Card payment declined

krisskross

I tried to pay for something costing £300 this morning. The card was declined although I know the present balance is just1/10th of the available credit and I pay the balance in full every month.

When I phoned I was told that it was blocked because I had never used it for anything that expensive before. Seems a bit silly if I have to phone to get permission to use the card.

Gromitt

You've got to admit, if you've never spent that much money before, you can understand it ringing alarm bells when you do. I'm assuming this is a CC, in which case, the bank are looking after their money. Just ring them up and make the payment again.

krisskross

I often spend ~£250+ on it, but have apparently never reached the magic £300.

I know they have to protect their money but I have spent much more than this on other cards with no problems.

smileygill

Something similar happened to me recently. But the problem appeared, according to my card issuer, to be the retailer's. Back when I used to accept credit-card payments, all retailers had a "floor limit" above which they had to call for authorisation before the payment would be accepted. I wonder if a similar practice is still in force?

Gromitt

krisskross wrote: »

I often spend ~£250+ on it, but have apparently never reached the magic £300

then it sounds weird. If you've regularly put charges of £250+ on it, I wouldn't regard £300 as suspicious.

Maybe its another random 'fraud check'.

harrys_dad

Was it a "customer not present" transaction (online or telephone)? These tend to get queried if they are outside usual spending patterns. In my view that is a perfectly reasonable way of protecting against fraud.

safestored4

'Harrys Dad' has it spot on about the risks involved with 'customer not present' transactions. Our credit card was declined for our usual supermarket grocery shop last week. When I telephoned to check the situation I was immediately put through to the fraud department who confirmed that they had blocked the card and asked if I had placed a number of bets with an on-line betting site between 1.30am and 5.30am that morning. Needless to say I hadn't. The card has been cancelled, a new one is on its way, and the account has been restored to its position before the fraudulent transactions took place. I am more than happy for card issuers to have such security mechanisms in place, the benefits outweigh any minor inconvenience or embarrassment that occurs when the card is declined.

Skulls

Last Thursday I tried paying for an iPad at Apple online, it got declined £315 before I had a chance to find my debit card I had a phone call from the CC to ask if I had tried using it. After a few questions they said to try and use myCC again and it went through. I think they are finally being a bit more alert toCC fraud.

opinions4u

Skulls wrote: »

I think they are finally being a bit more alert toCC fraud.

Yes, they've never bothered before.

They've just sat around doing absolutely nothing thinking "it's really good us having to make good fraud on credit cards. Let us do nothing and lose as much money as we possibly can this way".

dalesrider

Gromitt wrote: »

then it sounds weird. If you've regularly put charges of £250+ on it, I wouldn't regard £300 as suspicious.

Maybe its another random 'fraud check'.

Its not random..... That staff member thinks long and hard before sticking the pin in the list :rotfl:

Its amazing how people post such daft comments on transaction limits and random checks.

There is a lot of work that goes into making sure that checks are correct.

Are you aware that there is a limit on the number of refered/declined transactions through security checks.
Go above it and the FSA will clamp down hard.

fozmcfc

I think it varies by card provider.

Natwest are terrible for blocking my purchases, so much so I stopped using the card. A lot of the block purchases, have been for reasonably small amounts between £30 - £200.

Virgin on the other hand, have never blocked a purchase, either on or offline, including quite a few £500 + transcations.

M&S blocked my first purchase, I guess understandable as it was for £679 online. But never had a block since, again including some £500 + transcations.

I am all from fraud prevention, but in Natwest case, it was ridiculous, at least once every 2 or 3 purchases.

Of course people should really check their balance at least a couple of times a month, particularly as it is so quick with online access. With M&S it is in the T&C's you accept you will log in at least once every 28 or 30 days (can't remember which).