Minimum spend of €10 in order to use debit card @ The Academy?

L1011

I'm doubling down because I'm right and you are giving misinformation to consumers and indeed other retailers who may think you're right. If retailers knew the law we wouldn't need this forum.

You are wrong in your interpretation of a when a debt is generated. Taking items to the counter in a shop does not generate a debt. It could be argued for fuel in a car - suspect that unless taken off the premises it doesn't - but I am not talking about specific situations. I'm generally generally with your idea that a shop must accept cash, which is completely and utterly wrong.

You admitted your information came from a schoolbook however many years ago. Even then, it wasn't right - it wasn't right when legal tender was redefined for the Punt in 1927 and it wasn't right when we used Sterling.

It is completely irrelevant to this topic anyway. If you wish to continue arguing I'll willingly follow you to a thread somewhere more relevant - Legal Discussion most likely.

Sleeper12

Dark Rabbit wrote:

That's if all of the cash is lodged. I was at a barber shop with my son recently (I'm completely bald 15 years). There were 3 barbers, a receptionist and the waiting room was packed but cash only and no receipt offered. I couldn't help but wonder if all the cash is declared for Paschal.

Business don't have to accept accept cheques, cards, PayPal, bitcoin etc.

Believe it or not there is no legal requirement for a business to provide a receipt. I've never understood this. Forcing businesses to issue receipts makes it harder to avoid tax. It should be compulsory.

We'll never know if all the cash is declared in the barber shop you described

Eric Cartman

people trying to buy one drink on a card are ruining pubs in dublin, usually you can get cashback. I hate drinking in pubs that will take a card for one drink, it lhalves the speed of the bar service while some drunk young wan forgets her pin or has to try 3 cards to not get declined.

Pubs with ATM's or ones that have limits and then say 'but i can do cashback' are the best way to go.

Johnny Red Cab

There is also no obligation to give change.

Sleeper12

L1011 wrote:

You are wrong in your interpretation of a when a debt is generated. Taking items to the counter in a shop does not generate a debt. It could be argued for fuel in a car - suspect that unless taken off the premises it doesn't - but I am not talking about specific situations. I'm generally generally with your idea that a shop must accept cash, which is completely and utterly wrong.

I quoted a poster who put fuel in his car. This poster was in debt the the filling station. This is fact. The poster wanted to be a smart ass regarding paying by card. I pointed out that the card wasn't legal tender but cash was. In this situation I was 100 percent correct in my statement. The poster was in debt to the filling station and legal tender definitely governs this transaction. You incorrectly pulled me up on it. I have posted quotes & links proving my point. You still insist I'm wrong yet haven't posted a single link to back up your claim.


Can you explain how you can take possession of goods & not be in debt until you pay for the goods? This is what debt is. I have to tell you, it doesn't make much sense.

L1011

I didn't "incorrectly" pull you up on anything. You posted, and further repeatedly reposted an inaccurate concept of legal tender which it thankfully appears you have now dropped; and are instead arguing about the scope of posts instead.

Shops do not have to take cash - end of story. I'm not sure what you thought you were arguing about as that was all that was ever in question once you queried me pointing out that you had the wrong concept of it

If you still believe shops are required to take cash, we can start a separate thread as it is completely off-topic here.

ED E

In summary Sleeper works in a centra and thinks he knows this like the back of his hand. And is completely wrong.

Sleeper12

L1011 wrote:

Shops do not have to take cash - end of story. I'm not sure what you thought you were arguing about as that was all that was ever in question

Hang on. Stop trying to wiggle out of this. You said I was wrong when I told the poster, who was in debt to the filling station that his card wasn't legal tender but that cash was.

You still can't explain how poster has 5 euros worth of fuel in their & not being in debt to the filling station.

Instead of just blindly saying that I am wrong can you please explain how the debt for the fuel isn't a debt & isn't covered by legal tender law.

I have provided links & quotes from the EU website and you blindly say I'm wrong. Can you even explain how in the case of the filling station that the motorist isn't in debt to the filling station or doesn't have a debt to the filling station.

