Bogus entries on my credit card statement

[Peter Edward]

I received my credit card statement on 22/10/08 and having noticed three items of which I had no knowledge immediately contacted the bank to advise them and ask for their removal. Today I realised that full payment if my outstanding balance had to reach them by 1/11/08 to avoid interest payment, so I asked what amount I should pay. I was expecting to be told to pay the net amount after deducting the fraudulent items but instead was told to pay the full amount! Ok, so I have not yet received the disclaimer which is in the post but I did receive a new credit card today with a new number. The total of the ficticious items is only �45, but suppose it were �450 or even �4,500 would the bank expect me to pay and await reimbursement. Additionally, I feel that paying the bogus amounts is a tacit acceptance that the amounts are my responsiblity which they definitely are not. Has anyone else had such a treatment from their bank in these circumstances. I will await you comments with interest (no pun intended!) Peter Edward

[factor-fiction]

Paying the full amount isn't tacit acceptance of anything. It's your call- if you have the �45 you might as well pay it until the dispute is resolved. But if you pay the balance apart from the �45 I think there's a very good chance you won't incur charges, although you might need to ring up and explain again. I'd pay it in full for now on the basis that it's not worth the hassle and it'll be deducted from your next bill.

[Peter Edward]

Thanks for your comments factor30 and your suggested course of action is the one I shall take. But speaking hypothetically, would you advise the same if it were �450?
I really think that the bank should have a system which takes the bogus items out of the total due and not expect the customer to pay for someone's criminal activity and then be reimbursed (hopefully). Peter Edward

[factor-fiction]

I agree, and when this happened to me involving a phantom �450 purchase after my card was cloned I reported it to teh Fraud/Disputes departament. They agreed I could pay the balance after deducting the �450 disputed charge. It was all sorted out.

[Ethel]

They have to be certain it is fraud - it has to be investigated. After all, it could be fraudulent activity but be your fault either complicity or negligently.

You simply claiming it to be fraud is not good enough. And it is the same if the amount is for thousands of pounds, with all interest charges and associated charges reimbursed when they are satisfied and the investigation concluded.

[Peter Edward]

Thank you ethel for making me look at this from a different and more correct aspect. Your point is well taken that fraud has to be proved first. Regards, Peter Edward

[sandmaster]

Ethel is right (as usual!!). The card company has to be sure it is fraud and not an error on your part. Also they need to be sure you are not defrauding them. It is surprising how many people claim transactions are not theirs fraudulently. In some cases the retaailer may be conspiring with them. For �45 though I think they will just take your word for it. I worked for a pizza delivery company for a time and we had a lot of claims of fraudulent transactions which we had to reimburse, but we always had the address. Often there would be a pattern of claims from the same address and our only redress would be to refuse to deliver there again. Sorry this is a long reply but we always need to take the card company's views into account as they have to try and protect both parties.

[moomintroll1]

When the same thing happened to me (HSBC credit card), my account was immediately credited with the disputed amount while they carried out their investigations, so I didn't have to pay it.

It subsequently turned out to be a legitimate transaction, too, but they just added it back on to the next month's statement with no further fuss or charges.

It turns out that it's quite common for the charges to be found to be legitimate - they'll contact the company that raised the charges and ask for details of the transaction, such as the sales voucher for a face-to-face transaction, or full order details for a mail/phone/internet order, and then let you have the details to see if it jogs your memory.

In my case, it was a company which used a sister company's card terminal to process their charges (a no-no apparently), which is why I hadn't recognised the company name on the statement.

It's odd that they managed to produce and dispatch a new card before getting a simple form over to you, though. Perhaps if the amount had been greater, they'd have acted more swiftly with the forms so they could begin their investigations sooner.

[SOS]

Hi. I think it's because if the entries turn out to be not fraudulent (ie you could have made a mistake?) it will seem that you have an outstanding balance and will have to pay interest from the date of the transaction. I haven't explained this very well. I did this once and then the amount was credited the next month.

Also recently experienced fraudulent use by a charity in Ireland (two amounts of a few euros each) and was contacted by my credit card company about it. They closed the account instantly and issued a new card with a new number. I had to fill in a form to say I hadn't authorised the amounts and signed to say that I was happy for them to refer it to the Police for investigation.

I think the difference between the two scenarios is that the credit card company were aware of the fradulent amounts because they'd obviously seen them before?

Hope this helps.