Cancelling recurring payments by debit card
Nogood Boyo
payment and that I have to get the people collecting the payments to
stop. Which might be difficult, if there's a dispute or if the
supplier is disreputable.
What's the difference between stopping a cheque or cancelling a direct
debit, which the bank will do without quibbling, and cancelling a
recurring debit card payment? Is there a difference in law? If there
is, I don't recall the bank ever alerting me to the risks attached to
this method of payment.
Surely, if I have a dispute with a supplier and want to stop paying,
the rights and wrongs of it are nothing to do with the bank. Why
won't they accept instructions from me to stop paying?
--
Nogood Boyo
tim....
"Nogood Boyo" <ynys...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:8a0bd1db-999e-45c7...@l22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Because unfortunately that is how it is.
Recurring payments can only be stopped by the recipient.
And banks don't alert you to this risk because they like it like that
tim
Jon Ribbens
>> Surely, if I have a dispute with a supplier and want to stop paying,
>> the rights and wrongs of it are nothing to do with the bank. Why
>> won't they accept instructions from me to stop paying?
>
> Because unfortunately that is how it is.
We have done this topic before, in 2006 under the subject heading
"Continuous Direct Debit" (yes, even though the subject heading says
direct debit it was actually about continuous payment authorities).
Nobody at the time, as far as I recall, managed to come up with an
explanation of why this is legal. Not all card companies' terms and
conditions seem to mention recurring payments.
An article from the BBC suggests that "banks ... do have to help if a
company breaks the terms of the contract":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theoneshow/2010/02/continuous-payment-authority-d.shtml
According to this article, the bank can stop the payments if you open
a dispute with them after failing to get the merchant to stop taking
the payments:
David
wrote:
>Surely, if I have a dispute with a supplier and want to stop paying,
>the rights and wrongs of it are nothing to do with the bank. Why
>won't they accept instructions from me to stop paying?
I had a similar problem earlier this month.
My bank said the only way to stop the payment was report the card lost and
have it stopped. They then issued a new card with a new number and cancelled
all transactions related to the old card.
Regards
David
Ian Jackson
Nogood Boyo <ynys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Lloyds TSB tell me that they can't cancel a recurring debit card
>payment and that I have to get the people collecting the payments to
>stop. Which might be difficult, if there's a dispute or if the
>supplier is disreputable.
It seems to me that the law, and your contract, are clear:
1. You notify the seller that they should stop; specifically, that
they are not authorised to charge your card. Do this in writing.
2. All payments after that point are unauthorised and the bank must
refund them.
3. If you send a copy of your letter from 1. to the bank along with a
covering letter promising never to authorise the same seller
again, the bank has no justification for debiting any further such
transactions to your account.
4. If the bank persists in doing so you should write to the bank
saying that it's not reasonable to ask you to notify the bank to
get every individual error reversed. You should threaten to sue
the bank without further notice if they don't desist, saying you
will be asking the court to order the bank not to place any
further such charges on your account.
If the bank cannot manage to make the supplier stop, and have no way
of blocking the individual vendor in their computer, they will simply
have to manually examine every transaction on your account until such
time as they get their computer guys to get their finger out.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Theodore
<ynys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I've no idea, but as somebody else has suggested, best thing to do is
ring the bank and say you've lost the card.
Old Codger
>
> If the bank cannot manage to make the supplier stop, and have no way
> of blocking the individual vendor in their computer, they will simply
> have to manually examine every transaction on your account until such
> time as they get their computer guys to get their finger out.
Way back in the days of real bank managers I had a discussion about this
with mine.
I had a friend who had extended his mortgage and was now paying (by
continuing direct debit) his original payment plus the total new
payment. His bank insisted that only the mortgage company could sort it
and they were doing nothing. My bank manager said he could not
understand the problem. If I had a similar problem he would ask me what
the amounts were and what was the correct amount. Before I had left the
building he would have placed a query on my account against any debits
of those amounts. This would cause them to be chucked out for manual
sort and the mortgage company would receive only the amount that I had
agreed.
That can surely still be done, probably automatically, given the will
but I suspect even the "helpful bank" would find it rather too much
trouble these days.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
NotMe
> Lloyds TSB tell me that they can't cancel a recurring debit card
> payment and that I have to get the people collecting the payments to
> stop. Which might be difficult, if there's a dispute or if the
> supplier is disreputable.
Banks lie to you.
Two weeks ago my bank told me that they could not cancel a direct
debit, and that if I did the other company could just reinstate it.
This I knew to be false based upon the direct debit guarantee.
At the end of the day, this is your money in your account, so you
should have the final say (I am not a lawyer etc.)
However cancelling a recurring payment instruction could put you in
breach of contract with the other party, and you may have to find
another way to pay them, or terminate the contract.
Percy Picacity
news:rjpgj6pge2hvuaevm...@4ax.com:
That could work if the bank chose to let it, but in general it doesn't.
The general practice is to continue applying the continuous payment to
the new card account. Or, if the card is not replaced to continue
accumulating the debt and hold the would-be ex-customer responsible.
The terms do normally allow the bank to recover debts after the account
is "closed".
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
news:cew*KY...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
> In article
> <8a0bd1db-999e-45c7-8ab2-
fb816a...@l22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
> , Nogood Boyo <ynys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>Lloyds TSB tell me that they can't cancel a recurring debit card
>>payment and that I have to get the people collecting the payments
>>to stop. Which might be difficult, if there's a dispute or if the
>>supplier is disreputable.
>
> It seems to me that the law, and your contract, are clear:
>
> 1. You notify the seller that they should stop; specifically,
> that
> they are not authorised to charge your card. Do this in
> writing.
>
> 2. All payments after that point are unauthorised and the bank
> must
> refund them.
>
And what if the seller asserts that you have signed a contract to
continue monthly payments for five years? Then you can't cancel it,
and the bank has a conflict of evidence between two of its
customers. They may or may not choose to support you, but it is not
obvious that they are bound to. They may say you have to take the
seller to court if you feel they are in the wrong.
--
Percy Picacity
R. Mark Clayton
"Nogood Boyo" <ynys...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:8a0bd1db-999e-45c7...@l22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Continuing Credit [/debit] Card Authorities are a license for the receiver
to help themselves to you money.
OTOH Direct Debits are covered by a guarantee and the payer can countermand
and get his/her money back (from the bank) if there is breach of the rules.
NEVER give a CCCA to service companies (like $ky or BT*)
* some years ago BT wanted my ISP provision off the phone bill and onto
separate payment. I refused because they only offered CCCA, Finally they
offered a fixed price deal at £15.99p per month on DD.
First month bill - £192
Second month bill - £30
sorted out third month.
TimB
> David <n...@benison.invalid> wrote innews:rjpgj6pge2hvuaevm...@4ax.com:
I'm sure that if, before closing the account, you wrote to the bank to
advise them that any further payments from the now closed account
should not be authorised under any circumstances, any attempt to
enforce a debt wouldn't get much further than the FSA.
TimB
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote innews:cew*KY...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
> > In article
> > <8a0bd1db-999e-45c7-8ab2-
>
> fb816a999...@l22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > , Nogood Boyo <ynyst...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyds TSB tell me that they can't cancel a recurring debit card
> >>payment and that I have to get the people collecting the payments
> >>to stop. Which might be difficult, if there's a dispute or if the
> >>supplier is disreputable.
>
> > It seems to me that the law, and your contract, are clear:
>
> > 1. You notify the seller that they should stop; specifically,
> > that
> > they are not authorised to charge your card. Do this in
> > writing.
>
> > 2. All payments after that point are unauthorised and the bank
> > must
> > refund them.
>
> And what if the seller asserts that you have signed a contract to
> continue monthly payments for five years? Then you can't cancel it,
> and the bank has a conflict of evidence between two of its
> customers. They may or may not choose to support you, but it is not
> obvious that they are bound to. They may say you have to take the
> seller to court if you feel they are in the wrong.
I wouldn't say so. If you have signed a contract with a third party
for 5 years, whether or not you choose to uphold your part of that
contract has nothing whatsoever to do with your bank. Their job is to
look after your money, and if you have told them that Company X isn't
allowed to take any more money from your account, that should be an
end to the matter. If Company X has a problem with that, they can take
you to court themselves (assuming of course that you haven't simply
agreed another payment method with them).
Mark
wrote:
My bank told me that, if I did this, the agreement would automatically
be passed to the new card and therefore this method would not work.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Nogood Boyo
>
[...]
> We have done this topic before, in 2006 under the subject heading
> "Continuous Direct Debit" (yes, even though the subject heading says
> direct debit it was actually about continuous payment authorities).
>
I did search for earlier threads before asking here but most of the
earlier stuff that I found was about credit cards and there are
specific legal provisions relating to credit cards, aren't there?
--
Nogood Boyo
Nogood Boyo
> On Jan 20, 11:15 pm, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> > And what if the seller asserts that you have signed a contract to
> > continue monthly payments for five years? Then you can't cancel it,
> > and the bank has a conflict of evidence between two of its
> > customers. They may or may not choose to support you, but it is not
> > obvious that they are bound to. They may say you have to take the
> > seller to court if you feel they are in the wrong.
>
> I wouldn't say so. If you have signed a contract with a third party
> for 5 years, whether or not you choose to uphold your part of that
> contract has nothing whatsoever to do with your bank. Their job is to
> look after your money, and if you have told them that Company X isn't
> allowed to take any more money from your account, that should be an
> end to the matter. If Company X has a problem with that, they can take
> you to court themselves (assuming of course that you haven't simply
> agreed another payment method with them).
>
In this case there was (I believe) mis-selling over the telephone.
There's nothing in writing. Google reveals that the supplier is well
known to the banks because of complaints about its practices.
I still don't understand why the banks will allow you to stop a cheque
or cancel a direct debit but not allow you to cancel a recurring debit
card payment. What's the difference?
--
Nogood Boyo
Nogood Boyo
[...]
> continue monthly payments for five years? Then you can't cancel it,
> and the bank has a conflict of evidence between two of its
> customers.
We don't actually know whether the supplier is a customer of the same
bank. But even if it is, a dispute between me and the supplier is
nothing to do with the bank. If payment were by cheque or direct
debit, the bank would act on my instructions without quibbling.
What's different about debit card payments?
