"Electric Fan Club" wrote
> in message news:413d7b18$1 snipped-for-privacy@baen1673807.greenlnk.net... >
>> Whilst you may be correct in part, the fact remains the the card
>> issuer is not liable for continued debits following the
>> cancellation of a continuous debit authority (and it may well be
>> reinforced in the T&Cs). The card issuer is only liable for
>> fraudulent transactions for which no authority has *ever* been >> given. >
> I would have thought that the card issuer would simply do a
> chargeback for a charge applied by a merchant where they no longer
> hold an active continuing authority, so they would not then be
> liable and their customer would not suffer.
>
> If they do not do a chargeback you will get the situation like a
> few years back where I understand people were being charged by the
> ISP Compuserve *months* after they had cancelled their agreement,
> and people were actually having to cancel their cards as the only
> way to avoid being charged each month. This must have been bad
> news for the card company if they were loosing customers due to > this.
I cannot see a court or the FOS permitting a card issuer, which has been told that it has no authority to make a particular debit, to collect on that debit.
It will not matter if the T&C permit it - which, interestingly, no-one has actually demonstrated (and, the last time I looked, mine did not) - as such a term would be unenforceable in law, and/or would offend the FOS view of what is fair and reasonable.
The contrary view is pronounced on a regular basis on these groups without any effort to research the actual position in law. I accept that it is very difficult to get some card issuers to act legally, and that, in practice, some may take the view that the reality is that a card issuer can do what it likes. However, the fact that most crimes go unpunished does not make them legal.
(uk.finance added)