Barclaycard....Advice needed

NO!!!! There is a considerable difference between a one-off payment and allowing a merchant/service supplier to continue to collect charges in-perpetuity. In terms of cheques, a CCA is more like a cheque which you write once, the recipient banks it, the bank send the cheque back to the recipient who then banks it again every month and there is no way that you can tell the bank "This has been banked enough times, I withdraw my authority for you to pay if it is presented again". What I, and I think a lot of others, would like to see is the equivalent of a Direct Debit, where authority is given for the supplier to charge your account *until further notice*. If Direct Debits work, then CCAs should be able to work in the same way.

The vast majority of internet transactions are one-time payments. With these there is no problem, the merchant can produce (if it is queried) the evidence that the card holder authorised that one single 'point-of-sale' transaction. With CCAs, like with Direct Debits, the merchant should be able to produce evidence that the card holder authorised periodic charges. BUT, as with Direct Debits, the card holder should be able to withdraw that authority at a later date. AFAIK CCAs are not used to spread the cost of goods or services already supplied (ie not for payment in arrears), but are used to pay "in advance" for continuing supply of goods or services. So a prudent supplier will make the periodic charge, and if it is declined would cease supply of the goods/service. As payment is (certainly in my experience) claimed in advance, the card holder would not obtain any goods or services for which they had not paid.

Reply to
Graham Murray
Loading thread data ...

At 18:41:20 on 25/07/2006, Graham Murray delighted uk.finance by announcing:

I'm afraid that just doesn't follow at all.

Reply to
Alex

Apart from one taking the money from a current account and the other from a credit card account, why should they not be able to work in the same way? I know that at the moment, they do not work the same way but that does not mean that CCAs could not be changed to work in the same way as Direct Debits.

Reply to
Graham Murray

At 20:15:35 on 25/07/2006, Graham Murray delighted uk.legal by announcing:

Well the first two differences that should be obvious even to someone with no knowledge of the payment industry is that one is UK only and via one central organisation whereas the other is worldwide and via multiple organisations.

Reply to
Alex

Some (if not 'many') ISPs and similar manage to accept Direct Debit without problems. My feeling in many cases is that the ones who do accept DD are those who believe that the customer is getting a good enough deal to want to keep paying.

If an immediate payment is required followed by regular (i.e. monthly) amounts it's hardly beyone the wit of man to have a single Credit Card payment followed by Direct debit, what's so difficult about that?

Reply to
tinnews

No! see the proper analogy in my other post.

No. Every body is saying 'should'. teher is no comparison. Perhaps the answer is to have DDs on CCs as well as CCAs. It would be inetersting to see how this would be implemented and the take up by suppliers, very inetersting indeed.

This would slow the system somewhat dont you think? Instant purchases would cease.

Reply to
John Boyle

No, I do not think so. I suspect that the only affect on instant purchases would be that it might take a few milli-seconds more for an on-line authorisation. Instant purchases can already be declined for various reasons, such as over credit limit etc., so some checking must be performed.

Reply to
Graham Murray

At 21:50:01 on 25/07/2006, snipped-for-privacy@leary.csoft.net delighted uk.legal by announcing:

Only in the UK.

Reply to
Alex

How many UK people use a non-UK ISP? :-)

It's not *that* frequently that one needs a continuous regular payment to an overseas business, in fact I'm not sure that I can think of any that I have whereas I do have quite a few UK ones.

Reply to
tinnews

At 09:09:10 on 26/07/2006, snipped-for-privacy@leary.csoft.net delighted uk.finance by announcing:

The majority of my CCAs are to overseas businesses.

Reply to
Alex

In message , Graham Murray writes

This is old ground. Most authorisations are remote. Search for Alex's numerous posts on this point in the huge number of recent threads regarding this.

Reply to
John Boyle

In message , snipped-for-privacy@leary.csoft.net writes

But the point in this thread is that somebody unknowingly enters into a CCA agreement when there think they are making a one off payment. So all non UK transactions are potentially CCAs.

