Continuous Payment Authority

fluffnutter

I've read a few things about these recently plus they featured on R4's You and Yours programme today.

Just for background, CPAs are the method whereby companies can continue taking recurring payments from either a debit or credit card. They're much used by, for example, insurance companies or anyone who regularly takes a subscription. Cancelling your card makes no difference - these payments can still be taken even though the 16 digit number has changed.

For this reason they're notoriously difficult to stop and consumers view them with distrust, rightly so. Many people, on trying to cancel with their bank or card issuer have been told "there's nothing we can do - you can only cancel via the company". I've been told this, and so has my OH.

However... and this is why I'm posting... this is not correct. You CAN cancel via your bank or building society. If anyone finds themselves in the situation whereby they can't cancel with the company, then they must keep on at their bank.

More info here.

Optimist

It has always been such but try telling the bank employees that's the case.

It generally takes a complaint through the banks complaints process with threats to go to the ombudsman before they will do anything.

The FSA rights guide is probably a good start when getting in touch with banks/card companies. Although cancellation of the payment doesn't negate any debt that might be owed to the company concerned.

fluffnutter

Optimist wrote: »

It has always been such but try telling the bank employees that's the case.

It generally takes a complaint through the banks complaints process with threats to go to the ombudsman before they will do anything.

The FSA rights guide is probably a good start when getting in touch with banks/card companies. Although cancellation of the payment doesn't negate any debt that might be owed to the company concerned.

I agree. What concerns me (and I believed it myself) is that people simply stop there. The more consumers who realise that they can actually cancel via their banks, the better. They get away with it simply because it goes unchallenged.

squeaky

Hmm... another possible subject for FAQ entry?

PZH

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but this seems the most recent one on this subject.

I watched a program at the weekend (Can't remember which one it was)...

BUT, according to the nice chap on the TV, the change happened back in 2009 and therefore (Assuming you can prove that you asked the bank to stop the payments?) people would be entitled to pursue the banks for financial compensation if they failed to act.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17870704

Norfolk_Jim

squeaky wrote: »

Hmm... another possible subject for FAQ entry?

It's news to me - how many pages is a visitor likely to go back over? If the search engine worked better it would be good but I also enjoy surfing for little bits of info like this one

fluffnutter

phoodless wrote: »

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but this seems the most recent one on this subject.

I watched a program at the weekend (Can't remember which one it was)...

BUT, according to the nice chap on the TV, the change happened back in 2009 and therefore (Assuming you can prove that you asked the bank to stop the payments?) people would be entitled to pursue the banks for financial compensation if they failed to act.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17870704

It was mentioned on Moneybox on R4 (Saturday lunchtime). The point was made about being able to claim right back to 2009 (if their bank had refused to help).

Seeing as this is still making the news occasionally (financial news anyway - I doubt it will ever be ITN's top story!), I'm guessing that people still don't realise they can ask their banks for help and, more worryingly, even if they do ask they're being incorrectly advised.

Moneybox featured a recent case whereby a customer asked Lloyds to cancel the payment, and received the response (in writing) that 'we don't care what the payment services authority's policy is, this is OUR policy and we're not cancelling them' (or words to that effect).

They backtracked once Moneybox got in touch with head office but even so, what a rubbish response.