Debit card purchase timescales

Hooloovoo

InsideInsurance wrote: »

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.

If local legislation says the debt is still valid then that's fine. But that doesn't overrule any terms and conditions for the payment method initially used to cover the debt.

If local law says a debt it valid for six years, but the payment method is only valid and authorised for six months, the company will have to seek payment via an alternative method after contacting the customer if they fail to claim payment within those six months.

Just because the law says the debt is still valid is no where near the same thing as saying whatever payment method used must also match that time period.

But none of this excuses the OP from making sure there is sufficient money in the account to cover the payment and any charges, even if those charges have changed in the mean time.

bengal-stripe

When people have forgotten to bank a cheque for more more than the required maximum of six months, on the forum here they are frequently given the advice to bank it regardless, as it "might just slip through".

The company in question has just done the same thing and the payment did just slip through.

InsideInsurance

grumbler wrote: »

For some reason you failed even to mention chargeback in your post.

Because, unusually for these forums, I believe in a certain level of morality and paying whats due.

The OP does not dispute the money is owed, did authorise the transaction and so potentially depriving the merchant of funds simply because you can doesnt feel right to me.

Anyone with in depth industry knowledge could probably advise others on how to manipulate/ defraud and get away with it etc and these would certainly be money saving. Doesnt make it right to do so.

iAMaLONDONER

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Because, unusually for these forums, I believe in a certain level of morality and paying whats due.

The OP does not dispute the money is owed, did authorise the transaction and so potentially depriving the merchant of funds simply because you can doesnt feel right to me.

Anyone with in depth industry knowledge could probably advise others on how to manipulate/ defraud and get away with it etc and these would certainly be money saving. Doesnt make it right to do so.

I thought chargeback was only if the product/service wasn't delivered or satisfactory not if the payment was late!

grumbler

Speaking about morals, is it moral to hit a customer by an unexpected debit 15(!) months after the transaction was authourised - thus putting the account into overdraft and causing overdraft fees?

And as it was an online purchase, I think the company was able to contact the OP, but simply didn't bother.

Chargeback is the only way to get the fees refunded/waived and I don't see any moral issues in doing this. These questions arise on the next step when making a decision about paying the company.

iAMaLONDONER wrote: »

I thought chargeback was only if the product/service wasn't delivered or satisfactory not if the payment was late!

You were mistaken. There is about a dozen of different Visa codes for chargebacks.

InsideInsurance

grumbler wrote: »

Speaking about morals, is it moral to hit a customer by an unexpected debit 15(!) months after the transaction

How is it unexpected? Everytime I do my shopping at Tesco and pay by card I dont know exactly when they are going to take my money but I do expect them to take it at some point.

Yes there is some sympathy to the OP that after so long its finally come through but really they should have known about it and left the money there so it was available.

I'm sure we've all had times when something hasn't gone through immediately and we all hoped that it'd be forgotten about but we don't try and weasel out of it or call foul when it disappointingly is taken out

iAMaLONDONER

grumbler wrote: »

Speaking about morals, is it moral to hit a customer by an unexpected debit 15(!) months after the transaction was authourised - thus putting the account into overdraft and causing overdraft fees?

And as it was an online purchase, I think the company was able to contact the OP, but simply didn't bother.

Chargeback is the only way to get the fees refunded/waived and I don't see any moral issues in doing this. These questions arise on the next step when making a decision about paying the company.
You were mistaken. There is about a dozen of different Visa codes for chargibacks.

Ok , so what other circumstances/codes are there for chargebacks?

grumbler

iAMaLONDONER wrote: »

Ok , so what other circumstances/codes are there for chargebacks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargeback#Reason_codes
http://corporate.visa.com/_media/Int...nt-Project.pdf

Don't ask me about 6 months. I am no expert and just repeat what people said that seemed to know.

reclusive46 wrote: »

There is a chargeback code for settling a transaction after 6 months (Or 5 months for American Express).

grumbler

InsideInsurance wrote: »

How is it unexpected? Everytime I do my shopping at Tesco and pay by card I dont know exactly when they are going to take my money but I do expect them to take it at some point.

So are you prepared to any payment you make taken at any random time during 15 months? IMO even 6 months is far too long time if all companies stop acting sensibly. How many card payments do you make during 6 months? Just imagine how much time it will take you to keep all records and to match random debits to all your 6 months old records.
Yes, it is possible to make reservations for several missing debits, but normal people can't be expected to keep making these reservations for longer than 6 months.

Yes there is some sympathy to the OP that after so long its finally come through but really they should have known about it and left the money there so it was available.

For 6 years or indefinitely as 'local law' can be different?

I'm sure we've all had times when something hasn't gone through immediately and we all hoped that it'd be forgotten about but we don't try and weasel out of it or call foul when it disappointingly is taken out

Nobody here discussed 'weaseling out'. You are the first.

jonesMUFCforever

andybloke wrote: »

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.



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.

How much are we talking about here?
Are you really expecting us to believe that you kept say £10 in your account all this time and now you have been debited £11.50?