TESCO UPT appears on Bank Statement

mathepac · 15-03-2013 3:27pm

Mirabile dictu - within 24 hours of posting my displeasure at TescoMobile keeping my pre-charge credit-card charge for more than 30 days, it gets credited back to-day. Is this a co-incidence I asked myself? Or is it a record?

Apparently not. I contacted the credit-card company (NOT the bank who issued the card) and they informed me that the default refund policy as far as they are concerned is 30 days post transaction or if the card-holder complains (to the credit-card company). So much for Tescos 3 -5 days nonsense.

While talking to the credit-card company I noted that Apple on 02/03/2013 had sneakily charged me a €1.98 pre-charge charge on a transaction for a €0.89 app in iTunes. I complained and I got this back as well.

So Tescos lie when they say 3-5 days, which was one of my original points. The credit-card company say they initiate the query with the merchant who has to release the funds when asked, implyiing strongly that the merchant holds those funds, which in turn implies that Tecos are lying again if they say they don't see the pre-charge charges in their accounts.

Cabaal · 15-03-2013 3:37pm

mathepac wrote: »

Mirabile dictu - within 24 hours of posting my displeasure at TescoMobile keeping my pre-charge credit-card charge for more than 30 days, it gets credited back to-day. Is this a co-incidence I asked myself? Or is it a record?

Given Tesco who have no idea who you are based on your post on boards.ie you can be pretty damn sure its a co-incidence that your payment provider finally released the authorisation and that you are reading far too much into it.

So much for Tescos 3 -5 days nonsense.

This timeframe is a standard timeframe but at the end of the day the release of the authorization and the responsibility for it is down to your payment provider. Tesco can only advise of a general timeframe, it is not their job to know the different payment providers policy's.

Given the hundreds of banks that people can use with Tesco it would be unreasonable for a Tesco employee to keep up to date with the different policy's, its upto a customer to check with the payment provider for more specific info.

While talking to the credit-card company I noted that Apple on 02/03/2013 had sneakily charged me a €1.98 pre-charge charge on a transaction for a €0.89 app in iTunes. I complained and I got this back as well.

Great so your payment provider released the authorization when you asked, still not a failing by Apple.

So Tescos lie when they say 3-5 days,

Nope, they didn't, stop being paranoid.

Again the responsibility for the authorisation holding timeframe is outside of Tesco's control. If your payment provider decides to hold it for 4 days or 40 days its beyond Tesco's control.

implyiing strongly that the merchant holds those funds, which in turn implies that Tecos are lying again.

You can read into it what you want but Tesco never get the funds to use, refund or otherwise, the authorization is only held by your payment provider and only they can release it.

Tesco never see the money unless the charge is proceeded with and for these types of authorization checks they do not proceed with a charge...the exact same as Amazon don't for £1 auth checks. (you know, Amazon...the company you said previously don't do these checks

)

You may want to take your tinfoil hat off.

mathepac · 15-03-2013 4:21pm

Cabaal wrote: »

My my, atleast if you're going to rant about something atleast have a clue. You also understand cheque books work VERY differently to credit or debit cards right?...its silly why you even mention them ...

In your unseemly rush to post your best (but very poor) attempt at sarcasm, your post seems to miss the point which is that using debit and credit mechanisms between fund-holders (banks) and service and goods providers (merchants) is what consumers do. The instrument is irrelevant, the transaction mechanics work the same way, only the time-frames and artefacts differ.

Cabaal wrote: »

... First off it is not a "charge", it is an authorization....the retailer never gets the 1e at all its just held by your payment provider and is released within a certain amount of time. The retailer can never refund it back to you because they never actually get it. ...

It is a charge, it reduces the funds available on a card or account. It has been described to me by merchants as both a "registration charge" and as an "authorisation charge". Banks have described it to me as an "initiation fee" (or charge). So clearly in both the language used to describe it and in its financial effect on the holder's card or account, it is a charge.

Cabaal wrote: »

... Really? ...

Excellent. My message did get through then and has been passed around. That's good.

Cabaal wrote: »

... Sure about that, bet your life or are you once again talking nonsense? ...

I thought we were having an adults' discussion here. How does this tripe add any value? Or is it that the soubriquet "Moderator" is somehow meant to add gravitas to childish post content?

Cabaal wrote: »

... I think you'll find the likes of Amazon do and have done for years ...