In this case the supplier can produce no authority for debit card
payments because none was given. The words used on the phone were
"direct debit", which can be easily cancelled. There are other
aggravating circumstances but I won't explain them because they aren't
relevant if someone can answer my original question about the
different methods of payment.
> They may or may not choose to support you, but it is not
> obvious that they are bound to. They may say you have to take the
> seller to court if you feel they are in the wrong.
>
[...]
But on what legal basis might they say that?
--
Nogood Boyo
Ian Jackson
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>And what if the seller asserts that you have signed a contract to
>continue monthly payments for five years?
That is completely irrelevant. The bank (on behalf of the seller) is
only allowed to debit your card if you authorise it. That's what it
says in the terms of your agreement with the bank.
If you revoke your authorisation and clearly communicate that
revocation, then the payments are not authorised and the bank is not
entitled to debit them to your account.
If that means you're in breach of the contract with the seller than so
be it; the bank has no right to enforce the terms of your contract
with the seller.
> [Your bank] may say you have to take the
>seller to court if you feel they are in the wrong.
If I got such a response from my bank I would issue proceedings for
an injuction, as outlined in my previous posting. The bank would be
bound to lose.
Percy Picacity
news:e9b94e59-a937-4cad-9433-a15c0a0214f9
@g26g2000vbz.googlegroups.co
m:
> On Jan 20, 11:10 pm, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
> wrote:
>> David <n...@benison.invalid> wrote
>> innews:rjpgj6pge2hvuaevm6ftfc9pe6l5fla
Possibly you are right if there is an articulate and determined
complainer. OTOH ISP support forums used to be full of people who
have been treated just as I describe and banks justified it by
saying that their action was in accord with the terms of the
customer's agreements with each party. Whether they have relented
on this or whether DD has just become much commoner I don't know.
--
Percy Picacity
Iain
Normally a continuing authority is part of a wider contract. That contract
may typically be along the lines that Company A agree to provide you with
something (typically a service) for which you agree to pay an agreed amount
on a regular basis. The bank is purely a vehicle to satisfy your part of
the contract for payment. For this reason, the bank, quite rightly, is
unwilling to intervene. If the bank stopped making the payments (for
instance, only on your say-so), it could be that the bank might be held
liable for a breach of the contract.
However, if you are able to prove that Company A has not fulfilled their
part of the agreement, eg. they have not provided you with what was agreed,
and that a possible breach of the contract had occured, they could well
intervene on your behalf.
Therefore, if you are able to prove that the contract has terminated, eg.
through Company A saying so, or that they had not fulfilled their part of
the agreement, the bank may well be able to do something about the payments.
I, in the past, have been able to stop a continuing authority when I was
able to prove that my (then) ISP was not providing the service that I had
been regularly receiving, that I expected.
Some people have mentioned about closing the card account. Apparently other
people have previously said that the bank had still continued to debit the
regular amount, even though that account had been closed, and that the
original cardholder was still liable for the amount. I cannot comment on
that.
But do not expect the bank to stop payments just on your say-so. You would
need to provide specific information as to why they should stop paying.
IANAL
--
Iain
Percy Picacity
om:
> On Jan 20, 11:15 pm, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
> wrote: [...]
>> They may or may not choose to support you, but it is not
>> obvious that they are bound to. They may say you have to take
>> the seller to court if you feel they are in the wrong.
>>
> [...]
>
> But on what legal basis might they say that?
>
On the basis that they believe their customer for card payment services
(the business that says you have made an agreement) an don't believe
you (the customer holding a credit card account). A court might find
against them on the facts, but is unlikely to criticise their decision
to make a choice of believing one of two disputing parties both of whom
they have a contract with. And they probably make a lot more money
from the business than from the individual customer.
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
> In article <Xns9E73EC6C965...@208.90.168.18>,
> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>And what if the seller asserts that you have signed a contract to
>>continue monthly payments for five years?
>
> That is completely irrelevant. The bank (on behalf of the seller)
> is only allowed to debit your card if you authorise it. That's
> what it says in the terms of your agreement with the bank.
Of course if that is what your credit card agreement says then you
are right. Unfortunately, the great majority of us have contracts
with large UK-operating banks using Visa or Mastercard cards that
say that the cardholder may grant a continuing payment authority but
may not cancel it with agreement of the payee. Your good fortune
does not help the rest of us.
>
> If you revoke your authorisation and clearly communicate that
> revocation, then the payments are not authorised and the bank is
> not entitled to debit them to your account.
>
> If that means you're in breach of the contract with the seller
> than so be it; the bank has no right to enforce the terms of your
> contract with the seller.
It is relevant that the bank has a lucrative contract (perhaps
indirectly through an intermediary, perhaps not) with the business
benefitting from the credit card payments. It also has an obligation
to fulfil the terms of that contract that no doubt says it will
honour the continuing authority unless its customer business is
misusing it. The customer (particularly if it is a large telecoms
business) is not likely to agree that it is acting illegally and it
can, as you say, hardly be the bank's business to investigate this.
Unfortunately, this is the position faced by most of us. You may
well feel this is outrageous, you would not be the first to do so.
Maybe it has even changed, but this was certainly the situation a
few years ago.
>
>> [Your bank] may say you have to take the
>>seller to court if you feel they are in the wrong.
>
> If I got such a response from my bank I would issue proceedings
> for an injuction, as outlined in my previous posting. The bank
> would be bound to lose.
>
--
Percy Picacity
Simon Finnigan
----------
They should stop paying because I, the only person with a direct
relationship with them, say so. If another company who is getting money
from me disagrees, then it`s up to them to take me to court to force the
issue. Or do you think that the bank should be taking a slice off every
time you take cash out, incase you`re paying cash in hand for work to avoid
VAT?
Iain
Both parties have a relationship with the bank - both parties have agreed
(because the continuing authority has been established) to use that bank as
the means to transfer the money from the payer.
What if the payee banks with the same bank, and in a more rural environment,
with the same branch? The payee could quite easily say what right does 'my'
bank have to interfere with an established agreement. The bank therefore
leaves itself open to possibly joint action for a breach of the agreement.
Whether you agree with it or not, that seems to be how the continuing
authority is working. All the OP needs to do is show reasonable proof that
the company with whom he has the agreeement has not been fulfilling their
part or maybe has misrepresented the agreement, or that both parties have
agreed to terminate the agreement.
That's what I did, and my bank (card company) re-credited the amount each
time a deduction was made.
IANAL
--
Iain
Simon Farnsworth
> Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
> news:9rt*r+...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
>> In article <Xns9E73EC6C965...@208.90.168.18>,
>> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>And what if the seller asserts that you have signed a contract to
>>>continue monthly payments for five years?
>>
>> That is completely irrelevant. The bank (on behalf of the seller)
>> is only allowed to debit your card if you authorise it. That's
>> what it says in the terms of your agreement with the bank.
>
> Of course if that is what your credit card agreement says then you
> are right. Unfortunately, the great majority of us have contracts
> with large UK-operating banks using Visa or Mastercard cards that
> say that the cardholder may grant a continuing payment authority but
> may not cancel it with agreement of the payee. Your good fortune
> does not help the rest of us.
>
I cannot find a UK bank that makes such a claim; I can find plenty (HSBC,
Lloyds TSB, Barclays, Citibank trading as Egg, to name a few) that say that
the only way I can cancel a continuing payment authority is to cancel it
with the payee, but none that purport to extend the authority at the desire
of the payee.
If I'm understanding the terms correctly, this means that, assuming I can
prove that the payee was aware that the authority had ended, while I can't
ask the bank to cancel the authority (as it doesn't rest with them), I can
ask the bank to treat each individual transaction as fraudulently
authorised, as the payee represented to the bank that they had my
authorisation to take money, yet I can demonstrate that the payee knew that
no such authorisation existed.
On top of that, if I'm understanding the Fraud Act 2006 correctly, the
payee, by representing to my bank that a payment authority was still in
place when it had been cancelled, is committing "fraud by false
representation". I cannot see a UK bank wanting to be involved in such a
dispute.
Simon
Roland Perry
2011, Simon Farnsworth <si...@farnz.org.uk> remarked:
>>Unfortunately, the great majority of us have contracts
>> with large UK-operating banks using Visa or Mastercard cards that
>> say that the cardholder may grant a continuing payment authority but
>> may not cancel it with
shouldn't that be "without"?
>>agreement of the payee. Your good fortune
>> does not help the rest of us.
>>
>I cannot find a UK bank that makes such a claim; I can find plenty (HSBC,
>Lloyds TSB, Barclays, Citibank trading as Egg, to name a few) that say that
>the only way I can cancel a continuing payment authority is to cancel it
>with the payee,
That's the conventional wisdon.
> but none that purport to extend the authority at the desire
>of the payee.
I'm having difficulty parsing that (especially given possible typo
above).
Do you mean that the payee isn't allowed to refuse to accept the
instruction (irrespective of the circumstances), or something else?
If the former, who is supposed to police that, if not the bank.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
Not that are relevant to this subject, that I'm aware of.
Jon Ribbens
> Unfortunately, the great majority of us have contracts with large
> UK-operating banks using Visa or Mastercard cards that say that the
> cardholder may grant a continuing payment authority but may not
> cancel it with agreement of the payee.
Is that really true? The last time this came up, I looked, and many
card T&Cs made no mention of continuous payment authorities, and those
that did used the wording "You can stop a continuous payment authority
if you tell the person you are paying in time." Note - not "if the
person you are paying agrees", in fact not conditional upon anything
but the undefined "in time" part.
Simon Farnsworth
> In message <ihem6f$aqm$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, at 13:35:02 on Sat, 22 Jan
> 2011, Simon Farnsworth <si...@farnz.org.uk> remarked:
>>>Unfortunately, the great majority of us have contracts
>>> with large UK-operating banks using Visa or Mastercard cards that
>>> say that the cardholder may grant a continuing payment authority but
>>> may not cancel it with
>
> shouldn't that be "without"?
>
I've assumed that that was what Percy meant.
>>>agreement of the payee. Your good fortune
>>> does not help the rest of us.
>>>
>>I cannot find a UK bank that makes such a claim; I can find plenty (HSBC,
>>Lloyds TSB, Barclays, Citibank trading as Egg, to name a few) that say
>>that the only way I can cancel a continuing payment authority is to cancel
>>it with the payee,
>
> That's the conventional wisdon.
>
>> but none that purport to extend the authority at the desire
>>of the payee.
