Just tried to cancel my AA Roadside Home-Start.

bazster

meer53 wrote: »

You are wrong. Payments can be claimed from a cancelled CC by a retailer. I work a daily report which contains hundreds of this type of transaction where customers have cancelled their cards thinking this is what will happen. Unless you notify the retailer they will continue to claim against the number they hold on their files, these payments will debit a suspense account within the bank, the bank will then contact the customer and advise them that they need to contact the retailer to give them their new card number for future payments. These can only be disputed if the agreement has been cancelled by the customer, not by the bank.

Your comment about CVV numbers is also incorrect, retailers who accept Continuous Authority payments don't need a CVV number or even an expiry date to collect the money once the agreement has been set up.

Like I said, I've done this a couple of times and I've never been contacted by a card issuer about a failed payment against a "lost" card - only by the payee, who I have duly ignored with the desired result.

I have also been contacted in the past by payees for a new expiry date (or an alternative card) when a card has reached expiry.

Currently whether to use the CVV is up to the payee, so obviously no-one who wants to use continuous payments will opt to use the CVV. However, this may change (it being optional), and if so that will kill continuous payments. I've got a paper somewhere (can't find it right now) about the concerns for the future among local authorities who accept CCM's for things like council tax payments.

meer53

bazster wrote: »

I already told you that on a couple of occasions I reported a card lost in order to stop an unwanted continuous payment when the ISP ignored my cancellation requests. It worked like a charm: the companies concerned contacted me to request new card details, which I didn't supply, and I never heard from them again.

If you don't believe me then that's your prerogative, but I know what I know.

I read the implausible stuff on that other thread about only the 1st 13 digits of the number being checked, but I lost my wallet last year (yes, I really did lose it!) and I had to get three new credit cards. One of the new cards has six digits different to the original one, another has seven different digits, and the third has eight different digits. There is no way a payee can collect a payment if they don't know the number to collect against! Simples.

A payment will even fail if your card has expired and the payee doesn't know the new expiry date.

n.b. I design and build subscription processing systems among other things, so I do know a bit about this.

I don't know who you design and build systems for but, where i work, in the Fraud/Disputes department of a bank, it doesn't work that way.

Maybe our processing system isn't as good as the ones you design and build ? Surely you accept that there is more than one processing system or is yours so good that it's the only one used ? Which banks are using your system ?

bazster

I said subscription processing systems, they are used by publishers, not banks.

meer53

bazster wrote: »

I said subscription processing systems, they are used by publishers, not banks.

Ah, so you don't really know how the banks processing systems work then ? Every bank uses their own system so as a previous poster has said, "you got lucky"

If you bank where i work, it would have been a different scenario altogether.

wealdroam

bazster wrote: »

There is no way a payee can collect a payment if they don't know the number to collect against! Simples.

It has already been explained to you (more than once) how that is possible.

OK Bazster, in the absence of any authoratitive evidence to the contrary, I think it is reasonable that we assume that "you got lucky"... as BoGoF said earlier.

Don't you agree?

Relick

Do debit cards work differently? Santander sent me a new card with new number recently due to a dodgy payment request.
A couple of days ago the AA sent me a letter saying they could not take payment using the old number and if I did not contact them with new one within 28 days then my account would lapse. Might go with RAC this year
Looks like it will also happen with an insurance policy that I was going to cancel anyway.

Goods

This happened to me this January.

I paid for AA membership in Jan 2010 on an MBNA credit card. The card was paid off and cancelled in October 2010.

In February 2011 I received an MBNA statement with a new card number on it and a single payment from AA. I have since cancelled the card again.

If I want to keep the AA membership should I ring now and cancel the continuous charge authority and switch to one off payments or will this have to be done at renewal time

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi guys

However much you disagree on an issue, please keep it friendly.

Thank you!

Andrea

mrsmortenharket

Thank you all.

I don't know if this is still relevant 2 years after I've left, but I used ti work for a credit card company (collections, burn me at the stake now! :rotfl:) Anyway I'd regularly call people who were late with payments. They'd be bewildered as they hadn't used the card or had even cancelled the credit card. But the AA/RAC would take money anyway. It's a continuous payment thingy (technical term!)

Whats pished me off about this AA situation is they won't let me cancel. But they'll happily take the money from MY credit card which is no longer in existance. I had a Mothercare card but Santander have discontinued it.

DH is NOT HAPPY & want to take legal action against the AA. :cool:

I'm about to call them again.

youcangoogleit

Good luck getting through. I'm tearing my hair out just trying to get through to anyone. It just says that all the operators are dealing with breakdown calls and hangs up. You'd think with all this money they are extracting from people who dont want their services they could employ a few more call centre staff.