Fraudulent Transaction. NatWest say "phone on Monday"

stclair

innovate wrote: »

Yes, I understand that - - - but not if the transaction is for a card that expired last October. No bank should ever accept an authorisation against an expired card. Otherwise, why expire the card in the first instance?



Absolutely, That would have been proper Customer Service with an upper case C and an upper case S. Instead, they are giving the cardholder the runaround, and upset them unneccesarily. Really terrible CS.

Could the transaction not been processed via the (VAU) Visa Account Updater possibly.

pmduk

OP? why not go through old statements to try and find a similar transaction that could possibly have been set up as a CPA? They aren't always as clear as they could be to consumers. It would also explain the use of an old cancelled card number.

stclair

dalesrider wrote: »

I do not know if NW replac cards with the same number or not. Some do, some don't

But if the retailer presents the transaction with a auth code then it will go through.

TBH. Untill the OP has spoke to NW team about this and if we get more info, then we are going in circles.

But the NW sales pitch has to make you laugh....

The number PAN is always different.

innovate

stclair wrote: »

Could the transaction not been processed via the (VAU) Visa Account Updater possibly.

Who knows!

All I know is that I have been a user of Debit (and Credit) cards since the year dot and I have only just heard for the first time about the VAU. I therefore assume it's safe to think no customer should need to be concerned with VAU.

But if I am wrong and the customer should know about VAU, then they should be told when they query a transaction.

stclair

pmduk wrote: »

OP? why not go through old statements to try and find a similar transaction that could possibly have been set up as a CPA? They aren't always as clear as they could be to consumers. It would also explain the use of an old cancelled card number.

Good idea you can view 6 years worth of transactions online. It may be worth checking back to around this time last year to see what debited the account.

stclair

innovate wrote: »

Who knows!

All I know is that I have been a user of Debit (and Credit) cards since the year dot and I have only just heard for the first time about the VAU. I therefore assume it's safe to think no customer should need to be concerned with VAU.

But if I am wrong and the customer should know about VAU, then they should be told when they query a transaction.

The VAU enables the electronic exchange of updated account information among participating merchants, acquirers and Visa card issuers.

http://www.visadps.com/services/visa_account_updater.html

pmduk

stclair wrote: »

Good idea you can view 6 years worth of transactions online. It may be worth checking back to around this time last year to see what debited the account.

Or longer perhaps, I'd be checking the 2 year date as well.

magpiecottage

It is not correct to say a bank must make an immediate refund. The FSA rule says, "Where a payment from a banking customer's account was not authorised by the banking customer, a firm must, within a reasonable period, refund the amount of the unauthorised payment to the banking customer and, where applicable, restore the banking customer's account to the state it would have been in had the unauthorised payment not taken place." (BCOBS5.1.11R(2)).

However, I would be dissatisfied if I was simply told "phone back Monday - I would expect to get through to somebody with sufficient competence to set the wheels in motion.

On the other hand, I can remember a call coming through to me at 5:20 p.m. on a weekday at the insurance company I worked for. The caller tried to insist that I put the call through to the right office (at the other end of the country) and insisted that we did not close until 5:30 although my contract said 5:00.

My point is that we do only have the OP's version and I sometimes find what consumers insist is true is, to say the least, at odds with reality.

TiddlyPom

I have already gone through anniversary statements and there's no transaction that matches this in any way.

I did phone during the stated opening hours of the Fraud Team and was put through to them, so why they can do something on Monday that they couldn't do yesterday is a bit of a mystery.

magpiecottage Everything I have said is true and factual. I have no need to obfuscate; I'm trying to solve a problem and it would be detrimental to be anything other than honest and open about the relevant circumstances.

innovate

magpiecottage wrote: »

It is not correct to say a bank must make an immediate refund. The FSA rule says, "Where a payment from a banking customer's account was not authorised by the banking customer, a firm must, within a reasonable period, refund the amount of the unauthorised payment to the banking customer and, where applicable, restore the banking customer's account to the state it would have been in had the unauthorised payment not taken place." (BCOBS5.1.11R(2)).

I have only quoted what the FSA website says.

The bank must make the refund immediately unless it has evidence that one of the above reasons applies.

And I did post the 2 conditions before. Neither of which were mentioned to the OP by Natwest as a reason for the delay in the immediate refund.

Surely people should be able to believe what they read on the FSA's website, and not have to delve into BCOBS5.1.11R(2) whatever that may be?

Source: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/product_news/banking/know_your_rights/solving/index.shtml