Continuous charge authority on debit cards

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message news:4139b53f$0$51857$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

charge authority, therefore has nothing to check against to cancel. Eric

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:27:20 +0100, Andy Pandy scribbled by his own authority... (in article ):

I am unable to answer your question. However, the fact that you have asked the question in relation to the company...

"Eric Jones" wrote

Let's ignore the fact that the OP asked about "debit" cards, and not "credit" cards, and consider your comment (above).

Any credit card company also has no record of a "one-off" charge authority (eg buying goods in a shop) -- but they can still manage to *reverse* the payment immediately afterwards without agreement by the retailer (eg when the goods do not conform to SOGA requirements).

So, why not the same with a continuous authority?

In message , Tim writes

Well the difference between Debit & Credit cards is crucial because if it were a debit card then there is no protection and I reckon its the CCA not the SOGA.

Anyway, ignoring that, you would have to challenge every charge made under the continuous authority rather than cancel the continuous charge authority with the card company.

Your CC company could/should reverse the CCA charge if you have proof that you have cancelled the CCA. It would be a good idea to retain a copy of your CCA cancellation letter as proof that you have cancelled it prior to the charge being made.

Without a hint of irony, "Andy Pandy" astounded uk.finance on

No, you can't. Unlike Direct Debits and Standing Orders, CCA details are not held by your card issuer who is obliged to make any payment authorised by you (unless it breaches some other condition of your agreement such as taking you over your limit etc.)

Without a hint of irony, "Tim" astounded uk.finance on 04 Sep

Nobody said it's not the same. The OP asked about cancelling the CCA, however, which has to be done with the merchant. Individual transactions can be charged back if mistaken or fraudulent. If it's simply a case of not having cancelled the CCA, the funds must be recovered directly from the merchant by the cardholder.

If you send the bank a copy of the letter of cancellation, will they accept this as evidence that you have cancelled the CCA if the merchant continues to charge you?

So if you have an active CCA (not cancelled), can the merchant charge your card without notifying you in advance of the date and amount? And if they charge you an incorrect amount do you have no comeback via your bank at all?

You can't cancel directly with the bank. Make sure you have the company's address, and send a letter by recorded delivery if you need to cancel. That will be sufficient to enable you to challenge any later transactions on the account.

Without a hint of irony, "Andy Pandy" astounded uk.finance on

They may accept it as part of the evidence when you ask them to charge the payment back to the merchant, but they cannot refuse the payment based upon that. How do they know that you didn't a) make a single payment or b) set up another CCA?

That depends on the type of card. If it's a credit card, the issuer is jointly liable with the merchant so you can pursue either. With a debit card, your claim is solely against the merchant (although the bank *may* decide to be helpful and get involved, even if only to suspend charges on that payment).

So a CCA payment that takes you over your limit will always fail? I know this seems logical, but the ability of CCAs to continue extracting payment even after you've cancelled a card has me doubting logic has much to do with these type of payments.........

You would have thought that with today's technology that a CCA could be "registered" by the merchant, so that it shows up as a CCA when you log into your credit card online interface (a "my CCA's" screen). This way it would work more like a direct debit equivalent for credit cards, and would become more widely trusted by consumers and may become a more popular and convenient payment method as a result.

A lot of people still seem to distrust direct debit as it takes away a degree of control, yet a CCA, due to no electronic means of cancellation (can only be legally cancelled by signed hardcopy document I think, and this legal document could still be ignored by the merchant, even though by doing so he is in breach of his agreement), must be even more distrusted as a result.

Good idea, but I still don't see why charges from a particular merchant cannot be blocked by the card company at the cardholder's request. Since there will have been previous transactions on the account, the card company has all the information they need to identify that merchant. Why can't they just be added to some kind of blocked list and decline any further transactions from that company?

Chris

Without a hint of irony, "Adrian Boliston" astounded uk.finance on 05 Sep 2004 by announcing:

The difference is the way in which the payments are claimed and processed. It would mean changing the whole authorisations/payments system - worldwide.

For instance, if you cancel a CCA for 12.99 per month, but then make a single payment a couple of months later for 12.99, does the issuer reject it or authorise it? It's completely different to the way DDs work.

I don't distrust them at all. I can cancel a DD at any time, online, and demand an immediate repayment from my bank in the case of an error. (Maybe people just don't understand them properly.)

Neither is possible with a CCA.

Indeed. I don't like CCAs much.

Without a hint of irony, Chris Blunt astounded uk.finance on 06 Sep 2004 by announcing:

So you can never purchase from that merchant again?

Is it really so much of a problem that issuers worldwide need to change their processing systems to add this facility? If there's a problem, chargebacks result. If it keeps happening, the merchant's acquirer can always shut their facility down.

Why not? You'd just need to ask the card company to remove the block, just as you can re-establish a direct debit after canceling it.

Well it does seem to be something a lot of people have problems with. The frequent discussions on the subject here, and the number of times it gets raised in the media seems to confirm that.

Why would it require issuers worldwide to change their processing systems? Credit card companies can already decline authorisation for a variety of reasons. This would be just one more reason to do so.

Chris

Without a hint of irony, Chris Blunt astounded uk.finance on 06 Sep 2004 by announcing:

Those reasons are normally based on the card or the customer, not the merchant. You'd have to notify the issuer, who'd have to find the acquirer and notify them, and you're asking for either the issuer to hold details of an acquirer's customer, or the acquirer to hold your details. Either would almost certainly require a system change.

If I'm over my credit limit, or I'm using the card in a way that doesn't fit my normal usage pattern, that information is held locally by my card issuer, its not distributed to every acquirer. They can decline a transaction based on those details, so why is to so difficult to decline a transaction based on the request coming from a known merchant?

Chris

Without a hint of irony, Chris Blunt astounded uk.finance on 07 Sep 2004 by announcing:

Who 'knows' the merchant?