>
> I'm having difficulty parsing that (especially given possible typo
> above).
>
> Do you mean that the payee isn't allowed to refuse to accept the
> instruction (irrespective of the circumstances), or something else?
>
> If the former, who is supposed to police that, if not the bank.
As I understand the banks' position, a continuous authority is not something
they have control over; it's an artifact posessed by the payee purporting to
show that they have authorisation to take money from my card as and when
they wish.
If I can show that the payee knows that they are not authorised to take
money from my account, then I can get the bank to treat this just like they
would any other unauthorised payment. However, it's up to me to show that
the payee knew that the authority was no longer valid.
In terms of who is supposed to police it; the courts, just like any other
contract dispute in the United Kingdom.
I would suggest that if a bank has evidence that a payee was not authorised
to take money from my account, but permitted them to do so anyway, then they
are at risk of being found jointly liable by a court - they could have
refused to let the payee take the money, but didn't.
If, on the other hand, the bank didn't have good reason to think that the
authority was no longer valid, it would only be the payee liable, as the
bank acted in good faith.
It's a matter for the courts to decide what evidence the bank should accept
as evidence that the payee should be aware that the authority has ended; I
would expect that a copy of a letter from me to the payee, together with
sufficient proof of delivery (e.g. copies of a Special Delivery slip that
reference the payee, and the number that the bank can use to check that the
delivery was signed for by the payee's agent) would be enough to push the
balance in my favour.
--
Simon
Roland Perry
>as evidence that the payee should be aware that the authority has ended; I
>would expect that a copy of a letter from me to the payee, together with
>sufficient proof of delivery (e.g. copies of a Special Delivery slip that
>reference the payee, and the number that the bank can use to check that the
>delivery was signed for by the payee's agent) would be enough to push the
>balance in my favour.
While I agree with that in general, and agree with your comments... in
the general case, how does the court know that the envelope which was
signed for contained a copy of that particular letter. Or is the sender
usually given the benefit of the doubt.
(Sorry, but I've been thinking about eBay scams today, some of which
revolve around people signing for what turn out to be empty boxes).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> remarked:
In that context a month should be "enough time", even if four days
apparently isn't, for your average utility company (see thread "DD -
I've started so I'll finish").
--
Roland Perry
Nogood Boyo
>
> Is that really true? The last time this came up, I looked, and many
> card T&Cs made no mention of continuous payment authorities, and those
> that did used the wording "You can stop a continuous payment authority
> if you tell the person you are paying in time." Note - not "if the
> person you are paying agrees", in fact not conditional upon anything
> but the undefined "in time" part.
My terms and conditions say "We cannot cancel a payment made using a
card once you have given your consent to make the payment to a
retailer. You will need to contact the retailer separately. This
includes payments made on a regular basis from your card account, such
as magazine subscriptions. You will also need to tell the retailer if
your account is closed or your card number changes otherwise they may
not be able to collect your payments."
The OED defines retailer as "A retail dealer or trader; one who sells
goods in small quantities" so the trader that I'm dealing with, who
purports to supply repair services, is not a retailer.
So the restriction on cancelling payments doesn't apply. So I should
be able to cancel them by telling the bank.
--
Nogood Boyo
Percy Picacity
news:ihem6f$aqm$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> On Friday 21 January 2011 21:35, Percy Picacity wrote:
>
>> Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
>> news:9rt*r+...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9E73EC6C965...@208.90.168.18>,
>>> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>>And what if the seller asserts that you have signed a contract
>>>>to continue monthly payments for five years?
>>>
>>> That is completely irrelevant. The bank (on behalf of the
>>> seller) is only allowed to debit your card if you authorise it.
>>> That's what it says in the terms of your agreement with the
>>> bank.
>>
>> Of course if that is what your credit card agreement says then
>> you are right. Unfortunately, the great majority of us have
>> contracts with large UK-operating banks using Visa or Mastercard
>> cards that say that the cardholder may grant a continuing payment
>> authority but may not cancel it with agreement of the payee.
>> Your good fortune does not help the rest of us.
>>
> I cannot find a UK bank that makes such a claim; I can find plenty
> (HSBC, Lloyds TSB, Barclays, Citibank trading as Egg, to name a
> few) that say that the only way I can cancel a continuing payment
> authority is to cancel it with the payee, but none that purport to
> extend the authority at the desire of the payee.
If it were as you say, the statement would be pretty meaningless, as
you could effectively eliminate the payee's opinion: as long as you
notified them the bank would stop the payment just as though the
clause you quote had never been written.
>
> If I'm understanding the terms correctly, this means that,
> assuming I can prove that the payee was aware that the authority
> had ended, while I can't ask the bank to cancel the authority (as
> it doesn't rest with them), I can ask the bank to treat each
> individual transaction as fraudulently authorised, as the payee
> represented to the bank that they had my authorisation to take
> money, yet I can demonstrate that the payee knew that no such
> authorisation existed.
>
You still seem to be basing your argument on some sort of special,
extra-contractural "right" to terminate authorisation of a credit
card payment. One does exist in the case of direct debits (in that
the bank will allow you to cancel the DD whatever your contract with
the payee says). And, for historical reasons, credit cards in
America seem to work like this. But not in the UK. Suppose you
have signed a contract for a service for a year, and given the
service provider a continuing credit card authority. On your
construction, after six months you can simply withdraw that
authorisation and the provider is left to sue you or send in the
debt collectors. Now it may be they have breached their contract
with you, but the bank won't know this for certain just because you
assert it. If the provider denies this breach, points out to the
bank that you still owe six months' regular payments, and that your
agreement to the continuing authority has not expired (it need never
expire!) then the bank has no reason to stop paying the payee on
request.
There simply does not exist a general right to terminate card
payments regardless of a contract not to do so, and I cannot see why
you suppose there is. If you are terminating the payment for breach
of contract I suppose you can sue the payee and the bank, and this
may help if the payee is a large organisation that is incapable
(because of organisational design or difficulties) of stopping the
payments just because a court has ordered it to do so.
--
Percy Picacity
Simon Farnsworth
I'm not a legal expert, so don't take this on trust; in the general case, I
would expect the sender to be given the benefit of the doubt, until such
time as someone contradicted them; after that, it all boils down to who can
produce a better case.
And, of course, thinking about the continuous authority situation; what
stops the payee lying to the bank, and claiming continuous authority where
none exists? We've been mostly thinking about the case where a company had a
continuous authority, but it's been withdrawn, but it's easy to imagine a
situation where I'm paying month-by-month on individual authorisations, yet
the firm I'm paying claims a continuous authority as soon as I cease dealing
with them. It's next to impossible for the bank to work out which of the two
is the case without looking into details.
In both cases, there is a monthly charge by the firm, authorised by me. In
one, I authorised each charge in turn. In the other, I permitted the firm to
take money when it suited them. The bank sees a regular charge by the firm
authorised by me in both cases; who does it believe when I say that those
were each authorised individually, and the latest is fraudulent, when the
firm says it had a continuous authority?
This isn't entirely hypothetical; I have direct personal experience of
paying a major company (a large and trusted consumer brand, not someone
you'd think of as shady) a one-off payment on my credit card, and receiving
a letter from them claiming that I had set up a continuous card authority.
They even tried to argue, in writing, that such an authority existed and had
been authorised in a telephone call, until I pointed out that I had a
recording of the phone call they were asserting included the authorisation,
and that I would bring that recording to court if the organisation in
question tried to draw anything other than the authorised one-off payment
from my credit card.
I also copied details, including all the written correspondence and the call
recording, to my card issuer, who were happy to confirm that, having
listened to the recording and read the letters in both directions, they
would not accept a claim by the organisation that they had a continuous
authority, and would accept my claim that a debit was fraudulent if one
occurred.
My card issuer then contacted the firm in question on my behalf, pointing
out the situation, at which point they accepted that they did not have the
authorisation they were claiming; however, had I not had the recording, just
what would have stopped them from continuing to falsely claim it?
--
Simon
Iain
Why are you wanting to cancel the continuing authority?
--
Iain
Nogood Boyo
>
> Why are you wanting to cancel the continuing authority?
>
payment by debit card when the words used on the phone were direct
debit. On reflection, it's probably not cancellation so much as
assertion that there never was an authority for continuing debit card
payments.
--
Nogood Boyo
Iain
A sale over the phone is presumably subject to the Distance Selling
Regulations. You have rights under that - for instance your right to
cancel. Have you explored these options?
There are many websites available that explain your rights under the DSRs.
eg.
http://www.out-law.com/page-430
As you are aware of the service / goods, you will have to go through that
page to see which parts may or may not apply to your situation. You may
also be interested to check whether the standard cancellation period of 7
days could be extended to three months in your case.
--
Iain
Simon Farnsworth
> Simon Farnsworth <si...@farnz.org.uk> wrote in
> news:ihem6f$aqm$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> On Friday 21 January 2011 21:35, Percy Picacity wrote:
>>
>>> Of course if that is what your credit card agreement says then
>>> you are right. Unfortunately, the great majority of us have
>>> contracts with large UK-operating banks using Visa or Mastercard
>>> cards that say that the cardholder may grant a continuing payment
>>> authority but may not cancel it with agreement of the payee.
>>> Your good fortune does not help the rest of us.
>>>
>> I cannot find a UK bank that makes such a claim; I can find plenty
>> (HSBC, Lloyds TSB, Barclays, Citibank trading as Egg, to name a
>> few) that say that the only way I can cancel a continuing payment
>> authority is to cancel it with the payee, but none that purport to
>> extend the authority at the desire of the payee.
>
> If it were as you say, the statement would be pretty meaningless, as
> you could effectively eliminate the payee's opinion: as long as you
> notified them the bank would stop the payment just as though the
> clause you quote had never been written.
>
That's not what I'm saying at all; the bank is put in an awkward position,
and has to balance its two contractual obligations with care.
On the one hand, the payee claims to be authorised to debit my account; on
the other hand, I claim the payee is not authorised to debit my account. The
bank has to decide, based on what evidence it can see, which of us is likely
to be being dishonest.
You are assuming that the bank will automatically side with the payee; it's
not that simple. The bank is faced with the position where the payee claims
authorisation, and I claim that the payee is not authorised and that the
charge is fraudulent.
It has to be cautious here; if it sides with the payee in the face of strong
evidence to back my position, it runs the risk that when *I* sue the payee
to recover my money, naming the bank as a joint defendant, the court deems
that the bank should have realised that the transactions were not authorised
and orders the *bank* to pay me back.