If he wasn't in debt why did the poster pay anything at all?

Sleeper12

ED E wrote:

In summary Sleeper works in a centra and thinks he knows this like the back of his hand. And is completely wrong.

Link??? Anything at all that states that the debt covered by legal tender has to be long term debt.

If I'm completely wrong please prove me wrong.
I have posted links explaining legal tender. No one seems to be able to find a link explaining how short term debt isn't debt.
Care to explain how putting fuel in you car does not create a debt?

L1011

I said that you were misusing the definition of legal tender, by talking about cash legal tender and shop - read your exact post again and see what words you used. And when you "doubled down" as you may call it you just further proved that your concept of it was wrong.

I'm not going to reply to you on this thread again on this topic - it is completely off-topic and pointless.

Sleeper12

L1011 wrote:

I'm not going to reply to you on this thread again on this topic - it is completely off-topic and pointless.

If it is off topic its not me that brought it off topic.

Not a single link?

You still haven't explained how the poster wasn't in debt to the filling station owner after putting fuel in his car?

dudara

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If it is off topic its not me that brought it off topic.

Not a single link?

You still haven't explained how the poster wasn't in debt to the filling station owner after putting fuel in his car?

Reading back, the problem looks like your definition of legal tender didn't seem right. No one is disputing there isn't a debt.

Sleeper12

I linked the case of the filling station stating that the card wasn't legal tender but cash was. This was fact & is still fact. If there is a debt then it clearly is covered by legal tender law.

I have posted comments & links from the EU website explaining broadly what legal tender is. The finer details differ from country to country. It gives reasons why legal tender might not apply but none of the reasons given come anywhere close to covering the poster that I quoted with fuel in his car. The closest thing would be in the filling station had no change. This is a valid reason.

Edit: my definition is the EU definition. I posted this to clear thing up but it seems to have made things worse.

Sleeper12

OP I don't think you got any advice after all these pages. Your contract is with the pub as far as the sale is concerned. They get to make their own rules on minimum sale. They didn't break any contract with you nor did they make any false promises to you.I'f you want to change things write a letter to owners explaining your position on this. Th

If Mastercard or Visa or your bank promise you no minimum spend in your contract then this is the contract at fault & these are the ones to be chasing.

I do find it amusing that everyone giving out are giving out about the wrong party is this.

There is a third contract in this. The contract between the merchant account provider & the pub. This contract has nothing to do with you or I & we have no control over it.

In short you can appeal to the pub to change their practice or you can complain to your provider who seems to be making false claims. Well actually maybe they aren't. I don't believe it's in my card contracts that there won't be minimum spends when I use my cards

mrcheez

I've contacted The Academy about it, and waiting for a response.

Their suggestion was "you can get cashback and use that to pay for drinks instead" ... kind of defeats the purpose of using NFC

mdebets

dudara wrote: »

Reading back, the problem looks like your definition of legal tender didn't seem right. No one is disputing there isn't a debt.

No, I think his definition of legal tender (to be used in case of debt) is right, it's just that in a normal retail transaction, no debt is created.
Normally, you go to a shop and see a product on the shelve, marked for 10 Euro, so the retailer is inviting you to offer him 10 Euros for the product.
You then put the product into a basket and go to the check out (product is still owned by the shop). You give the check-out person 10 Euro as an offer for the product and he accepts it and the product becomes legally yours. So no debt was created in the whole transaction. The only diversion from this would be restaurants, where you eat the product first and pay later, so a debt was created.
You could argue at the petrol station that mixing the product that is legally owned by the petrol station (i.e. the petrol you are buying) with the product you legally own (i.e. the patrol that was in your car when you arrived at the petrol station) is a sort of consumption, but you would be able to get the equivalent of the amount of petrol you put into your car out of it again, so again no debt is created.

