Hold on, I agree that the CC company may only make payments for which authority for the receiver has been given. But, if the receiver claims he/she has authority, for example due to a previous agreement that does not allow the customer to cancel, what does the CC company do then? Again this dispute is between the customer and the retailer, *not* the CC company.
Yes, well this is a consumer programme about money on the BBC, not much chance of them getting it all wrong really. Anyway, here are a few more links that warn of the same thing:
formatting link
ies.htm
Another one from the BBC:
formatting link
There are many threads in the newsgroups about this, just do a seach on Google for continuous authority payments. You'll find that the CC company probably won't stop payments until the dispute is resolved.
And one more just for luck:
formatting link
Again the retailer might not agree that such authority can be withdrawn. At any rate it will require arbitration of some description, and until that arbitration has resolved the situation the CC company will continue to honour payment requests, even if the consumer tries to close the account.
I thought CCAs were only implemented on credit cards. I pay my Freeserve premiums on my Delta debit card (with Visa symbol, if that's relevant) for that reason. Can you point me to a site which confirms what you say ?
Mmm, OK I've just done a search. I've got a PayPal account and never had any problems with it, and have even been recommended to use that method to pay people who can't take credit cards. It works fine for me, but I see there are many out there with problems. All I can say is do your own research!
The retailer *cannot* "authorise" a payment from a consumer - the authority must *always* come from the consumer. If the consumer does not authorise future payments, then they are *not* authorised!
Authority is unilateral - you do not need "permission" from anyone else to give authority to take payments from you; conversely, you do not need permission from anyone to decide to *no longer* authorise payments.
The payment mechanism is orthogonal to any dispute relating to the substance of a contract itself. Because CCA is a mere administrative simplification to obviate the need for repetitive re-authorisation, it can always be withdrawn, since the alternative in the non-simplified case is simply to cease re-confirming the authorisation.
I suppose it's conceivable that an agreement for the supply of services, which is subject to a minimum subscription period, and which is also subject to the condition that the only acceptable means of payment is a CCA, could be a bit difficult to fight, but the bottom line is that the customer was stupid enough to agree to the deal in the first place, and any attempt to get out of paying by "closing the tap", as it were, would be a damned fool thing to do. In such a situation there is no doubt whatever that the customer owes the supplier the full year's subscription, and it really makes no odds whether it's paid by one moethod or another, the money is, for all intents and purposes, gone.
I don't claim they have it *all* wrong. Just the bit that matters. :-)
formatting link
Well, that one doesn't say anything I disgree with.
Who's to say there is a dispute?
"A continuous authority gives the relevant company the right to take agreed sums of money from your account from now until doomsday - unless you cancel or alter that agreement."
That implies both that the amounts have to be agreed and that you can cancel the agreement. Surely that's fair enough?
They're entitled to their opinion. I repeat that the customer cannot get out of paying what he owes, but there is not generally an obligation to pay by the supplier's favourite method.
Well, the customer can of course refuse to pay the CC bills, to the extent that they include disputed amounts. It would be interesting to see what would happen in court if a CC tried to pursue a customer for payments for which there is demostrably no authority.
Yes I agree, but what if the retailer says the consumer had previously agreed that they could take these payments before the consumer tried to cancel? According to them they *already have* authorisation, which they believe was given by the consumer exactly as you state. The consumer may, for example, have subsribed for a year to a magazine with regular monthly payments, then try to cancel after only 3 months. The CC company doesn't know what the actual agreement with the supplier is, how does the CC company know that there really wasn't an agreement for a year? The consumer might not actually have the right to cancel their own previous agreement in this way. Again the retailer might not agree that such authority can be withdrawn. Nothing silly in that.
I agree with you entirely but that is not really the point. It's all about what has actually been agreed, effectively by contract, and to establish this properly may require a court's involvement.
The example you provide above is a quite different situation involving someone who failed to cancel a CCA which he had given to an insurance company. In that case he had just assumed the insurance company would stop taking payments, and didn't bother to cancel the CCA. If he had cancelled it the problem would not have arisen.
You've looked at the wrong link, the one I supplied was for a guy who signed up for business services, tried to cancel with them and failed, tried close his CC account and failed too.
No - they *had* authorisation, but no longer *have* authorisation.
