Cop-op Bank Ts&Cs

Fairly standard, there's probably something later saying it'll be refunded if fraudulent/unauthorised/mistaken.

In any case, the banking code overrides the T&C's, and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 overrides both.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

The banking code is a voluntary code so doesn't override anything.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Eh? If a later term says that it'll be refunded if unauthorised, then what's the point in the earlier term saying :- " **whether or not** you have given or **authorised** such instructions" ?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Do you have a reference for that?

It seems to me that if a bank wanted to abide by the Code, then they'd make sure their T&Cs complied; on the other hand, if their T&Cs don't comply with the Code, then that suggests that they don't want to abide by it (which they are not obliged to do)...

In message , Tim writes

I'm struggling to imagine a payment that could be taken without the PIN, without the card details and without authorisation of the cardholder which would still be OK for the bank to pay. It has to be the silliest term I've seen in a while unless they have a particular situation in mind.

Even for the Ombudsman ?

Indeed.

In practice, they are, except for the most enormous customers (see my earlier post mentioning FOS).

But of course many affected customers will give up.

Report them to the FSA, I recommend. It's a breach of TCF requirements.

Which the Co-op Bank are signed up to.

Tell that to the financial ombudsman then.

"Where the Consumer Credit Act, the Banking Code and the account terms do not say the same thing: the Act takes precedence over the Code and the account terms; and the Code takes precedence over the account terms"

-- Andy

begin 666 teal-sq.gif M1TE&.#EA"@`.`)$``/___P"4I0```,# P"'Y! $```,`+ `````*``X`0 (0

Consumer

Oops sorry, that cut and paste seems to have added an attachment to my reply.

So they can deduct amounts from your account before having the proof that you authorised it.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Either you did or you didn't authorise it. Just because they don't yet have the proof, then they must still either know that you did, or not know...

(1) If they *do* know that you authorised it (but just need to wait to obtain the proof), then the phrase "whether or not you have ... authorised such instructions" is not required.

(2) If they *don't* know if you authorised it, then the term allows them to deduct it anyway. How is that "fair"?

It allows things like ordering over the phone using your credit/debit card. It would be rare for the merchant or bank to have proof that it was actually the cardholder who placed the order.

The Consumer Credit Act doesn't cover debit cards, unless the account is overdrawn.

Consumer

account is

Indeed - it would irrelevant if there was no credit being given.