On the other hand, if it sides with me, and the payee can demonstrate that
it was properly authorised and the bank therefore had no reason to refuse
the transaction, it can face being liable to the payee for the money it
refused to pay out.
The bank is aiming to get itself into the middle ground, where whichever
party loses out when the transaction is either refused or accepted is unable
to convince a court that the bank should have acted differently.
> There simply does not exist a general right to terminate card
> payments regardless of a contract not to do so, and I cannot see why
> you suppose there is. If you are terminating the payment for breach
> of contract I suppose you can sue the payee and the bank, and this
> may help if the payee is a large organisation that is incapable
> (because of organisational design or difficulties) of stopping the
> payments just because a court has ordered it to do so.
>
Nor does there exist a general right to take card payments without valid
authorisation, and I cannot see why you suppose that there is. The bank is
facing conflicting stories about whether a payment is validly authorised or
fraudulently authorised; it will decide whether or not to permit the
transaction to go through based on its best judgement as to which results in
lowest risk to the bank.
On the other hand, I can't ask the bank to remove the claimed continuous
authorisation; it's simply not something in the bank's possession. The bank
just sees transactions from the payee; *I* have to tell the bank "no, this
transaction is fraudulent." for each transaction the payee attempts. I then
have to convince the bank that the transaction is fraudulent, given the
payee's evidence that the authorisation is valid.
This is absolutely no different to any other disputed card transaction. The
payee claims valid authorisation, I claim fraudulent authorisation, the bank
is stuck in the middle trying to sort through it and make a decision that
results in neither me nor the payee having a legal claim against the bank.
And, of course, both the payee and I can take legal action against each
other to get this resolved; I would be very surprised to find that a
merchant was prohibited from asking a court to order me to pay what I owe
under a contract just because they've previously taken part payment under a
continuous authority, and I don't believe that consumer protection
legislation would permit a merchant to argue that I cannot sue them for the
return of money taken from a card in the absence of a refund from my bank.
Once a court has made a decision, the bank will find its decision simple;
copy what the courts concluded. Until then, its fraud team have to look at
each payment in turn, and come to a conclusion that protects the bank's
interests; the bank may well prefer to pay out unless it looks like a slam
dunk because its contract with the merchant will simplify getting the money
out of them at a later date, but this does not mean that the merchant will
always get what they want.
--
Simon
tim....
"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
news:k5mij61fl2rof04e0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:31:17 +0000, Theodore <theo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:40:10 +0000, Nogood Boyo
>><ynys...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Lloyds TSB tell me that they can't cancel a recurring debit card
>>>payment and that I have to get the people collecting the payments to
>>>stop. Which might be difficult, if there's a dispute or if the
>>>supplier is disreputable.
>>>
>>>What's the difference between stopping a cheque or cancelling a direct
>>>debit, which the bank will do without quibbling, and cancelling a
>>>recurring debit card payment? Is there a difference in law? If there
>>>is, I don't recall the bank ever alerting me to the risks attached to
>>>this method of payment.
>>>
>>>Surely, if I have a dispute with a supplier and want to stop paying,
>>>the rights and wrongs of it are nothing to do with the bank. Why
>>>won't they accept instructions from me to stop paying?
>>
>>I've no idea, but as somebody else has suggested, best thing to do is
>>ring the bank and say you've lost the card.
>
> My bank told me that, if I did this, the agreement would automatically
> be passed to the new card and therefore this method would not work.
This was not my experience when my CC company decided that they had nothing
better to do that week than inconvenience me by issuing a new card number.
I had to manually move all my continuous debits myself.
tim
TimB
Yes, but the banks only relationship is to act as an agent, making
payments as authorised by their customer (me). If I close my account
and run away, the bank can't be sued by the supplier when they
inevitably start declining payments because I've reached my limits.
Therefore, it's got precisely sod all to do with them. It's my money,
and if I tell them that they are no longer authorised to make that
payment to that recipient, then that should be an end to the matter.
It would be very interesting to see what happens were a customer to
inform their bank in writing that they have withdrawn authority for a
CCA and no further payments should be made. I don't doubt that general
banking incompetence would ensure that the payments were still made,
but it would be difficult for the bank to argue that you authorised
the charge in that situation.
Simon Finnigan
news:46c044b1-6dca-4149...@t23g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
----------
I`d also like to include providing evidence to the bank that the company
taking the money has been informed of the decision, to remove any potential
ambiguity.
Mark
Actually I recalled this incorrectly. I threatened to close my credit
card account completely and they told me that they would still pay and
I would owe them the money. Since then I have avoided CCAs.
>I had to manually move all my continuous debits myself.
I'm sure they'll only move them if you don't want them to ;-)
This reminds me of when I last moved my main bank account. The new
bank promises to move all SOs and DDs. However a few companies just
ignore any instructions from the bank and will only accept the
information direct from the customer. However they don't bother
telling anyone. They just attempt to collect the original DD, which
fails and then they write a formal letter threatening to terminate
your contract. I'm sure they are within their rights to do this, but
it would easier for all if they had notified me that they don't accept
DD changes from the bank so I could set the DD manually in advance.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Iain
> On Jan 22, 4:10 am, "Iain" <s...@smaps.net> wrote:
> > Simon Finnigan wrote:
> > > "Iain" wrote in messagenews:8pu8e0...@mid.individual.net...
> > > Normally a continuing authority is part of a wider contract. That
Rather than me repeatedly trying to explain the principles it would be
better if you looked at an article that Martin Lewis did for Money Box:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/2099270.stm
--
Iain
Simon Finnigan
----------
That doesn`t explain anything, it simply re-iterates what you`ve been
saying. Which I (and others) disagree with the idea behind.
TimB
wrote:
>
> I`d also like to include providing evidence to the bank that the company
> taking the money has been informed of the decision, to remove any potential
> ambiguity.
I wouldn't. It's certainly polite to inform the company, but if they
have the option of just ignoring me and knowing my bank won't cancel
the payments without evidence that they're aware, you're just inviting
trouble.
Simon Finnigan
news:e1042d75-684b-45cc...@q18g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
----------
If you supply proof to the bank that you have removed your authority for the
transaction, AND that you have informed the company taking the money that
you have removed their authority, then you leave the bank no reasonable
course to decide to carry on allowing the transaction.
Nogood Boyo
wrote:
> "Iain" wrote in messagenews:8q5tj4...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Rather than me repeatedly trying to explain the principles it would be
>> better if you looked at an article that Martin Lewis did for Money
>> Box:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/2099270.stm
>
>
And it's about credit cards, not debit cards.
--
Nogood Boyo
Big Les Wade
>
>And what if the seller asserts that you have signed a contract to
>continue monthly payments for five years? Then you can't cancel it,
>and the bank has a conflict of evidence between two of its
>customers.
But only one of these customers has an explicit guarantee from the bank
that it will refund all disputed DD payment, and that's you. The other
party, the seller, has *no* guarantees from the bank. Very likely he is
not even a customer of the bank.
>They may or may not choose to support you, but it is not
>obvious that they are bound to.
It is obvious, because they have issued a DD Guarantee saying so.
>They may say you have to take the
>seller to court if you feel they are in the wrong.
They may, but the DD guarantee they gave you says otherwise.
--
Les
Percy Picacity
news:UvPvyMGn...@obviously.invalid:
That is truly an advantage of DD, but I was talking about continuous
credit card authorities. Which don't have such a guarantee.
--
Percy Picacity
Iain
As far as I am aware, there is very little difference between the debit and
credit cards in these circumstances. However you need to get to grips with
the principle about between whom the agreement is made and the part that the
bank plays. One person cannot unilaterally change the conditions of the
bilateral agreement (and the bank is not one of those parties) , and
moreover cannot force, or expect, the bank to interfere in the execution of
the agreement, without a valid reason and without reasonable proof to back
it up.
In response to your comment above, the bank has been agreed by BOTH parties,
because of its convenience. It could have been agreed to pay it in to a
Post Office account. Perhaps this might make the role of the bank easier to
understand.
What has clearly been coming across in all of these exchanges is that the
continuing authority is something to be avoided, especially with a
particularly not well-known organisation as you simply do not get nearly the
same protection as you would with a direct debit.
IANAL
--
Iain
John Briggs
And this whole thread is supposed to be about *debit* cards, which are
more analagous to direct debits than to credit cards.
--
John Briggs
Jon Ribbens
> What has clearly been coming across in all of these exchanges is that the
> continuing authority is something to be avoided, especially with a
> particularly not well-known organisation as you simply do not get nearly the
> same protection as you would with a direct debit.
Part of the problem is that there is no way to avoid continuous
authorities (apart from not having any credit or debit cards),
since merchants will not always tell you they are setting one up.
Roland Perry
Jan 2011, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>>>> They may say you have to take the
>>>> seller to court if you feel they are in the wrong.
>>>
>>> They may, but the DD guarantee they gave you says otherwise.
>>
>> That is truly an advantage of DD, but I was talking about continuous
>> credit card authorities. Which don't have such a guarantee.
>
>And this whole thread is supposed to be about *debit* cards, which are
>more analagous to direct debits than to credit cards.
So, to try to tie this up... will the bank honour a cancellation on a
Debit Card continuous authority (like it would with a Direct Debit), or
will it shrug its shoulders like it does with a Credit Card continuous
authority?
--
Roland Perry
John Briggs
But you cannot possibly be *legally* bound by something you were unaware
of - and the banks cannot *legally* enforce it.
--
John Briggs
Mark Goodge
typed:
I would expect it to do the latter, since the thing that makes a Direct
Debiit cancellable by the user is the fact that the Direct Debit Guarantee
applies to it and not because it's a debit rather than a credit.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Roland Perry
>>> What has clearly been coming across in all of these exchanges is that the
>>> continuing authority is something to be avoided, especially with a
>>> particularly not well-known organisation as you simply do not get nearly the
>>> same protection as you would with a direct debit.
>>
>> Part of the problem is that there is no way to avoid continuous
>> authorities (apart from not having any credit or debit cards),
>> since merchants will not always tell you they are setting one up.
>
>But you cannot possibly be *legally* bound by something you were
>unaware of - and the banks cannot *legally* enforce it.
