Credit card query paying for drinks

auto-man

sharpy2010 wrote: »

Unfortunately most people don't understand the difference between illegal and unlawful, and this is the reason that the term is overused.

Erm they're pretty much the same except you only really use the term illegal when considering anything legislative, such as an Act (of Parliament) or something that has rules such as football otherwise generally speaking you'd use the word unlawful.

Think along the lines of "it's illegal to kick the opposing footballer in the nuts" based on the fact footballers adhere to governing rules (i.e. legislation). However it would be "unlawful" as well as this is not considered the norm.

Its rather pedantic to try and differentiate between the two.

Road_Hog

InsideInsurance wrote: »

People really do use the term "illegal" massively too much on this site!!! Would love the name of one shop keeper that has been sent to prison for it?

But did you bother to query my point in my post? You have to ask yourself why merchants won't give cashback on credit cards? The big nationals won't pay more than 0.5% on transactions and it'll cost them more to bank the money (in actually getting it physically to the bank alone).

So why don't they? And why did my local (freehold) publican offer it to locals (because it was cheaper, than banking cash, he said).

Probably for the reason he stated. That it was not giving you your own money back (which is what cashback on a debit card is), but it was making a loan and you need to be credit licensed and sign a credit agreement.

sharpy2010

auto-man wrote: »

Erm they're pretty much the same

Wrong. They're completely different.

auto-man wrote: »

Its rather pedantic to try and differentiate between the two.

Maybe. I'm a grammar Nazi. Have you seen the way that young people spell things these days? It isn't great, and doesn't bode well for the future.

auto-man

Ermm you're wrong. Not me!

Google is your friend. The fact I'm a professor in associated English at Oxford would suggest I know the difference old chap!

InsideInsurance

Road_Hog wrote: »

Probably for the reason he stated. That it was not giving you your own money back (which is what cashback on a debit card is), but it was making a loan and you need to be credit licensed and sign a credit agreement.

But the loan is with the card company not the merchant and on the basis you have one of their cards they presumably are licensed and there is a credit agreement in place (I dont believe they need to be physically signed these days, certainly didn't sign one for my new credit card).

Taking the OPs example, when they repay the additional £4 cash they were given they pay that back to the credit card company and not to the pub.

I am not a 100% expert on the CCA and so I accept there is a chance there is something odd in it that would bar the transaction, if there is my guess is that it is more around "encouraging" someone to get into debt but then by their nature shops, pubs etc are doing that by allowing the person to buy their goods/ services by credit cards in the first place.

I strongly suspect it is a much more basic fact that the card companies want to maximise their profit and if people want cash they want their higher fees/ interest rates