Sleeper12

mdebets wrote:

No, I think his definition of legal tender (to be used in case of debt) is right, it's just that in a normal retail transaction, no debt is created. Normally, you go to a shop and see a product on the shelve, marked for 10 Euro, so the retailer is inviting you to offer him 10 Euros for the product. You then put the product into a basket and go to the check out (product is still owned by the shop). You give the check-out person 10 Euro as an offer for the product and he accepts it and the product becomes legally yours. So no debt was created in the whole transaction. The only diversion from this would be restaurants, where you eat the product first and pay later, so a debt was created. You could argue at the petrol station that mixing the product that is legally owned by the petrol station (i.e. the petrol you are buying) with the product you legally own (i.e. the patrol that was in your car when you arrived at the petrol station) is a sort of consumption, but you would be able to get the equivalent of the amount of petrol you put into your car out of it again, so again no debt is created.

There is a whole list of things that can create a debt. Taxi journeys, haircuts, doctors visits & just about any service you can imagine from beauty treatments to appliance repair. It's a misconception that the debt can't be a short term /almost instantaneous for legal tender to apply.

Having said all that I doubt many, if any, people try to force legal tender.

mdebets

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There is a whole list of things that can create a debt. Taxi journeys, haircuts, doctors visits & just about any service you can imagine from beauty treatments to appliance repair. It's a misconception that the debt can't be a short term /almost instantaneous for legal tender to apply.

Having said all that I doubt many, if any, people try to force legal tender.

Yes, services normally create a debt, but the whole thread was about retail transactions and they normally don't create a debt.

Sleeper12

mdebets wrote:

Yes, services normally create a debt, but the whole thread was about retail transactions and they normally don't create a debt.

But quite often they do as pointed out already eg filling stations, restaurants, cafes, hair salons, taxis. The average person finds themselves in a retail transactions governed by legal tender at least once per week. Some as often as almost every day.

wassie

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The poster wanted to be a smart ass regarding paying by card.

I fail to see how that makes them a smart ass.

Unless there was a sign at the pump clearly stating this fact before the purchase was made, I think its entirely reasonable to assume a fuel station will take a card payment with no minimum spend. €7 is not an unreasonably small amount.

My experience is that one only becomes aware of a retailers minimum transaction policy when they are actually attempting payment via a small sign located within the vicinity of the cashiers machine.

When faced with this I've often suggested to the cashier that they simply charge me the €10 and give me back the difference between the purchase price in change from the till. Only been refused once and didnt make a bother - just left the shop!

Sleeper12

wassie wrote:

I fail to see how that makes them a smart ass.

Why would you assume that there isn't a minimum spend? It's not unheard of & was the norm up until not too long ago.

I know most places don't have a minimum spend but I also know that some do. I wouldn't be shocked to get to the cash register to find minimum spend anywhere. There's even a minimum amount of fuel that most filling stations sell.

the heathen

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why would you assume that there isn't a minimum spend? It's not unheard of & was the norm up until not too long ago.

I know most places don't have a minimum spend but I also know that some do. I wouldn't be shocked to get to the cash register to find minimum spend anywhere. There's even a minimum amount of fuel that most filling stations sell.

Well you're a minority. I only know of one place that I frequent regularly and I'm a constant card-user. Your experience isn't everyone else's.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why would you assume that there isn't a minimum spend? It's not unheard of & was the norm up until not too long ago.

I know most places don't have a minimum spend but I also know that some do. I wouldn't be shocked to get to the cash register to find minimum spend anywhere. There's even a minimum amount of fuel that most filling stations sell.

Never have I encountered anywhere with a minimum spend requirement on a card.

Sleeper12

Karina Quiet Rationalism wrote:

Never have I encountered anywhere with a minimum spend requirement on a card.

I don't mean this as a put down but you are obviously very young.

Believe it or not tapping is only out a few years now. Chip & pin is still "new" technology in many countries. Only 4 or 5 years ago it was common place to have minimum spend in filling stations and spar shops. Some retailers charged extra for you to use your card.
Using your card in a pub is a fairly new idea too

Some retailers haven't caught up or kept up with the fast moving technology. I remember when we got chip & pin. There were still retailers using the swipe or believe it or not the mechanical machine that swiped your card and you got a carbon copy of the in print of the card itself.

