Being charged on your VISA debit card with out your permission

levitronix

Got a question ?

Can a store change your on your visa debt card with out your permission ?
I bought a phone from vodafone on a high street store, i knew i was under charged and and i have a receipt verifying this , sales desk fault of the guy but he just rang it on wrong and gave me a receipt !
But today i just checked my account and seen i got charged the balance two days later, can they do that without my permission??

Fukuyama

Probably not.

However, I've done it in retail. Never to steal or anything. Just to settle incorrect transactions. I've also refunded people without their permission so it works both ways.

I imagine the guy got a bollocking for his till being short and had to find the offending transaction.

I'd leave it if I were you. They'll probably make you pay anyways if it was a large amount and this way the retail dude gets to keep a job which most of us have to work during college etc...

irishgeo

No. They can't unless you agreed to recurring payments. That's called credit card fraud.

levitronix

irishgeo wrote: »

No. They can't unless you agreed to recurring payments. That's called credit card fraud.

thats what i was thinking i ve contacted the bank, i have a receipt, so thats a contract of sale , thats their fault not mine

Kelly06

I'd like to know the answer to this. This happened to me before with Ryan air. I booked a flight on my credit card for a friend. The friend missed the return flight and was stranded in Belgium without enough money to buy another flight. Ryan air desk in Belgium offered this person to book the flight again on the original card without permission. There couldn't have been confusion as the passenger name and card name were completely different. It was a credit card and not a debit card. If they had taken money from my bank account without even asking I would have hit the roof!

levitronix

Fukuyama wrote: »

Probably not.

However, I've done it in retail. Never to steal or anything. Just to settle incorrect transactions. I've also refunded people without their permission so it works both ways.

I imagine the guy got a bollocking for his till being short and had to find the offending transaction.

I'd leave it if I were you. They'll probably make you pay anyways if it was a large amount and this way the retail dude gets to keep a job which most of us have to work during college etc...

yeah whats to stop this guy buying a phone for his other half , if he deals with someone who he thinks he can con ????

Teyla Emmagan

levitronix wrote:

thats what i was thinking i ve contacted the bank, i have a receipt, so thats a contract of sale , thats their fault not mine

Lovely honest attitude you have. Did you know you were being undercharged at the time? This is thievery.

Cushie Butterfield

Did both the debit card receipt and the till receipt show the incorrect amount? If both receipts show the same amount then I'd say that it's an unauthorised transaction, but if the till receipt shows the correct larger amount then I'd say that they would be within their rights to correct the error so it may not be as clear cut as it looks.

If anything I would have thought that they would have refunded the original amount & then debited the correct amount as a cardholder not present transaction. At least that way they could claim the staffmember mis-keyed the transaction, & once the error was identified it was rectified.

Atlantic Dawn

Kelly06 wrote: »

I'd like to know the answer to this. This happened to me before with Ryan air. I booked a flight on my credit card for a friend. The friend missed the return flight and was stranded in Belgium without enough money to buy another flight. Ryan air desk in Belgium offered this person to book the flight again on the original card without permission. There couldn't have been confusion as the passenger name and card name were completely different. It was a credit card and not a debit card. If they had taken money from my bank account without even asking I would have hit the roof!

Possibly covered as giving your consent in the terms and conditions booking the flight, I'm not sure.

irishgeo

Card not present fraud is the biggest problem now since the introduction of chip technology.

ohnonotgmail

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

Did both the debit card receipt and the till receipt show the incorrect amount? If both receipts show the same amount then I'd say that it's an unauthorised transaction, but if the till receipt shows the correct larger amount then I'd say that they would be within their rights to correct the error so it may not be as clear cut as it looks.

If anything I would have thought that they would have refunded the original amount & then debited the correct amount as a cardholder not present transaction. At least that way they could claim the staffmember mis-keyed the transaction, & once the error was identified it was rectified.

The OP says that he has a till receipt that matches the amount charged to his debit card. Any further payments taken from the card would be unauthorised. Get on to you bank as soon as possible

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Lovely honest attitude you have. Did you know you were being undercharged at the time? This is thievery.

Where has the OP been dishonest? They purchased a phone. the assistant rang it up. they left the shop. they then decided to take more money from the OP debit card without permission. If the OP had paid cash would you be ok with the shop assistant running down the street after him and taking the extra cash from his wallet? because that is what they have done.

dudara

Moved to Banking & Insurance & Pensions

dudara

Jim2007

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Where has the OP been dishonest?

levitronix wrote: »

I bought a phone from vodafone on a high street store, i knew i was under charged and .....

