homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.146.68
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Ecommerce
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks

Ecommerce Forum

    
Should the Credit Card companies be sued?
Are Credit card companies are perpetuating a fraud?
Receptional




msg:648576
 10:06 am on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

I have come to the conclusion that it is the credit card companies may be creating the biggest online fraud and that their slowness to properly validate transactions is only due to the fact that it would cost them millions in lost revenues. Someone should start a massive law suit. Here is the fraud:

1) Credit card companies still do NOT check address when cards are processed online.

2) This perpetuates and incentivizes individuals from around the world trying random credit card numbers to create false or illegal transactions.

3) Many illegal transactions are never spotted - ergo the card company makes money at the cost of an anonymous card holder.

4) The ones that are spotted immediately are refunded - ergo the car company makes money by charging for a reversed transaction.

5) The ones spotted too late are eventually refunded against the will of the vendor, who loses out. Still the card company makes money.

The card companies are unwilling to follow up fraudulent transactions and if accross national borders, then nobody follows up an illegal transaction.

Is my logic wrong? or are the credit card companies committing a fraud of their own on an immense scale?

 

gsx




msg:648577
 10:19 am on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

The card companies make money out of fraud. A lot of money. That is why they do half-hearted measures to stop fraud.

For example, WorldPay (UK) for their select junior service now charges a fee of 10 for any chargeback that you get. They will also take your transaction charge of 4.5% and add VAT to that. A simple 100 fraud can cost the merchant 17.03, plus the loss of goods and time.

If you refund the transaction, they will still chargeback (on top of the refund). This means you lose the order (lets say 70 for arguments sake), the transaction charge on the order (5.28), the chargeback fee (11.75), the chargeback itself (100), plus the refund that you did when they requested (100).

This loss totals to 287.03 for a 100 transaction.

And yes, this did happen to me. Until I sent WorldPay a 7-day or solicitor involvement letter. At which point the refunded the 100. (Although in my case it was more than 100).

Yes, I believe that CC companies ought to be investigated.

gsx




msg:648578
 10:20 am on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

Oh - and I forgot - they would not give me any details of the true card holder, their bank or card issuer branch and neither would the stop the cards. So the people using these card numbers can continue to use them.

IanTurner




msg:648579
 10:37 am on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

My provider Barclays EPDQ allow me to block transactions by card number or name or address.

They certainly don't charge both for refund and chargeback.

I can also credit any transaction where the delivery address and the cardholder address don't match up. This is often a good way of highlighting fraudulent transactions.

Dreamquick




msg:648580
 11:43 am on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

You seem to present a very one-sided argument, and although I agree with the general idea that the companies have no motivation to stamp it out totally you cannot seriously believe that they are encouraging it...

If anything CC companies will always act in defensive favour of their customers rather than the businesses making the transation, this is just simple business - you protect your sources of revenue and customers earn them money, not the businesses.

They want people to use their cards and so fraud protection is a key issue, there is no real getting around this fact. Big business sucks up to sources of sustainable income, treats others like dirt is not really something new.

Before I get on to responding to your points I'd like to go into my own little rant on the subject...

There are really only two types of problem chargebacks - fraudulent purchases and customers trying to cheat you out of payment.

The customers crying wolf can be quite a problem because CC companies chargeback first and rarely ask questions for internet transactions, at the end of the day this scenario ends up getting legal. This sort of frivolous chargeback should not occur if the CC companies invested more time in investigating rather than just charging back.

Fraudulent purchases become less of a problem when the merchant / cc processor takes more responsibility in checking the validity of the purchase i.e. address checks, CCV checks, ipaddr checks etc.

If you do no additional checks and get hit with fraudulent purchases then you have no-one but yourself to blame, if you use a processor (ie. worldpay et al) who wont support additional checking of the card details then looks for a new processing company. Also if you don't have some type of internal rules regarding what are and are not suspicious purchases then you are leaving yourself open to being cheated by the more intelligent fraudster.

As a consumer I've been hit by fraudulent purchases twice, each time it was refunded quickly and without too much fuss, each time if it hadn't have been refunded I would have cancelled the card and gone to a new card supplier.

My only real consumer complaint is that I would have liked to have seen more research into what actually happened i.e. was this a random brute-force thing or was by card number actually stolen?

--

1) Credit card companies still do NOT check address when cards are processed online.

--
IHMO it's not the job of the CC companies to vet your customers except in the most extreme circumstances.

Can you imagine how much you would complain if Visa decided that one in every twenty of your potential customers looked a little dodgy, so to protect you they refused to take payment and left you with no way to override. That would stop fraud but it would also hurt your bottom line.

