Jump to content

green2408

Members
  • Content Count

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. They don't take my visa credit card. As far as I know they will only take a debit card. I've always assumed that because they are so low on prices that they don't want to pay for any incentives or miles ar anything.
  2. no it is not, given that in this instance, notice of the very charge was apparently provided prior to the sale- the consumer acquiesced by completing the transaction. When you know about the charge in advance and still move forward with the transaction, it is neither theft nor fraudulent. So let me get this straight. You're asserting that a merchant sneaking in a prohibited practice on unwary cardholders who expect to use their card in the prescribed way is not fraud when that merchant posts a warning of his intent to commit fraud? You may not consider it fraud but MC/Visa apparently do because if you "whine" to them, they will remove the charge and sometimes will do a chargeback of the whole amount.
  3. what is your experience like then. I simply related my story and was told to select if i wanted the merchant to honour a transaction without the id or do i want them to receive sanction. Your comment is the reason why i posted to the forum. Can you elaborate on your experience. thanks Sometimes I would get a person in India who was clueless as well as unintelligible (to me) or even who would tell that it's OK to ask for ID. Finally someone knowledgeable to me to say that I wanted to make an "incident report" and that always gets me transferred to someone who takes the report about the merchant with their name address and phone as well as my info. After that within a couple of weeks I get a letter stating the card acceptance policy and the letter has a case number. I've never had anyone ask me what I want to have happen with the merchant. It sometimes takes a while and some places I reported more than once, but whatever Visa does it seems to be effective eventually because no place I shop requires ID any more. Although I must say that some Macy's clerks continue to be confused, which tells me they get mixed messages when they're trained. I know they have a high turnover. I've often thought that it's like an urban legend or something, that people weren't really trained to ask for ID but that it seems like such a good idea that they initiate it themselves.
  4. and to think people wonder why V/MC tend not to take the whining seriously... They do not intend their forms to be used by people who were not even a party to the transaction. You had no standing to make the complaint since you were not in the store and you do not even know all of the factual background. By filing in such a situation, you reduce the complaint form to something as much of a joke as online polling... I wonder what information you have that makes you think that MC/Visa don't take it seriously. It seems to me that someone took the effort to formulate a policy and incorporate it into a set of rules and guideline for use of their product, which actually is their right. It's taken seriously enough for my purposes; I've received a form letter with a case number after every complaint and the practice of requiring ID, which was universal when I moved to this town, is something I just never run into any more.
  5. I meant that I had never heard of the cardholder being able to elect sanctions for the merchant, as popajop said he/she was informed.
  6. I've made many reports of merchants but I never have to do it anymore because no one around here ever asks for ID any more. It may take some time, like months, but eventually the merchants and clerks become educated and learn that they are supposed to compare signatures. I've never heard that a merchant would receive "sanctions" or that a customer could somehow elect that. That seems not right to me, since technically the merchant's agreement is with the credit card company and not the cardholder. Interesting. I'd like to know more about that. The form letter is so that you can see your complaint was logged. And you can see that each one has a case number. What correspondence or actions used to get merchants to comply I don't know, but it seems to work.
  7. The dead horse thanks you and hopes it may now rest peacefully Now, lets see how many merchants actually make a big deal of it. I would imagine small Mom & Pop type places would be the ones who most appreciate it.
  8. Just a simple "No" takes MUCH less time than getting your wallet, pulling out the ID, handing to the clerk, waiting for them to look at it, (as if that $9/hr cashier would have the faintest clue what a fake ID would look like or what they would actually do if they thought it was), them handing it back, putting it back in your wallet. That is, if we're actually talking about useless wastes of time, You mean that wallet that is ALREADY out because that is where you keep the credit card in question? Yeah, yet another red herring shot to hell...file that one right along the ones screaming that checking ID on a purchase is equatable to a police state... And as to OP...yes I read the part that your spouse completed their purchase but you also indicated that you had items you were looking for that were on clearance...which means you ultimately wasted time and effort going to another store and quite possibly paying more for your items than you would have in this instance. Makes sense to me...ranks right up there with the current administrations philosphy of spending our way out of an economic downturn (in other words, it ain't something that makes sense). MAYBE, just MAYBE that gets it close enough to P to lock this one down... I'm thinking that "red herring" isn't exactly the right term for this. Given that MOST people do not carry their license in a DIFFERENT wallet than they keep the credit cards, red herring would be WHOLLY appropriate as the term. I think "red herring" means a clue or a lead that's a distraction or not true. And while we're at it, there is no such word as 'equatable'. If you meant 'equitable', then it really doesn't make sense in the context of your sentence. When someone is sloppy in their use of language it leads me to assume their thinking and reasoning are probably a little sloppy as well, and thus their arguments carry less weight.
  9. Just a simple "No" takes MUCH less time than getting your wallet, pulling out the ID, handing to the clerk, waiting for them to look at it, (as if that $9/hr cashier would have the faintest clue what a fake ID would look like or what they would actually do if they thought it was), them handing it back, putting it back in your wallet. That is, if we're actually talking about useless wastes of time, You mean that wallet that is ALREADY out because that is where you keep the credit card in question? Yeah, yet another red herring shot to hell...file that one right along the ones screaming that checking ID on a purchase is equatable to a police state... And as to OP...yes I read the part that your spouse completed their purchase but you also indicated that you had items you were looking for that were on clearance...which means you ultimately wasted time and effort going to another store and quite possibly paying more for your items than you would have in this instance. Makes sense to me...ranks right up there with the current administrations philosphy of spending our way out of an economic downturn (in other words, it ain't something that makes sense). MAYBE, just MAYBE that gets it close enough to P to lock this one down... I'm thinking that "red herring" isn't exactly the right term for this.
