Desperate - ripped off on my credit card in a lapdancing club

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

dmg24 wrote: »

This is not wholly accurate - if it was, then you would never be able to pay by card at a restaurant or bar.

The mental capacity issue is very difficult to prove, and is more relevant where severe mental illness is a factor. The fact that the OP appears to have been able to recall his pin number is likely to eliminate any chance of arguing mental incapacity.

Not being a Solicitor, I can't tell you how accurate it is, but the fact that you can pay by card at a restaurant or bar doesn't mean that the contract is binding, just that you can.

I'm not sure if the 'signing' of contracts extends to PIN input, but it is a form of electronic signature

cookie_monster

Might be a useful read for the OP;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/guides_to/credit_liability.shtml

dmg24

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

Not being a Solicitor, I can't tell you how accurate it is, but the fact that you can pay by card at a restaurant or bar doesn't mean that the contract is binding, just that you can.

I'm not sure if the 'signing' of contracts extends to PIN input, but it is a form of electronic signature

I had a good search through my old (Law) textbooks, and I cannot find any authority that a contract is not valid if made in the presence of alcohol. It would certainly support your assertion if you could find an authority.

If you enter your pin number into the machine, you are agreeing to pay that amount. Although it could be argued that a contract is formed earlier in a restaurant scenario, either way there is still a contract there.

Mental incapacity is still a possibility, but I would not rest a great deal of hope on it.

mum2one

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

I'd like to know where the card was swiped :eek:

I guess you have never watched The Real Hustle BBC3, basically 3 people, jess the sexy swindler, alex the confidence trickester and Paul the brains.

The scams that are pulled are unbelievable, one I remember, credit card, the 1that made me really open my eyes, a couple are

i) the waitress comes along for payment (happens to be a member of the team), pretends she pretends to drop the card to the floor, (but actually has a card scanner on her boot - card cloned

ii) waitress scenerio again - goes to swipe card in machine (acidentally misses!!) then re swipes, but she has actually swiped the card to a card reader attached to her belt....

Although they give the "person conned" the money back etc, it makes you realise how vunerable we are, those two examples are based on a sober person having a coffee, what chance has the rest of us got.

joepubli

My sympathies go out at the OP. I thought this was a "help" form. Would hardly think that with some of the responses.

My advice to the OP.

1. Call the club (perhaps record the call). It may be an error and may be the bill was supposed to be for £100. However the fact that it was done 4 times suggests against that. In any case demand a VAT receipt and full breakdown. Ask for a full menu of all their charges.

2. Call the credit card company and stop the card. Ask to speak to their fraud department and explain the facts - exactly for £1k, four times. Last one after closing time. If you have never spent that sort of money before the transaction should have been queried. Ask them if it was.

No need to feel guilty about going there - many people do. Chances are they may have ripped off other people and it may not be a surprise. Credit card companies wield a lot of power - if they stop the establishment taking credit cards = no more establishment.

As some have said some London clubs can charge silly amounts but their normal clients can afford them. It will be obvious to the bank that you wouldn't spend that sort of money on a night out as you are not a footballer.

Also question the charge. It is obvious that you weren't in a fit state to agree to make the payment. If they don't accept don't argue. Write by recorded delivery.

3. Definately go and see the police crime desk at the local station. Ask them to seize or have the cctv preserved. As someone else said you have a right under DPA to have a copy. Ask for it in writing (may need a £10 fee and a recorded delivery letter). They may send someone along with you.

4. Such premises are licensed. Find out the local team, and make a complaint to them. Copy it to the Club.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Joe

MJ2008_2

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate it. I'll revert with updates...

YorkshireBoy

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

I'd like to know where the card was swiped :eek:

Classic!

Maybe that was the "Bianca (special)" I referred to in my earlier transaction list post. :eek:

If he complains to the Credit Card Company that the goods were never received, I think the establishment would have to prove that they were.

At least that way he'll get to see the video without having to pay another £10 under the DPA for it. :rotfl:

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

dmg24 wrote: »

I had a good search through my old (Law) textbooks, and I cannot find any authority that a contract is not valid if made in the presence of alcohol. It would certainly support your assertion if you could find an authority.

Took some finding, but how does this look to you?

Legal Incapacity

Civil Law requires a person to be legally competent in order to enter a contract, sign a will, or make some other type of binding legal commitment. A person may be judged incompetent by virtue of age or mental condition.
In contract law a person who agrees to a transaction becomes liable for duties under the contract unless they are legally incompetent. A person under the age of 18 or 21 (depending on the jurisdiction) is not bound by the legal duty to perform the terms of a contract he signed and is not liable for breach of contract. Public policy deems it desirable to protect an immature person from liability for contracts that he or she is too inexperienced to negotiate.
If a party does not comprehend the nature and consequences of the contract when it is formed, they are regarded as having mental incapacity. A distinction must be made between persons who have been adjudicated incompetent by a court and had a guardian appointed, and persons who are mentally incompetent but have not been so adjudicated. A person who has been declared incompetent in a court proceeding lacks the legal capacity to enter into a contract with another. Such a person is unable to consent to a contract, since the court has determined that he does not understand the obligations and effects of a contract. A contract made by such a person is void and without any legal effect. If there has been no adjudication of mental incompetency, a contract made by a mentally incapacitated individual is Voidable by them. This means that the person can legally declare the contract void, making it unenforceable. However, a voidable contract can be ratified by the incompetent person if the person recovers the capacity to contract.
Contract law also holds that a contract made by an intoxicated person is voidable, as the person was incompetent at the time the contract was formed.
A marriage contract may be annulled if one of the parties was legally incompetent. Grounds for incompetency include age (under the age of majority), mental incompetence such as insanity, and a preexisting marriage.
A person who executes a will must be legally competent. The traditional recital in a will states that the testator (the maker of the will) is of "sound mind." This language attempts to establish the competency of the testator, but the issue may be challenged when the will is probated.

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/incompetency

ShelfStacker_3

I recall reading about a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman of this nature. Basically, a man went on a celebratory night out, then called up the next morning claiming that he had no knowledge of some cash withdrawals. The FOS took it that on the balance of probabilities, the man had made the transactions but was simply too incapacitated to remember them the next day, and denied his complaint.

Long story short, being !!!!ed out of your mind is not a defence for racking up lots of debt. Diminished responsibility doesn't really apply.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

I may be wrong, but I think the Law overrides the FOS and as this wouldn't be an issue for the FOS their opinion/ruling would be useless.