Ireland had chip and pin years before they had it in the US.

You need to accept that some retailers are slower adopting newer technologies.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't mean this as a put down but you are obviously very young.

Believe it or not tapping is only out a few years now. Chip & pin is still "new" technology in many countries. Only 4 or 5 years ago it was common place to have minimum spend in filling stations and spar shops. Some retailers charged extra for you to use your card.
Using your card in a pub is a fairly new idea too

Some retailers haven't caught up or kept up with the fast moving technology. I remember when we got chip & pin. There were still retailers using the swipe or believe it or not the mechanical machine that swiped your card and you got a carbon copy of the in print of the card itself.

Ireland had chip and pin years before they had it in the US.

You need to accept that some retailers are slower adopting newer technologies.

:D I'm 75 tomorrow and, I suspect, have been using various iterations of payment cards longer than yourself.
My point stands; I have never come across an establishment with minimum spend restrictions on card payments.

Sleeper12

Karina Quiet Rationalism wrote: »

:D I'm 75 tomorrow and, I suspect, have been using various iterations of payment cards longer than yourself.
My point stands; I have never come across an establishment with minimum spend restrictions on card payments.

Well we know that's not true based on your comments

Purple Mountain

Karina Quiet Rationalism wrote: »

:D I'm 75 tomorrow and, I suspect, have been using various iterations of payment cards longer than yourself.
My point stands; I have never come across an establishment with minimum spend restrictions on card payments.

Happy Birthday you auld goose!!!!!!

the heathen

Sleeper12 wrote:

I don't mean this as a put down but you are obviously very young.

Karina Quiet Rationalism wrote:

I'm 75 tomorrow

Magnificent.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Well we know that's not true based on your comments

Absolute gospel

Sleeper12

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/contactless-payments-introduced-1.879579

A pretty new technology first introduced in Ireland late 2011 by Bank Of Ireland

https://www.thejournal.ie/contactless-payments-visa-debit-ireland-967461-Jun2013/

In the first few years of contactless payments minimum spend was very common

https://www.boards.ie/ttfthread/2057515224

Sleeper12

Karina Quiet Rationalism wrote: »

Absolute gospel

Ah no offense intended. I just think some younger posters are expecting change to happen too quickly. Some retailers are slower to adopt than others.



I wouldn't be shocked or surprised to see minimum spend anywhere for the next few years tbh

wassie

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't mean this as a put down but you are obviously very young.

Believe it or not tapping is only out a few years now....

I think your missing the point. This isn't thread isn't a discussion on the history of EFT point of sale practices by merchants, the OP was asking if this (minimum spend) is a common practice, or even legal?

Anecdotally it would seem that the consensus is no it isn't common. Legal - definitely. Against the merchant's card payment service provider's T&Cs - depends.

Sleeper12

wassie wrote:

I think your missing the point. This isn't thread isn't a discussion on the history of EFT point of sale practices by merchants, the OP was asking if this (minimum spend) is a common practice, or even legal?

I've never had so many posters tell me what the thread is or isn't before.

I'm not sticking up for minimum spend. It's definitely not illegal and its still reasonably common. I'm genuinely surprised at the outrage on the issue & I'm just pointing out that it's still a new technology to some retailers (many still don't have contactless at all) & maybe there is an overreaction here to what is really a minor inconvenience.

Lots of posters seem to have done away with cash altogether & I'm delighted for them but it will take a few more years to drag some people & retailers with them.

I see lots of anger against the retailer who made no promises but no anger against visa and mastercard who seem to have sold the false hope of no minimum spend time.

A sign on the door saying that we accept cards does not guarantee that they will accept your card or that there will be no minimum charge.

A welcome sign or any sign inviting you into a bar or nightclub doesn't guarantee that you will be let in.

corcaigh07

Some light reading here: https://www.aibms.com/help/risk-compliance/payment-services-directive-psd2/

In a nutshell, retailers are not permitted to charge more for card than they would for cash.

