Tesco " Pay at Pump" unease

hansi

Reply received from Tesco

"Thank you for your email.

I am sorry for the concern caused by the £1 charge on your credit card.

When your card is inserted into pay at pump we will gain authorisation for £1, as the final value of sale will not be known at time of authorisation, but it is then your card issuer that will earmark up to £50 worth of funds as they will not know final value of sale until it is settled overnight.

This is industry standard practice and is not unique to Tesco.

This £1 will not be removed.

Thank you for your time."

The "This £1 will not be removed is what worries me"

hansi

Further reply from Tesco in answer to my query

"Thank you for your email.

I am sorry for any confusion caused by my last email to you.

I would like to confirm to you that the £1 is an authorisation for your transaction. The £1 will therefore only pend in your bank account and will not be removed by transaction.

You therefore do not pay the £1. This remains in your bank account.

Thank you for your time."

Now, why couldn't Capital One tell me that, and save me a lot of stress?:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

PROLIANT

................

clio

I,m lost lol does that mean the petrol cost you £51 , coz if the £1 transaction stays on then it must be £51

PROLIANT

No, they ear mark a quid from the card to verify it is ok then at then same time refund it.

exel1966

johnmoney05 wrote: »

You are wrong. Ask if you have any friend who works at bank.
Well, I do have time at the moment. :beer:

I've time again now, I don't need a friend who works in a bank Jonny. I used to work (along time ago) for the UK's oldest credit card company (and still have a relative who does) so I'm fully aware of how these pending payments work and exactly what they show on their internal systems. The pending transaction is clearly marked as an authorisation only and any c/s agent who has undergone the most basic training of training will be aware of the difference, therefore a customer querying said payment should be given this information and not referred to the retailer. If the OP had spoken to an Indian call centre, where c/s agent training is very basic then he/she may not have known about these payments, there may have even been a dialogue misunderstanding, but either way he/she should have referred the OP to a higher authority or a UK centre who would have known.

Now I can't say every card company has the same system as I haven't seen them all. Have you seen them all or indeed any ? What do you base your assumptions on, as that is all they are.

johnmoney05

exel1966 wrote: »

I've time again now, I don't need a friend who works in a bank Jonny. I used to work (along time ago) for the UK's oldest credit card company (and still have a relative who does) so I'm fully aware of how these pending payments work and exactly what they show on their internal systems. The pending transaction is clearly marked as an authorisation only and any c/s agent who has undergone the most basic training of training will be aware of the difference, therefore a customer querying said payment should be given this information and not referred to the retailer. If the OP had spoken to an Indian call centre, where c/s agent training is very basic then he/she may not have known about these payments, there may have even been a dialogue misunderstanding, but either way he/she should have referred the OP to a higher authority or a UK centre who would have known.

Now I can't say every card company has the same system as I haven't seen them all. Have you seen them all or indeed any ? What do you base your assumptions on, as that is all they are.

I don't have time today, can't waste too much time on this childish argument. Have been busy at work.

The c/s agent only could see a pending transaction on the system, as it was a pending transaction, the retailer could request the money at least within 7 working days. They might or might not. The c/s agent could not and should not guess on behalf of the retailers.

So the c/s agent suggested OP to talk to the retailer directly, to get the retailer to confirm. It was correct. It was NOT "mis-inform".

BenL

Like other people have advised, the term we used to use was "nominal authorisation" and a £1 transaction was authorised to check the card was valid and then reversed a few days later.

I worked in IT for an insurance company and it was used for tacit (auto) renewals on home and motor insurance to check the card was still valid for the renewal payment.

There are rules that are set down for these so it has to be reversed within a certain period of time.

agsnu

BenL wrote: »

Like other people have advised, the term we used to use was "nominal authorisation" and a £1 transaction was authorised to check the card was valid and then reversed a few days later.

It's not even a reversal. The retailer never took the money. There are (optionally) two stages to a transaction: authorise and capture. Authorisation just ensures that nobody else can capture the funds authorised, unless the authorisation is voided by the retailer or expires (which can take 30 days, actually - I once tried to book flights from eBookers about 3 times before giving up, it kept failing due to a system error... Ended up going directly to the airline in question, but eBookers had about a grand's worth of authorisations sitting on my card for a month because they lost the authorisations in their system and didn't know how to void it).

johnmoney05

agsnu wrote: »

It's not even a reversal. The retailer never took the money. There are (optionally) two stages to a transaction: authorise and capture. Authorisation just ensures that nobody else can capture the funds authorised, unless the authorisation is voided by the retailer or expires (which can take 30 days, actually - I once tried to book flights from eBookers about 3 times before giving up, it kept failing due to a system error... Ended up going directly to the airline in question, but eBookers had about a grand's worth of authorisations sitting on my card for a month because they lost the authorisations in their system and didn't know how to void it).

Agsnu is right. And this was exactly why the c/s agent advised OP to contact the retailer directly. And it further proved that there was no "mis-inform" on the c/s agent side.