Could it be any clearer....

ohnonotgmail

Jim2007 wrote: »

Could it be any clearer....

did the OP cause the assistant to undercharge him?

zombieHanalei

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did the OP cause the assistant to undercharge him?

Makes no difference. A lie of omission is still a lie.

GerardKeating

levitronix wrote: »

Got a question ?

Can a store change your on your visa debt card with out your permission ?
I bought a phone from vodafone on a high street store, i knew i was under charged and and i have a receipt verifying this , sales desk fault of the guy but he just rang it on wrong and gave me a receipt !
But today i just checked my account and seen i got charged the balance two days later, can they do that without my permission??

Depends on the Terms & conditions you agreed to at the time of the sale.

If you tell your card issuer that you realised you were being under charged at the time, they might not do a chargeback for you.

And if you succeed with the chargeback, they could always report the phone "stolen" and get it blacklisted on all networks, they you have lost everything.

Best to do the honest thing...

Sparko

I didn't realise it was possible to charge the card again, do the credit card machines maintain a history to allow charging again? Surely that is open to serious abuse?

We process credit card transactions in work using an online terminal rather than one of the machines, and our only option after the transaction is processed is to do a refund, no ability to charge any further, which is how I would have thought it should be.

Mezcita

levitronix wrote: »

thats what i was thinking i ve contacted the bank, i have a receipt, so thats a contract of sale , thats their fault not mine

You were willing to pay X amount for a phone. You paid Y because of someone's mistake and are now looking to get away with it which could cost someone their job.

Leave it.

MadDog76

I think in this situation the Op should leave it alone as he knows he only got charged what he should have been charged on the day ........ however it is very very worrying that a retail outlet can charge your card at a later date without your permission so the question remains ....... is this legal?

Clauric

Ok, I'm going to take another view. The agreement to purchase the phone is a legal contract. In order for the contract to be enforceable, it must meet certain requirements. If those requirements are met, then there is very little either party can do to change it.

The requirements of a contract are?

Offer
Acceptance
Consideration
Intention to create legal relations
Capacity to contract, and
Terms that are legal and capable of performance

I'm this case you offered (agreed) to buy the phone. The company accepted your offer to buy the phone, at price X, which is less than the listed price. In return, you have then consideration (money), which was to the same value as the amount they requested. So the first three elements have been completed.

I'm assuming the OP is over the age of 18, and had no known mental capacity issues that could diminish their ability to make a contract. That would allow point 4 to be completed.

The terms are legal means that you can't enforce a contract to perform an illegal activity. I'm assuming there was deliberate attempt by either party to defraud the shop, or anybody else. As such, the test is passed.

Given these criteria, the OP entered a valid and legal binding contract to buy the phone for price X, which is less than the listed price, but which was agreed, accepted, and paid for.

Any attempt to charge a different amount, after the conclusion of the contract, is a breach of the contract. The OP then had the choice to resend the contract (and return the phone), getting his money back in the process, or effecting the original terms of the.contract (i.e. refund of any extra money taken).

I would contact the vendor/shop, and tell then to refund the extra money taken. If that didn't work, I would contact your bank, and ask for a chargeback. I might also contact the Gardai, and file a complaint of card fraud.

Jim2007

Clauric wrote: »

Given these criteria, the OP entered a valid and legal binding contract to buy the phone for price X, which is less than the listed price, but which was agreed, accepted, and paid for.

But he did not pay the agreed price, he was mistakenly undercharged and knew it. So by your logic the shop was entitled to charge the correctly agreed price.....

ohnonotgmail

Jim2007 wrote: »

But he did not pay the agreed price, he was mistakenly undercharged and knew it. So by your logic the shop was entitled to charge the correctly agreed price.....

well no he did pay the agreed price. he asked for a particular phone. the assistant told him it would be €X. he paid €X. that is offer and acceptance.

Clauric

Jim2007 wrote: »

But he did not pay the agreed price, he was mistakenly undercharged and knew it. So by your logic the shop was entitled to charge the correctly agreed price.....

He paid the agreed price. This was the price that the shop asked for, and which they received equal consideration. The listed price and the agreed price are very separate matters.

A shop and a customer can agree on a price different from the listed price, and that forms the new price. In this case, the OP was offered a different price than listed, by the shop, through their employee, and he agreed and paid for it. Contract competed, with no recourse over the price element of the deal, by either party.

levitronix

You do realize a receipt is a legal document, say they phone was on offer and i didnt know the price ! and got charged at he till the lower price , i would still be thinking i was under charged.

you cant charge a card again without consent, whats to stop these guys taking advantage of someone and charging their cards for their own use !

NEWS/LIBRARY NEWS

Irish shop workers are the worst shoplifters. Light-fingered retail staff are helping themselves to €167m in goods and cash a year, the worst rate in Europe, a global survey has found.

