Undercharged

ssmith6287

rubadub wrote: »

I think everyone understood this, and are just doing the usual stupid game you see in this forum, feigning ignorance/confusion -while I guess in most cases if their friend or colleague asked them the same question in real life there is no way in hell they would answer in the same manner. It's getting tiresome at this stage.

OP asked a question

seems they can, but I am interested to know in what cases and is there any way you could prevent it. Many seem to presume the OP is a scammer and treating him with disdain, I am curious to know what happens if the shop scams you, has headphones on display for say €20, you buy for €20 and later you see another payment taken and the shop claims the price tag was €50 all along.

Your receipt from the retailer will have the agreed price on it

rubadub

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Your receipt from the retailer will have the agreed price on it

So you could be scammed by them giving you an incorrect receipt and hoping you do not check it.

ssmith6287

th's why you check your receipt.... kinda getting away from it now

rubadub

ssmith6287 wrote: »

th's why you check your receipt.... kinda getting away from it now

more like getting to it, as in illustrating how the fact they could charge again could be an issue. The question was asked "Can retailers do this?" and you were amongst those who were (seemingly) ignorant as to how this could ever be an issue/problem.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

because you gave the retailer your card details to purchase goods... what is the problem here?

Many people do not check receipts, I see people stuff them in their wallet/purse all the time. If they were given a CC reader device and it displayed an amount and you confirmed the amount and entered a PIN they would assume the receipt will be the same.

The OP did not ask "can I scam the company using some legal loophole?" many seem to think he did.

njs030

rubadub wrote: »

more like getting to it, as in illustrating how the fact they could charge again could be an issue. The question was asked "Can retailers do this?" and you were amongst those who were (seemingly) ignorant as to how this could ever be an issue/problem.



Many people do not check receipts, I see people stuff them in their wallet/purse all the time. If they were given a CC reader device and it displayed an amount and you confirmed the amount and entered a PIN they would assume the receipt will be the same.

The OP did not ask "can I scam the company using some legal loophole?" many seem to think he did.

Almost every company uses a scanner to enter items into the till rather than manually entering prices so the price is set and linked to the barcode.

Even if they changed it using a managers key the till systems are set up to show that the price has been amended on the receipt and when you did eventually notice the extra money charged your receipt would very clearly show the price you had agreed to and a changed price further down, "many people do not check receipts" doesn't really matter, always check your receipt and these things won't happen.

Also it would be easy to prove the agreed price is €20 not €50 as its the one on the shelves with the product, when you reported the shop they would have to explain themselves.

It's a very different scenario to the one where op had seen an item for €90, agreed to pay that and knew he had paid less but hoped to get away with it.

Nervous Wreck

OP, yes they can do this, no its not fraud, yes it's widespread, no there is no comeback (unless actual fraud is committed).

ScouseMouse

Just an open question. Could knowingly accepting an undercharge or trying to be smart and banging in a complaint to whichever authority/bank, be classed as fraud?

Could it be trying to acquire good without paying for them?

wyrn

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Just an open question. Could knowingly accepting an undercharge or trying to be smart and banging in a complaint to whichever authority/bank, be classed as fraud?

Could it be trying to acquire good without paying for them?

Fraud on which side?

I doubt it from the customer's POV as they could argue Invitation to Treat. Also, the customer did pay for the item, just at a substantially lower cost. I would imagine that it goes both ways.

I find it slightly worrying that the store charged the customer a 2nd time. I didn't realise that they could hold on to the bank details (always assumed it was similar to the customer copy with only the last 4 digits showing). If the store put through a 2nd transaction on the same card, would they not need a pin number?

The hairdressers I go to, sometimes give me a very good discounted rant. It's not exactly advertised to me as it's a small place and they don't want to shout it out I suppose. What if the owner decided that the discount was too good, could they charge a 2nd time to make up the difference?

I accept that in the case of the OP, the difference was huge. it sits really uneasily with me that they went to charge them full price a 2nd time without getting in contact first. Perhaps they did try.

