We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
This w/e I am "debanked" (now resolved after a 90 hours' wait and many calls. Complaint underway)
Comments
-
If that's what you meant, then perhaps that's what you could have written...
0 -
I didn't mean you personally, the "you" in that sentence was a generic "you". Maybe I should have used "one", but I'm not posh enough 😉
"One can ask the vendor to see the amount before you even take your 'phone (or card) out of your pocket/handbag/whatever." Yes, one can, but one may feel awkward if one's been stood in a long queue for something and everyone else is tap tap tap without looking and one is the odd one out demanding to see the amount before even getting ones' phone out of one's pocket. 😅
0 -
Mistakes and misunderstanding do occur. Luckily it's not cost either of us several grand or a frozen account!
1 -
Indeed. I'm off to sign some blank cheques...
2 -
I learned my lesson to check the charge first before using a card payment, contactless or p.i.n..
I used a hand car wash a couple of months ago, £9 for a basic wash and brush up. It came to payment, card, contactless, it was declined by my bank. He showed me on his screen and £90 had been entered. Fortunately I have a £50 contactless limit set. Otherwise that payment would have gone through and I would have been non the wiser until checking my bank account.
Whether it was done deliberately knowing the max. contactless payment limit is £100, I don't know. In future I intend to be more careful.
Would that payment have worked if using pay by phone? Something I have never used and don't ever intend to use.
Edited to add it's a Lloyds Classic account.
1 -
Yes, it would have worked if you had paid by phone.
EDIT looks like depends on bank.Let's Be Careful Out There0 -
I admit I'm too blasé when using contactless.
Let's Be Careful Out There2 -
I think it's easily done, given that many terminals seem to have both a '0' key and a '00' key. Another reason why I maintain that everybody should check the amount before authorising anything, no matter how awkward or inconvenient it may be.
Would that payment have worked if using pay by phone?
Probably. More reason to check the amount beforehand.
That said, Lloyds app suggests (to me, at least - I haven't had chance to test it yet) that reducing the contactless limit to less than the default £100 will also reduce the Apple/Google pay limit...
2 -
It's a choice to not have credit cards and multiple accounts with cash in other banks
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
1 -
You're basically saying banks have to potentially rush fraud investigations even when they are complex to fit an artificial timeline. Bank regulation is vital but equally the governments should not be poking their noses in and fining private businesses for doing what they are legally required to do, especially when you are creating deadlines. It's bad enough that (going off topic) some bungalow gives away their money to an obvious scam and the banks have to repay them, now you're suggesting they should also pay customers compensation for investigating fraud. What even would the deadline be? A week? 2 weeks? Who determines that? Fraudsters would be rubbing their hands knowing they could potentially get away with stuff because of some arbitrary deadline.
Your analogy with power is deeply flawed - a tree falls on a power cable. They see the power cable is down, they fix it, the overview of the job is very simple . They aren't required to investigate if the home owner cut it down or if it was damaged and should be have been removed before the storm. If they were and risked fines they might take shortcuts and endanger lives or rush the work so it has problems later.
Your last comment shows the naivety of the argument "it seems fairly straightforward" - sure, it seems that way, but we don't know that. Purely speculation - the OP could have a history of suspicious transactions or this store has a history of fraud and chargebacks or whatever. So who then decides the OP should have the account fixed because the fraud team has gone for the day? Do you then create more overreaching regulation and demand all banks have X number of fraud team members available 24/7?
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
3
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.9K Spending & Discounts
- 247.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.8K Life & Family
- 262.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards