Sainsbury's took her card!

angelicmary85

I used to work in a Natwest call centre and if I remember rightly, Natwest don't actually authorise a payment themselves, it all goes through a verification centre in Edinburgh. When we had to phone through they'd be very helpful and knew straight-away why the card was declined, it could have been something as simple as using the card 'too many' times in a short space of time.

lisyloo

vet8 wrote: »

Can I inject a note of common sense here?

As for "are there people who go out without phones?" Yes, I have never owned a mobile, not everyone does.;)

It really is a personal decision whether to carry a mobile or not, but in my "real" world things don't work 100% of the time.
That includes shoes, cars etc.
So I consider it sensible to carry contingency.

If you don't that's your decision but you have to accept the consequences, and can't then complain if you run into problems or have to walk a mile to the nearest public phone (if you're lucky).

The main reason I carry several methods of payment is because there isn't one (apart from cash) that is universally accepted.
So if (for example) you car breaks down, you can't guarantee they will take AMEX or credit cards, they might not.
Same if you urgently need a taxi. They don't all take credit or debit cards.

If people want to go out without any contingency that's up to them, but they can't complain when they have to face up to the consequenced of their choices and it's certainly not an excuse to bully someone who is in no posistion to fight back.

Marmaris08

young_victor_meldrew wrote: »

I don't lose my rag at service staff, this is the reason why I always receive the best service, I treat people with the same dignity and respect I expect in return.

Are you going to follow me round the board commenting on all my posts Marmaris? What have I done to warrant all this attention from you- its very stalkerish.

Please it's a public forum and I will continue to comment on particular topics when you or anyone else posts something that I disagree with, so you can cut out the stalker twaddle.

You say that you treat CS personnel with dignity and respect, but for whatever reason you choose not to apply these same principles to the other members on this board?

I wonder why that is?

young_victor_meldrew

Marmaris08 wrote: »

Please it's a public forum and I will continue to comment on particular topics when you or anyone else posts something that I disagree with, so you can cut out the stalker twaddle.

You say that you treat CS personnel with dignity and respect, but for whatever reason you choose not to apply these same principles to the other members on this board?

I wonder why that is?

Marmaris, your problem is you don't like anyone who disagrees with you or your opinions.

Your problem with me goes back to the posting about the £50 note in the chemist, since then, whenever I post, there you are, like a bad smell with something to say about my replies. You were rude and nasty then and you expect respect? :rotfl:

vet8

opinions4u wrote: »

Using only the information provided by the OP, who wasn't present at the time, please explain what the "kid" did wrong.

Before doing so, are you suggesting that a seat should have been wheeled out for the customer and a small brandy placed in her hand just in case the shock was too much?

I am sorry, but that is a ridiculous, pathetic comment.

One of the worst things and also the most amusing thing about these boards is the polarisation of comments and how posters deliberately misread things and extrapolate comments to the Nth degree. There are those who HATE the banks and would never say they were right and on the other hand, the bank apologists who think they are never wrong. If someone posted on here that the bank manager had come out of his office and hit him over the head with an axe there would be pro-bank posters saying, "that was reasonable, the bank manager was right to and they shoud have read their T & Cs where it states that you can be felled by an axe if you go 1p overdrawn".

As others have said we do not know what really happened, the customer might have grabbed the young man by the throat and swore at his face or she might have just muttered under her breath. Similarly, the young man may have been helpful or sarcastic and rude - no one knows .

I do find it very amusing though that he would not hand over the card when the bank asked her for the number, that shows a rather jobsworth mentality.

Marmaris08

young_victor_meldrew wrote: »

Marmaris, your problem is you don't like anyone who disagrees with you or your opinions.

Your problem with me goes back to the posting about the £50 note in the chemist, since then, whenever I post, there you are, like a bad smell with something to say about my replies. You were rude and nasty then and you expect respect? :rotfl:

PMSL that's rich coming from you regarding me not liking anyone who disagrees with my opinions. I've read two topics now that you have posted on where you have directly aimed an insulting comment at the OP.

As for your wherever you post there I am following you around comment, is this not only the 2nd topic that I have posted where I have disagreed with you? I suggest you get your facts straight before posting such drivel.

Isn't it past your bedtime?:rotfl:

opinions4u

vet8 wrote: »

I am sorry, but that is a ridiculous, pathetic comment.

It was meant to be !!!!!!!

As others have said we do not know what really happened

Which was exactly my point.

I do find it very amusing though that he would not hand over the card when the bank asked her for the number, that shows a rather jobsworth mentality.

So, after being told to retain the card, he should have handed it back?

CopperPlate_2

opinions4u wrote: »

It was meant to be !!!!!!!

Which was exactly my point.

So, after being told to retain the card, he should have handed it back?

I actually thought the comment about the brandy was hilarious. I can just imagine the scene as someone mopped her fevered brow and smelling salts were called for... :rotfl:

vet8

opinions4u wrote: »

So, after being told to retain the card, he should have handed it back?

Since the bank lady on the phone asked for her card number, how did they expect her to give it to them unless she had the card.

Telepathy, magic? Umm !! Maybe you are so wonderful you can memorise every long card number you have.

Join the real world.

opinions4u

vet8 wrote: »

Since the bank lady on the phone asked for her card number, how did they expect her to give it to them unless she had the card.

Banks have clever things called computers that have various ways of identifying a customer's account holdings and card numbers.

They don't need the customer to provide the card number if they can reasonably ascertain that the caller is the account holder.

The ask for card/account number simply for convenience.

Telepathy, magic? Umm !! Maybe you are so wonderful you can memorise every long card number you have.

A few years ago I could remember every card number in my wallet, phone number in my diary, Premiership squad number, parliamentary majority and the name/party of the sitting MP. The mind has dulled a little with age since then though, so I doubt I will ever return to that place again!

That is, however, irrelevant. The bank didn't need the card number to be provided during that phone call. They could have looked the details up instead. A bit like they would if a customer was reporting a lost or stolen card.

Join the real world.

I'm sorry, but in the real world retail staff who have been ordered to retain a credit/debit card do not return it to the customer.