cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

On 27-Feb-12 11:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
(Debit card transactions are _not_ removed immediately in the event of a
dispute, which is a significant difference.)

The debit has already occurred, so procedures with credit cards are
irrelevant. A chargeback by the clearinghouse to the merchant's account
isn't possible. The amount must be refunded.

Wrong. The dispute and chargeback procedures involving the issuing
bank, the card network, the card processor and the merchant are all
identical regardless of what class of payment card is used.

The _only_ difference is that the charge is not reversed in the
customer's account until _after_ the dispute is resolved, and that is
because US consumer protection laws do not apply to debit accounts, only
credit accounts.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

On 27-Feb-12 11:46, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:07:03 on Mon, 27 Feb
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
Note that failure of the consumer to pay their credit card bill does
_not_ result in a chargeback, contrary to Adam's ridiculous claims.

Indeed, as long as the failure to pay was "because I have no money",
rather than "because I dispute the charge".

When a customer disputes a credit card or charge card transaction, it is
removed from their bill until the matter is resolved, so it doesn't fit
the usual definition of "unpaid".

Nor is it "paid".

No. From the perspective of the customer's (credit) account, the
transaction simply ceases to exist until the dispute is resolved.

If the card company finds in favour of the consumer, I'm sure the
merchant doesn't get paid,

The merchant was _already_ paid, so if the dispute is resolved in favor
of the consumer _and_ the merchant is liable for the fraud, the
merchant's account is charged back.

whether the transaction was originally authorised or not.

Authorization is almost completely irrelevant to disputes of posted
transactions. At most, it'd be more difficult for the merchant to win a
dispute if they _didn't_ get authorization, but it's still entirely
possible.

(Authorizations themselves cannot be disputed, since no money actually
changes hands at that point and they expire within a few days anyway.)

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...


It would be a "referral" if they were instructed to do that by the card
company on a transaction by transaction basis. Would they really do all
that if you were buying was a $5 pack of AA batteries?

Likely to be below the merchant floor limit so not authorised online.

Richard

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 27-Feb-12 11:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:

(Debit card transactions are _not_ removed immediately in the event of a
dispute, which is a significant difference.)

The debit has already occurred, so procedures with credit cards are
irrelevant. A chargeback by the clearinghouse to the merchant's account
isn't possible. The amount must be refunded.

Wrong. The dispute and chargeback procedures involving the issuing
bank, the card network, the card processor and the merchant are all
identical regardless of what class of payment card is used.

You just made something up. I'm still calling it a refund, and not a
chargeback, to distinguish between the merchant receiving payment in
advance of when the cardholder pays his bill, and the merchant receiving
money from the cardholder's bank account. So the refund must come from
the merchant's bank account, not by applying to future receipts he anticipates
from credit transactions.

It's somewhat comparable to what happens when a check is processed for
the wrong amount.

The _only_ difference is that the charge is not reversed in the
customer's account until _after_ the dispute is resolved, and that is
because US consumer protection laws do not apply to debit accounts, only
credit accounts.

As I stated in the bit you snipped, there is some consumer protection for
debit card use, but it's not as good as what's available when using a
credit card, so you don't know what you are talking about.

You're still wrong about why the reversal doesn't occur immediately:
Again, it's because the merchant receive monies directly from the purchaser.
The merchant's bank account has some protection, too: Can't just be
debited by third parties.

In credit card transactions, the merchant has received payment on credit,
not directly from the purchaser. That's why it's different.

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

Roland Perry wrote:
at 10:07:03 on Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:

Note that failure of the consumer to pay their credit card bill does
_not_ result in a chargeback, contrary to Adam's ridiculous claims.

Indeed, as long as the failure to pay was "because I have no money",
rather than "because I dispute the charge".

When a customer disputes a credit card or charge card transaction, it is
removed from their bill until the matter is resolved, so it doesn't fit
the usual definition of "unpaid".

Nor is it "paid". If the card company finds in favour of the consumer,
I'm sure the merchant doesn't get paid, whether the transaction was
originally authorised or not.

If authorized, the merchant is paid if the dispute is due to third party
fraud. This is why they go through the authorization step, and don't just
submit credit slips for unauthorized transactions that don't require
purchase of very expensive cash register terminals. If the merchant is
at fault, say for services not rendered, he's not paid. He can still go
after the consumer directly, but not through his credit card.

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 27-Feb-12 11:46, Roland Perry wrote:
Stephen Sprunk remarked:

Note that failure of the consumer to pay their credit card bill does
_not_ result in a chargeback, contrary to Adam's ridiculous claims.

Indeed, as long as the failure to pay was "because I have no money",
rather than "because I dispute the charge".

