Credit card fraud - Shell and Tesco - I'm shocked

George_Bray

Bossyboots wrote:

I am not sure there is actually anything wrong with the the title anyway.

I should perhaps point out that I amended the title to be less critical, so what you're reading now is not what was there before!

I stand by my concerns, though. They are being economic with the truth. Instead of saying they are concerned, and it's not their policy (which it certainly seems to be) they should admit what Schiff and PBA have already suggested - that's it's a business decision made in (perhaps unwitting) agreement with the banks/credit card companies, and they (Tesco, Shell, and others) are happy to pay for any losses.

Do you think they've got it right? i.e. Accepting my signed-for transaction when the signature on the card has completely worn away.

Regards
George

Bossyboots

George_Bray wrote:

I should perhaps point out that I amended the title to be less critical, so what you're reading now is not what was there before!

I stand by my concerns, though. They are being economic with the truth. Instead of saying they are concerned, and it's not their policy (which it certainly seems to be) they should admit what Schiff and PBA have already suggested - that's it's a business decision made in (perhaps unwitting) agreement with the banks/credit card companies, and they (Tesco, Shell, and others) are happy to pay for any losses.

Do you think they've got it right? i.e. Accepting my signed-for transaction when the signature on the card has completely worn away.

Regards
George

Thanks for clarifying that.

Do I think they've got it right - Tesco accepted my signed for transaction when the signature on the card was my husband's!