I haven't shopped with them for a while it's true, getting better value and shorter turn-around times for books on bookdepository.com, but I honestly can't ever remember being charged a pre-charge charge.

Cabaal wrote: »

... I'd suggest you stop ranting ...

That is only your opinion, and is a comment about me personally and not a comment on my posts and therefore breaches our charter. Mods: take appropriate action

Cabaal wrote: »

... as you are looking like a fool ...

That is a comment about me personally and not a comment on my posts and therefore breaches our charter. Mods: take appropriate action

Cabaal wrote: »

... as its very very clear you don't know what you are talking about...you only "think" you do...

That is a comment about me personally and not a comment on my posts and therefore breaches our charter. Mods: take appropriate action

Cabaal wrote: »

... whilst you may claim to be used to credit cards and the likes its evident that you lack experience with them none the less.

That is a comment about me personally, about my qualifications (which are not known to the "Moderator" concerned) to post in the thread and not a comment about post content and therefore breaches our charter. Mods: take appropriate action

I think it is a sad reflection on boards.ie that someone who claims the title "Moderator" in some forum or other is allowed to display their bad manners, their lack of moderation in language choice and have free rein to abuse another poster in ad hominem attacks.

For those not familiar with the term, an ad hominem attack is when a poster attacks another poster personally instead of commenting on their post content. For example "I don't understand your post" is perfectly acceptable, under our charter, but "You look like a fool" is not, At least "you look like a fool" is not acceptable in a post if you are not a "Moderator", even one as immoderate in their posting as evidenced here.

Cabaal · 15-03-2013 4:42pm

Wow, just wow, right I'll give this a final response and then I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore,.

mathepac wrote: »

<snip>
It is a charge, it reduces the funds available on a card or account. It has been described to me by merchants as both a "registration charge" and as an "authorisation charge". Banks have described it to me as an "initiation fee" (or charge). So clearly in both the language used to describe it and in its financial effect on the holder's card or account, it is a charge.

Its an authorisation, the funds are held by the payment provider.
If it was a charge the funds would be received by the provider of goods and/or services....Tesco in your case.

So, no, its not a charge.

I thought we were having an adults' discussion here. How does this tripe add any value? Or is it that the soubriquet "Moderator" is somehow meant to add gravitas to childish post content?

At the end of the day I called you out on something you commented on but you clearly had no idea what you were ranting about. You stated Amazon don't do what Tesco do when infact they do.

Sorry if you find it upsetting to be corrected.

That is only your opinion, and is a comment about me personally and not a comment on my posts and therefore breaches our charter. Mods: take appropriate action

Only calling what i see, in this case you made an uninformed rant and infact you still are.

By the way, calling your post a rant is not a personal attack its merely a comment on the type of post you made.

That is a comment about me personally and not a comment on my posts and therefore breaches our charter. Mods: take appropriate action
That is a comment about me personally and not a comment on my posts and therefore breaches our charter. Mods: take appropriate action
That is a comment about me personally, about my qualifications (which are not known to the "Moderator" concerned) to post in the thread and not a comment about post content and therefore breaches our charter. Mods: take appropriate action

I think it is a sad reflection on boards.ie that someone who claims the title "Moderator" in some forum or other is allowed to display their bad manners, their lack of moderation in language choice and have free rein to abuse another poster in ad hominem attacks.

For those not familiar with the term, an ad hominem attack is when a poster attacks another poster personally instead of commenting on their post content. For example "I don't understand your post" is perfectly acceptable, under our charter, but "You look like a fool" is not, At least "you look like a fool" is not acceptable in a post if you are not a "Moderator", even one as immoderate in their posting as evidenced here.

Rightttt,

Atleast if you are going to post on boards.ie i suggest you learn about how the site works. I'm not a mod in this forum as such I can post like a normal user...just like you.

In addition, if you have a problem with my post then use report post link. It also looks childish by commenting and then saying in bold "Mods: take appropriate action", :rolleyes:

Bottom line is once again you've made a number of uninformed posts which make you look foolish, you can be offended all you want but it doesn't change this fact...you don't know how authorizations work and thats clear as day.

Of course this post even shows that you don't know how even boards.ie works when it comes to mods posting in forums they don't mod and also reporting posts.
:rolleyes:

Right, thats me done, not wasting anymore time with you as its clear you just want to believe what you want regardless of being told the correct information.

Have fun