From: "Tim" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: isp bills by debit card.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:03:18 +0000 (UTC)

"markp" wrote
> Let's face it, this is not as clear cut as all that! ... there
> could well be an *ongoing* agreement between the consumer and retailer
that
> payments (plural) were to be made by continuous authority agreement, and
> until the CC company is absolutely sure that they should stop paying they
> won't.

Hmmm - for the minute, let's ignore who can (and who cannot) provide
authority for payments and concentrate on the simple plain facts.
The payment either *should*, or *should not* be made (this may not bne known
at the time of the request, but ought to be known after an investigation) -
there is no middle ground, it will not be "part"-made.

The retailer says "should be", the consumer says "should not be".
Whichever is decided at the time of the request, it is *not* impartial and
must, necessarily, involve taking one or the other's side in the matter.

You are saying that the CC company should side with the retailer.  This is
not impartial.  Why do you believe that this particular side should be taken
(until the investigation is concluded)??



"markp" wrote
> As I've stated previously, this can only come at the end of a proper
> arbitration process, and until that is sorted the CC company will honour
> payments.