AvonEnniskerry

notjustsweet wrote:

It's a very different scenario to the one where op had seen an item for €90, agreed to pay that and knew he had paid less but hoped to get away with it.

Do we know that op agreed to pay 90euro... How do we know the signage in place didn't misread 90cent and the op merely took advantage of a ridiculously cheap sale price.

I'd this argument with a shop recently where my husband noticed something advertised ridiculously cheaply. The shop refused to sell him the item at the price they'd displayed. But they failed to remove the product from sale or the sign so i argued that point to get the item at the cheaper price.

In answer to ops question. Yes unfortunately they can do this. Just as insurance renewals etc can auto renew on your cards. Its no wonder in this day and age there is so much fraud on cards as it seems everywhere can hold your details for when they're next needed.

I personally don't condone it. I think they could have contacted you to explain to you you either return the product or else the additional charge will be added. The bank would have to have made the call after being alerted to the error though to avoid handing out personal details.

njs030

wyrn wrote: »

Fraud on which side?

I find it slightly worrying that the store charged the customer a 2nd time. I didn't realise that they could hold on to the bank details (always assumed it was similar to the customer copy with only the last 4 digits showing). If the store put through a 2nd transaction on the same card, would they not need a pin number?

The hairdressers I go to, sometimes give me a very good discounted rant. It's not exactly advertised to me as it's a small place and they don't want to shout it out I suppose. What if the owner decided that the discount was too good, could they charge a 2nd time to make up the difference?

I accept that in the case of the OP, the difference was huge. it sits really uneasily with me that they went to charge them full price a 2nd time without getting in contact first. Perhaps they did try.

Yes the retailer copy has the card number on it.

The card machine can of course be used without pin numbers otherwise how would online purchases work? Or when you order a take away on the phone?
The last 3 digits on the back of the card should be entered in this mail order scenario, if a fradulant charge like your hairdresser goes through you can ring the bank and have it reversed.

As already pointed out in ops case he agreed to pay the money so it's a perfectly legal charge.

wyrn

notjustsweet wrote: »

Yes the retailer copy has the card number on it.

The card machine can of course be used without pin numbers otherwise how would online purchases work? Or when you order a take away on the phone?
The last 3 digits on the back of the card should be entered in this mail order scenario, if a fradulant charge like your hairdresser goes through you can ring the bank and have it reversed.

As already pointed out in ops case he agreed to pay the money so it's a perfectly legal charge.

I understand how online and phone purchases work and than in place of a pin number, they use the cvv number. If I pay by chip & pin - would the cvv number show up on the merchant copy?

I don't think the OP wants to get away with the undercharge, I think that it's the 2nd charge that they are wondering about. To be the 2nd charge seems unauthorised as the owner of the card didn't authorise it and the store charged the full amount and not the balance.

njs030

wyrn wrote: »

I understand how online and phone purchases work and than in place of a pin number, they use the cvv number. If I pay by chip & pin - would the cvv number show up on the merchant copy?

I don't think the OP wants to get away with the undercharge, I think that it's the 2nd charge that they are wondering about. To be the 2nd charge seems unauthorised as the owner of the card didn't authorise it and the store charged the full amount and not the balance.

The store charged the balance it says so in the op. That's the agreed price.

Sleeper12

talkingpj wrote:

I bought a pair of headphones at the weekend and a big retailer only charged me 90c instead of 90euro. However i saw today the balance of the money was taken in another transaction. Can retailers do this?

If you were aware of the mistake and did nothing about it, that's as good as theft IMO

Tigger

AvonEnniskerry wrote: »

Do we know that op agreed to pay 90euro... How do we know the signage in place didn't misread 90cent and the op merely took advantage of a ridiculously cheap sale price.

I'd this argument with a shop recently where my husband noticed something advertised ridiculously cheaply. The shop refused to sell him the item at the price they'd displayed. But they failed to remove the product from sale or the sign so i argued that point to get the item at the cheaper price.

