From: Ronald Raygun 
Subject: Re: isp bills by debit card.
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:52:14 GMT

markp wrote:

> 
> "Ronald Raygun"  wrote in message
> news:zN1wb.8670$Ev2.73677945@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> markp wrote:
>>
>> > No, the ISP might argue that no such instruction has been received,
>>
>> They might well try, but technology exists to counter such argument.
> 
> You mean you have to tape record your telephone conversations with them
> just in case they claim it was verbal?!

The mind boggles.  "Just in case they claim it was verbal"?  First,
for them to claim something like that they'd have to admit there
was an "it", but for them to claim so unexpectedly, because you
instructions were in fact in writing, you can hardly use tape
recording to prove you had *not* given them spoken instructions.

No, I mean writing to them by ordinary first class post and getting
a certificate of posting.  That's usually enough to prove service of
court summons, and if you want something stronger you could always
go for "signed for" recorded delivery.

>> Well, subject to reasonable terms in the agreement, stipulating minimum
>> duration of service period and minimum notice of cancellation, any ISP
>> agreement will be able to be brought to an end unilaterally by the
>> customer.
> 
> Well yes, but if you agreed to 1 year's service and try to cancel after 3
> months you're in trouble. This might be the nature of the dispute.

Indeed it might, but that's not the situation I'm addressing.

>> Agreed.  The card company should not be asked to make a judgement, it
>> should simply be informed that the customer has withdrawn authority
>> and has informed the ISP too.  If, after this, payments continue to
>> be taken, the ISP and card company will be jointly liable to
>> damages if not also criminal charges.
> 
> No! If the CC company stop payments on the word one party and a court case
> then follows to prove that the other party was right, the CC company may
> well become liable! They have to be seen to be neutral, and follow
> specific arbitration mechanisms so that they can prove, in court, that
> they weren't being biased one way or the other. Remember the customer does
> not give the CC company authority to pay, the customer gives authority to
> the ISP to take payments. This is fundamentally different to the way banks
> work,

No.  The CC may only make payments for which authority has been given.
If the authority is withdrawn, and both the ISP and the CC are notified,
then if any further funds are taken, they are taken unlawfully.

> BTW did you actually read the link?

Yes, but you don't want to put too much store by what you read in the
media.

Fundamentally, a CCA is simply an administrative simplification to
obviate the need to give repeated individual authority for each payment.
Any payment taken, can be corrected after the event by challenging
the CC co to show that authority was in force for that particular
payment.  Having informed them that a specific continuous authority
has been withdrawn, that authority will no longer be valid evidence
of authority.