 |
|
 |
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:50:05 +0100, "Peter Crosland" <...@yahoo.co.uk
Phoning is useless! You need to write to your bank/credit card company and
AOL setting out your complaint. The bank are liable to refund as they have
not had any authority to take the money.
Peter Crosland
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:15:06 +0100, Steven Sharp <...@googlemail.com
I can only reiterate what Mark Goodge has said.
Your problem is with Barclays. Request chargebacks from them AND both
orally and in writing cancel the direct debit/standing order with AOL
and cancel your card. Also request they reject ANY attempt by AOL to
draw on your account.
If this does not work, close your account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:00:08 +0100, Mark Goodge <...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:15:06 +0100, Steven Sharp put finger to
keyboard and typed:
Well, he doesn't need to cancel anything, since he never set up
anything with AOL in the first place. He needs to emphasis that this
is a fraudulent use of his card number by someone who has
illegitimately obtained the card details, and AOL are merely the
unwitting (and, it would appear, witless) intermediary. It's no more a
case of cancelling the CCA than it would be if it had simply been
skimmed and used to buy a crate of Diamond White at the local
off-licence. It's fraud, pure and simple, and Barclays need to treat
it as such.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:00:07 +0100, Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
Steven Sharp <...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
Closing the account does not work if they believe a continuing
authority was issued. Barclays can continue to pay AOL and sue the OP
for the money even if the account is closed. They will do this until
AOL agrees it is not owed money or AOL is successfully sued. Unlike
the American situation, Barclays will only charge back the money if
they want to, not just because their customer asks them to.
In this situation the OP needs, as several people have said, to
demonstrate to Barclays that no continuing authority was ever made.
However, as AOL may be the only people with documentary or perhaps
verbal or electronic records of the authority being given, it may be
necessary to sue AOL to force them to accept that the original
subscription was fraudulent.
--
Percy Picacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:50:11 +0100, Invisible Man <...@invalid.invalid
Twice over many years I have had Barclays accounts. Left them both times
because of their appalling service.
Once used AOL who ended up using a debt recovery service to threaten me
for money I did not owe.
Not a good combination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:35:16 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
Or until Barclays' suit against the OP comes to court. The court will
then decide whether the OP really does owe the debt.
Not necessarily. If Barclays wants to obtain a CCJ ordering the OP to
pay them the money, the court will ask Barclays to prove that the OP
authorised the supposed CCA. Obviously it would not be reasonable to
ask the defendant to prove that there isn't a CCA. Nor would it be
reasonable to accept AOL's assurances, since they could have made a
mistake. If Barclays cannot prove their claim, then they should not
obtain judgement against the OP.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:50:16 +0100, Tim S <...@dionic.net
Percy Picacity coughed up some electrons that declared:
Is taking the small claims track against AOL for unlawful aquistion of money
available as an option?
I've always been worried about DDs for exactly this reason.
Cheers
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 06:40:14 +0100, Dave <...@hotmail.co.uk
An action against Barclays would appear to be more appropriate as it is
Barclays that is taking his money and giving it to them. It is for
Barclays to recover the money they have foolishly given to AOL.
That said, the issuing of a summons listing them both as defendants may
sharpen minds even if it is not procedurally correct.
A complaint to the Financial Services ombudsman would appear to be in
order also given Barclays ineffectiveness. There must be some breaches
of the Banking Code in this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:50:05 +0100, Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
Dave <...@mail.hmgcc.gov.uk:
It appears to me that Barclays have acted entirely properly and
within the rules. If the OP takes action against Barclays they will
point out that they have received an apparently valid request from
AOL for a continuing charge against the OP's account, presumably
with the relevant "security" information, and they have been paying
it for two years. From their point of view it is probably more
common for debtors to seek to avoid their obligations than for
genuinely wronged customers to discover this after two years.
Unless the judge finds the OP an exceedingly convincing witness he
may well find for the bank. Indeed, if the case was tried purely on
paper submissions I think Barclays would almost certainly win.
Only AOL has the evidence of where the subscription was being
supplied and perhaps the IP address of the computer from which the
account was set up, and in principle could call the mysterious "Mr.
Morgan" as a witness, so a case against them might have more chance
of success. If Mr Morgan proves to be fictitious then broadband or
phone records might establish who got the dubious benefit of the AOL
subscription. If none of these exist, then the case will still turn
on the credibility of the OP as a witness.