I don't think there is a "thing" that's sent from the merchant to the
bank which is the epitome of a continuous debit. I would expect the
merchant merely to make regular debits, re-using the same credentials he
collected at the beginning (and hence the need for merchants to
periodically ask you for new expiry dates on cards).
So what a person "isn't told" is apparently that some ongoing
relationship will be paid for month after month 'automatically'.
In the absence of any arrangement being mentioned to pay subsequent
bills some other way, can't the consumer assume that the debit is indeed
'continuous', even if the merchant forgets to tell them explicitly.
--
Roland Perry
John Briggs
Well, there doesn't seem to be any legal basis for them shrugging their
shoulders with a debit card, and some evidence that they will cancel the
card for you. Which suggests that they may be aware of the problem and
their responsibilities.
--
John Briggs
Simon Farnsworth
> I don't think there is a "thing" that's sent from the merchant to the
> bank which is the epitome of a continuous debit. I would expect the
> merchant merely to make regular debits, re-using the same credentials he
> collected at the beginning (and hence the need for merchants to
> periodically ask you for new expiry dates on cards).
>
> So what a person "isn't told" is apparently that some ongoing
> relationship will be paid for month after month 'automatically'.
>
> In the absence of any arrangement being mentioned to pay subsequent
> bills some other way, can't the consumer assume that the debit is indeed
> 'continuous', even if the merchant forgets to tell them explicitly.
That way lies madness as an assumption; to take but one example, if you
normally pay Tesco Online for a monthly delivery of groceries by debit card,
authorising each monthly shop in turn, but choose to pay with Clubcard
vouchers one month, there is no reasonable way for Tesco to claim that you
intended them to take any money for this ongoing relationship from your
debit card.
Even with things that are seen as more continuous in nature, it can be hard
for the bank to tell if the consumer was aware that they were giving a
continuous authority. Think paying for two years' mobile telephony service
up front, with a direct debit to a different bank to pay any excess charges;
the bank who supplies the debit card just knows that I paid the telecoms
firm a large lump sum, sufficient for two years' service, and is unaware of
the direct debit that's supposed to cover any excess charges.
If I later cancel the direct debit under the Guarantee, and the telco
attempts to charge my debit card, is that a valid authorisation, or a
fraudulent authorisation? If I'd expressly told the telco that I was paying
up front for two years' service (e.g. to get a subsidised phone's unlock
code), but that this was a one-off, how is the bank supposed to know that?
Other customers of the same bank may well expect to pay their excess charges
as a continuous authority on their card, so it's clearly not enough to look
at the merchant's history - just because I'm an exception to the normal rule
doesn't mean the bank is safe if it sides with the merchant.
--
Simon
Percy Picacity
news:%VF%o.15546$Ww7....@newsfe16.ams2:
> On 25/01/2011 19:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
First an observation. The banks have shown themselves willing to
provide merchant services for absolutely anyone who can attract
payments (including child pornographers), their sole exception being
organisations the US administration has forbidden them to deal with.
They clearly find this profitable
>>
>> Part of the problem is that there is no way to avoid continuous
>> authorities (apart from not having any credit or debit cards),
>> since merchants will not always tell you they are setting one up.
>
> But you cannot possibly be *legally* bound by something you were
> unaware of
True!
- and the banks cannot *legally* enforce it.
If they have reasonable grounds for believing you have agreed, which
*normally* amounts to the fact that the payees have told them so,
then *of course* they can *legally* enforce it! Unless you assume
banks must be omniscient, they can enforce it until sufficient proof
is provided that their merchant customer is lying. Assume that card
holders lie all the time, their statement is not sufficient!
--
Percy Picacity
Roland Perry
2011, Simon Farnsworth <si...@farnz.org.uk> remarked:
>On Tuesday 25 January 2011 20:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> I don't think there is a "thing" that's sent from the merchant to the
>> bank which is the epitome of a continuous debit. I would expect the
>> merchant merely to make regular debits, re-using the same credentials he
>> collected at the beginning (and hence the need for merchants to
>> periodically ask you for new expiry dates on cards).
>>
>> So what a person "isn't told" is apparently that some ongoing
>> relationship will be paid for month after month 'automatically'.
>>
>> In the absence of any arrangement being mentioned to pay subsequent
>> bills some other way, can't the consumer assume that the debit is indeed
>> 'continuous', even if the merchant forgets to tell them explicitly.
>
>That way lies madness as an assumption; to take but one example, if you
>normally pay Tesco Online for a monthly delivery of groceries by debit card,
>authorising each monthly shop in turn,
If you separately authorise each month, then that's clearly not the
situation that most people with subscriptions and utility bills are in.
>but choose to pay with Clubcard vouchers one month, there is no
>reasonable way for Tesco to claim that you intended them to take any
>money for this ongoing relationship from your debit card.
As you'd have separately told them about the vouchers, it's obvious they
should separately ask you how you are paying the balance (if any).
>Even with things that are seen as more continuous in nature, it can be hard
>for the bank to tell if the consumer was aware that they were giving a
>continuous authority. Think paying for two years' mobile telephony service
>up front, with a direct debit to a different bank to pay any excess charges;
>the bank who supplies the debit card just knows that I paid the telecoms
>firm a large lump sum, sufficient for two years' service, and is unaware of
>the direct debit that's supposed to cover any excess charges.
>
>If I later cancel the direct debit under the Guarantee, and the telco
>attempts to charge my debit card, is that a valid authorisation, or a
>fraudulent authorisation?
It would probably depend on how the "any excess charges" element was
described in your original dealings with them.
>If I'd expressly told the telco that I was paying
>up front for two years' service (e.g. to get a subsidised phone's unlock
>code), but that this was a one-off, how is the bank supposed to know that?
That's exactly the point. The bank doesn't know, it doesn't need to
know. It just debits what the merchant asks.
--
Roland Perry
Simon Farnsworth
> If they have reasonable grounds for believing you have agreed, which
> *normally* amounts to the fact that the payees have told them so,
> then *of course* they can *legally* enforce it! Unless you assume
> banks must be omniscient, they can enforce it until sufficient proof
> is provided that their merchant customer is lying. Assume that card
> holders lie all the time, their statement is not sufficient!
>
And here we get to one point of contention; in many cases, a card holder's
statement *is* sufficient evidence. After all, for the typical continuous
authority situation, the bank is initially faced with the card holder
asserting "not authorised", and the merchant asserting "authorised".
As a thought experiment: if my assertion is not enough in and of itself,
what evidence of no authorisation can I provide in the event that a company
(e.g. a supermarket) which I have paid before on one-off authorisations
suddenly decides to claim that there is a continuous authorisation to take
whatever they wish to take? It's clearly not enough that the company has my
card details, as any company that has taken a single payment from me
recently has them; they must therefore have at least some evidence to
present to refute my claim.
Taking that further, what happens if I obtain your card details, and use my
merchant acquirer account to take money, claiming a continuous authority,
when you have never authorised me to take anything from your account? Bear
in mind that in the thought experiment, I have all the card details that a
legitimate merchant with a continuous authority would possess; all I lack is
your authorisation.
There is no legal basis for assuming that one party is more or less honest
than the other; the bank has to look at the evidence before it and come to a
decision about which party to back, bearing in mind that the bank risks, in
the worst case, being considered criminally liable for aiding and abetting
fraudulent behaviour on the part of the dishonest party.
Of course, if I have form for falsely claiming that a transaction I had
authorised was fraudulent, the bank would be in a good position to require
more than just my statement that a charge was fraudulent. Similarly, if the
merchant has form for trying it on, the bank is in a very bad position if it
ignores my statement that it's fraudulent without demanding further evidence
from the merchant.
--
Simon
Ken
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
authorities will survive a change of card, though not a change of branch
and new sort code. I'd like to think a single debit with the wrong card
details would fail.
--
Ken
Steve Walker
> If the bank stopped making the payments (for instance,
> only on your say-so), it could be that the bank might be held
> liable for a breach of the contract.
That seems wholly implausible.
> However, if you are able to prove that Company A has not fulfilled
> their part of the agreement, eg. they have not provided you with
> what was agreed, and that a possible breach of the contract had
> occured, they could well intervene on your behalf.
And how would an ordinary customer 'prove' this to a an offshore call
centre?
I have not encountered any problem like this, but my expectation of a bank
is that they keep my money in safekeeping and follow my instructions only
(excepting where a court order is made). If my bank refused to cancel a
recurring payment, I would cancel my accounts and take my business
elsewhere.
Steve Walker
> Lloyds TSB tell me that they can't cancel a recurring debit card
> payment and that I have to get the people collecting the payments to
> stop. Which might be difficult, if there's a dispute or if the
> supplier is disreputable.
Close your account. It's the only language they understand.
Steve Walker
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:40:10 +0000, Nogood Boyo
>
>> Lloyds TSB tell me that they can't cancel a recurring debit card
>> payment and that I have to get the people collecting the payments
>> to stop. Which might be difficult, if there's a dispute or if the
>> supplier is disreputable.
>>
>> direct debit, which the bank will do without quibbling, and
>> cancelling a recurring debit card payment? Is there a difference
>> in law? If there is, I don't recall the bank ever alerting me to
>> the risks attached to this method of payment.
>>
>> Surely, if I have a dispute with a supplier and want to stop
>> paying, the rights and wrongs of it are nothing to do with the
>> bank. Why won't they accept instructions from me to stop paying?
>
> I've no idea, but as somebody else has suggested, best thing to do
> is ring the bank and say you've lost the card.
No, the best thing is to tell your bank that you have no confidence in their
service and close the account(s). Then start again with a new bank, taking
care not to grant any pernicious authorities.
They treat us like dirt because we allow them to - we're too lazy to call
their bluff and walk out, and they know it.
Iain
> Iain wrote:
>
> > If the bank stopped making the payments (for instance,
> > only on your say-so), it could be that the bank might be held
> > liable for a breach of the contract.
>
> That seems wholly implausible.
If the agreement was valid and you persuaded your bank to stop the payments
why would the bank not also be jointly liable?
> > However, if you are able to prove that Company A has not fulfilled
> > their part of the agreement, eg. they have not provided you with
> > what was agreed, and that a possible breach of the contract had
> > occured, they could well intervene on your behalf.
>
> And how would an ordinary customer 'prove' this to a an offshore call
> centre?
The same way that it would be done to any call centre, presumably by
providing the necessary proof and sending it in.
