[LINK] Card Cancellation as a Condition of Statement-Entry Enquiry

[Scott Howard]

This is standard best practice in the industry.

You are claiming that the charge is unknown, which in today's world
basically means fraudulent. It will take up to a month or more for the
process to complete to decide if it really is legitimate, but in that time
the presumption is that someone else has your details, and given they have
used them once it's likely they will use it again.

Canceling the card and issuing a new number will stop any future charges
occurring.  If banks didn't do this then the merchant for any future
fraudulent charges (who would normally be the ones carrying the liability)
would have a very solid claim that either the bank or you didn't take
suitable precautions to protect the card, and thus you or the bank are
liable for any future charges.

  Scott



On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 2:26 AM Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au>
wrote:

> Has anyone encountered this before?  On the odd occasions I've queried a
> statement-entry (as often resulting in dispute-and-refund as not), I've
> faced the prospect of a fee, but not card cancellation.
>
>
> My WhichBank Visa account statement shows:
> 01 Sep     Telstra Melbourne       $150
>
> I've not used Telstra for anything for a couple of years now, could
> (initially) find no documentation, and can find no email-traffic.  And
> it's my company card, so my 'paperwork' is pretty reliable.
>
> The IVR process was actually pretty good, and only c.10 mins.
> (That's sufficiently unusual to be worth recording!).
>
> At first 'Michael' said he could see no other information.
>
> During the conversation, he accidentally mentioned that it was a 'card
> not present' transaction.
>
> I could have pressured him more, but as far as I could tell that means
> either phone or Internet (or he doesn't know either).
>
> The killer was 'I can put a dispute through.  We'll cancel your card'.
>
> Probing didn't unlock any fallback position available to him.
>
> For example, the propositions that (a) the possibly valid, possibly
> fraudulent transaction occurred precisely 1 month ago, and (b) every
> fraudster knows to extract what they can before the boom lowers, rather
> than sitting back for a month.  I could have added (c) any fraudster
> knows that it's less obvious if you use a little-known name rather than
> a major brand as your cover-story.
>
> He offered to record the complaint.  (He may have had to deal with more
> astonished callers than just me).
>
>
> Can anyone see anything other than security theatre (and consumer
> hostility) in such a policy?
>
>
> P.S.  After due consideration, I remembered a telecomms-related
> transaction.  It was a Boost 4G Prepaid/Data-Rollover service.
> Sure enough, in the Boost fineprint is "service provided by Telstra").
>
>
> --
> Roger Clarke                            mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
> T: +61 2 6288 6916   http://www.xamax.com.au  http://www.rogerclarke.com
>
> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
>
> Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
> Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>