Paying off Tabs in restaurants

DrScotsman

bryanb wrote: »

I still want to know how they got Pin No for second transaction.

Cardholder not present?

ihatecaptcha

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

What they did was definitely illegal. Morally correct, but not legally so.

Not even morally correct. The fact that the restaurant hung on to the OP's details may mean that they hang on to all their customer's card details. They need to be called to account for that. It is a more serious infringement than the OP's petty action.

Idiophreak

How interesting..you were legally immoral, they were illegally moral...

I like both, but which is better? There's only one way to find out...

bryanb

DrScotsman wrote: »

Cardholder not present?

Does that work if the first transaction was done electronically. I imagine they would not have the card details to do that (willing to learn though)

JimmyTheWig

No, they shouldn't have done it.
No, you shouldn't have tried to get away with it.

In this instance, two wrongs do make a right.

sk00bie1

The company will have the customer's card details on the receipt from the first transaction. They hold these for 6 years from the end of the current financial year.

Of course the details must be kept securely and in line with data protection laws which I'm sure don't include another charge to the customer's card when they find their records don't match!

DrScotsman

bryanb wrote: »

Does that work if the first transaction was done electronically. I imagine they would not have the card details to do that (willing to learn though)

I assuming you're refering to the 3 digits on the back that are not stored electronically on the card and are not raised so can't be caught using an imprinter - those are the only details not stored electronically I think; the rest they would have.

Now I'm far from certain about this, but I think that those 3 digits are for the merchant's benefit: They give these to the bank who then verify them, which decreases the chance that it's being used fraudulently (i.e. details stolen using an imprinter or electronically). The pub knew perfectly well that this card was fine (unless the OP cancelled it the next day), so they used it without worrying about verifying the card.

Purpledaisy_2

To whoever said its disgusting he rushed off - I know for one I'd try to get away with it if I could.

Nope they shouldn't have charged you're card the second time round but there'd be no point in trying to argue it.

juliescot

I wonder though how long they will hang onto the details and what else they might use them for?

It would be worth asking your bank under what authority this charge was allowed?

ihatecaptcha

juliescot wrote: »

I wonder though how long they will hang onto the details and what else they might use them for?

It would be worth asking your bank under what authority this charge was allowed?

Yep, I agree. There's an important principle here. A company or individual shouldn't take money from a card without the cardowner's knowledge and authorization, even if it's owed to them. It's important for all consumers for companies to understand that they can't get away with this.