Pay on collection is the only way...

Or perhaps you mean we've gone back to that era. I remember my parents often used to pay the postman for goods they had ordered COD in the days before debit and credit cards. The COD service is hardly ever seen these days. I don't even know if its still available.

Chris

yes it does, but only by mutual agreement....

I won an item on ebay and the seller lived close. He dropped it off one evening and I paid cash.

I meant still available as a service from the Royal Mail.

Chris

I can't see why.

Anyone who orders large household items for delivery and doesn't pay with a credit card is an idiot IMHO.

tim

In many ways I dislike banks as much as anyone else, but I still don't think its right that they should be held responsible for goods supplied by merchants who fail to deliver, or for defects in the goods they supply when payment is made by credit card.

Chris

I am assuming they vet the companies that want to use their credit payment system.........if they don't then they deserve to be accountable for any loses. So they cut costs by not vetting and have to suffer the consequences.

In message , Chris Blunt wrote

Why not? The cost is inbuilt into the margin between what you pay to the credit card company and what they pay to the supplying company. The cost of the credit card deal is factored into the price you pay.

The credit card company will not pay the supplier immediately so if a supplier goes bust the card company will simply not pay for goods not supplied to you.

The inevitable consequence of which is that the purchaser pays more for the goods to cover those costs incurred by the supplier. So it's effectively a kind of insurance that you get whether you want it or not.

In the case of a company going bust, where the card company has not yet paid the supplier, then I entirely agree that the card company should reimburse the customer.

Chris

I assume they vet them for financial integrity etc., but that's not quite what I had in mind. It was more the credit card company's responsibility for the actual delivery of goods, and the quality of those goods that I was thinking of. It just doesn't seem right to me to hold the banks responsible for defects in goods for which they are in no way to blame.

Chris

But that's not what happens, they're not responsible. Leaving aside the question of what happens when the trader goes bust, and looking only at the situation during normal times, the card company is only responsible *to the customer* because it's easier and simpler for the customer to get his money back from the card company than from a trader who's bent on giving him the run-around. The card company, of course, simply passes the costs on to the trader, who is the ultimately responsible party.

So the card company does not lose out, other than having to carry the administrative workload of dealing with such claims.

In message , Chris Blunt wrote

But it may be cheaper than taking cash/cheques with security and handling charges etc. (unless it is a business working in the black economy). Some other methods of payment are not necessarily cheaper for a business.

Even businesses that only take debit card or cash payments try their best to get rid of cash in their tills by offering "cash-back" on the card transactions.

It may well be cheaper, but it might be cheaper still if the card companies were not burdened with liability for many problems that are outside their area of control or responsibility. I quite accept that they should be required to get involved when it comes to issues such as refunds or reversal of transactions etc., but the Consumer Credit Act goes much further than that. Making them liable for defects in products, for example, is going a bit too far, I think.

Chris

I reckon, if it did, posties would be in great danger of being mugged for the cash. They are not exactly incognito in their bright red vans or on their bright red bikes and with "Royal Mail" emblazoned on their shirts. Also, any man wearing shorts in winter is almost certainly a postie.

MM