Debit card purchase timescales

andybloke

Hi,

Is 15 months between authorising a transaction (online, with VbV) and the money being debited from the account allowed?

I have just incurred some unexpected bank charges because a company I made a payment to in October 2012 has only just taken the funds, despite sending me a receipt that confirmed the transaction as successful at the time!
Since the original transaction (for services, rather than a product) the way my bank charges for overseas payments has changed, and also the transaction will generate overdraft fees, too.

I've not found anything online about this, and wondered if anyone here had any advice.

Many thanks,

Andy

InsideInsurance

It being an overseas transaction complicates things and predominantly it will be bound by the laws in of the country in which the merchant is based.

In England & Wales they have 6 years to take payment however there is a courtesy of making contact first if over 6 months has passed. Obviously they may not have any method of making contact depending on if you have given them contact details or not.

grumbler

InsideInsurance wrote: »

It being an overseas transaction complicates things and predominantly it will be bound by the laws in of the country in which the merchant is based.

The debt is bound by the laws, not the payment processing that is bound by Visa/Mastercard rules that are the same for all countries.

In England & Wales they have 6 years to take payment however there is a courtesy of making contact first if over 6 months has passed. Obviously they may not have any method of making contact depending on if you have given them contact details or not.

AFAIK, Visa rules say 6 months and it's not a 'courtesy'. So this is a matter of a simple chargeback if needed. This doesn't mean that the debt doesn't have to be settled by any other means.

I believe Mastercard rules are similar.

InsideInsurance

grumbler wrote: »

The debt id bound by the laws, not the payment processing that is bound by Visa/Mastercard rules that are the same for all countries.

They certainly didnt used to be as they are different companies in different regions

Of cause local law influences card networks. As much as people like to think that banks are above all law they do have to be compliant with each country they operate in.

Its been a long time since it was last discussed but I remember some part of the Switch network was not compliant with French laws which is in part why it was revised into Maestro

jonesMUFCforever

OP what I do not understand is this - if you authorised the transaction then the money should still be in your account to meet this?
Was this not the case? If not then IMO it is your fault that you have incurred bank charges now.

By all means start a chargeback if you must - they will come after you probably through a collection agency and guess what - the bill will be much higher.

My opinion take the hit - you have in effect had a free loan since 2012 - next time use a credit card.

grumbler

InsideInsurance wrote: »

They certainly didnt used to be as they are different companies in different regions

Visa is a global payments processing system. If it says 6 months maximum, then it can be only shorter in some countries, not longer.

Of cause local law influences card networks. As much as people like to think that banks are above all law they do have to be compliant with each country they operate in.

So, if a local law says, say, 10 years for the debt (not the payment processing), then a local company can happily take money from your UK account in 10 years after you visited the country?

I think what you say is nonsense.

InsideInsurance

grumbler wrote: »

Visa is a global payments processing system. If it says 6 months maximum, then it can be only shorter in some countries, not longer.

As I say, things can change but looking at wikipedia:

Prior to October 3, 2007, Visa comprised four non-stock, separately incorporated companies

Given UnionPay is the only network in China for domestically issued cards I'd find it hard to argue that Visa is a global car network

grumbler wrote: »

So, if a local law says, say, 10 years for the debt (not the payment processing), then a local company can happily take money from your UK account in 10 years after you visited the country?

No, I am saying that if local law says you have 1 month for a debt before its statute barred that Visa's rules allowing up to 6 months cannot supersede local legislation.

It is perfectly plausible that the opposite can also be true, that local legislation can force the assistance. Of cause we then get into the difficulty of international law and statutes with different parties being bound by different rules.

grumbler wrote: »

I think what you say is nonsense.

The sentiment is mutual with the majority of what you come out with.

andybloke

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

OP what I do not understand is this - if you authorised the transaction then the money should still be in your account to meet this?
Was this not the case? If not then IMO it is your fault that you have incurred bank charges now.

In 2012 my bank account was different, and I wouldn't have been charged for non-sterling payments, or charged a percentage on the currency conversion. There were sufficient funds to cover the payment, but not the extra charges.

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

My opinion take the hit - you have in effect had a free loan since 2012 - next time use a credit card.

I had agreed to make the payment, and am not running away from that.
I still use the same company, on pretty much a monthly basis, but they now accept PayPal so avoid currency charges that way.

What I was curious about is if they are allowed, 15 months down the line, to take the funds without notifying me first. They only explained to me that they had made a mistake by not processing the funds when they claimed to have (The receipt clearly states that they have successfully processed the transaction) after the payment had failed and I contacted them to ask what that particular charge was for.

iAMaLONDONER

This should be in the bank accounts section rather than the Credit card section.

Also the OP really ought to have chased up the company when he realised that the payment hadn't been debited from his account rather than just hoping the company would forget!

grumbler

InsideInsurance wrote: »

As I say, things can change but looking at wikipedia:

Nothing stops 'separately incorporated companies' from providing a global payments processing system governed by common rules.

Given UnionPay is the only network in China for domestically issued cards I'd find it hard to argue that Visa is a global car network

OK, let's call it 'international' if it makes any difference in context of this thread. Does it?

It is perfectly plausible that the opposite can also be true, that local legislation can force the assistance. Of cause we then get into the difficulty of international law and statutes with different parties being bound by different rules.

"Perfectly plausible" in your imagination.
In fact, perfectly misleading for the OP that has a perfect case for the chargeback (if needed). For some reason you failed even to mention chargeback in your post.

Hooloovoo

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

OP what I do not understand is this - if you authorised the transaction then the money should still be in your account to meet this?

iAMaLONDONER wrote: »

Also the OP really ought to have chased up the company when he realised that the payment hadn't been debited from his account rather than just hoping the company would forget!

I agree with these two posts.

OP - Why didn't you chase up the payment a couple of months after you realised it hasn't left your account? You did realise, right? Surely you keep track of these things.