Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Buying Online...a Question
Security on the internet. I know that when ordering on line the site should show the https and padlock on the URL bar. Had a disagreement with someone when they said it wasn't really relevant re the padlock as if the payment went wrong the credit card would cover it!
I think that if the site isn't properly secure with no 'padlock' shown, the card and other details won't be encrypted so if problems arise the credit card peeps wouldn't refund any monies. Who is right? Thanks in advance for your replies.
I think that if the site isn't properly secure with no 'padlock' shown, the card and other details won't be encrypted so if problems arise the credit card peeps wouldn't refund any monies. Who is right? Thanks in advance for your replies.
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dunnitall. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
While the use of HTTPS is certainly recommended for secure transactions over the web, its use is unconnected with the rights a purchaser has (under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974) when making a purchase with a credit card.
However it should be noted that such rights only apply when the cost of the goods (or services) is more than £100:
http://
Further, only credit cards (and not debit cards) are covered by the legislation.
However it should be noted that such rights only apply when the cost of the goods (or services) is more than £100:
http://
Further, only credit cards (and not debit cards) are covered by the legislation.
Thanks very much Chris, yes I realised about the credit cards and debit card rules etc so I've never shopped on a site where there is no padlock AND the https.
My argument with the other person who doesn't bother checking if the site has https or the padlock but still reckons they would be protected by their card if anything went wrong. I feel that if they haven't made sure to buy from a secure site then the card provider won't guarantee money back for anything going wrong.
I've always understood that the site isn't safe and payments without the padlock isn't encrypted.
My argument with the other person who doesn't bother checking if the site has https or the padlock but still reckons they would be protected by their card if anything went wrong. I feel that if they haven't made sure to buy from a secure site then the card provider won't guarantee money back for anything going wrong.
I've always understood that the site isn't safe and payments without the padlock isn't encrypted.
As Buenchico has said, the situation is exactly the same whether there is a https padlock or not.
If there's no padlock shown when you buy from ChineseSuperDuper.com it means that there's a risk that a third party might intercept your web traffic and get your card details.
If ChineseSuperDuper.com then fails to deliver the goods your actual transaction is still covered under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, meaning that (assuming the item ordered was worth over £100, and that you ordered with a credit card) you can claim against the credit card company.
However if the third party has fraudulently taken money from your account, Section 75 won't apply to that loss (because there was no 'transaction' involved - it's simply theft).
At that stage though Section 83 of the Act then applies. ("The debtor under a regulated consumer credit agreement shall not be liable to the creditor for any loss arising from use of the credit facility by another person not acting, or to be treated as acting, as the debtor’s agent"). That effectively says that a credit card holder isn't responsible for paying back money which is fraudulently taken from the card.
If ChineseSuperDuper.com then fails to deliver the goods your actual transaction is still covered under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, meaning that (assuming the item ordered was worth over £100, and that you ordered with a credit card) you can claim against the credit card company.
However if the third party has fraudulently taken money from your account, Section 75 won't apply to that loss (because there was no 'transaction' involved - it's simply theft).
At that stage though Section 83 of the Act then applies. ("The debtor under a regulated consumer credit agreement shall not be liable to the creditor for any loss arising from use of the credit facility by another person not acting, or to be treated as acting, as the debtor’s agent"). That effectively says that a credit card holder isn't responsible for paying back money which is fraudulently taken from the card.
1 to 5 of 5