In answer to ops question. Yes unfortunately they can do this. Just as insurance renewals etc can auto renew on your cards. Its no wonder in this day and age there is so much fraud on cards as it seems everywhere can hold your details for when they're next needed.

I personally don't condone it. I think they could have contacted you to explain to you you either return the product or else the additional charge will be added. The bank would have to have made the call after being alerted to the error though to avoid handing out personal details.

dont have to give it to you at the advertised price

ohnonotgmail

AvonEnniskerry wrote: »

Do we know that op agreed to pay 90euro... How do we know the signage in place didn't misread 90cent and the op merely took advantage of a ridiculously cheap sale price.

I'd this argument with a shop recently where my husband noticed something advertised ridiculously cheaply. The shop refused to sell him the item at the price they'd displayed. But they failed to remove the product from sale or the sign so i argued that point to get the item at the cheaper price.

In answer to ops question. Yes unfortunately they can do this. Just as insurance renewals etc can auto renew on your cards. Its no wonder in this day and age there is so much fraud on cards as it seems everywhere can hold your details for when they're next needed.

I personally don't condone it. I think they could have contacted you to explain to you you either return the product or else the additional charge will be added. The bank would have to have made the call after being alerted to the error though to avoid handing out personal details.

It is pretty clear from the OP that they knew the price of the item was €90.

jluv

I have worked in retail for 25 + years and have never been privvy to someones full credit details nor would I want to be..the only thing I can think of in the OP is that yes the regrister for some reason rang 99c but the central system rang the correct price of 99 euro. With your reciept I would challange that. But I would doubt that someone instore entered your credit card detais without your permission..

Wheety

I would imagine, as the OP hasn't given anymore details, that the till charged €90 but the card machine only had 90c entered into it. Some aren't connected to the till and the employee enters the amount manually.

The OP probably has a shop receipt for €90 but a card receipt for 90c. They're within their rights to charge the rest when the mistake was discovered.

Tigger

jluv wrote: »

I have worked in retail for 25 + years and have never been privvy o someones full credit details nor would I want to be..the only thing I can think of in the OP is that yes the regrister for some reason rang 99c but the central system rang the correct price of 99 euro. With your reciept I would challange that. But I would doubt that someone instore entered your credit card detais without your permission..

full card details are on the merchant receipt
you could in theory simply enter them and use the customer not present option to charge the balance

assuming its a chip and pin card the card holder can then simply chargeback stating that they didn't authorise a customer not present charge and that they believe it was taken in error

the shop would have to then chase the customer for the 89.10 that some poor unfortunate failed to charge correctly in the first place

its very hard to chase someone for 89.10 and the shop would probably accept the loss

this seems to be what some people want to happen it is very dishonest and since the op was happy to accept the 90 euro price at the beginning i don't see why they would do it

but they could

njs030

Tigger wrote: »

full card details are on the merchant receipt
you could in theory simply enter them and use the customer not present option to charge the balance

assuming its a chip and pin card the card holder can then simply chargeback stating that they didn't authorise a customer not present charge and that they believe it was taken in error

the shop would have to then chase the customer for the 89.10 that some poor unfortunate failed to charge correctly in the first place

its very hard to chase someone for 89.10 and the shop would probably accept the loss

this seems to be what some people want to happen it is very dishonest and since the op was happy to accept the 90 euro price at the beginning i don't see why they would do it

but they could

Is a chargeback quite that simple? I would expect the bank would contact the store and ask what happened, presumably a store selling high priced electrical goods has CCTV and can prove op agreed to the sale price, plus they have the receipt with the price on it.
It may be hard for op to convince the bank he has any entitlement to a refund for a product he did buy?


What they should have done is refunded the 90 cent and charged €90 really.

AvonEnniskerry

Tigger wrote:

dont have to give it to you at the advertised price

That is essentially correct though it's good practise as it's their mistake and misleading to the customer.
However when you can prove that the shop had previously been alerted to the incorrect pricing and they didn't bother removing it then yes they should most definitely give it to you at the lower price. They've a responsibility to maintain the shop and removing incorrect pricing is quick and easy to do.

njs030

AvonEnniskerry wrote: »

That is essentially correct though it's good practise as it's their mistake and misleading to the customer.
However when you can prove that the shop had previously been alerted to the incorrect pricing and they didn't bother removing it then yes they should most definitely give it to you at the lower price. They've a responsibility to maintain the shop and removing incorrect pricing is quick and easy to do.

