Tesco Credit Card - Hidden Cash Transactions

phillw

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

How is that different to using your Tesco credit card to make a standard purchase and then paying it back by settling your credit card statement?

Maybe KLARNA pay lower (or no) fees for the transaction.

It's like saying how is it different withdrawing cash and buying something with your credit card, and just buying something with your credit card. To you it seems identical, to your card issuer it is not.

Offering buy now pay later for a few weeks on a credit card is sharp practice. It gives you no greater protection & is only going to cause you extra fees. I'm sure Schuh know this. Although they will probably say that they only expect people to use it with a debit card. But the explanation it gives you a chance to inspect the goods is a lie, because you still owe the money unless they agree to returning the goods. Whether you pay now and get a refund or pay later and get let off the debt is frankly irrelevant.

2e0arr

802083836 wrote: »

I have just queried a "Cash Transaction" on my Tesco Credit Card Statement - as I never use my Credit Card for cash transactions. It turns out the offending transaction was for some shoes from Schuh. These were ordered online and I opted to “buy now pay later” in case the goods were returned. The delay in paying was only a couple of weeks and I assumed the transaction would be treated as any normal transaction but presented to the bank in a fortnights time. I was wrong. Tesco treated this as a cash transaction and charged me a 3.99% handling charge and interest over the next two months. Tesco informed me that this was their normal practice and similar charges would be levied for the purchase of Lottery Tickets and deposits on cars (for example). Perhaps I'm being naive but deposits is a new one on me. I have just paid a deposit on a new car and am now worried that a whole load of extra charges will be appearing on my next statements. I though recent legislation outlawed the practice of charging customers for using a credit card?

Is this just Tesco or are other banks operating in a similar manner?

I have bought Lottery tickets from Tesco and not been charged as a cash transaction. On my last visit I asked about the upcoming ban on CC for gambling and the assistant had not heard of it.


In your situation I would consider complaining to Tesco but send your complaint to them via the FO. That way Tesco will no you will have no qualms about seeking an ajudcation. If Tesco stick to their guns in their resolution then send their resolution to the FO. The smart thing for them to do would be to refund you the charges as a gesture of goodwill. If they dont send their resolution to the FO for an adjudication. The FO will more than likely dismiss it but Tesco will have to a pay the case fee of £550. So if Tesco were smart they would save money by refunding you the costs as a gesture of goodwill.

eskbanker

2e0arr wrote: »

In your situation I would consider complaining to Tesco but send your complaint to them via the FO. That way Tesco will no you will have no qualms about seeking an ajudcation. If Tesco stick to their guns in their resolution then send their resolution to the FO. The smart thing for them to do would be to refund you the charges as a gesture of goodwill. If they dont send their resolution to the FO for an adjudication. The FO will more than likely dismiss it but Tesco will have to a pay the case fee of £550. So if Tesco were smart they would save money by refunding you the costs as a gesture of goodwill.

It's a bit pointless responding to a post from a year ago (from a poster who hasn't been back since), but all the more so if you believe that it's viable (or appropriate) to seek to influence a financial institution by the low-level extortion approach you seem to be advocating!

In any case, the mere act of contacting FOS doesn't mean that the institution has to pay a case fee, as these only apply to chargeable cases, rather than those the FOS dismisses.

FOS will also insist that customers follow the provider's complaints procedure rather than trying to involve FOS prematurely.

scragend

I know that this is an old thread, but just wanted to chip in and say that in my experience Tesco are probably the worst offenders for classifying some transactions as "cash like" which most other providers just treat as purchases.

The Curve issue was one that they handled really badly, claiming to have sent out letters when they hadn't, then "pausing" the charge, then restarting it again. Now they class all transactions made behind Curve as "cash like", when none of my other card providers do.

That's the reason why I've just cancelled my two Tesco credit cards.

2e0arr

eskbanker wrote: »

It's a bit pointless responding to a post from a year ago (from a poster who hasn't been back since), but all the more so if you believe that it's viable (or appropriate) to seek to influence a financial institution by the low-level extortion approach you seem to be advocating!

In any case, the mere act of contacting FOS doesn't mean that the institution has to pay a case fee, as these only apply to chargeable cases, rather than those the FOS dismisses.

FOS will also insist that customers follow the provider's complaints procedure rather than trying to involve FOS prematurely.

I didn't explain very well and I have ust had a goodwill gesture from my credit card company. using this procedure.

I typed out the case of my complaint contacted the FOS by phone and rather than the FOS taking my details i said i have the complaint typed out please forward it to the company on my behalf and simply emailed it to the FOS while we were talking. The FOS emailled me the ref number the next day.

My CC company upheld my complaint and sent me a gesture of goodwill which I accepted as a resolution and I also agreed to drop my SAR for a copy of emails and telephone recordings saving them costs.