  10. Just a simple "No" takes MUCH less time than getting your wallet, pulling out the ID, handing to the clerk, waiting for them to look at it, (as if that $9/hr cashier would have the faintest clue what a fake ID would look like or what they would actually do if they thought it was), them handing it back, putting it back in your wallet. That is, if we're actually talking about useless wastes of time, You mean that wallet that is ALREADY out because that is where you keep the credit card in question? Yeah, yet another red herring shot to hell...file that one right along the ones screaming that checking ID on a purchase is equatable to a police state... And as to OP...yes I read the part that your spouse completed their purchase but you also indicated that you had items you were looking for that were on clearance...which means you ultimately wasted time and effort going to another store and quite possibly paying more for your items than you would have in this instance. Makes sense to me...ranks right up there with the current administrations philosphy of spending our way out of an economic downturn (in other words, it ain't something that makes sense). MAYBE, just MAYBE that gets it close enough to P to lock this one down... The only form of so-called ID that I have is a permit to operate a motor vehicle, which is easily reproducible, at least enough to fool that $9/hr cashier, who, lets face it, was not valedictorian, except that nobody does that because, guess what, it's a violation of the terms of the contract to ask for ID so actually most merchants are in compliance, and therefore what thief needs to go to the bother. And personally I don't keep that permit, which I rarely have reason to use, in the same place where I keep my credit card, which I use constantly.
  11. Just a simple "No" takes MUCH less time than getting your wallet, pulling out the ID, handing to the clerk, waiting for them to look at it, (as if that $9/hr cashier would have the faintest clue what a fake ID would look like or what they would actually do if they thought it was), them handing it back, putting it back in your wallet. That is, if we're actually talking about useless wastes of time,
  12. The USPS follows the credit card merchant agreement which stipulates that CC card not be accepted if it is not signed. The procedure calls for the merchant to call in a "code 10" and then make the customer sign the card in front of them, and then accept the card, but they don't have to do that.
  13. First one happened 15 years ago, a co-worker who I knew and trusted went through my jacket and took the card out of my wallet. The second time I dropped the card in my hallway, which I only shared with one additional family(scummy). You can blame me, and I realize especially in the second case I had some responsibility, but too bad there are people around ready to take advantage. There are many things we have to do to protect ourselves from dishonest people. We need keys for everything, lock our doors, tell our kids to not talk to strangers, have passwords. To me asking for an identity check before someone has access to my, or anyone's money is just one of those things. As a citizen, I feel I have some responsibility to help when I can, even if it is not my money. I'm just saying that the individual responsibility issue is one more argument against requiring ID. Additionally MC/Visa have a zero liability. Even without these issues, photo ID doesn't protect anyone until virtually all merchants require it, and that will never happen zero liability is a crock. It did me ZERO good when I was a victim. And a significant percentage of the loss in my case could have been prevented through an ID check because it was point-of-sale transactions... Wait...Are you saying that you were held responsible for charges on a credit card that was stolen or that you didn't authorize?
  14. 1) It is a violation of the merchant agreement your business has with MC and Visa. 2) It does nothing to protect the cardholder. 3) The merchant is protected by if the correct procedure is followed. 4) It is insulting to the customer. 1) a breach between the merchant and V/MC is not worth MY time of day 2) Actually it CAN protect the customer...but it does not surprise me that a non-victim would not grasp that concept 3) meanwhile the consumer can get screwed when the bank denies protection claiming that the card was present 4) most rational people are not going to view it as an insult. +1 I have had my card stolen and used twice, true it didn't cost me anything, but I felt responsible and would have liked it if the thieves had not been able to use my card. I have been asked for ID at places and do not consider it any kind of accusation, and I agree that anyone who thinks that way is not being rational. The idea that your ID could get misused at least has some rationality to it, although I think that possibility is exaggerated and pales in comparison to the chance of a card being stolen or online issues. I have had my card breached a few times at online companies and was given new cards. It was a hassle dealing with the two times my card was stolen. Once I had to go to the police station and fill out a report, they interviewed me to make sure I wasn't an accomplice. Then after they caught a co-worker due to my help, the bank investigator called and accused me of being there, they had video and everything of me being with the person. It was just a technique they use to catch card holder accomplices, but it all added up to it not being hassle free. The second time it was someone in my apartment who picked it up in the hallway after I dropped it. I think he got away with it though, the bank probably thought it wasn't worth the few hundred dollars to investigate. Still not hassle free. I always think it's hilarious how some on this forum think they have such better reasoning than the company (Visa,MC) that issues a product (credit card)and contractually specifies how it is to be used. It apparently just seems so RIGHT to them that rules be damned, they're just going to do it their way. And BTW, it's not that the people checking those ID's are the class valedictorians or have some special expertise in recognizing fake ID's. It's actually quite easy to quickly make up a passable fake ID, not that credit card thiefs do that. They just use the card as quickly as possible.

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines