SumUp purchase treated as cash advance?!?

HillStreetBlues

born_again said:

HillStreetBlues said:

I agree with the ombudsman we share the same view.
Their fee structure is not to have any for the OP purchase, so should be categorise as such.
The Ombudsman makes it very clear it's the fee that determines the category, but in the OP's case,  it's the  category that has determining the fee, and that is the wrong way round.
   

The category of the retailer is not set by the credit card co, so all they can do is take the data given against the data they use for fee's.
Retailer needs to take it up with either sumup, or their merchant bank who set the category.

It doesn't matter who sets it up, the credit card company(bank) has charged a fee that they aren't entitled to charge under their fee structure, so when that's pointed out  they must refund that fee, it's basic contract law,

born_again

HillStreetBlues said:

born_again said:

HillStreetBlues said:

I agree with the ombudsman we share the same view.
Their fee structure is not to have any for the OP purchase, so should be categorise as such.
The Ombudsman makes it very clear it's the fee that determines the category, but in the OP's case,  it's the  category that has determining the fee, and that is the wrong way round.
   

The category of the retailer is not set by the credit card co, so all they can do is take the data given against the data they use for fee's.
Retailer needs to take it up with either sumup, or their merchant bank who set the category.

It doesn't matter who sets it up, the credit card company(bank) has charged a fee that they aren't entitled to charge under their fee structure, so when that's pointed out  they must refund that fee, it's basic contract law,

From your previous quote by ombudsman 

Ultimately it is for each credit card provider to decide what they charge for certain types of

payments, and how they categorise them according to their fee structure.

CC's use Catsic/Mcc to decide if they a transaction fits their fee structure or not. If retailer provides wrong Catsic/Mcc. That is not CC's fault. CC's only use that data to decide if cash fee is required or not. 

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree. 

HillStreetBlues

born_again said:
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

Agreed

Nasqueron

HillStreetBlues said:

Nasqueron said:

HillStreetBlues said:

born_again said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Nasqueron said:

If you think about it, anyone with a suitable friend could do a cash advance on their card and then knock up an invoice saying it was a purchase and then ask the bank to refund it.

The bank can investigate if this has happened or not. A bank certainly can't rule out all evidence their customer might provide of the off chance  that it might be fake. 

Nothing to investigate other than looking at MCC. That is all the banks has to do. If a retailer miss reports, then that is their issue, not the banks.

Not if the bank makes the charge to their customer. It's a certain lose for the bank if they just point to the retailer and says it's their fault.

*see FOS case DRN-363715 for example where the FOS (at adjudicator and ombudsman stage) agreed with Revolut about cash advance charges being applied and them not being responsible for them due to the MCC code they presented resulting in charges by his bank

The decision backs up my view, in that case Mr V went after Revolut, he should have gone after the credit card company, that's why he lost.
It is even stated as stated as such.

Ultimately it is for each credit card provider to decide what they charge for certain types of

payments, and how they categorise them according to their fee structure. Mr V’s credit card
provider set its own fee structure in its terms and conditions. So I’m not holding Revolut
liable for the fees the credit card provider charged Mr V, since how a credit card provider
categorises certain payments is not something in the control of Revolut, nor indeed is it the
responsibility of Revolut.

The credit card company is in this case is the Natwest bank, so as the bank provided the CC they are at fault.

This is the point where it's simply better to step back than continue labouring a point which is no longer helpful for the OP, not least because the bank thought it wasn't worth the hassle of arguing and refunded, despite having no obligation to do so, which is a good end result.

The two FOS cases I quoted prove, beyond any doubt, the bank that the OP used, is categorically not at fault for charging based on the MCC presented to them and classified as a cash purchase. The retailer is categorically proven to be at fault for submitting an MCC that is a cash transaction rather than a sale of goods. The OP was charged as a cash transaction by the bank because that is what they were told the transaction was. The bank acted per their terms and conditions. QED they did nothing wrong and are not liable, the shop was at fault.

The reason this is relevant however, is that anyone using that shop, including the OP in the future, is likely to get a cash transaction charge because the shop payment system is using an MCC classified as a cash transaction so any other bank that treats it that way, which could well be multiple lenders, will have this issue.

HillStreetBlues

Nasqueron said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Nasqueron said:

HillStreetBlues said:

born_again said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Nasqueron said:

If you think about it, anyone with a suitable friend could do a cash advance on their card and then knock up an invoice saying it was a purchase and then ask the bank to refund it.

The bank can investigate if this has happened or not. A bank certainly can't rule out all evidence their customer might provide of the off chance  that it might be fake. 

Nothing to investigate other than looking at MCC. That is all the banks has to do. If a retailer miss reports, then that is their issue, not the banks.

Not if the bank makes the charge to their customer. It's a certain lose for the bank if they just point to the retailer and says it's their fault.

*see FOS case DRN-363715 for example where the FOS (at adjudicator and ombudsman stage) agreed with Revolut about cash advance charges being applied and them not being responsible for them due to the MCC code they presented resulting in charges by his bank

The decision backs up my view, in that case Mr V went after Revolut, he should have gone after the credit card company, that's why he lost.
It is even stated as stated as such.

Ultimately it is for each credit card provider to decide what they charge for certain types of

payments, and how they categorise them according to their fee structure. Mr V’s credit card
provider set its own fee structure in its terms and conditions. So I’m not holding Revolut
liable for the fees the credit card provider charged Mr V, since how a credit card provider
categorises certain payments is not something in the control of Revolut, nor indeed is it the
responsibility of Revolut.

The credit card company is in this case is the Natwest bank, so as the bank provided the CC they are at fault.

This is the point where it's simply better to step back than continue labouring a point which is no longer helpful for the OP, not least because the bank thought it wasn't worth the hassle of arguing and refunded, despite having no obligation to do so, which is a good end result.

The two FOS cases I quoted prove, beyond any doubt, the bank that the OP used, is categorically not at fault for charging based on the MCC presented to them and classified as a cash purchase. The retailer is categorically proven to be at fault for submitting an MCC that is a cash transaction rather than a sale of goods. The OP was charged as a cash transaction by the bank because that is what they were told the transaction was. The bank acted per their terms and conditions. QED they did nothing wrong and are not liable, the shop was at fault.

The reason this is relevant however, is that anyone using that shop, including the OP in the future, is likely to get a cash transaction charge because the shop payment system is using an MCC classified as a cash transaction so any other bank that treats it that way, which could well be multiple lenders, will have this issue.

And yet you then continue to labour the point, after I has made it clear that I was happy to just disagree.