In conversation they were aware of my involvement of the FOS. In my experience companies focus more on the complaint when they are aware of the FOS involvement.

So I had a result without going to the FOS for an ajudication

I think the OP has a good case to put to the FOS who may find some faults in Tescos procedures at an ajudiaction. Following this way the FOS will have seen the gist of the complaint that they are forwarding to the CC company.

My CC companys error was to send me an email they should not have sent.

eskbanker

2e0arr wrote: »

I didn't explain very well and I have ust had a goodwill gesture from my credit card company. using this procedure.

I typed out the case of my complaint contacted the FOS by phone and rather than the FOS taking my details i said i have the complaint typed out please forward it to the company on my behalf and simply emailed it to the FOS while we were talking. The FOS emailled me the ref number the next day.

The fact remains that the defined FOS procedure is that consumers should complain to the financial institution first and only escalate to FOS if the firm doesn't resolve adequately.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/how-to-complain

2e0arr wrote: »

My CC company upheld my complaint and sent me a gesture of goodwill which I accepted as a resolution and I also agreed to drop my SAR for a copy of emails and telephone recordings saving them costs.

In conversation they were aware of my involvement of the FOS. In my experience companies focus more on the complaint when they are aware of the FOS involvement.

That's just confirmation bias though - you're reaching the conclusion that you got a result because of getting FOS involved or threatening to do so, but have no way of knowing what would have happened had you not done this.

2e0arr wrote: »

I think the OP has a good case to put to the FOS who may find some faults in Tescos procedures at an ajudiaction. Following this way the FOS will have seen the gist of the complaint that they are forwarding to the CC company.

This doesn't make any sense, why do you believe that giving FOS some sort of sneak preview is actually advantageous compared with them seeing the complaint only when needed?

2e0arr

eskbanker wrote: »

The fact remains that the defined FOS procedure is that consumers should complain to the financial institution first and only escalate to FOS if the firm doesn't resolve adequately.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/how-to-complain

As Im sure you are aware the FOS will process a complaint on your behalf and so you are right, you complain to the financial institution via an email from the FOS. The FOS will tell you that the financial institution has 8 week or untill their final resolution before you can request the FOS to make an ajudication. It is my experience that financial institutions are more focussed on our complaints using this method

eskbanker wrote: »

That's just confirmation bias though - you're reaching the conclusion that you got a result because of getting FOS involved or threatening to do so, but have no way of knowing what would have happened had you not done this.

Absolutely but it made my strong case even stronger because at the end it was down to a negotiation for the amaount they sent me im pleased to say

eskbanker wrote: »

This doesn't make any sense, why do you believe that giving FOS some sort of sneak preview is actually advantageous compared with them seeing the complaint only when needed?

I am not giving the FOS a sneak preveiw.Im letting the financial instition consider that the best way for all is to negotiate to keep their costs down.



p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }

eskbanker

2e0arr wrote: »

As Im sure you are aware the FOS will process a complaint on your behalf and so you are right, you complain to the financial institution via an email from the FOS. The FOS will tell you that the financial institution has 8 week or untill their final resolution before you can request the FOS to make an ajudication. It is my experience that financial institutions are more focussed on our complaints using this method

While it's true that FOS do offer assistance to those unsure about how to complain directly to the business, this is clearly intended to be by exception rather than the rule, and if there was any truth in your perception that involving FOS prematurely somehow adds weight to a complaint then FOS would take a harder line about being manipulated!

2e0arr

eskbanker wrote: »

While it's true that FOS do offer assistance to those unsure about how to complain directly to the business, this is clearly intended to be by exception rather than the rule, and if there was any truth in your perception that involving FOS prematurely somehow adds weight to a complaint then FOS would take a harder line about being manipulated!

Its simple I ask them to process my complaint which i will email to them they can accept or refuse. If they refuse they can type it out for me meaning more time and effort. Its easier and less time consuming for them. I have never been refused.


eskbanker have you ever taken a complaint to the FOS for an ajudication please ?

eskbanker

2e0arr wrote: »

Its simple I ask them to process my complaint which i will email to them they can accept or refuse. If they refuse they can type it out for me meaning more time and effort. Its easier and less time consuming for them. I have never been refused.

FOS would be entirely within their rights to refuse and tell you to complain directly to the business, they're not under any obligation to act as a middle man for you! If you try this repeatedly then the chances of them declining to forward your complaints to institutions will increase.

2e0arr wrote: »

eskbanker have you ever taken a complaint to the FOS for an ajudication please ?

No, as it happens - you'll presumably contend that this means that I'm not qualified to comment on this, or in some way less so than a serial complainer?! Note that I'm not contradicting what you say has factually happened but am just challenging your extrapolations and conclusions from that....