The problem for the OP is that a lot of people lie to evade their
obligations and he has to prove he isn't, on the balance of
probability, one of them.
--
Percy Picacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:15:06 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
Could you quote the relevant rules?
What security information, and why should that be presumed rather than
proved?
Well, if you have some basis for this assertion (other than pure
assertion), please supply it.
But surely the matter is very simply resolved without having to resort
to the difficult and uncertain process of examining someone's
credibility as a witness. All that is necessary is for a court to order
AOL to produce documentary evidence that the OP personally authorised
all the transactions. If AOL cannot produce this, then Barclays cannot
prove that the cardholder authorised the purchase, so under the Consumer
Credit Act 1974 s.83(1) and 171(4) the court should not hold him liable
for it.
No, s171(4) of the Act specifically states that the burden of proof is
on the card provider.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:30:13 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@208.90.168.18Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
They may also suggest that it's much more likely that a "friend or
relative" of the cardholder has "borrowed" the number - rather than a
random fraudster obtain AOL membership (and nothing else) by
impersonating the OP. Finding the identity of the person who *is* the
AOL subscriber might shed some light on this.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:30:15 +0100, FoggyTown <...@aol.com
On Apr 25, 9:30�pm, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
From the slight info provided, I find it difficult to accept that
someone fraudulently used the OP's CC to get AOL services. Using
stolen CC info to get a few quick purchases from DABS or Dixon's and
then ditching the card is one thing. But potentially exposing your
crime month after month in a service contract? I can't see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:55:21 +0100, Mark Goodge <...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:30:15 +0100, FoggyTown put finger to keyboard
and typed:
You're assuming that there is an identifiable and locatable person at
the consumer end of the contract. The chances are that, when
investigated, it will be found to be providing service to a squat or
HMO with rapid turnover and no-one currently there knows (or will
admit to knowing) anything about who originally set up the contract.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:35:05 +0100, Dave <...@hotmail.co.uk
I can accept that Barclays allowed an apparently correct authorisation
to proceed. Up to that point it is fine. It is what happened when they
were told that the authority had not in fact been authorised which is
important. Interestingly they state that because of the number of
digits used in the transaction, their normal fraud management strategy
doesn't work.
One would hope that the FSA or the banking code would put a higher
balance of proof on the bank to prove the authorisation.
It is common for debtors to try to avoid paying their debts, but this
isn't one of those cases as the OP has actually paid for a period going
back two years.
I suspect that it ought to be straightforward to stop these transactions
and to recover the more recent ones. Recovering the older ones might be
a bit harder. Although Barclays are equally likely to have difficulty
in showing that a credible continuous authority was in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:30:09 +0100, "Iain" <...@smaps.net
"Tim S" <...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
The common misconception is to equate Direct Debits (from bank accounts) to
Continuing Authorities (Credit cards). They are very different to each
other.
A Direct Debit is taken from typically a bank account and authorised by the
account holder. The amount requested by the payee frequently varies, eg.
regular gas or electricity bills. The account holder has control over it
and can cancel at any time, or have a single payment reversed in case of
error. viz. the Direct Debit Guarantee:
http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=828&a=10383
(It is not unknown for banks to deny knowledge of the guarantee and not
credit back errors. See the Financial Ombudsman's website:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/27/27-directd ebit-guarantee.htm
A Continuing Authority is 'arranged' (established) by the payee (eg. AOL).
Once a single payment has been taken from your card and a 'sort of'
agreement made that this payment will continue on, for instance, a monthly
basis, the authority becomes established. I use the inverted commas
intentionally because it may not actually appear to be a formal agreement,
but it is. Once established, it is very difficult for the card holder to
cancel. The Credit Card company will normally say that it is only the payee
who can cancel. Strictly speaking, this is correct. For you ( the card
holder) to cancel, you have to be able to prove that you have, for instance,
not been receiving the service. Then you may have to push your point to get
the payments cancelled (or probably reversed).
Some people say that cancelling the credit card can stop the payments. This
may stop them, but it is very much down to how the CC company reacts. If,
for instance, the payee can show that you are contractually obliged to pay
then the CC company may well honour further payments and claim the amounts
from the CC holder. The bottom line is that the CC holder cannot normally
cancel the authority. This system is often referred to, both incorrectly
and very misleadingly, as a Direct Debit. The CC holder has no control.
