Stopping a bank transaction

If I bought something on the internet or whatever, using debit card
information, and if before the money came out of my account I came
across information that the merchant might be fraudulent, is their an
expectation that I can phone up my bank and ask them to block all
transactions or the partcular transaction I'm worried about? So, money
is not taken out?
I phoned Abbey Bank (overseas person) and was told let the trasaction
go through, and deal with issues after that.
But, if the goods don't come through, I've lost money then. Should I
have been given the chance to stop the transaction? Or, is that against
banking policy?
In my particular case it was software I was buying, for which I have yet
to recieve the unlocking details, so I could use the program.
I'm curious if I was given the proper advice. TIA
Reply to
Rich
AFAIK you can't stop a credit card transaction. If you could, you'd be able to stop all sorts of things and traders wouldn't know if they were going to get paid or not. You have to deal with the problem after the event.
Rob Graham
Reply to
robgraham
Well, you might not be able to *stop* a credit card transaction, but it's a fairly simple matter to reverse it (i.e. to cause a chargeback to be made against the trader). As you say, this would be after the event, but not necessarily a long time afterwards. However, the OP was asking about a situation involving a debit card. In this case, I fear, he can't deal with it after the event in as simple a way as with a credit card, and the only option may be to go through the courts. Do you agree?
Reply to
Ronald Raygun
You are incorrect in your assumption. If it is a Visa debit card it is covered in the same way as a credit card.
| | >
| >> If I bought something on the internet or whatever, using debit card | >> information, and if before the money came out of my account I came | >> across information that the merchant might be fraudulent, is their an | >> expectation that I can phone up my bank and ask them to block all | >> transactions or the partcular transaction I'm worried about? So, money | >> is not taken out? | >> | >> I phoned Abbey Bank (overseas person) and was told let the trasaction | >> go through, and deal with issues after that. | >> | >> But, if the goods don't come through, I've lost money then. Should I | >> have been given the chance to stop the transaction? Or, is that against | >> banking policy? | >> | >> In my particular case it was software I was buying, for which I have yet | >> to recieve the unlocking details, so I could use the program. | >> | >> I'm curious if I was given the proper advice. TIA | > | > AFAIK you can't stop a credit card transaction. If you could, you'd be | > able to stop all sorts of things and traders wouldn't know if they were | > going to get paid or not. You have to deal with the problem after the | > event. | | Well, you might not be able to *stop* a credit card transaction, but it's | a fairly simple matter to reverse it (i.e. to cause a chargeback to be | made against the trader). As you say, this would be after the event, but | not necessarily a long time afterwards. However, the OP was asking about | a situation involving a debit card. In this case, I fear, he can't deal | with it after the event in as simple a way as with a credit card, and the | only option may be to go through the courts. Do you agree? |
Reply to
Stickems.
That's a rather bold claim. See below.
Well, what if it's not a Visa debit card? Do you concede that it might then not be covered?
What proportion of debit cards in circulation do you reckon are Visa debit cards, as opposed to just ordinary Switch/Maestro cards linked to a normal current account?
If the proportion is low, as I suspect, then to call me "incorrect" is a bit of an exaggeration if what I really am is "almost correct".
The OP did not specify what kind of debit card he was talking about.
Reply to
Ronald Raygun
Hi. I gave the details of my VISA debit card, to a third party financial company (not PayPal, but like PayPal).
It's only for $9.95.
I think the third party company is legit. But, anyway, I think the message is that I'd *have* to wait until the $9.95 was taken out of the account, before trying any reversal or whatever.
Reply to
Rich
Doesn't PayPal, and likewise the third party company, have its own payment protection arrangements so that you can use them "with confidence" and would not need to involve protection mechanisms of the card providers which you use to feed money into the PayPal (or other) account?
But similarly, would not the trader want to wait until the money had come out of your TPC account into theirs before releasing the goods (in this case the activation codes) to you? Otherwise *you* could rip *them* off. The whole point of using payment handling intermediaries is to take the worrying out of any mutual mistrust.
Reply to
Ronald Raygun
Well, you would think so, but I read someone having a problem with a rogue trader and the third party company did nothing.
Indeed that's true.
But usually, I mean my experience is, that when I've purchased a programme on the internet and use a third party, you get the unlock details within minutes.
The question is all about a right to control the outgoings if one's bank account irrespective of other considerations. The ability to instruct a bank to not allow funds to go out.
Reply to
Rich
I have absolutely no confidence in Paypal's ability to resolve any disputes. The internet is full of horror stories about them, and having had quite a few straightforward transactions, I tended not to believe them. Then I had a transaction go wrong, almost entirely due to Paypal, and their refusal to do anything about it at all was incredibly frustrating and changed my view on them considerably.