They don't have to sell you anything, you offer to buy and they can accept or refuse. You don't have any rights to buy at either price.

It's not "quick and easy to do" incorrect pricing has to be replaced with correct pricing which probably needs to be company branded. At the very least all prices have to be removed and replaced which takes time and effort from a member of staff who's busy dealing with customers arguing about prices.....

AvonEnniskerry

notjustsweet wrote:

It's not "quick and easy to do" incorrect pricing has to be replaced with correct pricing which probably needs to be company branded. At the very least all prices have to be removed and replaced which takes time and effort from a member of staff who's busy dealing with customers arguing about prices.....

I didn't say repricing was quick and easy. I said removing the incorrect price is. If a store chooses to advertise something incorrectly after being informed of a mistake then yes in my view the product should be given at that price. Otherwise no store would ever bother updating their prices.

I've worked in retail for years and as i said before it's good practice to provide an item at the price you've advertised. Afterall it's your mistake. The customer draws your attention to it. At that point you've a responsibility not to falsely advertise the product at the incorrect price.

Anyway it's an argument for another day as another poster cleared up the op more than likely had the price entered incorrectly into the card machine and not from a mis priced label.

AudreyHepburn

Wheety wrote: »

I would imagine, as the OP hasn't given anymore details, that the till charged €90 but the card machine only had 90c entered into it. Some aren't connected to the till and the employee enters the amount manually.

The OP probably has a shop receipt for €90 but a card receipt for 90c. They're within their rights to charge the rest when the mistake was discovered.

I would agree this is probably the case.

To all those suggesting a refund or a charge back should be given to the OP....it's only 90 cent! Hardly leaves the OP bankrupt.

ohnonotgmail

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I would agree this is probably the case.

To all those suggesting a refund or a charge back should be given to the OP....it's only 90 cent! Hardly leaves the OP bankrupt.

The OP was charged €90 in total. 90c in the first transaction and the balance of the €90 in a second transaction. they are not down any money.

listermint

The OP thought they got away with it. They didn't , they need to get over it.

And those that are fighting the good fight defending the op need to get over it too.

He had not problem taking the headphones but he has a problem paying the full price he was paying for them.

Good one....


People are gas.

Tigger

notjustsweet wrote: »

Is a chargeback quite that simple? I would expect the bank would contact the store and ask what happened, presumably a store selling high priced electrical goods has CCTV and can prove op agreed to the sale price, plus they have the receipt with the price on it.
It may be hard for op to convince the bank he has any entitlement to a refund for a product he did buy?


What they should have done is refunded the 90 cent and charged €90 really.

No the bank have nothing to do with it, merchant services are a seperate entity

pilly

This is one of those threads where the OP posts really vague information and then fecks off leaving everyone to have a grand argument.

From my previous experiences you can not do this if the product was bought in a shop but you can if it was bought online. Both companies have different types of agreements with the credit card providers.

njs030

AvonEnniskerry wrote: »

I didn't say repricing was quick and easy. I said removing the incorrect price is.

I've worked in retail for years

Then you should know it's illegal to have unpriced items on sale? So while whisking away the incorrect prices may be "quick and easy" replacing them isn't....as I said.

pilly

notjustsweet wrote: »

Then you should know it's illegal to have unpriced items on sale? So while whisking away the incorrect prices may be "quick and easy" replacing them isn't....as I said.

This is off topic but I often wondered how this law applies to the really top end jewellers and boutiques because I've never seen prices displayed?

njs030

pilly wrote: »

This is off topic but I often wondered how this law applies to the really top end jewellers and boutiques because I've never seen prices displayed?

"If you have to ask you can't afford it" places?
Me too