Undercharged but money later taken?

geordie_joe

ispartacus75 wrote: »

I love the fact that people are jumping on the fact that the original paymetn was for £45 and seem to think the OP 'tried to get away with it'. And yet seem to cpmpletely ignore the fact that the vendor has obviously stored and reused the OP's details AFTER the original transaction has been made.

It's because they are baiting people like me, they seem to get a kick out of putting people down and somehow think it's fun to watch others defending them.

djohn2002uk

geordie_joe wrote: »

It's because they are baiting people like me, they seem to get a kick out of putting people down and somehow think it's fun to watch others defending them.

Who's baiting you?
All I see people doing is voicing their own opinions.
I think maybe you have too high an opinion of yourself to think people are wasting their time baiting you.

djohn2002uk

geordie_joe wrote: »

Be my guest.

You missed the point.

The post wasn't about paying the correct amount, it was about a company taking money from the OP's account without authorisation!!

No, you missed the point.
She did authorise £54.

ispartacus75

djohn2002uk wrote: »

No, you missed the point.
She did authorise £54.

Wrong.

She THOUGHT she had authorized £54 but what she had infact authorized was the amount shown on the chip and pin machine £45.

geordie_joe

djohn2002uk wrote: »

I think maybe you have too high an opinion of yourself.

There's two sides to every coin, and as far as I can see the other side to this particular coin is I have a low opinion of you.

djohn2002uk wrote: »

to think people are wasting their time baiting you.

I didn't say "me", I said "people LIKE me".

geordie_joe

djohn2002uk wrote: »

No, you missed the point.
She did authorise £54.

But the bank thought she had authorised £45!!!

She expected to pay £54, but the transaction went to the bank as £45. As far as the bank was concerned she had authorised a payment of of £45. So why did it let the company come back and take another £9.

More to the point, if the company decides to take another £300 from the OP's bank account will the bank let it?

geordie_joe

djohn2002uk wrote: »

Quite a few have said that the OP only authorised a payment of £45.

That is totally wrong.

You are looking at it from the wrong point of view, try imagining that you are the bank.

A person goes into a shop and expects to pay £54 for an item. They enter their pin number into the chip and pin machine, but the person at the checkout has typed 45 instead of 54. As far as you are concerned the person is making a payment of £45, so you allow the payment to be taken from the person's bank account.

At a later date, the shop then tries to take another £9 out of the account. No card was put into the machine and no pin number was entered.

Would you allow the payment to be taken from the account? Remembering that you have no knowledge of what the person bought, how much it cost etc. All you really know is that the account holder must have been there to enter their pin number the first time, but the second time no card was put in the machine and no pin number was entered,. Therefore there is a good chance the account hlder is not present and has no knowledge that money is being taken from their account.

djohn2002uk wrote: »

She saw the price of the goods as £54 and agreed to pay that amount and offered her card and entered the pin as authorisation for the seller to take £54 from her account.

Yes but the chip and pin machine told the bank that she had bought goods to the value of £45 and she had authorised £45 to be taken in payment for those goods.

Why did the bank them allow a further £9 to be taken?

What would have happened if the personwhom took the extra £9 was the same bad typist that typed 45 instead of 54, but this time they typed 900 instead of 9 and £900 was taken from the OP's bank account?

ben500

It boils down to the fact that one payment was authorised and two payments were taken, for the purposes of this thread the amounts received and the amounts agreed are immaterial, it would be interesting to see under what circumstances the second payment was obtained.

joek101

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Geordie joe I think it is you who is missing the point.
The goods purchased came to £54 - the debit or credit card used is means to pay the bill - no more no less.
In this instance they have corrected their mistake (and yes if it was the other way round I would have expected them to refund).
How on earth are they suppose to 'contact the customer' to get authority to take the rest - what if the customer says no?

Let OP complain all he/she likes - these boards are for money saving not scamming.

To summarise he bought goods for £54 he paid originally £45 and the shop took additional payment of £9 to balance the books - result OP has lost nothing and has no case to complain.

Indeed I would ask why he did not go back to shop to state that he had underpaid.

Why did i not go back to the shop? I'm sorry but im not about to waste my time and money in travel expenses to treck it back to the shop to rectify their mistake, why should I? I cant believe that the absolute majority of people in my situation when they got home wouldn't have done the same thing and thought oh well, my gain i guess, you win some you lose some.

I'm not really bothered what people think about the underpayment, as others have stated the point i was raising was how an unauthorised payment has left my bank account, so could we please stay on that line of discussion please.

The other thing that I was thinking was although people have said well they could have gone to the bank with debit card recipt £45 and til receipt £54, who is to say i didn't pay the balance in cash? This can't be suitable evidence to claim a second payment on that basis.

ispartacus75

joek101 wrote: »

The other thing that I was thinking was although people have said well they could have gone to the bank with debit card recipt £45 and til receipt £54, who is to say i didn't pay the balance in cash? This can't be suitable evidence to claim a second payment on that basis.

I was about to raise the very same point this morning but you have beaten me to it.