Neb
Reply to
nebulous
At 12:23:47 on 29/11/2008, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:
Eh? What makes a Visa debit card 'extraordinary' and its linked current account 'abnormal'?
Reply to
Alex
The internet may be full of horror stories, but for every 1 horror there is and maybe 10 good stories. Paypal refunded my daughter when a rogue trader ripped her and about 50 others off. She got her full 150 back which took about 12 days. The total of the scam was in excess of 30K.......some being owed over 600 and still getting their money back from Paypal. I know because I was emailing the other victims.
Reply to
(!)
Nothing makes its linked current account abnormal, and that's not what I wrote. I had in mind the possibility that such cards might be standalone, i.e. not linked to any normal current account, so that you would be given a monthly bill you would be expected to settle in full each time, as with Amex, for example.
What makes a Visa debit card extraordinary is that it apparently has a protection feature (as near as one can get to an "undo") similar to that usually associated only with credit cards, and not found in "ordinary" debit cards.
Reply to
Ronald Raygun
Wrong again. You don't have to settle an Amex card in full each month. I am keeping an eye on your posts.
| | > At 12:23:47 on 29/11/2008, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by | > announcing: | > | >> | >> > You are incorrect in your assumption. | >> | >> That's a rather bold claim. See below. | >> | >> > If it is a Visa debit card it is | >> > covered in the same way as a credit card. | >> | >> Well, what if it's not a Visa debit card? Do you concede that | >> it might then not be covered? | >> | >> What proportion of debit cards in circulation do you reckon are | >> Visa debit cards, as opposed to just ordinary Switch/Maestro | >> cards linked to a normal current account? | > | > Eh? What makes a Visa debit card 'extraordinary' and its linked | > current account 'abnormal'? | | Nothing makes its linked current account abnormal, and that's not | what I wrote. I had in mind the possibility that such cards might | be standalone, i.e. not linked to any normal current account, so | that you would be given a monthly bill you would be expected to settle | in full each time, as with Amex, for example. | | What makes a Visa debit card extraordinary is that it apparently has | a protection feature (as near as one can get to an "undo") similar | to that usually associated only with credit cards, and not found in | "ordinary" debit cards. |
Reply to
Stickems.
That's not what Amex's terms and conditions say:
6. Payment of Charges a. You must pay all Charges in full when you receive your Card account statement. You must pay us in sterling.
formatting link
Chris
Reply to
Chris Blunt
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:21:31 +0800, Chris Blunt put finger to keyboard
It depends on whether it's an Amex charge card (the "traditional" Amex card) or an Amex credit card. The latter doesn't need to be settled every month, no more than any other credit card does.
However, the credit cards are branded somewhat differently to the charge cards and, strictly speaking, an "American Express Card" (or Amex card) refers to the charge card product rather than the credit cards - all the credit cards have specific names, often co-branded with other providers (such as Nectar or British Airways) where Amex provides the processing network but the partner's name is the one which appears most prominently on the card.
Mark
Reply to
Mark Goodge
At 14:48:38 on 30/11/2008, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:
You mean a charge card then, not a debit card. All debit cards debit a linked account - hence the name.
Reply to
Alex
Well, arguably the distinction between a charge card and a debit card is somewhat tenuous, but that's really beside the point at issue, which is that debit cards do not in general come with the same protection against rogue traders which credit cards usually have.
Therefore if Visa debit cards do have that protection, they are in that sense "extraordinary". Whether this is because they are standalone I don't know, I was just speculating; my current account linked debit card is non-Visa, it's Maestro, the brand formerly known as Switch.
Reply to
Ronald Raygun
As far as cardholder protection is concerned, the question is not what type of card it is so much as whether credit has been obtained by use of that card.
If a debit card results in you becoming overdrawn then your are protected in the same way as if you had used a credit card.
Chris
Reply to
Chris Blunt
In general you are right, but what was alleged (by Stickems, and I have no reason to disbelieve him) is that Visa have voluntarily agreed to offer equivalent protection with their debit cards even when no credit has been obtained.
Reply to
Ronald Raygun
At 10:11:05 on 03/12/2008, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:
If you said credit card instead of debit card, I'd agree. Credit and charge cards both draw against a line of credit. Debit cards debit a current account, which may or may not have an overdraft facility.
Yes.
Visa operate their own chargeback system for debit cards which offers some protection similar to credit cards. Mastercard do not currently offer this protection.
Reply to
Alex

Site Timeline Threads

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.