Santander not playing ball with card payments - why?

trinidadone

I carried out a purchase and agreed to pay in four installments.

Paid the first installment upfront. The company took it from the card instead of the account. when installment two was due, santander blocked the payment and refused to allow the payment to go.

The bank contacted me by some automatic system. The company advised me they would try again to take a second payment from my card. The company threatened a admin fee of £15.00 to be paid if there was a repeat issue with the payment. I spoke to santander and and in the last call they informed me as their system is a "automatic" system there is no guarantee the payment would go through, even though i have told them the name of the company. Is this normal practice? I told them about the threat of a admin fee, and i am advised i would need to pay the fee if the payment is blocked again.


Can anyone offer any sane explanation????

JuicyJesus

That is normal. Fraud detection systems sometimes aren't predictable, this sort of thing happens with every bank.

EachPenny

trinidadone wrote: »

Can anyone offer any sane explanation????

If you made a one-off purchase of an item and paid for it by card you'd be rather annoyed with your bank if they allowed the company to charge you for it a second time.

You'd be apoplectic if they charged you four times.

So the banks implement systems which try to spot transactions which don't look 'right'.

Unfortunately the systems aren't as clever as us and often get it wrong.

trinidadone

EachPenny wrote: »

If you made a one-off purchase of an item and paid for it by card you'd be rather annoyed with your bank if they allowed the company to charge you for it a second time.

You'd be apoplectic if they charged you four times.

So the banks implement systems which try to spot transactions which don't look 'right'.

Unfortunately the systems aren't as clever as us and often get it wrong.

Yes i would properly be "annoyed" if I was charged a second time by a company, however this is not a duplicate charge, but a four payment cycle which i have agreed to, and informed the bank of. I see no difference than setting up a direct debit and that being paid for a limited or unlimited period.

p00hsticks

trinidadone wrote: »

Yes i would properly be "annoyed" if I was charged a second time by a company, however this is not a duplicate charge, but a four payment cycle which i have agreed to, and informed the bank of. I see no difference than setting up a direct debit and that being paid for a limited or unlimited period.

There are a couple of mechanisms in place for making repeated regular payments - direct debits or standing orders. Both have processes in place to set up which need express permission from the account holder.



It sounds like the company aren't happy to use either but are instead trying to bend the card processing rules by putting multiple transactions through without the proper authorisation in place, and the banks fraud processing has picked up on it.



In this day and age, you phoning up and simply telling them to do something different to the agreed automated processes probably isn;t going to hack it.

trinidadone

p00hsticks wrote: »

There are a couple of mechanisms in place for making repeated regular payments - direct debits or standing orders. Both have processes in place to set up which need express permission from the account holder.



It sounds like the company aren't happy to use either but are instead trying to bend the card processing rules by putting multiple transactions through without the proper authorisation in place, and the banks fraud processing has picked up on it.



In this day and age, you phoning up and simply telling them to do something different to the agreed automated processes probably isn;t going to hack it.

I am not sure if the company is "bending" any rules because it chooses to take money from the card instead of DD. They simply have set up four monthly recurring payments from the card which I understand is perfect legal. I paid the first transaction by a card payment, and the following month the recurring card payment was rejected. For arguments sake, perhaps it does look suspicious by the bank when the company tried to take money on month two, but my there does not seem to be any commen sense when the bank has verbally informed the bank, and yet still does not guarantee the payment.

I am currently trying to pursue a different way to make payment with the company, which pleases both the bank and the company. I am communicating with the company by email, as they only have a premium number to call.

I only did not think agreeing to a four recurring payment on my card would be much of a deal, but now I am beginning to regret agreeing to the payment plan, as if i font act soon, my credit rating could be affected next

EachPenny

trinidadone wrote: »

Yes i would properly be "annoyed" if I was charged a second time by a company, however this is not a duplicate charge, but a four payment cycle which i have agreed to, and informed the bank of.

That was understood by me.... but did the bank's system understand, or did it see a payment which appeared to be a duplicate or otherwise not normal?

trinidadone wrote: »

I see no difference than setting up a direct debit and that being paid for a limited or unlimited period.

With a DD you are giving explicit permission for the originator to make one or more requests for payment - they operate with the expectation that future payments are likely.

With card payments (other than CPA) there is usually a presumption it is a one-off transaction.

trinidadone

I have just come off the phone to santander and decided to explore the different methods of payment which would not look suspicious from the banks viewpoint. These include:

A Direct Debit
A standing order
Manual payment

I found a non premium number for the company from 0870.com but the number is a office number, so I will try the number tomorrow. fingers cross one of the above payment methods would be agreed!!

agrinnall

I would suggest that you persuade the company to set up a DD as that gives you extra protection should there be a future payment issue, which the others won't offer (although they are more under your direct control).

eDicky

trinidadone wrote: »

I am communicating with the company by email, as they only have a premium number to call.

Regulations now require UK companies to provide a non-premium number (01/02/03) for their customer services contact.

trinidadone

ok, well this company does not. the only 03 number on offer is a complaints number.

Some good news, i manage to unravel more information, when i contacted there 01 number (switchboard) and asked to be transferred to customer service. there was actually two transactions requested on the same day but different amounts. one traction went through, one did not. the customer service adviser kept asking me why did my bank accept one transaction and not the other. i explained the bank felt it was a fraudulent transaction, and again the stuck record of "well if it was a fraudulent transaction, why was one payment allow to go through" i did not have the answer to these, so ignored the questioning. the company does not accept DD or standing orders, so those options were out, but did accept manual payments.

I paid the payment which was blocked, and that is all of the payments needed. I now only have one product requiring a payment in DEC and Jan. I am told the company will try and collect in DEC, and would send me a email if the payment is blocked. the adviser told me to tell my bank this, but that subject has already been covered above. if the payment is blocked, i would need to call them, to make a manual payment again. Santander cant confirm if the payment will go though, so i simply have to wait and see.