Undercharged but money later taken?

jonesMUFCforever

nickmack wrote: »

I don't think there's any dispute the till receipt stated £54, so the shop are entitled to this, as the amount agreed for the transaction.

The OP has already stated, they don't have a problem paying £54, but are concerned at the method used to take the 'missing' £9.

It seems this case perhaps has less to do with the retailer and more to do with the bank, as they seem to have authorised a 'cardholder not present' transaction.

The concern is about whether mechanisms are in place to stop an unscrupulous retailer taking say £90 and the cardholder then battling to get this back.

Read my post which states if the shop overcharges you you raise a dispute and you get a refund.
That is the mechanism in place and any retailer found to be in breach of their terms and conditions would soon find their Visa/ Mastercard facilities withdrawn by their bank.

ben500

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Read my post which states if the shop overcharges you you raise a dispute and you get a refund.
That is the mechanism in place and any retailer found to be in breach of their terms and conditions would soon find their Visa/ Mastercard facilities withdrawn by their bank.

The issue is not over the amount that was taken but the means by which it was obtained.

ispartacus75

ben500, dont waste your time. Hes a Man Utd fan so devoid of any common sense.

I particularly like the fact that he has ignored my scenario as he knows there is no way to argue it.

Valli

ben500 wrote: »

there is no dispute over the total amount due only the means by which the adjustment to the original transaction was made and whether or not it was lawful to do so.

How succinct - a well made point:T

andyrules

If the op hadn't kept the receipt- as many people don't (in fact, isn't it perfectly legal for the retailer not to provide one?) - then how would they know they had been undercharged? All they would know is that someone had helped themselves to their money.

totally agree with Ispartacus - this is wrong wrong wrong - and I hope the op discovers that the shop acted very much in error.

jonesMUFCforever

andyrules wrote: »

If the op hadn't kept the receipt- as many people don't (in fact, isn't it perfectly legal for the retailer not to provide one?) - then how would they know they had been undercharged? All they would know is that someone had helped themselves to their money.

totally agree with Ispartacus - this is wrong wrong wrong - and I hope the op discovers that the shop acted very much in error.

So it is also right in that case that if they had overcharged to keep the difference as the only way to refund would be to use the card details they hold!

ben500

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

So it is also right in that case that if they had overcharged to keep the difference as the only way to refund would be to use the card details they hold!

No. Because no such authority is required to make a payment into an account only outward.

djohn2002uk

ben500 wrote: »

No. Because no such authority is required to make a payment into an account only outward.

But how would they know where to refund too? People here are saying they shouldn't keep the details.

andyrules

They shouldn't keep details, but in the case of overcharge/refund you re-present your card and normally retype in your pin. Sometimes things get double-scanned, on those occasions I ask for it to be rectified next time I'm there. If I phoned in and said, 'just stick it back on my card' can you imagine what the retailer would say? :rolleyes:

blue_monkey_2

I see this thread started decending into insults too.

Isparticus, if you had been overcharged there would be no need for you to go back into the store and put your hand in the till as yes, this would be theft, you would instead produce your receipts and get your money back this way. As you paid by card you would not be entitled to a cash refund but a refund back to your card so taking the cash would be stealing. So your scenario does not really work.

The MAIN ISSUE here is that the payment was taken. When you have a card processed it gives 2 receipts, one for the merchant and one for the customer. The customer receipt does not really have any other details on but the merchant receipt has all details on except the CSV number. If you process a card with either a PIN or a CSV then the card is processed 'securely' without it is is an insecure payment. Both can be processed as 'cardholder not present'. It becomes fraud when a payment is taken for goods you did not agree to buy.

If you find money has been taken you contact your card issuer and you tell them, they will then investigate this fraud and you will get your money back if you did not buy the goods. End of. Why is everyone arguing about this?

However, the other slant is that the person buying the goods agreed to pay £54 for the goods and that when she authorised that payment she was agreeing to pay £54 without realising she had been undercharged. Could it be that times have overrun for the cut off of the statement being produced, in that the cut off for a business working day is 3pm and if they had process it at 5pm it would go on the next day and then onto the next 'months' statement. The transaction has still been processed the same shop working day though.

The onus here is on the OP to call the bank/card issuer and sort it out with them.

Has the money been taken illegally? The customer agreed to pay £54, she THOUGHT she was authorising a payment of £54 but human error entered the wrong amount and the shop just recified this with the card details they had to take the correct amount.

If the shop has taken an unauthorised amount then she can go to the bank with receipts and get it sorted.

However, when she goes to the bank with her receipt and the bank see that the total taken was the same as she agreed to pay there is nothing further to be done.

It is all down to timings here and when the additional payment went through and I think we need to bear this in mind. Everyone is assuming 'a month later' when it could be that the same days taking of the balance went through onto the next statement.

The OP has not been back to tell us anything further so maybe we can all stop arguing about it until we hear from them what has since happened.

If a retailer is putting payments through to cards willy nilly then they cannot do this and it is fraud and they will get in trouble for this with the bank and the police, however, is it fraud when they take what the customer should have paid but did not due to a mistake? They are simply taking what they are owed.

On the other side though, was it not dishonest of the OP to not go back and point out she had been undercharged for the goods? She would have gone back if she had been overcharged so why not if undercharged? I know we would all do it, but is it honest?

The OP needs to tell the bank that this shop took the payment and they can get in touch with the retailer and make sure they are aware of the card compliancy laws, if they are doing something wrong they will get fined, the OP can try and get her money back from the bank for the unsecure and unauthorised transaction but I doubt she will be successful as she has only paid what she agreed to pay, as per the receipt, and the bank will want to see the receipts - if the OP does not have them then the shop will and because the shop has not taken more than the customer agreed to pay then the customer will not get the money back.

Otherwise could we all not call the bank and say 'Tesco charged me £25 but my receipt only showed £25'. They will need to see the receipt. And the OP's receipt showed £54, not £45.

So, it is all down to PERSONAL opinion as to whether you think what happened is right or wrong. The shop has not taken anymore money than the customer agreed to pay.

As a merchant I do not feel happy having card holders details but I need them should I need to refund, however, if the law was that no card holders details were to be kept then why does the machine print them all out on our merchant receipts. I suspect it is so that you can recoup any loss should human error occur, but I am not sure. The technology is there for the details to be ommited as they are on the cardholders copy.

So, until we hear more from the OP there is not really anything else to argue about, is there?