted to individuals and are not account specific (but this does not apply to their debit card function) this is allowable.
No matter what the drawer says and no matter how many written instructions they give the drawee those cheques will be debited to the new joint account. The drawer would, of course, probably have a claim against the payee but that is a separate matter and does not involve the drawee at all.
In which case why has the 'system' not been changed to make the CCA more like a Direct Debit which the card holder (ie client of the card issuer) can cancel by instructing the card issuer even if the requesting merchant does not 'play ball' in cancelling it?
I do not remember seeing anyone say that they want the current system where only the merchant can cease a CCA. Everyone (or nearly everyone) seems in favour of it being more like a Direct Debit. All of the objections have been of the nature "the system cannot do it".
At 15:06:23 on 25/07/2006, Graham Murray delighted uk.legal by announcing:
Because the DD scheme only works in the UK and is therefore a fairly simple process to set up. CCAs are worldwide and are therefore vastly more complex to administer this way, especially since you wouldn't be dealing with one central organisation (APACS) but multiple (VISA, Mastercard, Amex, Diners, etc.) each of which would have their own system.
Exactly. DD was designed from the ground up as DD. CCAs were bolted on to credit card processing as a convenience to cardholders. It would require a significant worldwide investment by the banks and card schemes (and possibly merchants) in return for little real benefit.
here we go again,,,,,,
I have made the point numerous times. If the system were changed to the way you describe then the services offered via internet etc., wouldnt be available. A card gives 'point of sale' transactions. What you appear to want is an electronic cheque which you can stop later.
>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.