Posted Monday 30th March 2009 09:20 GMT
If I inadvertently reload an old BACS dataset and reprocess it, I'm pretty sure it will be rejected for failing all sorts of checks, including dates and serial numbers. Are we to understand that there are no such controls for credit card payments?
Posted Monday 30th March 2009 09:20 GMT
"Boss Jeremy Legg was not available for comment."
I'm not surprised. "Business men" are never available for comment.
The question remains ... will interest be paid to people illegally billed? Or will the people illegally billed pay the interest into Jeremy Legg's bank account? Will anyone check? Does anyone care? Why does this kind of thing continue?[1]
[1] That's rhetorical ...
Posted Monday 30th March 2009 09:20 GMT
...for any bank charges incurred in the case of any payments refused due to insufficient funds in customers' bank accounts, and any interest charges that may be payable as well.
What about people on their last warning from their banks about unauthorised overdrafts. They could lose their bank accounts, and/or even end up on a credit blacklist.
Compensation demands could be rather high due to this cockup.
Posted Monday 30th March 2009 10:33 GMT
So im guessing this shop is storing the cc data to process them from years ago?
Isnt this risky on its own.
And is this not a breach of various data protection acts?
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Posted Monday 30th March 2009 12:48 GMT
echo "processClientCards.sh >> /etc/rc.local"
does this mean if they reboot again, customers will be charged 3 times?
Posted Monday 30th March 2009 16:25 GMT
Isn't it illegal to keep the CCV of the card on file? If that company was following legal and/or common sense procedures that would never have happened.
As for the trouble to the customers near their credit limit, well I believe that most can claim that this transaction was not authorized by themselves and thus avoid any subsequent problems.
Back to the article