While Ireland ranked 11th out of 22 countries in Europe for shoplifting, it was worst for employee theft, according to the research by the UK’s Centre for Retail Research.

Its report surveyed 21 retailers in Ireland with a total of 358 stores, and estimates that all Irish shops lost €453m, or 1.38% of annual sales, from what the industry describes as “shrinkage” — stock losses from crime or waste expressed as a percentage of retail sales.

Employee theft accounted for 36.8% of shrinkage in Ireland, the highest rate in Europe. While retailers estimated that shoplifters were responsible for 40.6% of their losses and stole €183.9m worth of items, thefts by shop workers cost €166.7m. Across Europe, the average amount stolen by dishonest employees was 19.8 times higher than that snatched by shoplifters.

this a fact ! this happens in Ireland all to often.

if i had be given a call from the shop i may of consented to he charge, but i had to cancel my card, i cant trust the stop assistant with my details

NewCorkLad

OP stop trying to justify your complaint, you did not need to cancel your card the shop assistant has not stolen from you or conned you. If one shop has the ability to do this obviously all shops do, how could you possibly trust anywhere enough again to pay by card?

However I dont think they should have done what they did without your consent but all that has happened is you have been forced to pay what you planned to pay. I would leave it go, as all you will do is possibly get a minimum wage employee in trouble for a simple error to save yourself a few quid.

seamus

It's an interesting question though;

If you agree to purchase something at €100, but the shop accidentally charges you €90 and later takes the remaining €10 from your card, are they wrong?

I would suggest no, since you agreed to the price @ €100 and in effect authorised them to debit that amount from your card.

However, it would probably depend on the nature of what happened at the till. If the cashier asked for €90 and the terminal showed that you were authorising a €90 debit, then I suspect any additional debits were not authorised (the agreed cost was €90) and therefore not permitted.

levitronix

NewCorkLad wrote: »

OP stop trying to justify your complaint, you did not need to cancel your card the shop assistant has not stolen from you or conned you. If one shop has the ability to do this obviously all shops do, how could you possibly trust anywhere enough again to pay by card?

However I dont think they should have done what they did without your consent but all that has happened is you have been forced to pay what you planned to pay. I would leave it go, as all you will do is possibly get a minimum wage employee in trouble for a simple error to save yourself a few quid.

bank blocked the card because it was unauthorized and fraud dept are looking into it

Polo_Mint

OP.............

You like Golf.


You and I have arranged a game with a prize of €10k.

You mark my card and I mark yours.

You play the round shooting 67.

I shoot the round in 69 ( I know I did ) but you accidentally mark 66 and sign the card.

We go back to the clubhouse and you pick up the €10k........But no thats my €10k .

You see ..... I know I scored 69, You know I scored 69.......But you messed up the scorecard and I watched you do it.

But im not a dick.......... You won fair and square and I im decent so I give you the 10k . But I now know you are not the same.... You would fuck me over

ohnonotgmail

Polo_Mint wrote: »

OP.............

You like Golf.


You and I have arranged a game with a prize of €10k.

You mark my card and I mark yours.

You play the round shooting 67.

I shoot the round in 69 ( I know I did ) but you accidentally mark 66 and sign the card.

We go back to the clubhouse and you pick up the €10k........But no thats my €10k .

You see ..... I know I scored 69, You know I scored 69.......But you messed up the scorecard and I watched you do it.

But im not a dick.......... You won fair and square and I im decent. But I now know you are not the same

your analogy is so flawed i dont know where to begin

MadDog76

levitronix wrote: »

bank blocked the card because it was unauthorized and fraud dept are looking into it

So if the bank have blocked the card and are investigating the unauthorized transaction I assume the shop did break the law?

Farmer Pudsey

TBH this is all the stores fault. I see more and more fairy basic mistakes made by stores staff. Few stores are willing to hires all good staff. Most hire on price. They have people on minimum training rates etc so what do they expect. Few staff have much experience in these big multi-national run stores.

As one poster showed here the level of losses to staff is the highest in Europe. When you go into a lot of stores run by large companies the level of staff disinterest is huge.Most use computerised vending systems. It is hard to believe with a scanning system this mix up happened.

Recently went to pay an account in a co-op. It was a small amount 97 euro however I also decided to buy small items at same time. All 4 items were 13 euro each. As I want to pay it all in one cheque. Salesman was distracted and said 103 euro, I said no I think you are doing yourself. Salesman added 36 and 97 so I gave up and made cheque out for 133 euro as I just gave up. He had reciept for 39 euro for 3 items beside him.

The error here is the shops not the Op's They should not have debited his card without his premission.