A standing order is something different again.
Between a Direct Debit and Continuing Authority, the DD gives the account
holder full control and the ability to cancel - the Continuing Authority
does not.
Iain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:40:21 +0100, Invisible Man <...@invalid.invalid
Yes, as I understand it the only way to cancel a continuing authority on
a credit card is to persuade the entity taking the money to cease doing so.
It is not normally possible to tell the credit card provider to stop
paying the money.
Cancelling the card does not cancel the authority.
I never use continuing credit card arrangements. Direct debit is far safer.
In this case it appears that AOL have never been given any authority so
I would have thought that both AOL and the credit card provider are liable.
My dealings with AOL were some years ago but it proved impossible to
have any rational correspondence with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:10:06 +0100, "Peter Crosland" <...@yahoo.co.uk
This is a myth perpetuated by the credit card companies. Legally you have
the right to inform the credit card company that the authority for a
particular merchant to debit your card has been revoked. To be certain you
need to do this in writing to the merchant and copy the letter to the credit
card company. Any attempt to make further debits is fraudulent. Credit card
companies will often quote their agreement with MasterCard or VISA as
justification for not blocking cancelled continuing authorities. What they
agree with MasterCard or VISA is their concern and the cardholder is not
party to such agreements where they conflict with law. In any case a clause
that purports to prevent cancellation by notice to the card issuer is simply
void under the legislation prohibiting unfair terms in consumer contracts.
Peter Crosland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:20:11 +0100, Dave <...@hotmail.co.uk
The question actually is who is liable to whom?
If somebody steals money out of my wallet and then goes and buys
something with it in a shop, it won't generally be the case that the
shop is liable to me.
In this case, it appears that AOL initially provided the service in good
faith (although they have been poor at resolving the matter).
AOL's customer is liable to them for the service they have enjoyed (in
the usage sense rather than the pleasurable one :))
AOL is liable to the bank for the money they received in error.
The bank is liable to the OP for the money they took from him without
authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:25:21 +0100, saka <...@skfirst.co.uk
8<
How so?
The OP clearly (to me) stated: "Now - I HAVE
NEVER HAD AOL - "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:50:20 +0100, Mark Goodge <...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:25:21 +0100, saka put finger to keyboard and
typed:
AOL provided the service to the fraudster who used the OP's card, not
to the OP.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:20:05 +0100, "Iain" <...@smaps.net
"Dave" <...@mail.hmgcc.gov.uk...
But in this case, AOL never supplied anything - at all - ever.
As has been suggested higher up, this could well be fraud. It is unlikely
that an error could have occured with the credit card number - it is
difficult to make a valid error with the Luhn mod 10 formula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhn_algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card_number
Iain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:10:05 +0100, Dave <...@hotmail.co.uk
It is fraud but not by AOL. Surely the likely scenario is that somebody
used the OP's number to fraudulently obtain an AOL account. AOL would
have, in good faith, provided a service to that person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:35:05 +0100, Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
"Iain" <...@mid.individual.net:
How do you know that? Accepting that the OP did not use his card,
someone else could have set up an AOL subscription using the OP's card
details. It is entirely possible to pay for someone else's
subscription if one wishes to, and how is AOL to know this is
fraudulent until someone tells them? AOL's guilt stems from doing
nothing to investigate the situation once they are told.
--
Percy Picacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:30:09 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@208.90.168.18Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
AOL are quite likely to have a T&C that anything paid more than 90 days
ago can't be disputed (it's a USA thing...) and they may eventually try
to rely upon that. But the problem is that the OP didn't buy anything
from AOL so isn't bound by that sort of T&C.
Unfortunately, the OP's Credit Card company may well have a similar
restriction on reporting a charge-back (90-120 days) whatever the cause,
even fraud.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:10:05 +0100, "Peter Crosland" <...@yahoo.co.uk
Such a clause would be invalid under UK consumer law.
Peter Crosland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:40:08 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@posted.plusnet22:10:05 on Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Peter Crosland <...@yahoo.co.ukremarked:
It would be nice to think that's true, but is there any caselaw which
proves it?
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:50:09 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@posted.plusnet19:10:05 on Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Peter Crosland <...@yahoo.co.ukremarked:
At 88 pages, I'm afraid you need to be a bit more specific.
As a more practical point, if I'm in a dispute like this, will the OFT
lend me a lawyer to help argue the case? Or what other way does their
"guidance" turn into me winning the case.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:15:04 +0100, Mark Goodge <...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:50:09 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:
Time limits on claims, paragraph 2.4.1ff
Either you as an LIP or your lawyer can wave the guidelines in front
of the judge and point out where the vendor is in breach of them.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:50:07 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@news.markshouse.net22:15:04 on Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Mark Goodge
<...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk
It depends what is regarded as "reasonable". The guidelines seem highly
skewed towards products (and faults in them). For financial services,
where cardholders are told time and time again to check their statements
every month, I'm not sure that 4 months is in fact unreasonable to
report a problem.
Anyway, having done a little more research it seems there *is* a widely
accepted 120 day deadline, but it's from when you first see the problem,
not when the transaction took place.
So the OP's clock has been ticking since February.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:20:17 +0100, "Peter Crosland" <...@yahoo.co.uk
If you are going to take legal action you really have two choices. Either
employ a lawyer, or make a bit of effort and learn what the law is before
presenting the case yourself. With the case in point, it should be obvious
to a blind man on a galloping horse that such a clause is fundamentally
unfair without the need to look at the fine detail in the guidelines.
Peter Crosland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:35:05 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@posted.plusnet08:20:17 on Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Peter Crosland <...@yahoo.co.ukremarked:
With the proviso that the limit of 120 days is after *noticing* the
disputed transaction, both Which? and Financial Ombudsman seem to agree
that it's fair.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:50:05 +0100, "Peter Crosland" <...@yahoo.co.uk
Please can you provide a link to the where the Financial Ombudsman states
this?
Peter Crosland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:10:06 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@posted.plusneton Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Peter Crosland <...@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/12/dec-
plastic-cards.htm
Talks about "strict time limits laid down for dealing with chargebacks"
which from the context it clearly approves of.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:00:45 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
That case refers to the time limits imposed by merchant axquirers on
suppliers when dealing with chargeback requests. It does not indicate
any time limits on consumers reporting fraud.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:15:06 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@god.heaven2009, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Sorry about that - I was struggling to find the link I had a few days
ago. Obviously that wasn't the one.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:40:21 +0100, "Peter Crosland" <...@yahoo.co.uk
This all relates to cases prior to 2001 which predates the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts legislation by several years, and in any case the
examples given relate to the dealings between merchants and merchant
acquirers which are a completely different issue.
Peter Crosland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:35:09 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@posted.plusnet21:40:21 on Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Peter Crosland <...@yahoo.co.ukremarked:
The Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts legislation was introduced in
1994, and revised in 1999 & 2001 (and added to provisions in the Unfair
Contract Terms Act 1977 & the Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on
Statements) Order 1976).
And much more recently The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008.
Is it your position that the latter might rule these "120 day" periods
unenforceable, when none of the previous legislation seems to have done
so (despite credit cards being examined, and excessive "late payment"
charges banned).
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:35:04 +0100, "Peter Crosland" <...@yahoo.co.uk
I am saying that clauses that set an arbitrary period of say 120 days is
unlikely to be a "get out" for the credit card company. I would expect the
court to consider each case on the specific merits so that a period of more
or less than 120 days might be considered reasonable. The problem is that
unless, and until, some case law evolves and gets appealed we shall not be
sure. My feeling is that credit card companies will want to settle claims
rather than go to court.
Peter Crosland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:25:31 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@perry.co.uk2009, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
Here's a link to the CAB, who confirm the limit - rather than saying
"there's a 120 day limit but ignore it because it won't stand up in
court, do a chargeback whenever you want".
<http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_
goods_your_rights.htm--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:00:24 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
"For example, if you used a credit card (for goods costing less than
£100) or a debit card issued by visa, you can apply under the Visa
chargeback scheme. Claims under this scheme must be made within 120
days."
That's the Visa voluntary chargeback scheme. It is separate from the
consumer's statutory rights to reclaim a fraudulent charge from the CC
company under CCA 1974:
"83.—(1) The debtor under a regulated consumer credit agreement shall
not be liable to the creditor for any loss arising from use of the
credit facility by another person not acting, or to be treated as
acting, as the debtor's agent." The 1974 Act does not set out any time
limit for recovery of the debt, so presumably it is the usual six years.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:45:19 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@god.heaven2009, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
If that's true it's a significant breakthrough. I don't think the CCCs
distinguish between chargebacks for fraud and chargebacks for faulty
goods and non-delivery.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:50:10 +0100, Mark Goodge <...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:30:08 +0100, TheMaestro put finger to keyboard
and typed:
Stop talking to AOL. They are not your problem. Talk to Barclays,
report the fraudulent use of the card and get them to issue a
chargeback for the unauthorised charges. Since you've already done
that once, you shouldn't have much trouble persuading them to do it
again. Since it's now happened on several occasions, you may find that
Barclays' own fraud investigation department may take a greater
interest in the case. AOL will lose the money, and will eventually
disconnect their "customer" for non-payment, and may even take him to
court for the sum owed. That will be a pain in the neck for them, and
him, but they deserve it. The only thing that matters to you is
getting Barclays to do what it takes to stop the charges being made.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:20:05 +0100, "Iain" <...@smaps.net
"Mark Goodge" <...@news.markshouse.net...
Certainly AOL used to be well-known for continuing collecting after an
account was closed.
Barclays should not work on the premise that they cannot cancel a Continuing
Authority, because one never existed in the first place. If there's any
dispute, tell them to send you the initial authority with your signature.
Certainly get them to charge-back all payments made - the previous card as
well. There may arise a dispute that you did not notify them before about
all the errors and may try to avoid paying you back. Get them to send you
chapter and verse detailing where in their terms etc. this may arise. Again
you could also go back to them needing to provide you with the proof that
the CA existed.
Maybe avoid using the phone - also you would have everything in writing as
well.
Good luck - more so because of the distance.
IANAL
Iain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:15:06 +0100, Mark Goodge <...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:20:05 +0100, Iain put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Indeed. It seems that whoever told the OP that they can't stop AOL
taking the payment has misunderstood the circumstances. The OP isn't
trying to cancel a previously legitimate charge, he's disputing a
fraudulent charge.
I would agree with that. Other than maybe a phone call to get the
chargeback processed, everything else needs to be in writing.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:55:18 +0100, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
I agree - the bank has unequivocal duties under "The Direct Debit
Guarantee":
# If the amounts to be paid or the payment dates change, the organisation
collecting the payment will notify you normally 10 working days in advance
of your account being debited or as otherwise agreed
# If an error is made by the organisation or your bank or building society,
you are guaranteed a full and immediate refund from your branch of the
amount paid
# You can cancel a Direct Debit at any time by contacting your bank or
building society. We also recommend you notify the organisation concerned.
I didn't see the OP's OP, for some reason, but it seems perfectly plain that
fraudulent payments must be refunded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:00:14 +0100, Pete Verdon <...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid
Even though this isn't a direct debit?
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:05:08 +0100, Ian Jackson <...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk
In message <...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalidI'm very puzzled about the statements and advice about this problem.
Whatever the 'niceties' may be, it cannot be in order for someone,
without your authorisation, to start taking money out of your bank
account, and then ignore requests to stop it. Neither can the bank
ignore your requests asking them to stop making such payments.
Most - if not all - bank branches have some form of financial advisor
who can be consulted, often at a moment's notice. The obvious thing to
do is to request an interview/meeting, explain the situation and, if
possible, get them personally get the problem sorted out for you (which
they are usually only too-willing to do).
--
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:40:25 +0100, "steve robinson" <...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk
With continueing authorisation they do have the authorisation to take money
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:45:12 +0100, Stuart B <...@NOSPAMgmail.com
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:40:25 +0100, "steve robinson"
<...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk
BUT in this case the bank account holder has given no such authority.
That is the difference here .
--------------
Any posting using my name and/or e-mail address
but other than by newsindividual.net is not being posted by me and should be disregarded .
Remove NOSPAM to reply by e-mail
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:45:06 +0100, PCPaul <...@bitrot.co.uk
But that's exactly the point - there never was *any* authorisation for
them to take the money. The owner of the card *never* authorised it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:15:12 +0100, "steve robinson" <...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk
The op needs to check the small print of any agreement they signed up to , quite a
few companies are jumping on this bandwagon now relying on customers not bothering
to either a) read the contract fully or b) not bothering to regulary check other
companies pricing policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:55:19 +0100, Stuart B <...@NOSPAMgmail.com
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:15:12 +0100, "steve robinson"
<...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk
Agreement with who.If you mean AOL then he didn't have any agreement
with them!!!
--------------
Any posting using my name and/or e-mail address
but other than by newsindividual.net is not being posted by me and should be disregarded .
Remove NOSPAM to reply by e-mail
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:00:09 +0100, Mark Goodge <...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:15:12 +0100, steve robinson put finger to
keyboard and typed:
Er.... you're still missing the key point. The OP never signed up to
any agreement. His card was used by someone else to fraudulently
obtain service from AOL. So he has no small print to check, and no
agreement to cancel.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:25:17 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@news.markshouse.net16:00:09 on Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Mark Goodge
<...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk
He does need to check the small print with the credit card company.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:15:11 +0100, "steve robinson" <...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk
In that case report it to the police and refuse to pay that portion of the bill ,
inform the card company of the fraud passing on the crime number , send all
infomation by signed for delivery .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:25:20 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@text.news.virginmedia.com16:15:11 on Sun, 26 Apr 2009, steve robinson
<...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk
The police no longer take reports of credit card fraud. He must report
it to the CCC.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:55:25 +0100, "steve robinson" <...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk
The op could still get a crime number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:45:11 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@text.news.virginmedia.com17:55:25 on Sun, 26 Apr 2009, steve robinson
<...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk
I don't think so. There's an official protocol which says "you must
report this to the CCC and not the police".
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:10:11 +0100, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
I'm aware that this change has been agreed between police & banks, but
presumably the underlying legislation on theft & fraud hasn't been amended.
If a victim insisted upon reporting a crime to the Police, and did so in
writing with a request for acknowledgement of receipt, I can hardly see how
the they could refuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:20:16 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@mid.individual.netApr 2009, Steve Walker <...@beeb.net
The police don't investigate a whole range of crimes, including credit
card fraud in the first instance. You might get a crime number if you
can show the CCC has already refused to reimburse you - otherwise it's
treated like a civil dispute between you and the CCC, because (a) you
can't demonstrate that you've lost any money until you exhaust the CCC's
procedures and (b) the police won't take a report from you that someone
has defrauded a third party (the CCC), only the CCC can make that
report.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:40:19 +0100, Ian Jackson <...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk
In message <...@perry.co.uk
Surely, in this case, the OP has lost - and is continuing to lose -
money. Charges are still being added to his account (which he will have
to pay or risk sanctions being applied by the CCC), but neither AOL nor
the CCC seem to be interested/capable or resolving the problem.
--
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:05:04 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@g3ohx.demon.co.ukApr 2009, Ian Jackson <...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk
The OP hasn't lost the money until the CCC [and/or to some extent AOL]
officially refuses to refund. At this stage it's still "a civil matter,
sir".
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:05:14 +0100, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
Thanks for that - the logic of part a certainly stands up, but I'm not sure
about b.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:55:22 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@mid.individual.netApr 2009, Steve Walker <...@beeb.net
See recent discussions about "pressing charges". If the police don't get
a complaint direct from the victim, they don't believe they can acheive
anything useful.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:30:08 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
The situation is much simpler than that. If the police don't want to do
something, they just don't do it, and there is nothing whatsoever that
you can do about it.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:20:24 +0100, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
Yes, I can see that but it seems to me that if the CCC levies a false charge
against the customer's account then the customer has also (instead?) been
cheated. I suppose that in the absence of intentional dishonesty this
would be a civil matter, but it still seems unfair.
Best wishes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:10:13 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@mid.individual.netApr 2009, Steve Walker <...@beeb.net
It seems a bit unlikely that the CCC has conspired with AOL to cheat the
OP out of the money by accepting a charge they know as invalid (2 years
ago) in the hope the OP wouldn't notice.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:40:23 +0100, Ian Jackson <...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk
In message <...@text.news.virginmedia.comrobinson <...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk
No one - repeat - NO ONE - can have continuing authorisation where NO
authorisation existed in the first place. I'm no financial expert but,
regardless of any bank rules and regulations, this must surely be called
theft.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:25:03 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@g3ohx.demon.co.ukApr 2009, Ian Jackson <...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk
There's probably some sort of fraud involved. How much the Card Company
will re-imburse the cardholder will depend upon their T&C. I wouldn't be
surprised if they reduced the payout because it wasn't reported earlier,
or if they claim to suspect the card details were obtained when the OP
"lent" them to someone.
I'm not suggesting the latter happened (and the OP hasn't suggested that
"Mr Morgan" rings any bells with him), but I know card companies have
suspicious minds.
If it's an ADSL subscription (which £19.99 sounds like) then obviously
AOL "knows where the fraudster lives". Which means this is a somewhat
risky fraud.
For a couple of years, the responsibility for investigating credit card
fraud has been "privatised", with the banks taking reports, refunding
customers, then handing over case-files to the police if they think it's
worth the effort. The police won't investigate if a member of the public
reports to them, because the police believe that the victim is the
credit card company.
What I'm still working towards understanding, is what happens then the
credit card company refuses to refund, so that the member of the public
becomes the victim.
ps. If the OP's reading this, it might be worth clarifying exactly what
AOL "is notorious for" - is it accepting credit cards in other people's
names to fund a fraudulent subscription; or is it simply being slow at
cancelling the collection of money related to a perfectly properly taken
out (and later cancelled) subscription?
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
I suspect that it won't get the OP far, but on-line credit card
processing companies have had a number of admitted failures in security
in recent years. I've seen papers presented at security conferences
which detail how credit card processors have lost significant numbers of
card details. The most recent incident being RBS Worldpay losing 2.5
million security records and in consequence being removed from the Visa
list of accredited payment processors compliant with current data
security standards.
Mostly incidents are internal with staff recording credit card details
and passing them to external associates, although the Worldpay case was
unusual in being a hack attack. Usually there's a pattern of the card
being used to take some small payments (such as iTunes) to establish the
validity of the card before it is used for larger amounts. If the OP has
kept transaction records going back that far they might be able to
establish a pattern of fraudulent transaction to back up their
complaints.
However whatever the root cause, the credit card company has been at
fault in this by permitting unauthorised transactions. I've found in the
past that companies, in particular ISPs, exceed the mandate given by the
customer as if by right. I have had cause to complain about an ISP in
the past that created a recurring debit after being given explicit
instruction that the card was to be used for a single payment only.
Persistence with the CC company got a refund, eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:40:03 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@malloc.co.ukon Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Steve Firth <...@malloc.co.uk
The key thing to understand is that the credit card companies don't have
a mechanism to independently verify that a [continuous] transaction is
genuine. They have to trust the merchant. And in return they are
supposed to implement chargebacks if the cardholder has a legitimate
complaint.
The trick is to persuade the CCC that the complaint is legitimate, and
not the result of a low level dispute between a genuine customer and the
supplier (for example the customer trying to cancel before his minimum
contract term is up).
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:15:07 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
The CCC shouldn't be worrying its pretty little head about contractual
disputes between the cardholder and supllier. It should simply note that
the supplier has no authority to charge this account, and act
accordingly.
If the supplier has a quarrel with the cardholder about this, the two of
them can resolve the dispute without reference to a third party who
knows nothing about it.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:45:06 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@god.heaven2009, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
But it can't assume that "the customer is always right", because the
customer might be duping them in an attempt to wriggle out of a long
term contractual arrangement with the supplier.
Exactly; as the third party the CCC can initially say to the cardholder
- sort your problem out with the supplier, it's nothing to do with us.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:15:06 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
Of course it shouldn't assume the customer is always right. It doesn't
have to assume anything. It should simply note that the supplier is not
authorised to charge this account, and act accordingly.
Exactly. While obeying the instruction to stop the unauthorised charges.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:25:22 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@god.heaven2009, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
But in order to "note" that as a default, the CCC has to take the
customer's word for it. At the very least they must also ask the
supplier what their point of view is.
But until they've investigated further, they don't know they are
unauthorised. The customer may have forgotten, or a family member may
have authorised it, or he may just be having "second thoughts". It's not
the role of the CCC to automatically assume the customer is right.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:10:06 +0100, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
That would be applicable if the cardholder had entered into a contract with
the supplier, but not especially useful in the present case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:10:07 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@mid.individual.netApr 2009, Steve Walker <...@beeb.net
The dispute can still be resolved by the "supplier" - in this case AOL
agreeing (after further examination) that the OP was not the person to
whom they had supplied the service, and refunding him.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:05:08 +0100, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
It certainly *could* be resolved on that basis....
But if I managed to withdraw money from your bank account (without your
permission) would you feel that any duty lay upon you to convince me to
refund it? Would you be satisfied to leave it to my discretion whether
you deserved to have it back, or whether I should keep it?
I think you would rightly challenge me to produce evidence of your consent,
and if I could not do so then you would demand that the money was returned
immediately. I don't see what's different in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:55:18 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@mid.individual.netApr 2009, Steve Walker <...@beeb.net
It isn't the only way to get the money back, but getting the supplier to
agree they'd made a mistake might well be the quickest and easiest way
to resolve it.
It isn't different - the OP would be making exactly those demands upon
AOL.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:20:20 +0100, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
Were it a 'normal' company with a sense of reputation & integrity I would
agree, but AOL are one of those firms who seem quite unconcerned by such
matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:55:20 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@mid.individual.netApr 2009, Steve Walker <...@beeb.net
While some say they are difficult to deal with, I'm not sure they are
worse than average. What people need to know is what to say, and then
what to do if it doesn't work.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:00:12 +0100, Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk:
And, just the same as any Internet credit card transaction, AOL would
have an electronic record of the OP's credit card details, and the IP
address they were supplied from. They may well have (or be able to
get) address details of where the service was supplied. I feel it is
then up to the OP to prove it was not one of many millions of
perfectly valid credit card transactions not delivered to the card
holder's address. I don't think righteous indignation is sufficient.
Perhaps an assertion that the OP has no connection with either the IP
address or the physical address in question might be sufficient
(though AOL would have the option of investigating this), but I
really don't see why the OP's assertion that he did not order the
service should be sufficient on its own.
--
Percy Picacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:15:13 +0100, "Steve Walker" <...@beeb.net
How exactly would you suggest that the OP could prove that he didn't
authorise this charge, Percy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:00:20 +0100, Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
"Steve Walker" <...@mid.individual.net:
Without the co-operation of AOL, or a court order to obtain their
co-operation, I doubt that he could. They don't need to sue him, so
he would have to sue them. Credit card companies are much more
customer friendly under American law.
--
Percy Picacity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:10:07 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@208.90.168.18Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Percy Picacity <...@under.the.invalid
I think you might be surprised how unlikely it is that those details
were recorded or kept. Indeed, as the transaction in question happened
two years ago there are very few data retention regimes that would still
have it.
And even if the IP address has been retained, only the police can try to
trace it to an accountholder (which is also likely not to have been
retained this long, and what if it's an Internet cafe?)
As the service appears to be ADSL, then as I've said before, the supply
address should be known (but as others have said, maybe the person who
did the deed two years ago is no longer traceable).
If as I suspect, the traceability of the transaction is absent, what
will be quite telling is discovering if the delivery address is familiar
to him.
That's why the supplier needs to take a view based on the data they
have. If that doesn't result in a refund, the OP can go to the CCC, but
they'll get the same story from AOL, but hopefully might be more
sceptical that it's something he did order but is now trying to wriggle
out of.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:25:37 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
Traders are required to keep records of business transactions for *six
years* after the event. I do not suppose the requirements on
corporations are less stringent. Records *have* to be kept if disputes
over payment, like this one, are to be resolved by a court. It isn't
good enough for a corporation to say, Oh we threw away all our accounts
from 2007, but you can take our word for it, he owes us the money all
right.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:25:06 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@god.heaven2009, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
The details you refer to are not "accounts", they are communications
data (which is prohibited to be kept in many jurisdictions, and in
practice isn't kept very often) which is unlikely to have been collected
in the first place.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 1 May 2009 16:50:05 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
They most certainly are accounts if they are the business's record of a
customer ordering something from them, as in this case. It's called a
purchase order, and should be recorded in both the purchase ledger and
the general ledger.
I know communications data is your particular interest, Roland, but it's
irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 1 May 2009 20:25:17 +0100, Roland Perry <...@perry.co.uk
In message <...@god.heaven2009, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
The data which says where the order was placed from is no more a part of
a normal business record than the postmark on an envelope containing an
order sent by post. And about as likely to be captured and kept.
That data saying where the order was placed from, and which Percy was
expecting to find (ie the data we are discussing) is communications
data. So it is very relevant.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|