Santander refund fraudulent transaction back to company ? Help

meer53

innovate wrote: »

If that's what your employer tells you, they are telling you porkies and are breaking the law.

Payments can be returned when agreements haven't been cancelled. The retailer just rejects them saying there is a live agreement in place. Stalemate. What i should have said is "successfully returned"

The visa chargeback system allows any payment to be returned, whether it stays returned is dependant on the retailers response to the chargeback.

matttye

meer53 wrote: »

Payments can be returned when agreements haven't been cancelled. The retailer just rejects them saying there is a live agreement in place. Stalemate. What i should have said is "successfully returned"

The visa chargeback system allows any payment to be returned, whether it stays returned is dependant on the retailers response to the chargeback.

It has nothing to do with the retailer. If I tell the bank not to pay a company and then they go ahead and pay them anyway, it is the BANK'S responsibility to reimburse me for disregarding my instructions. This is LAW and the banks are not above it.

Whether or not the payment is returned by the retailer is irrelevant, the bank still has to pay me the money back.

innovate

matttye wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the retailer. If I tell the bank not to pay a company and then they go ahead and pay them anyway, it is the BANK'S responsibility to reimburse me for disregarding my instructions. This is LAW and the banks are not above it.

Whether or not the payment is returned by the retailer is irrelevant, the bank still has to pay me the money back.

Agree.

And so does the FCA.

And the law.

meer53

matttye wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the retailer. If I tell the bank not to pay a company and then they go ahead and pay them anyway, it is the BANK'S responsibility to reimburse me for disregarding my instructions. This is LAW and the banks are not above it.

Whether or not the payment is returned by the retailer is irrelevant, the bank still has to pay me the money back.

With debit card payments, banks don't pay the retailer. The retailer claims the funds from the account using card details given to them by the customer. This is why card payments are guaranteed and cannot be stopped or returned. They can however be disputed, this is how CPA's are dealt with at the moment.

matttye

meer53 wrote: »

With debit card payments, banks don't pay the retailer. The retailer claims the funds from the account using card details given to them by the customer. This is why card payments are guaranteed and cannot be stopped or returned. They can however be disputed, this is how CPA's are dealt with at the moment.

The law says that the customer has the right to cancel the authority for any payment to leave their account with the bank.

It's not my problem if the bank doesn't have the facilities in place to stop the payment going out; they've still broken the law by allowing it to be taken. They must then immediately refund me.

What needs to be put in place is a system like this:

1. Retailer requests payment
2. Bank checks to see if payment authority has been given (bear in mind this authority can be taken away by the customer at any time)
3. If not, bank refuses the payment

Until the bank abides by the law they're open to complaints and paying out lots of money in compensation.

meer53

matttye wrote: »

The law says that the customer has the right to cancel the authority for any payment to leave their account with the bank.

It's not my problem if the bank doesn't have the facilities in place to stop the payment going out; they've still broken the law by allowing it to be taken. They must then immediately refund me.

What needs to be put in place is a system like this:

1. Retailer requests payment
2. Bank checks to see if payment authority has been given (bear in mind this authority can be taken away by the customer at any time)
3. If not, bank refuses the payment

Until the bank abides by the law they're open to complaints and paying out lots of money in compensation.

You're absolutely right. Don't hold your breath for anything changing anytime soon. It's probably cheaper to pay out compensation than to implement the system changes needed. Most people are happy to get back the disputed payment, either by chargeback or goodwill payments, not many push for compensation. On here you mainly hear about compo because people didn't have enough money in their accounts in the first place and they incur fees. The majority of disputes involve people who don't incur fees.

innovate

matttye wrote: »

2. Bank checks to see if payment authority has been given (bear in mind this authority can be taken away by the customer at any time)

This isn't very practical - - - probably 99.99% of all payments are authorised by the customer. We don't want to have millions of payments being held up and/or not being paid just because a tiny number of people have a problem over one of their payments.

So banks should be checking whether they have a written request by the customer not to make payments to a certain company. And if so, decline the payment.

Interesting side consideration is how banks (in cooperation with retailers) would spot the fraudsters who will try to exploit the system.

matttye

innovate wrote: »

This isn't very practical - - - probably 99.99% of all payments are authorised by the customer. We don't want to have millions of payments being held up and/or not being paid just because a tiny number of people have a problem over one of their payments.

So banks should be checking whether they have a written request by the customer not to make payments to a certain company. And if so, decline the payment.

Interesting side consideration is how banks (in cooperation with retailers) would spot the fraudsters who will try to exploit the system.

I'm not saying every payment should be manually approved - that would be awful!

I'm suggesting this should all be done automatically How, I don't know. In an ideal world each retailer would be given some kind of ID number by the bank and you could simply block payment requests from that ID, but I could see some snaky retailers with multiple IDs just taking payment using a different ID or something.