Co-Op Basic Account - They gonna pay a reg bill and let me go overdrawn? Legal? ASAP

notts_phil

I honestly think the OP is a complete tool.... And not one I can use in the garden.......

jonesMUFCforever

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

Notwithstanding the attitude of the OP here, the quote above clearly smacks of double standards.

If the OP were to walk into a shop and attempt to pay with their debit card the transaction would be declined, automatically, without any fee or charge made. Yet whenever a CPA debit is made, it's seems entirely discretionary as to whether the payment is honoured or not and if a charge is applied. It is much easier for customers to understand consistency.

The CPA arrangement is a way of the banks shifting the responsibility from the bank to the customer, as opposed to Direct Debits which has a bank backed guarantee. Just like chip and pin, where the onus was shifted from the bank to the customer. And we know how flawed that is.

There is consistency - his account will have been debited!
How can the banks 'shift' responsibility to the customer when it has no record of any CPA transaction which is between the customer and the retailer.

pqrdef

david39 wrote: »

It clearly cannot go on making more and more payments for ever, because the OP, having failed with one, is likely to fail on further ones and could reach a point where he has no ability to repay the bank itself let alone the company trying to collect.

Tricky one. The merchant can argue that the bank takes on the risk when it issues the card.

DDs are fine for services paid for in advance. If your landline rental DD is returned unpaid, they can cut off your phone. But DDs are less good for services charged by usage, after the event, because it's a bit easy for the customer to cancel the DD and disappear. The merchant needs the payment guarantee before providing the service.

What's wrong with this picture is that it shouldn't be possible to set up a CPA on a basic card. The expectation that a basic account can't go overdrawn can't possibly be met unless debit card payments have to be authorised individually and claimed quickly.

But that would reduce the usefulness of online cards and make it difficult for basic account customers to buy certain kinds of service. Back to coin slot meters.

inmypocketnottheirs

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

There is consistency - his account will have been debited!
How can the banks 'shift' responsibility to the customer when it has no record of any CPA transaction which is between the customer and the retailer.

That is contradictory. Re read my post if the OP was to purchase in a store, the card would be declined. That is inconsistent.

Listen, we all know the banks like to pick and choose their practices to suit themselves and levy charges. Customer service went out the window with the 10 shilling note.

In this instance the contract is between the customer and the merchant and the customer and the bank. If the banks intention was to act in the best interests of the customer, then they would accept the cancellation of the CPA. Or better still, not accept CPA's at all. There is no protection for the customer.

meer53

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

That is contradictory. Re read my post if the OP was to purchase in a store, the card would be declined. That is inconsistent.

Listen, we all know the banks like to pick and choose their practices to suit themselves and levy charges. Customer service went out the window with the 10 shilling note.

In this instance the contract is between the customer and the merchant and the customer and the bank. If the banks intention was to act in the best interests of the customer, then they would accept the cancellation of the CPA. Or better still, not accept CPA's at all. There is no protection for the customer.

Your statement that in a shop the transaction would be declined is wrong.

Not all transactions need to be authorised, if it's below the stores floor limit, it will debit, whether there are funds in the account to cover it or not.

Hanky_Panky

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

Just like chip and pin, where the onus was shifted from the bank to the customer. And we know how flawed that is.

Really - didn't think it was flawed at all. All that has happened is that it has shifted responsibility back to where it belongs.

I - nor anyone I know has had one single problem with it.

inmypocketnottheirs

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Really - didn't think it was flawed at all. All that has happened is that it has shifted responsibility back to where it belongs.

I - nor anyone I know has had one single problem with it.

It is clearly flawed!!! Chip and pin has not stopped card fraud, just ensured that the victim is the customer and not the bank.

I haven't had a problem, either, that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. If chip and pin was such a wonderful solution then why isn't it used in the US? The only reason for chip and pin was to pull the wool over the customers eyes by sneaking in the transfer of liability.

So Hanky Panky, if you were to suffer a loss due to fraud on your account you'd be happy to accept it? I had a friend who's card was skimmed in a fuel station and his account emptied of around £3k. The bank insisted he had given the card and pin.

inmypocketnottheirs

meer53 wrote: »

Your statement that in a shop the transaction would be declined is wrong.

Not all transactions need to be authorised, if it's below the stores floor limit, it will debit, whether there are funds in the account to cover it or not.

My statement isn't wrong at all if the card is an electron card. Electron cards require authorising for every transaction. Store transaction could be declined, CPA would be either honoured or declined and a charge made. Clearly a profit mechanism for the bank, with no manual intervention required at all whatsoever.

pqrdef

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

I had a friend who's card was skimmed in a fuel station and his account emptied of around £3k. The bank insisted he had given the card and pin.

Chip & Pin prevents the use of cloned cards in chip-reading terminals. If the card was in fact cloned, the bank has no evidence that it wasn't. If the bank knows that a chipped card was used, then the bad guy had the real card and your friend was telling you porkies.

Gromitt

Thats great other than the fact that the PIN proves nothing. If you modify the reader you don't even need the PIN, yet the reader will still give you a printout saying "Verified by PIN" [Correct in 2011 for offline cards, most likely still correct now]. The PIN is only sent to the bank for checking if you use an ATM.

In a fuel station where there is regularly one person behind a glass window and the only CCTV being outside, its the perfect opportunity to modify (or replace) the card reader with an altered version. If your card is quite old, the chances are that it also uses a static certificate which can be copied from the chip and written to a fake card to use elsewhere.