> I have not encountered any problem like this, but my expectation of a
> bank is that they keep my money in safekeeping and follow my
> instructions only (excepting where a court order is made). If my
> bank refused to cancel a recurring payment, I would cancel my
> accounts and take my business elsewhere.
If your bank had followed your instructions, as part of the agreement with
the payee, to start the recurring payment, and maintained the conditions of
the agreement, there would be no problem. If you decided unilaterally to
end the agreement, without providing any proof, and without the further
agreement of the payee, then you would expect to encounter difficulties with
the bank. This is precisely what happens.
What people seem to be having difficulty with is that all they need to do is
provide the proof that the payee has renaged on the agreement. Of course if
they haven't and it is you who are renaging on the agreement, then it might
be more difficult (or you might be unwilling) to provide that proof to the
bank.
--
Iain
Iain
> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> news:%VF%o.15546$Ww7....@newsfe16.ams2:
>
> > On 25/01/2011 19:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
> First an observation. The banks have shown themselves willing to
> provide merchant services for absolutely anyone who can attract
> payments (including child pornographers), their sole exception being
> organisations the US administration has forbidden them to deal with.
> They clearly find this profitable
>
> > >
> > > Part of the problem is that there is no way to avoid continuous
> > > authorities (apart from not having any credit or debit cards),
> > > since merchants will not always tell you they are setting one up.
> >
> > But you cannot possibly be *legally* bound by something you were
> > unaware of
>
> True!
>
>
>
> - and the banks cannot *legally* enforce it.
I do not think that that is the case at all. There have been many instances
where people have not bothered to go through terms or conditions but who
have been bound by those conditions. If someone enters into an agreement,
it is not a defence that they did not know certain conditions simply because
they did not read them (and providing they are reasonable).
> If they have reasonable grounds for believing you have agreed, which
> *normally* amounts to the fact that the payees have told them so,
> then *of course* they can *legally* enforce it! Unless you assume
> banks must be omniscient, they can enforce it until sufficient proof
> is provided that their merchant customer is lying. Assume that card
> holders lie all the time, their statement is not sufficient!
I am beginning to get the feeling that this is all starting to be used as an
excuse to get out of something that people have not looked into properly or
where they are making incorrect assumptions. It should be relatively simple
to provide proof if the supplier starts to renage on the initial agreement.
Passing that proof on to the card company should be grounds enough to start
a dispute.
IANAL
--
Iain
David Storm
"Big Les Wade" wrote in message news:UvPvyMGn...@obviously.invalid...
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> posted
>
>And what if the seller asserts that you have signed a contract to
>continue monthly payments for five years? Then you can't cancel it,
>and the bank has a conflict of evidence between two of its
>customers.
But only one of these customers has an explicit guarantee from the bank
that it will refund all disputed DD payment, and that's you. The other
party, the seller, has *no* guarantees from the bank. Very likely he is
not even a customer of the bank.
-------------------------------------
The DD guarantee isn't quite what it is made out to be "If an error is made
in the payment of your Direct Debit" the DD guarantee only has a value if
the seller agrees there has been an error.
Stormy..
Roland Perry
Jan 2011, Ken <K...@dasha.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>That's exactly the point. The bank doesn't know, it doesn't need to
>>know. It just debits what the merchant asks.
>>
>In my bank (Barclays) any standing orders, direct debits, continuous
>authorities will survive a change of card, though not a change of
>branch and new sort code. I'd like to think a single debit with the
>wrong card details would fail.
Doesn't work like that. The banks are aware that some charges (foreign
hotel bills for example) can take a while to filter through. So they'll
just bump them over to the changed card.
You'd think they had some sort of timeout (60 days or whatever) but I
don't think I've seen such a thing documented.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>The banks have shown themselves willing to
>provide merchant services for absolutely anyone who can attract
>payments (including child pornographers), their sole exception being
>organisations the US administration has forbidden them to deal with.
This is simply not the case. One of the reasons that so many retailers
(especially online ones) use services such as PayPal or Google Checkout
to accept credit card payments is that the banks are so reluctant to
offer card facilities. I've also worked for a £5M very stable bricks and
mortar company that had to jump through all sorts of hoops (including
depositing a bond iirc) to get card facilities for what was a small part
of its sales operations.
of course, it may be different in other parts of the world. it's also
possible to acquire card facilities by reverse-merging into an existing
company that them already.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2011, Simon Farnsworth <si...@farnz.org.uk> remarked:
>As a thought experiment: if my assertion is not enough in and of itself,
>what evidence of no authorisation can I provide in the event that a company
>(e.g. a supermarket) which I have paid before on one-off authorisations
>suddenly decides to claim that there is a continuous authorisation to take
>whatever they wish to take? It's clearly not enough that the company has my
>card details, as any company that has taken a single payment from me
>recently has them; they must therefore have at least some evidence to
>present to refute my claim.
A contract with you for some ongoing goods or services would be a good
start. Clearly something that will exist with most utility companies,
health clubs etc. Less likely for a supermarket (apart from its
insurance, mobile phone etc arms).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2011, David Storm <stor...@gmail.com> remarked:
>The DD guarantee isn't quite what it is made out to be "If an error is
>made in the payment of your Direct Debit" the DD guarantee only has a
>value if the seller agrees there has been an error.
I'm not sure the seller has to agree there's an error (for the initial
phase, anyway). But the bank has to think there's an error. Such errors
would include double-debiting one month, and possibly debiting after the
contract its paying has demonstrably finished. Or debiting you when they
have never had a commercial relationship with you (that probably
includes cases of impersonation aka identity theft).
Being charged an allegedly incorrect amount for one mobile phone call is
a commercial dispute, and not grounds to say the entire debit is an
"error".
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
> I have not encountered any problem like this, but my expectation of a bank
> is that they keep my money in safekeeping and follow my instructions only
> (excepting where a court order is made). If my bank refused to cancel a
> recurring payment, I would cancel my accounts and take my business
> elsewhere.
Sorry, closing your accounts does not stop your liabilities under
continuous payment authorities (with credit cards at least).
Geoff Berrow
>If your bank had followed your instructions, as part of the agreement with
>the payee, to start the recurring payment, and maintained the conditions of
>the agreement, there would be no problem. If you decided unilaterally to
>end the agreement, without providing any proof, and without the further
>agreement of the payee, then you would expect to encounter difficulties with
>the bank. This is precisely what happens.
>
>What people seem to be having difficulty with is that all they need to do is
>provide the proof that the payee has renaged on the agreement. Of course if
>they haven't and it is you who are renaging on the agreement, then it might
>be more difficult (or you might be unwilling) to provide that proof to the
>bank.
All would be fine if all companies entering into this were scrupulous
and fair. We all know that this is not necessarily the case and even
if they are honest and above board, mistakes can happen.
It seems a natural assumption to most people that they are in charge
of the money they spend and that they have absolute control over
whether it is spent or not. Authority granted can be rescinded. If I
buy goods or services from a company, my contract is with the company
not the bank. If I choose not to pay them then the company can seek
to recover the debt as it would any other. I see no reason why the
bank needs to get involved at all, other than to facilitate the wishes
of the bill payer.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Mark
>Steve Walker wrote:
>> Iain wrote:
>>
>> > If the bank stopped making the payments (for instance,
>> > only on your say-so), it could be that the bank might be held
>> > liable for a breach of the contract.
>>
>> That seems wholly implausible.
>
>If the agreement was valid and you persuaded your bank to stop the payments
>why would the bank not also be jointly liable?
How? Your bank is just the means of payment. If they pay or fail to
pay it does not alter any agreement between you and company "A". If
they think you owe them money they would be free to persue you for it
via the normal channels.
>> > However, if you are able to prove that Company A has not fulfilled
>> > their part of the agreement, eg. they have not provided you with
>> > what was agreed, and that a possible breach of the contract had
>> > occured, they could well intervene on your behalf.
>>
>> And how would an ordinary customer 'prove' this to a an offshore call
>> centre?
>
>The same way that it would be done to any call centre, presumably by
>providing the necessary proof and sending it in.
I'd have thought the chances of the evidence reaching the correct
recipient would be negligable.
>> I have not encountered any problem like this, but my expectation of a
>> bank is that they keep my money in safekeeping and follow my
>> instructions only (excepting where a court order is made). If my
>> bank refused to cancel a recurring payment, I would cancel my
>> accounts and take my business elsewhere.
>
>If your bank had followed your instructions, as part of the agreement with
>the payee, to start the recurring payment, and maintained the conditions of
>the agreement, there would be no problem. If you decided unilaterally to
>end the agreement, without providing any proof, and without the further
>agreement of the payee, then you would expect to encounter difficulties with
>the bank. This is precisely what happens.
>
>What people seem to be having difficulty with is that all they need to do is
>provide the proof that the payee has renaged on the agreement. Of course if
>they haven't and it is you who are renaging on the agreement, then it might
>be more difficult (or you might be unwilling) to provide that proof to the
>bank.
I don't think it is up to the bank to be an arbitor in this case.
Ultimately it would be the courts to decide if there is a dispute.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Mark
I do (walk out). However, the next one is sometimes just as bad.
tim....
"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
news:jspvj697941b6kqsc...@4ax.com...
And if the thing you are walking out of is a telco, it's *always* as bad!
tim
Steven Sharp
> On 2011-01-25, Iain <s...@smaps.net> wrote:
>
> > What has clearly been coming across in all of these exchanges is that the
> > continuing authority is something to be avoided, especially with a
> > particularly not well-known organisation as you simply do not get nearly the
> > same protection as you would with a direct debit.
>
> authorities (apart from not having any credit or debit cards),
> since merchants will not always tell you they are setting one up.
Correct! And this is why I will probably not be renewing my insurance
with one provider this year. Took out insurance with them last year,
and paid by debit card as a one off. This year, the renewal notice
includes a 'you don't have to do anything - it will renew
automatically' as they set up a continuous payment without me being
aware of it.
Roland Perry
Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> remarked:
>>They treat us like dirt because we allow them to - we're too lazy to call
>>their bluff and walk out, and they know it.
>
>I do (walk out). However, the next one is sometimes just as bad.
Indeed, and it's a huge hassle to change bankers. I'm on my third in
five years for my small consultancy company, and the impression given is
very much that they'd all rather not be bothered (in having small
business accounts).
