Liability on 'cancelled' card

VoucherMan

Hopefully just a hypothetical question. A quick search on Google didn't find an answer, so maybe someone here will know.


As one of the many caught up in the recent Ticketmaster data leak, I have been rather [STRIKE]blas![/STRIKE] indifferent about it.


I've already been told by Ticketmaster that I'll need to change my password next time I visit, and yesterday I received a letter from my credit card company advising they had cancelled the card, would be issuing a new one, and sorry for the inconvenience.


So far so good, but on closer inspection, the letter was dated last Friday (13th), and I have used my card several times since then, both contactless and chip & pin.


I thought I'd read somewhere that once you notify a card company to cancel your card you are no longer liable for further transactions, but does it work the other way around?

Once I know for sure my card is dead, or I get the replacement, I'll be cutting up the old one, but what if I was less careful in disposing of it, and someone else got a hold of it, bagging themselves a few freebies. Would the fact that I had a letter from the card company saying the card was cancelled be enough to relieve me of responsibility?


I have considered that although dated the 13th, the letters may not have been posted until Monday, so possibly the card company deliberately delayed the date of cancelling the card until I had likely received the letter. Depending on any replies I get here, I am tempted to go to a shop just to test the card, and if it's still working then the card company will be getting an irate message from me.

Anthorn

A common method of replacing the card is to block the existing card and issue a new card with something different about it, i.e. a different expiry date and a different CVV. It will most likely be blocked after you have received your new card and you will be liable for transactions on the old card until it is blocked. I think it is highly unusual for a card to still work after it has been blocked.

This has happened to me on only one occasion when I was with Santander and I received a phone call for each transaction using the old card asking me to verify the transaction.

[Deleted User]

VoucherMan wrote: »

Once I know for sure my card is dead, or I get the replacement, I'll be cutting up the old one, but what if I was less careful in disposing of it, and someone else got a hold of it, bagging themselves a few freebies. Would the fact that I had a letter from the card company saying the card was cancelled be enough to relieve me of responsibility?

It would make no difference. As long as you hadn't actively given your PIN and card to someone, you would have no liability.

VoucherMan

Anthorn wrote: »

It will most likely be blocked after you have received your new card and you will be liable for transactions on the old card until it is blocked.

It's the wording on the letter that made me wonder

..we have blocked your old card and will issue a replacement

which to me says that (at the time of writing?) the old card has been blocked, and the new card has yet to be issued.

Deleted_User wrote: »

It would make no difference. As long as you hadn't actively given your PIN and card to someone, you would have no liability.

Yes, but what if (again, hypothetical but not inconceivable)

I just throw my old card in the bin assuming it's been blocked. Later, a small child notices it in the bin and puts it in one of their pockets. Later still, while at the supermarket with one of their parents, finding themselves alone at the self service checkout, the child does what they've seen their parents do dozens of times and swipe the card, paying for whatever has been scanned.


Okay, that example probably stretches it a bit, but I'm sure I could dream up something far more believable if needed. The point is, that I could just throw it away, albeit carelessly as I assume it no longer works, and someone else could then use it. No need for the PIN these days for a few small purchases.

[Deleted User]

VoucherMan wrote: »

Yes, but what if (again, hypothetical but not inconceivable)

I just throw my old card in the bin assuming it's been blocked. Later, a small child notices it in the bin and puts it in one of their pockets. Later still, while at the supermarket with one of their parents, finding themselves alone at the self service checkout, the child does what they've seen their parents do dozens of times and swipe the card, paying for whatever has been scanned.

Still no liability.

meer53

VoucherMan wrote: »

It's the wording on the letter that made me wonder
which to me says that (at the time of writing?) the old card has been blocked, and the new card has yet to be issued.





Yes, but what if (again, hypothetical but not inconceivable)

I just throw my old card in the bin assuming it's been blocked. Later, a small child notices it in the bin and puts it in one of their pockets. Later still, while at the supermarket with one of their parents, finding themselves alone at the self service checkout, the child does what they've seen their parents do dozens of times and swipe the card, paying for whatever has been scanned.


Okay, that example probably stretches it a bit, but I'm sure I could dream up something far more believable if needed. The point is, that I could just throw it away, albeit carelessly as I assume it no longer works, and someone else could then use it. No need for the PIN these days for a few small purchases.

Please tell me you wouldn't put your card in the bin in one piece ?

LABMAN

meer53 wrote: »

Please tell me you wouldn't put your card in the bin in one piece ?

Possibly, as this is all Jackanory.

VoucherMan

meer53 wrote: »

Please tell me you wouldn't put your card in the bin in one piece ?

I thought I'd already done that..;)

Once I know for sure my card is dead, or I get the replacement, I'll be cutting up the old one, but what if I was less careful

The letter does go on to advise destroying the old card, but I am still sceptical that this advice is always followed.
Personally I'm over careful. I tend to cut my card up and place the parts in different bins, so no one could ever find enough information from them in that way.



I guess I'll find out for certain at the weekend when I go shopping

LABMAN

VoucherMan wrote: »

I thought I'd already done that..;)

The letter does go on to advise destroying the old card, but I am still sceptical that this advice is always followed.
Personally I'm over careful. I tend to cut my card up and place the parts in different bins, so no one could ever find enough information from them in that way.



I guess I'll find out for certain at the weekend when I go shopping

Why the Friar Tuck would you even bother?

[Deleted User]

TL;DR - no you cannot claim any compensation from using your own card for legitimate purchases after you believed it to be cancelled

VoucherMan

LABMAN wrote: »

Why the Friar Tuck would you even bother?

What, trying to use my card? Because until the new one arrives it's either that, or cash. Or several other options really, but I guess it's just the weird way my brain is wired.:o


In this day and age of 'let's find someone else to blame' it just bugs me when something like this that's supposed to be fixing a problem could just be moving it elsewhere (for now I'm assuming that the card is still active until I get the replacement). It doesn't help that a small issue like this (mixing the tenses in this case) could cause me problems at work, so I habitually look out for errors, both my own and others'. (I generally draw the line at correcting forum grammar before anyone has the urge to point out lots of mine;))


If I do find myself wanting something to do to pass the time, and decide to send them a message, I doubt they'll do more than send a courteous reply and throw my message in the bin, but there's always the possibility they'll agree the wording was unclear and amend it. Then next time I get a similar letter I can have the smug satisfaction of thinking it was my message to them that made them change the wording, that in turn stopped someone falling victim to some fraudulent charges. This could also be saving the bank some money as they could end up with less fraudulent transactions they'd have to cover/reimburse, so could even be relevant to MSE.

(you're right, I should get out more, but I've already been out on the bike this evening and it's way too warm)