Reply to
John Boyle

*You* might want to put *your* wallet at the disposal of **crooked** merchants, with no checks before they are allowed access -- but I'm pretty sure that most people would *not* !!
Reply to
Tim

"Alex" wrote

The fact that, say, MasterCard & Amex etc exist, doesn't make it any more difficult for (say) VISA to introduce the required changes themselves (unilaterally).

Why are you trying to complicate matters?

Reply to
Tim

"John Boyle" wrote

Why should they? We're only considering changes to *CCA*'s, not "one-time" transactions...

Reply to
Tim

What do you mean "no checks"?

Merchants need to show a history of several years of honest trading before even being allowed an ordinary merchanting account, never mind the ability to accept CCAs.

Or so I imagine. I hope I'm not being naive.

If merchants make mistakes, they will not only get chargebacks, but will also earn black marks, and if there's any hint of actual crookedness, they will get cut off and will find it very difficult to get re-accredited.

Or so I imagine. I hope I'm not being naive.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

"John Boyle" wrote

... which (we are supposing) has been

*cancelled* by the cardholder!

"John Boyle" wrote

Exactly! - That's what the cardholder *wants* !

"John Boyle" wrote

Err, no it's not. You didn't read my comment properly. I said "an invalid charge", which implies that the cardholder has cancelled his authority and therefore it is **no longer** valid.

"John Boyle" wrote

"Individuals not accounts"? Why do the banks not point this out to customers?

"John Boyle" wrote

Hmmmm - what does the bank do if the customer doesn't have another account with that bank, but only with their competitor banks?

Reply to
Tim

At 12:05:29 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Let's try explaining the transacation process once more for you then.

  • Merchant processes a transaction
  • Transaction is sent to the acquirer who recognises this is a valid merchant requiring authorisation
  • Acquirer sends the transaction to the card scheme who recognises this is a valid acquirer
  • Card scheme sends the transaction to the correct issuer who accepts the transaction since it's from the card scheme
  • Decision is made based on numerous factors (credit limit, not lost/stolen, strange spending patterns, etc.) but NOT on the merchant since the issuer has no idea who the merchant is
  • Decision is sent back to the card scheme, back to the aquirer, and back to the merchant
  • If the decision is positive, the funds are reserved

At a later date, the transaction is settled. As part of this settlement, the merchant name is forwarded to the issuer so that it can be printed on the statement. If the transaction is not settled within a suitable time (say, 10 days) then the reserved funds are released.

Your card issuer CANNOT therefore stop a CCA in advance since it has no idea until a later date who the merchant actually is. Of course, they could intercept it at settlement time as long as they know the exact merchant name to look out for, but they cannot do this with current systems.

The next stage is to do a cost-benefit analysis on this to realise exactly why the banks have not changed their systems.

Reply to
Alex

"John Boyle" wrote

... which (we are supposing) has been

*cancelled* by the cardholder!

"John Boyle" wrote

Exactly! - That's what the cardholder *wants* !

"John Boyle" wrote

Err, no it's not. You didn't read my comment properly. I said "an invalid charge", which implies that the cardholder has cancelled his authority and therefore it is **no longer** valid.

"John Boyle" wrote

"Individuals not accounts"? Why do the banks not point this out to customers?

"John Boyle" wrote

Hmmmm - what does the bank do if the customer doesn't have another account with that bank, but only with their competitor banks?

Reply to
Tim

"Alex" wrote

This is what needs changing. Simply add a new field to the transaction request which holds the merchant name...

"Alex" wrote

They COULD if the merchant name (or, preferably, some kind of global-ID) was passed through the system in the transaction request (see above).

"Alex" wrote

"Alex" wrote

Does the specification not include some "empty" fields ("for future use") which could be utilised for the required extra data?

Reply to
Tim

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.