--
Roland Perry
Ian Jackson
>What people seem to be having difficulty with is that all they need
>to do is provide the proof that the payee has renaged on the
The difficulty people are having with what you are saying is that it
is not true and that your attempts to back it up are unconvincing.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument the following hypothetical
situation:
That there was a legitimately authorised continuous payment authority
- ie, the customer had previously deliberately authorised the merchant
to make ongoing debits to their debit card. That this was pursuant to
a legally enforceable contract between the merchant and the customer.
That the customer for capricious reasons has now notified the merchant
that no further payments are to be taken from the customer's card.
That the customer can demonstrate the fact of this notification this
if necessary. That if the payment is not made the customer will be in
breach of their contract with the merchant.
Under these circumstances, the bank is NOT entitled to debit future
payments from the customer's account. If the bank does so they are in
breach of their own contract with the customer.
The customer's relationship with the bank is regulated by the
customer's agreement with the bank. Ie, the bank's terms and
conditions.
I've just gone and looked up the Ts&Cs for the debit card on my
current account, which is with Nationwide.
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/search/DisplayArticle.aspx?article=1563
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/pdf/current_account/P857.pdf
See p5 LHS (labelled p6) of the PDF:
11. We will debit your account with:
(a) all payments authorised by you;
(b) withdrawals using your card;
(c) cheques paid into the account that are later returned unpaid;
(d) [interest]
That's it. The past payments were covered by 11(a). The future
payments are not covered by any of those four possibilities.
So if under the circumstances I describe above the payment was made,
and the customer were to sue the bank, the bank would inevitably lose.
If the merchant wanted to enforce their agreement with the customer,
they would have to sue the customer.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Ian Jackson
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm not sure the seller has to agree there's an error (for the initial
>phase, anyway). But the bank has to think there's an error. Such errors
>would include double-debiting one month, and possibly debiting after the
>contract its paying has demonstrably finished. Or debiting you when they
>have never had a commercial relationship with you (that probably
>includes cases of impersonation aka identity theft).
It seems to me that this is why you are better off with a continuous
payment authority than a direct debit. A CPA is valid only if you
authorise it; and if you withdraw the authorisation - no matter the
reason or whose fault it is - then the bank is unequivocally not
allowed to continue making the debits to your account. If the bank
continues to do so you can sue them to make them refund all the
transactions so far and you will win that case without having to
demonstrate anything about the underlying dispute.
Whereas the DD guarantee is much weaker: even if it's legally
enforceable (which may not be the case), to show that the bank were in
breach by making the debit you have to prove that the payment was an
"error".
Roland Perry
<4977b460-d16c-491c...@fx12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, at
10:00:16 on Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Steven Sharp <steven...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
>> Part of the problem is that there is no way to avoid continuous
>> authorities (apart from not having any credit or debit cards),
>> since merchants will not always tell you they are setting one up.
>
>Correct! And this is why I will probably not be renewing my insurance
>with one provider this year. Took out insurance with them last year,
>and paid by debit card as a one off. This year, the renewal notice
>includes a 'you don't have to do anything - it will renew
>automatically' as they set up a continuous payment without me being
>aware of it.
I'm still puzzled by this concept of "setting up" a continuous payment,
as a thing which has a separate existence.
Surely they are just re-using the details from the previous year, in
exactly the same way as if they asked you again for the various card
numbers etc.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
26 Jan 2011, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>It seems to me that this is why you are better off with a continuous
>payment authority than a direct debit. A CPA is valid only if you
>authorise it; and if you withdraw the authorisation - no matter the
>reason or whose fault it is - then the bank is unequivocally not
>allowed to continue making the debits to your account. If the bank
>continues to do so you can sue them to make them refund all the
>transactions so far and you will win that case without having to
>demonstrate anything about the underlying dispute.
>
>Whereas the DD guarantee is much weaker: even if it's legally
>enforceable (which may not be the case), to show that the bank were in
>breach by making the debit you have to prove that the payment was an
>"error".
That's the conventional wisdom turned on its head. Do we have any
anecdotes where your course of action has prevailed? If it had, why
wouldn't "Money Box" and its fellows be recommending it?
--
Roland Perry
Ben Harris
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <NUz63RKeX$PNF...@perry.co.uk>,
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'm not sure the seller has to agree there's an error (for the initial
>>phase, anyway). But the bank has to think there's an error. Such errors
>>would include double-debiting one month, and possibly debiting after the
>>contract its paying has demonstrably finished. Or debiting you when they
>>have never had a commercial relationship with you (that probably
>>includes cases of impersonation aka identity theft).
>
>It seems to me that this is why you are better off with a continuous
>payment authority than a direct debit. A CPA is valid only if you
>authorise it; and if you withdraw the authorisation - no matter the
>reason or whose fault it is - then the bank is unequivocally not
>allowed to continue making the debits to your account. If the bank
>continues to do so you can sue them to make them refund all the
>transactions so far and you will win that case without having to
>demonstrate anything about the underlying dispute.
>
>Whereas the DD guarantee is much weaker: even if it's legally
>enforceable (which may not be the case), to show that the bank were in
>breach by making the debit you have to prove that the payment was an
>"error".
I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. For the CPA, you're
considering how to prevent future payments, whereas for DD you're
considering how to undo past ones. The DD guarantee also provides an
unconditional right to prevent future payments:
"You can cancel a Direct Debit at any time by simply contacting your
bank or building society."
--
Ben Harris
Jon Ribbens
> I'm still puzzled by this concept of "setting up" a continuous payment,
> as a thing which has a separate existence.
It's the theoretical legal contract that has the separate existence,
rather than any sort of practical "cpa reference number" or somesuch
that is used to present the transactions, I believe.
> Surely they are just re-using the details from the previous year, in
> exactly the same way as if they asked you again for the various card
> numbers etc.
Indeed. Last time we had this debate, part of the argument was that
the banks have no way of preventing these recurring transactions,
which is why they refuse to do so. My response was that it is
irrelevant whether or not they currently have any mechanism to do it,
if the law says they must do it, they must create a mechanism so that
they can comply with the law.
But as we have already seen, the law does not apply to banks. They can
impose penalty charges that would be unlawful for anyone else to
impose, they cannot go bankrupt, and they refuse to allow people to
control their own money. If the banks' practice is contrary to law,
the law changes to fit their practice, rather than the other way
around.
Judith
wrote:
<>
>A contract with you for some ongoing goods or services would be a good
>start. Clearly something that will exist with most utility companies,
>health clubs etc. Less likely for a supermarket (apart from its
>insurance, mobile phone etc arms).
A friend of mine has just taken a broadband contract with Virgin
He does not have a current account, or credit card.
I have today paid a bill for him.
The details on the back of the bill say:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to Pay:
Debit or Credit Card
Pay with Maestro, Solo, Electron, Mastercard of Visa in various ways:
Online.....
By telephone ......
Charged directly to your credit card via Continuous Card
Authorisation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was going to pay by Credit Card - but then read the above - so paid
with my Debit Card.
I wonder if I had paid by CC they would have automatically taken next
month's bill for him from *my* card?
Chris R
Indeed. Last time we had this debate, part of the argument was that
the banks have no way of preventing these recurring transactions,
which is why they refuse to do so. My response was that it is
irrelevant whether or not they currently have any mechanism to do it,
if the law says they must do it, they must create a mechanism so that
they can comply with the law.
---------------------------------------
I have been following this debate with bemusement, in that it is long on
opinion and short on law. The assumption seems to be that having given an
authority to pay the supplier and debit your account, you are entitled to
revoke that authority by notice to the bank, whether or not the terms of
your contract with the supplier permit you to revoke it. Is there any law
supporting that assumption?
I know what the position would be with a power of attorney, a bill of
exchange or a letter of credit, but I don't know the correct legal analysis
of a debit card transaction.
Chris R
Ian Jackson
Ben Harris <bj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. For the CPA, you're
>considering how to prevent future payments, whereas for DD you're
>considering how to undo past ones. The DD guarantee also provides an
>unconditional right to prevent future payments:
Hrm. Yes, maybe you are right.
Ian Jackson
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>That's the conventional wisdom turned on its head. Do we have any
>anecdotes where your course of action has prevailed? If it had, why
>wouldn't "Money Box" and its fellows be recommending it?
I have never had any trouble but I have very few of either CPAs or
DDs.
"Money Box" etc. don't recommend it because in order to get the bank
to comply with the law you may have to at least threaten to sue them,
and perhaps actually go to court to get an injunction, which is
something that is probably beyond the average punter.
Ian Jackson
Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>I have been following this debate with bemusement, in that it is long on
>opinion and short on law. The assumption seems to be that having given an
>authority to pay the supplier and debit your account, you are entitled to
>revoke that authority by notice to the bank, whether or not the terms of
>your contract with the supplier permit you to revoke it. Is there any law
>supporting that assumption?
No, you are entitled to revoke that authority by notifying the
_supplier_. Having done so you may be in breach of contract with the
supplier, but if the supplier goes ahead and knowingly ignores your
revocation I think they are committing a criminal fraud, and you are
entitled to restitution from your bank without any discussion about
the merits of the supplier's contractual claim.
You only need to tell the bank if you suspect that the supplier may
not honour the revocation.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> This is simply not the case. One of the reasons that so many
> retailers (especially online ones) use services such as PayPal
> or Google Checkout to accept credit card payments is that the
> banks are so reluctant to offer card facilities. I've also
> worked for a �5M very stable bricks and mortar company that had
> to jump through all sorts of hoops (including depositing a bond
> iirc) to get card facilities for what was a small part of its
> sales operations.
>
> of course, it may be different in other parts of the world. it's
> also possible to acquire card facilities by reverse-merging into
> an existing company that them already.
Yup. In the US anyone can go into Costco and sign up for merchant
card services.
Iain
I have been through exactly this same thing with my bank. I was paying my
then ISP by monthly continuing authority on my credit card. Through a
buy-out and then successful advertising campaign, my ISP substantially
increased their customer level. As a result the quality of service dropped
dramatically. I complained to my ISP and also provided statistical evidence
abouth the deterioration of my service. I also contacted by credit card
company with a copy of my letter and statistical proof about the
deterioration of the service and asked them to refuse requests for payments.
What happened was that they were unable to refuse payment, but instead
re-credited my account every time a payment was requested and made. My ISP
reaslised what was happening and started making deductions from my debit
card - without my authorisation. I complained bitterly to my bank. They
took it up with their fraud department. I complained to my ISP who then
re-credited my debit card. I again complained bitterly to my bank that my
then ISP were able to make unauthorised transactions on my bank account.
