Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Visa logo on Debit Card
8 Answers
When a bank Debit Card (for a current account) has the VISA logo on it, are you covered for problems with purchases over �100 just as if you've paid with a Credit Card???
Anyone out there who works in a bank?
Anyone out there who works in a bank?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Pan1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You don't gain the same protection when using a debit card (irrespective of whether it carries a Visa logo, or similar) because Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 only applies to credit agreements, and not to debit purchases. It's that legislation (rather than any beneficence from Visa) which gives you protection when making credit card purchases (of between �100 and �30,000 in value).
Chris
Chris
Depending on the "problem" you may be able to claim a Visa Debit chargeback, a procedure which forms part of the Visa Scheme Rules that banks subscribe to when offering Visa cards. You need to confer with the issuing bank to see if you meet the criteria.
http://www.which.co.uk/advice/your-rights-when -paying-by-credit-card/chargeback-on-credit-an d-visa-debit-cards/index.jsp
http://www.which.co.uk/advice/your-rights-when -paying-by-credit-card/chargeback-on-credit-an d-visa-debit-cards/index.jsp
Thanks Kempie.
Problem is on my father-in-law's account. Holiday scam company have taken money without his authorisation and bank are washing their hands of it, saying he received the services he 'paid' for (a glossy folder about some hotels and resorts).
They're just not taking on board the fact that they had his account details already (but not the security code number on the back of his debit card) and he did not authorise the transaction.
Bank Fraud dept and DD Disputes team were contacted but both say he's not entitled to have the money reinstated to his account.
I don't understand the reason for the 3-digit security code on the back of the card if unscrupulous retailers can obtain cash just by using the 16-digit number across the front?
Problem is on my father-in-law's account. Holiday scam company have taken money without his authorisation and bank are washing their hands of it, saying he received the services he 'paid' for (a glossy folder about some hotels and resorts).
They're just not taking on board the fact that they had his account details already (but not the security code number on the back of his debit card) and he did not authorise the transaction.
Bank Fraud dept and DD Disputes team were contacted but both say he's not entitled to have the money reinstated to his account.
I don't understand the reason for the 3-digit security code on the back of the card if unscrupulous retailers can obtain cash just by using the 16-digit number across the front?
One of the primary functions of chargeback is to counter unauthorised transactions. In response to a report of an unauthorised payment the issuing bank is meant to start an investigation to the merits of the dispute and if warranted reclaim the disputed payment from the merchant acquirer (the retailer's bank). Proving the transaction is unauthorised may be difficult and if supporting evidence is limited or non-existent the investigation could end as soon as it begins. Upon conclusion of the investigation the payment may be returned to the merchant acquirer if deemed appropriate.
Is it the case that the bank have investigated (however briefly) and determined that no fraud occured (or can be proved) or, as it sounds in your description of events, they have refused to initiate an investigation? Many bank staff are woefully unaware of the existence of the Visa Scheme but for the bank to summarily dismiss this possible fraud would be a breach of the Scheme rules. If you have evidence to support the fraud claim I would suggest perseverence in climbing up the bank's chain-of-command.
As to the security code on the back of the card (CVV2 or Card Verification Value 2 in Visa-speak) this is not for the benefit of the cardholder but rather for that of the merchant. It enables merchants during card-not-present transactions to reasonably ensure that the customer is in possession of a legitimate card at the time of the order.
Is it the case that the bank have investigated (however briefly) and determined that no fraud occured (or can be proved) or, as it sounds in your description of events, they have refused to initiate an investigation? Many bank staff are woefully unaware of the existence of the Visa Scheme but for the bank to summarily dismiss this possible fraud would be a breach of the Scheme rules. If you have evidence to support the fraud claim I would suggest perseverence in climbing up the bank's chain-of-command.
As to the security code on the back of the card (CVV2 or Card Verification Value 2 in Visa-speak) this is not for the benefit of the cardholder but rather for that of the merchant. It enables merchants during card-not-present transactions to reasonably ensure that the customer is in possession of a legitimate card at the time of the order.
Just on the off chance that it applies, A little known (and very true) fact:
If the unauthorised amount was taken from your fathers account when it it was overdrawn, or even caused it to be overdrawn, then the Section 75 of Consumer Credit Act protection will apply, just the same as a credit card. This is because the money used to pay for the item is borrowed from the bank in an overdraft.
If the unauthorised amount was taken from your fathers account when it it was overdrawn, or even caused it to be overdrawn, then the Section 75 of Consumer Credit Act protection will apply, just the same as a credit card. This is because the money used to pay for the item is borrowed from the bank in an overdraft.
Kira
- Unfortunately, the payment of �395 taken by the scammers didn't put him into overdraft. Would never have thought of that though - thanks.
Kempie
- Apparently the investigation took around 3 weeks (that's because it's a scam and they don't like returning phone calls or emails - been there and done that!).
However, subsequent digging on the 'net has revealed a couple of forums chock full of people in the same position with some, like my father in law, also being told their account details by the scammer! Where they got them, who knows?
Also came across a media statement issued by the Attorney General in Canberra, Australia, warning the public of this scam.
I've printed off all this evidence to send to the bank and was hoping this might just persuade them to have another look at the situation.
Any other advice would be greatly appreciated.
- Unfortunately, the payment of �395 taken by the scammers didn't put him into overdraft. Would never have thought of that though - thanks.
Kempie
- Apparently the investigation took around 3 weeks (that's because it's a scam and they don't like returning phone calls or emails - been there and done that!).
However, subsequent digging on the 'net has revealed a couple of forums chock full of people in the same position with some, like my father in law, also being told their account details by the scammer! Where they got them, who knows?
Also came across a media statement issued by the Attorney General in Canberra, Australia, warning the public of this scam.
I've printed off all this evidence to send to the bank and was hoping this might just persuade them to have another look at the situation.
Any other advice would be greatly appreciated.
1 to 8 of 8