"markp" wrote
OK, then the consumer might *owe* the magasine the money, but that doesn't authorise the CC company to "dip into" the consumers bank account or credit card when *not* authorised to do so - they need to go to court to get their money!
"markp" wrote
Doesn't matter. The agreement to purchase the magasine from the consumer, and authority to take payments from a credit card, are two *very separate* things entirely.
"markp" wrote
The consumer might not be able to cancel the agreement to purchase - but they can always withold authority to take payments from a credit card. Again, the retailer has *no* say in the matter of whether the consumer authorises the payments from card or not - that is entirely up to the consumer - so, as the retailer's agreement is not required, it is not possible for the retailer "not [to] agree that such authority can be withdrawn" !!
So yes, it *is* silly to think that the retailer needs to *agree* to the consumer's wishes!!
As to the agreement to purchase, I agree. As to authority to take payments from a credit card, I cannot agree - because authority does not require agreement between parties - it is simply the choice of the consumer whether to authorise the payments or not, and the retailer cannot decide themselves whether the payments are authorised (or not). That is the principle of someone's authority!
The court should only become involved in deciding about the agreement to purchase (or not) - effectively by contract, as you say. Even the court cannot decide whether an individual provides their authority to do something - the court can only order that something is done.
Most agreements that I have ever come across on the net don't give much of a payment option. Many only use credit cards, some both credit and debit cards.
I agree entirely that a consumer should be able to cancel (if allowed by their agreement with the retailer), it's just that the retailer has to actually action that cancellation and the CC company cannot just stop paying on the word of the consumer. I've shown this several times in the links I've provided.
formatting link
ies.htm
formatting link
>
Eh? How exactly did you extract the implication that the consumer "can cancel the agreement"? This was just a conditional statement, it makes no assertion whatsoever as to whether the agreement can unilaterally be cancelled by one party or the other. In fact it doesn't even imply that cancellation is even possible. By definition an agreement cannot be altered unilaterally unless the agreement itself states that this can happen or both parties agree to the change.
So let's say the retailer is 'entitled to their opinion'. What if they refuse to stop taking the money because it is their opinion that they are entitled to it? The CC company will honour each request for payment until such time as an arbitration of some sort has taken place. This is what I've been saying all along, and backed up with links. If you have evidence to the contrary please supply it!
Ah, demonstrably no authority. It can only be demonstrable after arbitration, before that it's pure speculation. Arbitration includes both parties putting their case, and this according to the links I provided can last up to six months.
I've supplied several links to back my position and I see a significant lack of links or evidence from your standpoint. Perhaps you can supply some?
To be fair to Mark, Tim, it is conceivable that the contract might stipulate that the only form of payment acceptable is CCA. If that has been agreed, it is tantamount to having agreed not to withdraw CC authorisation for the agreed minimum duration of the subscription.
OK, then can you explain why people have had so much trouble in stopping money from leaving their CC accounts, even to the point of closing the CC account with no success? Why do consumer programmes such as MoneyBox on the BBC warn of such problems? These problems obviously exist.
If it was a clear case of just stopping authority then all the consumer would need to do is send a copy of the letter they sent to the retailer withdrawing their authority to their CC company and payments would immediately stop. Why does this not happen?
I have heard that CCA 1974 is inapplicable in this situation and there is in fact no English Law that can be used (although I believe American Law is different). Is this correct?
Sorry, I did read several links you posted and confused the two from the BBC. In none of the examples do I see any evidence that a CCA is irrevocable. What I do see are complications resulting from difficulty in or failure to communicate that to the merchant involved. There doesn't seem to be any question that if the merchant has received such notification then the CCA is effectively cancelled.
Whatever happened to "Legal Tender"? If the consumer does withdraw the authorisation (even if this contravenes a particular term of the agreement), then surely it simply creates a debt? The retailer's remedy would therfore be, to be paid the sum required - in this case, how can the retailer refuse to accept Legal Tender instead??
The situation would be similar to having agreed (eg in a house sale) to pay X on dd/mm/ccyy. This doesn't mean that *definitely* X will be paid on dd/mm/ccyy. If it is not, but you do pay instead X+interest on dd/mm+1/ccyy, then everything is sorted - is it not?
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.