Returning an item to a store - debit card question.

gik

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Detain
- officially seize and hold (goods).

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/detain

Which says:-
Keep (someone) from proceeding by holding them back or making claims on their attention

gik

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Either or, same difference.

Retain and detain are not the same, end of.

agrinnall

It's very unlikely that any signing will be involved. Far more likely that payment was made using C&P, but what you won't know in advance is whether the refund requires the PIN to be re-entered or not, in my experience sometimes it is and sometimes they can do it just by having the card in the reader. But if the PIN is required then telling it to somebody else would certainly be breaking the T&Cs of the card issuer.

powerful_Rogue

gik wrote: »

Which says:-
Keep (someone) from proceeding by holding them back or making claims on their attention

gik wrote: »

Retain and detain are not the same, end of.

Did you not see one of the definitions I posted above?

Detain
- officially seize and hold (goods).

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/detain

Also, whats all this "end of" business about? Makes it feel like im talking to a stroppy teenager.

specialboy

peachyprice wrote: »

No, of course it's not acceptable. You can't sign for or use chip and pin on someone else's debit card.

Would you consider doing so if you were trying to spend rather than get a refund? No. It's no different. A store has no obligation to assist you in fraud by letting you use someone elses debit card.

Since when has it been fraud? no offence would be committed if there is no victim.

System

agrinnall wrote: »

It's very unlikely that any signing will be involved.



Really?? Ive yet to enter my pin for a refund its always been the case where i have to sign and the signature is checked against my card.
I think its more unlikely that you will be required to enter your pin.

op- faulty goods wont make any difference the refund method will be the same.

agrinnall

CHRISSYG wrote: »

agrinnall wrote: »

It's very unlikely that any signing will be involved.



Really?? Ive yet to enter my pin for a refund its always been the case where i have to sign and the signature is checked against my card.
I think its more unlikely that you will be required to enter your pin.

op- faulty goods wont make any difference the refund method will be the same.

Well you must have a weird card then because if you pay by C&P that's the way a refund would be made (whether the P is required or not). I can't remember the last time anyone looked at the signature on my card, in fact, without checking, I'm not even sure I've bothered to sign them all.

peachyprice

specialboy wrote: »

Since when has it been fraud? no offence would be committed if there is no victim.

So it's OK to give someone your card and PIN then?

williham

agrinnall wrote: »

CHRISSYG wrote: »

Well you must have a weird card then because if you pay by C&P that's the way a refund would be made (whether the P is required or not). I can't remember the last time anyone looked at the signature on my card, in fact, without checking, I'm not even sure I've bothered to sign them all.

Whilst most sales are chip and pin, most refunds are chip and signature; you put your card in the reader but do not enter a pin, they then get you to sign the receipt. Whether they check the signature is irrelevant, most people wont complain that they have been refunded some money, so I've always thought its pointless checking.
I have seen a couple of shops do a chip and pin refund, so it can be done, but I think they make the processes different so staff are sure it's a refund.

duchy

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Also, whats all this "end of" business about? Makes it feel like im talking to a stroppy teenager.

I thought you were