Unauthorized debit card transactions

opinions4u

Do something stupid. Blame somebody else.

Welcome to Great Britain.

amuzia

grumbler wrote: »

IMHO, the term "unauthorizzed" used by the OP is inappropriate and misleading as it normally refers to payments taken by a company without any authorization.

In fact the transactions were fraudulent. In this case if the OP wants to get the money refunded (unlikely as the card details were given to the son), they have to admit that their son committed fraud and can face all the consequences of committing a criminal offence.

even if i decided to go down the route of prosecuting my son for fraud the money would still not be refunded. as it was a family member. all this would do is give my son a criminal record that would affect his whole life.

he has had the sharp end of my tongue and he has made a promise to pay it back out of his Saturday job pay and pocket money from his father.


my biggest problem with this is the lack of care shown by these companies. I a company states they use the cvv and then store the cvv information they are breaking the t&c of their visa merchant service.

just because it happens or it can be done doesnt mean it should happen or even make it right.

look at ppi's for years they were sold in a way that put them in the category of being missold, they broke the rules they got away with it for a long time...... because they got away with it does it make it right..... no.

because someone agreed to buy ppi at the time does it mean they cant get their money back.... no

if this company is breaking the rules should i sit here and say oh well lets just chalk that up to experience and let them break the rules that they agreed to abide by... i think not

p00hsticks

amuzia wrote: »

if this company is breaking the rules should i sit here and say oh well lets just chalk that up to experience and let them break the rules that they agreed to abide by... i think not

No you should not, but before accusing them you first you need to establish that the company actually is breaking the rules.

I think it far more likely that, rather than them storing the CVV, as you claim (which would be indeed breaking the rules) it is simply that they have decided not to request it - they are under no obligation to do so, and in my experience some online retailers do not (as other posters have pointed out, probably the most notable being amazon).

stclair

How much money we actually talking about here?

I don't think the company has broken any rules it's just the same as the verified by visa has not been working for yonks and it just gets bypassed when you order something online.

System

amuzia wrote: »

I a company states they use the cvv and then store the cvv information they are breaking the t&c of their visa merchant service.

Once they have validated the card information on first use they do not require the cvv (hint Card Verification Value - card is now verified) so do not store it as has already been said. They store the card number and the fact that it is verified.

amuzia wrote: »

if this company is breaking the rules

They are not breaking rules.

Youy are breaking rules - you are the one that allowed your son access to your card details for a purchase.

amuzia

by putting this on their site says to me that they regularly use the cvv function. if they are only requiring it the first time the card is used surely they would be falsely insinuating their security procedures?


The security code is the 3 digit number which appears on the back of your credit card. For American Express cards there is a 4 digit security code on the front of the card, just above the last four digits of the credit card number.
The information you enter in Steam needs to match the security code on your credit card. If your security code is not readable, please contact your credit card issuer to get a new card.


its for around £750 and i dont think all of it was spent on my sons account. i have requested that they now block the account which in turn will block all accounts that have benefited from the cards use.

grumbler

!!!!!! wrote: »

Once they have validated the card information on first use they do not require the cvv (hint Card Verification Value - card is now verified) so do not store it as has already been said. They store the card number and the fact that it is verified.They are not breaking rules.

Youy are breaking rules - you are the one that allowed your son access to your card details for a purchase.

What you say - is it a fact or just your thought? I am no expert, but for some reasons I trust wiki more than you:

Merchants who require the CVV2 for "card not present" transactions are forbidden by Visa from storing the CVV2 once the individual transaction is authorized and completed.[4] This way, if a database of transactions is compromised, the CVV2 is not included, and the stolen card numbers are less useful. Virtual terminals and payment gateways do not store the CVV2 code, therefore employees and customer service representatives with access to these web-based payment interfaces who otherwise have access to complete card numbers, expiration dates, and other information still lack the CVV2 code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_Verification_Value

FYI, [4] in the quotation is a link to "Rules for Visa Merchants"

cte1111

Not all retailers ask for the CVV each time.

Amazon, for example, don't ask for the code, once you've set a card up on your account. I think if a huge online merchant like Amazon don't do it, then you can assume that it is legal to not ask for the code.

amuzia

i believe there are different levels of merchant services account with visa.

some levels will require the merchant is required to gather the cvv and some dont maybe amazon have a service level with visa that does note require it and steam has a service level with visa that does require it
i will try and find where i read this

grumbler

cte1111 wrote: »

Not all retailers ask for the CVV each time.

Amazon, for example, don't ask for the code, once you've set a card up on your account. I think if a huge online merchant like Amazon don't do it, then you can assume that it is legal to not ask for the code.

I think the correct assumption would be that the merchants that don't ask for CVV (let alone bypass Verified by Visa) deliberately take extra risk of getting a bigger number of fraudulent transactions that can be charged back by banks.

Amazon's procedure is a joke and has to be changed by Amazon rather than followed by other companies. The account is protected by a very primitive password and any fraudster that gets access to the account can order goods to any address (even abroad) using the stored card details.