The conclusion was that it was not fraud, even though my ISP had breached
their terms by not providing the service and made unauthorised transactions
on my account.
I cannot remember now what the reason was, but it could have been because I
had already given them my card number(s).
If records go back that far, the thread where this was all discussed in this
newgroup was April/May 2005, under the subject 'Debit cards', and also
posted it to uk.finance but that seems to be a short thread.
--
Iain
Iain
That is precisely what they are _not_ doing. They are not taking sides.
They would be, as far as they are concerned, abiding by the terms of the
agreement as set up between the buyer and seller. What they would be
looking for would be proof that either the agreement had reached its
termination, or that, for whatever reason, the agreement was no longer in
place. People seem to be unhappy that the banks do not follow their
uniliteral instructions to stop paying. All it needs it to provide proof
that, for instance, the supplier is not supplying as agreed, or something
similar. It's happened to me and I've gone through this.
People are saying that the banks are not operating on their say-so; and some
are expecting it to happen because they also happen to be their personal
bank. There is the proof that this is how the banks are working. They
either need to accept it, avoid it, or campaign to get it changed.
--
Iain
Iain
That's what it appears to say. You had better also check your debit card
next month because as some people include continual authorisation under
direct debit, so others may also include debit cards under credit cards.
--
Iain
Jon Ribbens
> I have been following this debate with bemusement, in that it is long on
> opinion and short on law. The assumption seems to be that having given an
> authority to pay the supplier and debit your account, you are entitled to
> revoke that authority by notice to the bank, whether or not the terms of
> your contract with the supplier permit you to revoke it. Is there any law
> supporting that assumption?
The terms of your contract with the supplier have precisely nothing
whatsoever to do with the situation. How can they? The management of
your bank account is governed by the terms and conditions of your
contract with the bank, any applicable laws, and nothing else. If you
want to argue otherwise then I'll need some sort of logical
explanation of how that works.
Taking a look at some T&Cs, Halifax say (with respect to credit
cards):
http://www.halifax.co.uk/creditcards/importantinfo.asp :
> Authorisation for a transaction may not be withdrawn (or revoked) by
> you or an additional cardholder after the time it is received.
> However, if you or an additional cardholder gives notice to us or
> the supplier (providing a copy of the notice to us) then any
> transaction which is agreed to take place on a date later than the
> date it was authorised so long as notice was provided no later than
> the close of business on the business day before it was due to take
> place may be withdrawn.
So that is pretty clear that you can stop CPAs by unilateral
notification to the bank.
Halifax say (with respect to bank accounts/debit cards):
http://bit.ly/h8Avjc :
> "A future-dated payment can only be cancelled up to the end of the
> bank working day before the day set for its execution either verbally
> or in writing to us. Where future-dated payments are initiated by the
> payee, for example, the supplier, you should also send them
> notification of cancellation no later than the end of the bank working
> day before the day set for execution."
So that it pretty clear that you can stop CPAs by notification to the
bank that you have told the third party to stop taking the payments,
whether or not that third party agrees.
The Co-Op says (with respect to bank accounts/debit cards):
http://bit.ly/gRUXLX :
> If you want to cancel a regular card payment from your account tell
> us, but you must also tell the person or organisation that collects
> the payment that you have cancelled it.
So that it pretty clear that you can stop CPAs by notification to the
bank that you have told the third party to stop taking the payments,
whether or not that third party agrees.
Santander say (with respect to credit cards):
http://bit.ly/gKgxlT :
> If you have given consent to a series of Transactions (such as a
> continuous payment authority to a third party), they may continue to
> take payments from your Account until you tell them to cancel it,
> which you may do at any time.
So that it pretty clear that you can stop CPAs by notification to the
bank that you have told the third party to stop taking the payments,
whether or not that third party agrees.
On the other hand, Barclays say (with respect to back accounts/debit
cards):
http://bit.ly/f013jU :
> (b) Future payments made by debit card: we cannot cancel these
> payments. You must cancel them by contacting the third party you
> gave your card details to.
Lloyds TSB say (with respect to bank accounts/debit cards):
http://bit.ly/g1m8DO :
> We cannot cancel a payment made using a card once you have given
> your consent to make the payment to a retailer. You will need to
> contact the retailer separately. This includes payments made on a
> regular basis from your card account, such as magazine
> subscriptions.
First Direct say (with respect to bank accounts/debit cards):
http://www1.firstdirect.com/content_static/pdf/account_terms_1210.pdf :
> If you wish to cancel a recurring debit card payment, you must
> arrange this with the retailer or supplier.
But their T&Cs with respect to credit cards don't mention CPAs at all:
http://bit.ly/hvBS9e
and neither do NatWest's with respect to bank accounts/debit cards:
http://www.natwest.com/downloads/global_options/Guide_Fees_Interest.pdf
So, in summary, it's a mess. Different banks' terms and conditions say
different things. However, with several banks it is quite clear that
you *can* cancel regular payments, whether they are made via debit or
credit cards.
For the banks that claim you cannot stop regular payments, I suggest
that this is likely to be unlawful under consumer protection
legislation or financial services regulation, however that is just my
opinion and I am not aware of any ombudsman/regulatory/court decisions
either way.
In the mean-time, people might be well advised to check the T&Cs
before they open accounts, and choose a bank whose T&Cs are at the
very least not actively and unnecessarily customer-hostile.
Chris R
>opinion and short on law. The assumption seems to be that having given an
>authority to pay the supplier and debit your account, you are entitled to
>revoke that authority by notice to the bank, whether or not the terms of
>your contract with the supplier permit you to revoke it. Is there any law
>supporting that assumption?
No, you are entitled to revoke that authority by notifying the
_supplier_. Having done so you may be in breach of contract with the
supplier, but if the supplier goes ahead and knowingly ignores your
revocation I think they are committing a criminal fraud, and you are
entitled to restitution from your bank without any discussion about
the merits of the supplier's contractual claim.
You only need to tell the bank if you suspect that the supplier may
not honour the revocation.
-------------------------------------------------
Again, an assertion without citing any legal authority.
The case that decided that a supplier who performed the terms of his
contract was criminally fraudulent must surely have reached the law reports.
Chris R
Man at B&Q
> For the banks that claim you cannot stop regular payments, I suggest
> that this is likely to be unlawful under consumer protection
> legislation or financial services regulation, however that is just my
> opinion and I am not aware of any ombudsman/regulatory/court decisions
> either way.
It certainly ought to be unlawful. Using a card or DD is (should be)
just a means of paying and the banks should answer only to the account
holder.
Your contract is with the supplier. If you agree to pay by cash or
cheque, but don't, then the supplier cannot come and use your cheque
book to write themselves a cheque or help themselves to the contents
of your wallet. If you want to cancel a DD or CPA by telling the bank,
why should the supplier still be able to get the money straight from
your account? It would, of course, be simple courtesy to explain
things to the supplier at the same time.
Just the view through rose tinted specs.
MBQ
Chris R
---------------------------------------------
It is indeed. The other side of the coin is that we all need some way of
guaranteeing payment for goods and services to suppliers, as they know very
well that it is practically impossible for them to collect small debts from
consumers. So we pay by card and both parties take that as being as good as
cash. If you could leave the shop with your goods, then phone your bank (or
the shop) and cancel the authority to debit your account, you may have won a
short-term victory. But next time you go to the shop you will find they no
longer accept cards.
The correct analogy is not with the supplier using your chequebook, but with
you supplying him with a series of signed cheques and then stopping the
cheques. The old cheque guarantee scheme existed precisely to stop you doing
that.
The mischief, it seems to me, is not that you can't cancel an authority
already given, but that your authority is not required for the specific
amount or for repeat payments. What the limits on these should be is open to
debate, but if the third party is entitled to charge you, why should they
not also be able to ask you for a guaranteed payment method? Of course they
still take some risk, eg that payment will be refused because you are over
the credit limit, but the risk becomes more manageable.
If I stay in a luxury hotel, having pre-authorised my credit card, should I
really be able to revoke the authority to debit the card at the end of my
stay?
At very least I think there should be some warning required when taking an
authority to debit unspecified amounts and/or repeat amounts.
Chris R
Roland Perry
11:45:02 on Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>If I stay in a luxury hotel, having pre-authorised my credit card, should I
>really be able to revoke the authority to debit the card at the end of my
>stay?
What you'll find is that the hotel makes you sign something which
specifically allows them to charge you at (and beyond) the end of the
stay. Or even if you didn't stay (in the case of a so-called "guaranteed
reservation").
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
> It is indeed. The other side of the coin is that we all need some way of
> guaranteeing payment for goods and services to suppliers, as they know very
> well that it is practically impossible for them to collect small debts from
> consumers. So we pay by card and both parties take that as being as good as
> cash. If you could leave the shop with your goods, then phone your bank (or
> the shop) and cancel the authority to debit your account, you may have won a
> short-term victory. But next time you go to the shop you will find they no
> longer accept cards.
That has nothing to do with the situation under discussion though,
which is not where you have authorised a single transaction for a
specific amount to be executed immediately. All the T&Cs I looked at
agreed that you cannot cancel such a transaction if you did indeed
give authorisation, and I personally have no problem with that.
> The correct analogy is not with the supplier using your chequebook, but with
> you supplying him with a series of signed cheques and then stopping the
> cheques. The old cheque guarantee scheme existed precisely to stop you doing
> that.
>
> The mischief, it seems to me, is not that you can't cancel an authority
> already given, but that your authority is not required for the specific
> amount or for repeat payments.
Well, quite. With signed cheques you know precisely when the payments
will be taken, and you know the precise amounts that will be taken.
With a CPA you know none of that.
> If I stay in a luxury hotel, having pre-authorised my credit card, should I
> really be able to revoke the authority to debit the card at the end of my
> stay?
Before cards existed, what did hotels do?
Restaurants don't ask you to pay up front (or authorise a card up
front), and they can easily be more expensive than a night in a hotel.
> At very least I think there should be some warning required when taking an
> authority to debit unspecified amounts and/or repeat amounts.
Yes, there should be some sort of specific evidence required rather
than it all just being done on the basis of "someone in the world
somewhere has your card number and says you owe them money". As it is,
people end up in CPAs without even knowing, this should not be
possible.