Am i Liable for Step Daughters Bill!

pqrdef

Well it's obvious what should have happened. Whover took the card payment from your stepdaughter should have (1) made it clear that she was not just paying a deposit but also giving authority for further payments (2) asked if it was her own card, and (3) since it wasn't, conducted the transaction with you and made it clear to you that they wanted a continuous authority.

Then everybody knows where they stand, everybody knows that everybody knows where they stand, and if anybody lies, everybody knows who lied.

So why do the combined brains of the finance industry have so much trouble in seeing the obvious? Why do they seem to find it so difficult to set up robust procedures that a ten-year-old could devise?

Don't tell me, I know.

InsideInsurance

pqrdef wrote: »

Well it's obvious what should have happened. Whover took the card payment from your stepdaughter should have (1) made it clear that she was not just paying a deposit but also giving authority for further payments (2) asked if it was her own card, and (3) since it wasn't, conducted the transaction with you and made it clear to you that they wanted a continuous authority.

Then everybody knows where they stand, everybody knows that everybody knows where they stand, and if anybody lies, everybody knows who lied.

So why do the combined brains of the finance industry have so much trouble in seeing the obvious? Why do they seem to find it so difficult to set up robust procedures that a ten-year-old could devise?

Because generally people dont want robust process that block the 99% of people from buying.

(1) agreed, most insurers/ brokers do stipulate this either as part of a call script and/ or pre-recorded message

(2) Depending on how (1) above is done, not necessarily, if all customers hear the same statement prior to payment and the statement says you must have the card holders permission then no

(3) Not necessary if the other party warrants that the cardholder has given permission

Add to the above that the vast majority if not all calls are recorded and so the fact that the customer has heard the statement and continued to pay after knowing it forms a CPA can easily be tested.

Ultimately by giving your card to someone to use is very little difference to setting up that person as an additional cardholder. Merchants are not expected or required to check if the account holder is happy with each and every transaction. If they did you would find a very large number of people cannot buy their insurances because they happen to call up whilst they;re at work and the account holder doesnt happen to be around.

If you dont trust your partner/ kids/ family/ friends to be responsible with your account, dont give them your card!

grumbler

dalesrider wrote: »

On what basis is it being disputed?

As unrecognised does not require any paperwork.

Obviously it's being disputed as unauthorised.
Paperwork is required to check whether it was pre-authorised or not.

dalesrider

grumbler wrote: »

Obviously it's being disputed as unauthorised.
Paperwork is required to check whether it was pre-authorised or not.

As far as Visa go there is NO chargeback for unauthorised. Unrecognised YES.

As far as Visa go Unrecognised does not require any paperwork.

It would appear that Mastercard c/b 4837, no authorisation does require some paper work.
4863 is another possible c/b although further reading tends to point to 4837 being a better option.

So I guess the Op has a MasterCard.

MasterCard regs
Nice light bedtime reading :rotfl:

Stuff like that is something we have to refer to on a regular basis...

Caladan

pqrdef wrote: »

Well it's obvious what should have happened. Whover took the card payment from your stepdaughter should have (1) made it clear that she was not just paying a deposit but also giving authority for further payments (2) asked if it was her own card, and (3) since it wasn't, conducted the transaction with you and made it clear to you that they wanted a continuous authority.

Then everybody knows where they stand, everybody knows that everybody knows where they stand, and if anybody lies, everybody knows who lied.

So why do the combined brains of the finance industry have so much trouble in seeing the obvious? Why do they seem to find it so difficult to set up robust procedures that a ten-year-old could devise?

Don't tell me, I know.

There are procedures in place, but you can't please everybody. I've seen a few of your posts and seriously, if you have all the answers, start a bank, I'm sure you'll make a killing with your ground-breaking solutions.

I fail to see where the finance industry is even involved in this case, other than processing a payment on behalf of a merchant. Or are you talking about the insurance company? They'll have to respond to the charge-back within agreed time-scales and refund the money if they cannot evidence it was all explained correctly.

Seems pretty robust to me...

The merchant should have verbally confirmed with the cardholder that they were happy to make the payment on behalf of the purchaser and had the relevant terms explained.

I cannot see how the cardholder is liable for the amount, as she was not acting in a guarantor capacity in any way and I believe she would get the money refunded unless terms were specifically stated that the card would be used to cover any short-fall.

dalesrider

Caladan wrote: »

I cannot see how the cardholder is liable for the amount, as she was not acting in a guarantor capacity in any way and I believe she would get the money refunded unless terms were specifically stated that the card would be used to cover any short-fall.

Did the cardholder actually make the transaction? Or was the card details provided to step daughter when she set it up.
Could be this was set up on the internet. As such you agree to the T/C which will have if one payment method is cancelled then they will fall back to other known payment details.

THIS IS NOT A CPA.

This is a policy holder removing the payment method as she thought she did not have to pay as she had crashed the car. So the Ins are well within their rights to use any other payment method held to recover what is owed.

Remember paying monthly is usually a case of taking a loan to pay the policy upfront and then the loan co on a monthly basis.

Just because the car is no longer on the road is not a reason to stop the payments without informing the company...
Who I'm sure would have advised that payments are still due till the claim is settled.

chanz4

Oh well when refunded, here comes the debt collectors and posisbly a expensive cancelled policy which WILL have to be delcared on insurance quotes. And if they void it, hope they dont recover pi from her