Sorry, that does not compute. I sense you're trying to make some kind of joke, but perhaps I'm too dim to get it.
I meant the customer might wish, when shopping at Tesco's (or wherever), to consider discontinuing the use of a payment card in favour of good old fashioned cash.
The fact you have unpaid and grow>> "Tim" wrote:
Erk! rather odd there...
The fact you have an unpaid and growing balance which you were not paying - if you continued to use the card it would be increasingly difficult for you to ensure you paid the right amount to leave the correct remainder (especially if you didn't pay off the balance in full each month) so you'd stop using the card meaning that the fact you have an unpaid debt would also be there.
Jim.
"Ronald Raygun" wrot
I just wondered why you specified Tesco's, rather than "at a shop"...
It will only get to the Ombudsman if the customer is aware of that route, and it would be the customer who would take his case to that nice gentleman.
The customer could, however, opt to go straight to court.
Fair enough, except...
It's a trifle incovenient having to countermand the direct debit mandate for the full balance every month, and to re-activate it once everything has been sorted out satisfactorily, and to remember to pay the right amounts meanwhile.
And what if the customer only notices the dodgy transactions after the money has already been taken? Then he'd have to sue the card co for it back, wouldn't he, unless he could set it against future spending, if there is enough of it.
Maybe, but there's still the thorny balance of probabilities. If it's easy-ish for the bank to refute the customer's claims, it ought to be equally easy-ish for the bank to argue their own point.
They're pretty well the market leader. A good candidate for using their name in a generic sense. I might also have a hidden agenda, because Tesco's is where I do most of my shopping, and if I get hassle from them like "You can't use you Amex card here, Sir, if it doesn't take a PIN", that I might go for cash, or, to be more awkward, cheques.
"Jim Ley" wrote
If the credit card company does things correctly, then there will be no adverse data supplied to CRA's from "disputed transactions" - until the dispute has been resolved, eg by mutual agreement or by a court.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
You could equally say: "It will only get to
*court* if the customer is aware of that route..."So what?
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
What's the point in that?
If the customer wins at the FOS, then s/he wins (it is binding on the bank).
If the customer loses at the FOS, s/he can then go to court afterwards (if s/he so wishes) - the FOS decision is not binding on the customer.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
One quick phone call, or internet banking session?
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Just pay the full amount for undisputed transactions, then don't use that CC until the disputed transactions have been sorted out - future payments therefore all *nil*.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Didn't the customer look at their statement, which was sent 2-3 weeks *before* the DD payment was taken?
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
The whole point is that it shouldn't get that far anyway. If the FOS finds in favour of the bank, there'd need to be some reason for that - wouldn't there?
In message , Alex writes
I will report if anything happens.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Ermm. If a fraudster had acquired the card, which wasn't signed, don't you think the first thing s/he would do is sign the back in their own handwriting? After all, it would draw much less attention to themselves, wouldn't it?!
Assuming this to be the case, any occurrence of a "non-signed" card is *much* more likely to be with the legitimate cardholder, and not a fraudster. So why all the "clapped in irons" stuff?
To make the customer feel that people are taking seriously the safety of his money. :-)
Most people have heard of courts and know they are the place to go to resolve a grievance. I suggest many people are unaware of the existance and remits of the Banking Ombudsman.
Faster?
Fair enough. Getting two bites at the cherry is a good thing. But you need to know you can.
*Quick* phone call? To a call centre staffed by people who are very courteous but with whom you have a mutual comprehension problem?I go online to my current account pretty well every day, but feel no need to do so to my various credit cards. Too many user IDs and passwords to remember. But yes, it could suit some people.
No, he was away on a long holiday.
So much for two bites at the cherry, if the first is going to prejudge the second.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
After they've gone through the bank's own complaints procedure, and their final decision is still against the customer, that final letter will say "you can always go to the Ombudsman if you still disagree, within 6 months of this letter."
If the customer doesn't read the bank's final letter, then it's their own fault that they didn't know about the Ombudsman!
Now - you're not going to say that they didn't know about the bank's complaints procedure, are you? :-(
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Get a better bank!
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Then cancel the DD with your "current account" bank, rather than with the credit card...
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
Lucky ba****d!! Hadn't thought of that - I haven't taken a holiday since 1999!
Yes, but even if not...
If some trader (or banker) mucks me around, I have no intention to conform to *their* procedures, which can give the impression to have been designed as delaying tactics. I want satisfaction and I want it now. Two letters, tops. The first, friendly and polite, explaining the background, the problem, and the required remedy, and a deadline for reply. The second, only if necessary, firm but still polite, brief and to the point, and intimating an intention to take court action failing satisfactory resolution by final deadline.
I guess I'm now expected to tell you to "get a life". (or worse, a wife).
Time for a sabbattical.
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
But you already agreed to these, encompassed within the T&C's, when you first applied for the bank account. Oooops!
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
I *think* I have one of the former (!) - I *know* I have one of the latter.
Mebbe if I didn't have the latter then I may have taken more holidays? ;-)
[snip]
I think that the bank is obliged to notify the customer of the availability of that route.
The Unfair Contract Terms rules take care of that one. They basically say that anything you don't like in the contract doesn't apply to you. :-)
I thought it'd be likelier to be the other way round. "Darling, we haven't had a holiday for a whole year! I hear Corsica is nice at this time of year...."
The work/life/wife balance is not easy to get right. So it's best to ditch two of them to concentrate on the other. I have!
Yeahbut it's still fun to grass up an errant trader (or more likley a lax CC company) by asking them if it would help their procedures if you get a crime number from your local nick 'cos FooBar (Let's pretend its a Continuous Authority) Ltd. have obtained a money transfer by deception... ;->
rgds, Alan
According to
Contine to sign:
How about calling or contacting card issuers and reporting back here your findindings on:
Let's name on here which Banks/BuildingSocieties/Credit Card providers are or are not providing relevant information.
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.