When a customer disputes a credit card or charge card transaction, it is
removed from their bill until the matter is resolved, so it doesn't fit
the usual definition of "unpaid".

Nor is it "paid".

No. From the perspective of the customer's (credit) account, the
transaction simply ceases to exist until the dispute is resolved.

If the card company finds in favour of the consumer, I'm sure the
merchant doesn't get paid,

The merchant was _already_ paid, so if the dispute is resolved in favor
of the consumer _and_ the merchant is liable for the fraud, the
merchant's account is charged back.

whether the transaction was originally authorised or not.

Authorization is almost completely irrelevant to disputes of posted
transactions.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Authorization is what's required so the merchant
is paid even though a third party used the cardholder's credit fraudulently.

At most, it'd be more difficult for the merchant to win a dispute if
they _didn't_ get authorization, but it's still entirely possible.

It's not relevant if the dispute is between the two parties, and third
party fraud isn't alleged.

(Authorizations themselves cannot be disputed, since no money actually
changes hands at that point and they expire within a few days anyway.)

They should expire upon the transaction being posted to the cardholder's
account, either overnight or possibly the second night. No, they don't
always.

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

On Feb 27, 12:50*am, spsffan wrote:

We were one of the few, even 30 years ago! that didn't make people pay
(or present a valid form of payment) first. This was in Los Angeles
(well, technically, Santa Monica), but the practice of making customers
pay first was pretty common at gas stations here even 30 years ago.

It depended on the area In nicer areas or in cities with nicer people
one would pay after fillup. For instance, years ago in downtown
Chicago I paid afterwards while in Phila at the same time it was cash
up front.



I had a gun pointed at my head one night and quit shortly thereafter,
since I was off to college out of town anyway.

Late night gasoline station clerks have that happen often. Late night
clerking overall are considered a hazardous job due to holdups.

In Camden, NJ, along the main highway, there are frequent stories
about holdup deaths.

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message ...

:
Wrong. The dispute and chargeback procedures involving the issuing
bank, the card network, the card processor and the merchant are all
identical regardless of what class of payment card is used.

Possibly a simplification - A dispute may not result in a chargeback, e.g. I
contact my card issuer and dispute a £12 transaction. As this transaction is
below the Visa/MCI chargeback limit my Issuer swallows the charge. (This
assumes Issuer and Acquirer are not the same).

Richard

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

On Feb 27, 11:19*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

US industry objects to pretty much anything that costs them money (eg.
new terminals) in the short run, even if it will quite obviously benefit
them in the long run.

Curious. My local convenience store, over the decades, has upgraded
its cash registers many times. When I started shopping there it was a
classic Monroe-Sweda electro-mechanical cash register*. Then, various
generations of electronic cash registers, eventually laser scanning of
products, and credit card and gift card acceptance with a customer
keypad; this includes the "Blink" touch-card option.

Also, although the store seemed in fine physical shape to me,
periodically it is closed for about a week, the interior gutted, and
it is completely redone.

One contrast between stores in 'good' and 'bad' neighborhoods is that
good stores get frequent upgrades. Bad stores aren't changed over the
decades, only with years worth of wear, such as plywood where linoleum
flooring should be, pieces of the checkout counter taped with duct
tape, etc.





*There was a Chinese restaurant that until recently had a beat up
1970s NCR electro-mechanical cash register. The cashier used a hand
calculator to add up the check, and only entered the total into the
register (she could've used the register to add up). The register is
now gone (I think new owners took over.)

The dining room in a Sheraton Hotel had the same arrangement. They
had a big silver NCR register.

I think simple electronic registers may be had for just a few hundred
bucks, the old NCR units cost a lot more, plus they needed
maintenance.

Entering amounts on those columninar keypads was slow compared to a
"10-key" numeric pad on a modern register (let alone scanning).

cards, was E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

On 27-Feb-12 16:31, R J Cardy wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message ...
Wrong. The dispute and chargeback procedures involving the issuing
bank, the card network, the card processor and the merchant are all
identical regardless of what class of payment card is used.

Possibly a simplification - A dispute may not result in a chargeback,
e.g. I contact my card issuer and dispute a £12 transaction. As this
transaction is below the Visa/MCI chargeback limit my Issuer swallows
the charge. (This assumes Issuer and Acquirer are not the same).

In the US, the customer is responsible for the first USD50 of each
fraudulent transaction, though some issuing banks _choose_ to refund
that as well. That's where merchants' "floor" of USD50 comes from: they
will get that much even from fraudulent transactions, as long as they're
not determined to be complicit in the fraud. If they are, their
processor will indeed charge them back.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking