At 13:47:18 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
And also change the acquirer systems (for every acquirer worldwide), and the card scheme systems (for each card scheme). It suddenly becomes a lot less simple.
At 13:10:22 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
If you've cancelled the authority then the merchant is not authorised to claim the payment and you request a chargeback from your issuer. If you haven't then they are and you don't.
They do. Read the terms and conditions you agreed to.
You will probably get an invoice.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
No checks that the retailer actually has the cardholder's authority to complete the transaction.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
A new merchant could use the likes of PayPal to start accepting credit card payments, pretty much immediately.
"Alex" wrote
Do you know the answer to my (following) question which you snipped? :-
"Tim" wrote > Does the specification not include some "empty" fields ("for > future use") which could be utilised for the required extra data?
If there *are* such "currently redundant" fields (which there should be, for an industry-standard system!), then the card scheme systems do not need to be updated -- they'll simply be passing some extra data where previously they had blanks.
The only differences would be that the acquirers would start filling these fields with data, and the issuers could start using them - as soon as they start receiving requests where these fields have been filled...
"Alex" wrote
The whole point is that the customer has been inconvenienced, by a poorly designed system which cannot do a simply action.
ESPECIALLY when the cause of the invalid transaction (which the cardholder then has to waste their time actively disputing), is the card company having passed up-to-date details to the retailer -- when the retailer has *no* reason to have them!
"Alex" wrote
I did, back when I received them over 20 years ago. I haven't been given any since!
"Alex" wrote
Which is fair enough. Why can't they also do that if you happened to have another account with them too?
At 14:15:12 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.legal by announcing:
How do you propose to utilise these fields without a system change, assuming they do exist?
At 14:27:06 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.legal by announcing:
The whole point is that the customer has been convenienced by allowing them to set up a continuous authority rather than contact the merchant every time.
The card company has no way of knowing who the merchant is unless everyone's systems are updated.
So you remember every term and condition from 20 years ago? And the bank has never varied them?
Because it's more expensive.
At 14:04:38 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.legal by announcing:
No they couldn't. They could accept Paypal payments, which is an entirely different matter.
Surely the merchant identity, or at least the geographic location or nature of the merchant's business, must form part of the input to the 'strange spending pattern' decision?
"Alex" wrote
Well, as I said before, the change is just in the issuing bank's own *internal* systems (assuming that the acquiring banks have started feeding the data in). And, as the issuing bank is (of course!) "customer-focussed", they'll want to do that so that their clients (the cardholders) are happy!
At 15:26:28 on 26/07/2006, Graham Murray delighted uk.legal by announcing:
Your issuer is informed in what country the transaction was acquired.
At 15:31:44 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.legal by announcing:
That's a hell of an assumption. What incentive is there for the acquirers to do this?
"Alex" wrote
Nah - the "whole point" (of this sub-thread) is that they would be "convenienced" **even more**, if the system allowed them to cancel the CCA via the bank!
"Alex" wrote
Exactly! That's why we're suggesting that they *should* be updated!
"Alex" wrote
Oh yes they CAN! [See below.]
"Alex" wrote
You really should check something out before you go and contradict it :-
: "Customers shop on your website and pay on PayPal. This is an easy, quick way to ***start accepting credit cards*** online." [My *** emphasis]
"Alex" wrote
Well, it's all client-focussed (so we've been told!) ... :-
The acquirer's clients (the merchants) will be happier if they get more customers, and the customers will be more inclined to go to merchants who use an acquirer which "does this"!!
So, if an acquirer started doing this then they would be likely to, ahem, "acquire" more merchants because the merchants want to please their customers, so the acquirer would get more business...
At 15:51:24 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
Who accepts the credit card payment? Whose name appears on the cardholder's statement? Who has the merchant agreement with the acquiring bank?
At 15:42:21 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:
And it requires *all* the systems worldwide to be updated. Have you done that cost/benefit analysis yet?
URL:
"Alex" wrote
It doesn't matter... I only said that they can accept credit card payments, and they *can*!
At 16:49:48 on 26/07/2006, Tim delighted uk.legal by announcing:
In the context of Ronald's point, to which you replied, they cannot. The merchant can *not* accept credit card payments as far as any protection under the Consumer Credit Act is concerned. Chargebacks for non-delivery, for instance, would also be improbable since the transaction is with PayPal, not the merchant. The protection from bankruptcy would apply to PayPal going bust, not the merchant.
"Alex" wrote
OK, give me all the relevant details and I will...
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.