Don’t believe there is legislation to prevent minimum spend but it is certainly frowned upon by acquirers and Visa/MasterCard.

TCM

steo_magra wrote:

A particular pub in Blanchardstown has a 30 euro minimum spend. So obviously they don’t like contactless but this has to be illegal! It boils my blood as it’s expensive enough as it is. Paid less in a hotel for a bottle of wine at the weekend.

Name please?

TCM

redcup342 wrote:

Just ask if you can pay by card first then they can tell you if there is a minimum spend and go elsewhere.

He was perfectly correct in walking out. If your in buisiness the facilitate the customers not screw them.

redcup342

thereality wrote: »

It takes about €30 of spending to make a pin be required. A contactless payment is quicker than cash

It's 30 euros per transaction, you get a certain amount of taps, in my experience it seems to be 3 or 4 (so 3 or 4 drinks, less if they used the car elsewhere before hand)

I have never seen this at all. I worked in a shop and one year working at the till I had once had someone checking their online balance in front of me.

I have, a number of times, persons card has been tapped, bartender says they have to enter card and pin as they've tapped too many times, person thinks they'll end up paying twice and refuse, bartender says they cannot give them their drink.

Person goes off checking the banking app in front of the barman wasting everyones time.

Do you realise that the minimum spend does not address any of these issues? In fact having no minimum spend results in zero complications.

It fixes the issue because rounds are fine since it'll have the occurrences of having to enter a pin.

What should the guy have done? Went looking for an ATM, spend time going to it, queue at the ATM and then pay for semi-warm drink sitting on a counter for 5- 20mins?

Bring cash and have enough to cover you before you order something, what if the machine is broken for instance ? Or your banks system is down and cannot authorise the transaction ?

Do shops take shoplifting out of employees wages?

No, but people that are working in bars and restaurants and have customers that walk off can and do get it docked from their wages.

In 2019, paying by card should be as easy as cash. Most shops are required to have zero minimum spend. Why should customers have to clarify, if a store is breaking the terms of merchant card services?

Fine then I'll walk into a car dealership and demand they let me pay for my car with my Mastercard, it's legal tender they have to take it :rolleyes:

doublej

corcaigh07 wrote: »

Some light reading here: https://www.aibms.com/help/risk-compliance/payment-services-directive-psd2/

In a nutshell, retailers are not permitted to charge more for card than they would for cash.

Don’t believe there is legislation to prevent minimum spend but it is certainly frowned upon by acquirers and Visa/MasterCard.

The discussion, though it has veered off topic on many occasions was about minimum spend.PSD2 outlawed the practice of surcharging personal debit and credit card transactions but made no reference whatsoever to Minimum spend.

Your credit/ debit card provider has NOT guaranteed to you that you will not have a minimum purchase applied by a merchant.

Your contract for purchase is with the service provider( shop/cafe etc), if they wish to impose rules regarding the acceptance of any payment type( including high denomination notes), that is their business decision.
It may be foolish, shortsighted, old fashioned, anti consumer etc , but it’s their call.
Incidentally, anyone that, knowing there to be a minimum spend policy in place fills a can of fuel, or orders a drink or food and then attempts to force the employee to put through the sale at the lower price is a total dick.

swampy353

doublej wrote: »

The discussion, though it has veered off topic on many occasions was about minimum spend.PSD2 outlawed the practice of surcharging personal debit and credit card transactions but made no reference whatsoever to Minimum spend.

Your credit/ debit card provider has NOT guaranteed to you that you will not have a minimum purchase applied by a merchant.

Your contract for purchase is with the service provider( shop/cafe etc), if they wish to impose rules regarding the acceptance of any payment type( including high denomination notes), that is their business decision.
It may be foolish, shortsighted, old fashioned, anti consumer etc , but it’s their call.
Incidentally, anyone that, knowing there to be a minimum spend policy in place fills a can of fuel, or orders a drink or food and then attempts to force the employee to put through the sale at the lower price is a total dick.

