Help! and a warning to others Healthbilling.com

chattychappy

magpiecottage wrote: »

An argument of "probably something in the small print" is not really very persuasive. A gentle reminder of this rule may be all that is needed but if they refuse a complaint, followed, if necessary, by recourse to FOS may be needed.

Precisely. (I think as it's a CC rather than deposit taking, BCOBS won't apply. But the Lending Code says exactly the same.)

meer53

In 17 years of working in the Fraud/Disputes department of a bank, and dealing with this type of dispute on a daily basis, i have yet to treat any continuous authority payment agreement disputes (where the customer has given their card details to the seller) as fraud. The sellers are usually very clear in their terms and conditions about what happens after the "free trial" it's just that card holders don't bother to read them. Some customers don't even realise that they're dealing with companies in other countries and are up in arms when i ask them to call the retailers to cancel the agreements ! I do get a bit hacked off with people shouting at me saying "This is fraud, i want my money back" when it could have been prevented by them doing the sensible thing and looking into what they're agreeing to in the first place. Most of these websites have a tick box which confirms that you accept the sellers terms and conditions, the continuous agreement arrangement is usually there if you look for it. I'm not legally trained so not sure what you would need to provide to argue that you haven't authorised anything, surely by agreeing to the T & C's you're in a contract with the seller ? Correct me if i'm wrong ?

Maybe it's just the way our procedures work, i'm sure other banks will have different opinions. Treating them as Fraud (it can be done) is usually unsuccessful as the chargebacks reject, the sellers providing evidence that the agreement hasn't been cancelled, so the customer has to be redebited. Much easier to cancel the agreement then treat further debits as Disputes.

chattychappy

meer53 wrote: »

I do get a bit hacked off with people shouting at me saying "This is fraud, i want my money back" when it could have been prevented by them doing the sensible thing and looking into what they're agreeing to in the first place.

Quite agree with that!

When I was a mail order merchant (about 15 yrs ago) I remember Barclays coming around and wanting to know everything about how we would do business - sample advertising materials etc. Seems nobody bothers anymore.

A lot of people are careless about signing up for promotions, but some really schemes do seem to be designed to deceive. Add to that all the claims from CCs about "safe surfing" guarantees, it's not surprising people expect CCs to do more when they get into trouble.

meer53 wrote: »

I'm not legally trained so not sure what you would need to provide to argue that you haven't authorised anything, surely by agreeing to the T & C's you're in a contract with the seller ? Correct me if i'm wrong ?

It's complex. There is a contract with the seller. The written T+Cs are only a starting point. They get modified by operation of law - Sale of Goods Acts etc, unfair terms legislation or implied terms, overriding verbal assurances etc. Then the contract itself might be voidable - eg if induced by a misrepresentation, distance selling regs or because of illegality (eg purchasing narcotics). The contract with the lender is highly regulated. Then you get something like s75 which makes the lender a party to the contract with the merchant in certain circumstances.

meer53 wrote: »

Maybe it's just the way our procedures work, i'm sure other banks will have different opinions.

In my experience (as a lawyer in financial regulation/compliance) banks keep an eye on regulators who carry out thematic enforcement. The procedures banks adopt are as a result of risk assessment - balancing the risk of non-compliance with regulation against commercial objectives and not getting ripped off by consumers. A few "Dear CEO" letters from the FSA, SFO, OFT or significant cases from the FOS/courts and things shift a bit.

The visa/mastercard network is global whilst legislation that governs lending is localised. I think this causes a real friction. Surely it cannot be right for someone using a Barclaycard to buy some dodgy goods from China to have recourse to Barclaycard when they turn out to be fake. (No doubt some will think they should.)

Frankly the banks are stuffed whichever way they go and they won't get any sympathy from anyone whatever they do.

meer53

Thanks for that Chattychappy, it is frustrating to deal with people every day who need their backsides wiping ! Maybe i'm a bit jaded from dealing with this for so long now, i sometimes find it incredible when i hear what people have done with their money. The counterfeit juggernaut seems to be slowing a bit at the moment, Xmas is always a nightmare, why do people think they can buy genuine stuff at 50% of the cost ? Then they seem amazed when the debit is from a company in China and their hair straighteners combust as soon as they plug them in. I have to try very hard to be nice and sympathetic, but it's getting a bit boring now !
Still, i suppose i shouldn't complain, their stupidity is keeping me in a job !
Roll on the next Credit Card Crisis - The Olympic Ticket Fiasco, due at my bank soon !!

MRG14153

Hi
As stated earlier, they were very reasonable once I'd tracked them down and I can now confirm they have refunded all my money :j.
Thanks for your comments.