if trader charges credit card without me knowing or agreeing

meer53

Card details are taken by hotels to protect themselves from people like you. Who don't have time to pay their bill when they leave. Saves you having to send a cheque or spend money on a stamp. Or even making a phone call. Not fraud, no story.

chattychappy

I try to avoid hotels where they require a "swipe" of my credit card at check-in, though this is becoming impossible.

Whether a transaction can be disputed or not comes down to what was agreed at the time the CC was tendered. If the hotel merely swiped it, and you said or signed nothing then ultimately it is meaningless. They might have the details to put a charge through, but you can argue it was unauthorised - even if the money was, in fact, owed. A hotel manager I know says they just know from experience that if somebody leaves without paying (its usually the minibar or something), then usually they don't dispute the amount when charged.

In some cases when they swipe it, it is just a "pre-authorisation" - ie they've reserved some funds against your credit limit, but not actually put a transaction through. This doesn't entitled them to charge your card unless you've agreed to a charge. On the other hand, if it's understood that you are paying a deposit, then you've authorised the transaction.

With CC transactions, whether a transaction is authorised or not has little to do with whether it's contractually due. You might owe a hotel money, but that doesn't entitle them to bill your card if it wasn't agreed that they could this with your card details beforehand.

YorkshireBoy

chattychappy wrote: »

Whether a transaction can be disputed or not comes down to what was agreed at the time the CC was tendered. If the hotel merely swiped it, and you said or signed nothing then ultimately it is meaningless.

I read the OP as having pre-paid a deposit on the card, and that only a balance was due on check out.


If the card was presented on arrival, a pre-auth is swiped...not a "deposit"?

bengal-stripe

ptaah wrote: »

I left suddenly too early to pay; I agreed to pay bill on receipt by email or post.

Unless it has been previously arranged (very unlikely for a private individual), hotels do not open accounts and send out invoices. Just like bars, restaurants or taxi fares, hotel costs are settled (at the latest) on the point of departure.

If you have to check out extremely early (and the hotel reception isn't staffed round the clock) you could have settled the bill the night before, instead of doing a 'moonlight flit'.

Enfieldian

ptaah wrote: »

In the event, I did get my money back. My point is that this unauthorised credit card charge was theft. A criminal offence, but I would like to see the law stating that a trader must obtain agreement before charging a card. I searched without success.

I suggest you check the legal definition of theft. In particular the "intention to permanently deprive" element and the lawful excuses.

Civil matter at best.

adindas

bengal-stripe wrote: »

Unless it has been previously arranged (very unlikely for a private individual), hotels do not open accounts and send out invoices. Just like bars, restaurants or taxi fares, hotel costs are settled (at the latest) on the point of departure.

If you have to check out extremely early (and the hotel reception isn't staffed round the clock) you could have settled the bill the night before, instead of doing a 'moonlight flit'.

The OP is too creative. I believe.
Also too creative in responding people queries ... "Please read again what I wrote" as if people did not read his/her post.

Also why the OP create a new account to post this message ...

If only hotel would agree that everybody could checkout without settling the bill when they check out, literally people especially visitor from foreign countries could stay for free in any Hotel .....

Anyway, I agree to send my bill to MSE, please send my bill to MSE .....

Send my bill to my Grandpa ... He will be paying it ....

adindas

Enfieldian wrote: »

I suggest you check the legal definition of theft. In particular the "intention to permanently deprive" element and the lawful excuses.

Civil matter at best.

On the contrary the act of leaving the hotel without paying (making off) could be considered as a theft. Any consent adult are aware that The services or items received from a hotel, bar petrol station will require payment on the spot. The exception of course if there is a mutual agreement in advance. There is not any indication on this arrangement from the OP post. If this is the case the OP should be lucky enough that s/he was not prosecuted on this act.

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Making-off-without-payment.php
Making off without payment

Making off without payment is an offence under s.3 Theft Act 1978. The offence of making off without payment was introduced in response to a gap in the law under the Theft Act of 1968 whereby if a person forms a dishonest intent not to pay for goods or services after receiving them they could not be convicted under the deception offences (see Edwards v Ddin (1976) 63 Cr App R 218 Case summary. The offence of making off covers such activities as leaving a restaurant or hotel without paying, not paying a taxi fare and filling up with petrol and driving off. Making off without payment is a triable either way offence. Under s.4 Theft Act 1978, the maximum sentence for making off if tried on indictment is 2 years and 6 months if tried summarily.

S.3 Theft Act 1978 provides:
…A person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount shall be guilty of an offence.

chattychappy

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

If the card was presented on arrival, a pre-auth is swiped...not a "deposit"?

A hotel I regularly use (in Taiwan) asks to "swipe" my card and tells me that it is only "pre-authorising" an amount (usually NT$5000, about £100) and that I will pay on check out. I interpret that literally: I am not authorising anything, they are merely getting pre-approval from the network that an amount of money is available on that account should they need to bill it. They swipe it through their PDQ machine (they use mag stripes) and the voucher says "pre-authorisation: no signature necessary" (or somesuch). Note: No PIN or sig. Nothing is billed, but I can see that my available balance has gone down. When I check out, they swipe again, there is a dotted line to sign on. complete with the "I authorise the amount above to be debited to my account blah blah". I sign and the amount goes through.

In the case above, signing the second voucher is the cardholder's consent to bill. But it might be you could imply that consent from something else: eg what was said at the time of the pre-auth, a separately signed check-in form etc. If I left my hotel without paying, I'm pretty sure they'd put the amount through as a cardholder-not-present transaction, but I would still regard that as an unauthorised transaction.

Some years ago I got very worried about having to provide CCs at check-in. I rang a couple of my CC companies. They both said that if a hotel has just swiped a CC and I haven't signed a voucher then I would be entitled to dispute anything that went through.

I've yet to have a problem though some of my US friends seem to be in a constant cycle of demanding (and getting) chargebacks in respect of charges put through by US hotels/motels.

chanz4

op did you smoke in the room

macman

I thought that leaving a hotel without paying was theft? Unless you agreed in advance that you would 'pay later'-and what hotel would ever agree to that?
The whole purpose of pre-swiping/authorising your card is to prevent guests from doing a runner.