It doesn't change the fact that as part of the aibms t&c's the retailer signs up to says that they cannot put a limit the transaction value for cards (minimum or maximum)

I agree with you if someone goes into the shop knowing there is a minimum spend on card, that is a dick move but retailers don't advertise the fact they have a minimum spend. Only comes to light when someone is trying to pay for something in good faith.

The government can specify max contactless transactions, they should legislate for this issue too

doublej

swampy353 wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that as part of the aibms t&c's the retailer signs up to says that they cannot put a limit the transaction value for cards (minimum or maximum)

I agree with you if someone goes into the shop knowing there is a minimum spend on card, that is a dick move but retailers don't advertise the fact they have a minimum spend. Only comes to light when someone is trying to pay for something in good faith.

The government can specify max contactless transactions, they should legislate for this issue too

The Government have no function in setting or limiting the minimum/maximum contactless amount, currently €30.
Michael Noonan, in a Budget Day speech managed to weave an announcement of an Industry decision to raise the €15 max to €30 max as part of an enforced reduction of Interagency fees, PSD2 related.
Similarly, the decision by the Plastic Card Industry (PCI) to increase the fees charged to businesses for processing contactless cards were not required to be authorised or approved by either the Central Bank or the Financial Services Regulator.
I’m not looking for extra Govt interference, just pointing out the facts

sydthebeat

Go to Iceland if you want to see how a true cashless society could work.... It's fantastic.

Even the coffee docks at the most remote waterfalls have contactless payments.
All taxi drivers can take tap and go.... It's brilliant.

wassie

The Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden have effectively becoming cashless societies also. Convenient yes but there will (for myself) always be a need for cash such as those rare times the card networks do go down. I also like the anonymity of cash still.......

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Go to Iceland if you want to see how a true cashless society could work.... It's fantastic.

Even the coffee docks at the most remote waterfalls have contactless payments.
All taxi drivers can take tap and go.... It's brilliant.

Is that you Kerry Ketona?

sydthebeat

Dav010 wrote: »

Is that you Kerry Ketona?

That's a very weird comment?

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

That's a very weird comment?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SYk44n7M3hQ

sydthebeat

Dav010 wrote: »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SYk44n7M3hQ

2/10

Must do better

L1011

Can people reign in:

1: The quips - this isn't AH
2: The americanised, crude language

Thanks

MrMusician18

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You're really doubling down on this?

My What you are missing is that everytime you buy something you have a debt. You owe for the goods or services. A debt isn't something that has to be owed for a period of time. A debt & payment of the debt can take place, in seconds at the cash register at your local filling station. A debt can be paid immediately or the retailer can offer credit terms. Either way it is a debt.

If I repair your shower, walk down the stairs and have you a COD invoice, how do you describe you & I at that moment in time. You are in debt to me. Right there & then. It's the exact same in a filling station. You put 5 euros of fuel in the car & you owe 5 euros at the cash desk. Owing money is called? Anybody? Anybody? That's right. It's called a debt.

Trust me when I tell you this, I am not wrong about this. Like I said a good retailer knows the laws governing his business.

You are wrong. The concept of legal tender only applies to debt. Retail purchases to not create a debt, it's usually an exchange.

Sleeper12

MrMusician18 wrote:

You are wrong. The concept of legal tender only applies to debt. Retail purchases to not create a debt, it's usually an exchange.

Have you even read the thread??

It has already been established that putting fuel in your car creates a debt. So does me installing a shower. Getting your hair cut, getting a lift in a taxi, eating in a restaurant, using a beauty salon all create debts and legal tender applies. Anything where you consume the product before paying is a debt.

Buying a Mars bar at the till does not create debt. If you take a bite out of the Mars bar then you have created debt.

I thought this was put to bed a week ago.

RFOLEY1990

seen a minimum amount of say €10 to get cash back in lot of places

usually it's under an amount (€5 in my local shop) they charge €0.30c extra