However CC companies should ensure that they allow the processor access to comprehensive cross-reference material e.g. address verification, CCV verification etc.
--

2) This perpetuates and incentivizes individuals from around the world trying random credit card numbers to create false or illegal transactions.

--
The nature of CCs mean that you will never fully stamp CC fraud out, even at a 1% success rate people will still try it, that is just the nature of the people involved in fraud.
--

3) Many illegal transactions are never spotted - ergo the card company makes money at the cost of an anonymous card holder.

--
If they are never spotted and never reported then what do you expect to be done about it? CC companies would do everything they could to avoid this scenario as it undermines their customers trust.
--

4) The ones that are spotted immediately are refunded - ergo the card company makes money by charging for a reversed transaction.
--
Yes they do make money but the real issue is them recovering their costs (ie the cost of customer relations, tracing / tracking the purchase etc) as well as keeping their customer happy.
--

5) The ones spotted too late are eventually refunded against the will of the vendor, who loses out. Still the card company makes money.
--
Again this is a customer relations issue.
--

topr8




msg:648581
 11:55 am on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>>1) Credit card companies still do NOT check address when cards are processed online.

in the UK you can pay your card processor to check that the cardholder address matches the given address, but it is an addon service.

i understand the frustration of people who suffer charge backs, but there have been many threads here about fraud protection measures. you are never safe but you can cover yourself as best as possible.

Receptional




msg:648582
 2:44 pm on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

Glad this is getting debate. I suspect that Dreamquick, you don't handle large number of online transactions - but I do take some of your points on board. That said... here are some things.

>>Fraudulent purchases become less of a problem when the merchant / cc processor takes more responsibility in checking the validity of the purchase i.e. address checks, CCV checks, ipaddr checks etc.

That is what an online validation service is for! Otherwise I would just use my PDQ terminal lying rusty under the stairs.

>>However CC companies should ensure that they allow the processor access to comprehensive cross-reference material e.g. address verification, CCV verification etc.

Well - Netbanx don't. we're leaving Netbanx right now.

>>If they are never spotted and never reported then what do you expect to be done about it? CC companies would do everything they could to avoid this scenario as it undermines their customers trust.

Hell - Netbanx don't even check the NAME on the card with the card number. Now is that not reasonable to check? I expect that a card validation at least makes some attempt to prevent a random valid card number from getting through any kind of electronic check.

>>IMHO it's not the job of the CC companies to vet your customers except in the most extreme circumstances.

Again, that's what we pay extra for online validation for. Checking a name against a card number is not alot to ask.

Topr8 - you said:
>>in the UK you can pay your card processor to check that the cardholder address matches the given address, but it is an addon service.

Again, Netbanks don't do this. They claim that holding a database of names against card numbers is against the data protection act. If they can't check the name on the card, the address is more or less irrelevent.

I still feel there is a fraud here, or at the very least negligence.

Dreamquick




msg:648583
 3:29 pm on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

Actually I don't personally handle lots of transactions but I work for a 4 year old b2b e-commerce company which sells intangibles over the web in real-time so we don't even have the luxury of a pre-auth, so getting it right with rules is our only option.

(I can hear lots of people shuddering right now, I'll wait for that to stop)

We used to use Netbanx too, but we have now moved to Worldpay and have never looked back. I'll settle for saying that I'd strongly advise anyone using or considering using Netbanx to look elsewhere with great haste.

If you want a better set of reasons sticky me as I don't really want to start to defame Netbanx in a public forum.

- Tony

gsx




msg:648584
 4:31 pm on Aug 14, 2002 (gmt 0)

topr8 - you have a great sense of humour!

Address verification is available in every country in the world. Unfortunately, some are better than others.

In the UK, I get about 20% that are reported as matched. I get about 5% which are not matched (the majority are people using personal cards for business expenses and they just put in the business address). The other 75% come back as either not checked or not supported.

You can use pre-auth with intangibles. Many merchant accounts will close your account down if you process to much fraud. With pre-auth, you have the choice as to whether you want to process the dodgy looking transactions. You will also not lose the transaction fee(s) that may apply to a chargeback.

Crazy_Fool




msg:648585
 11:57 am on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

i agree with the sentiments that card companies should be sued - they know that fraud problems exist, and they know that retailers are innocent, and they know they can take action to benefit retailers as well as cardholders, but they don't, they just take our money.

i think if a large enough group of retailers were to get together, we could take some positive action. we could all help each other take anti-fraud measures, we could exchange information about fraudulent transactions that have taken place, and being a "worldwide organisation", the organisation could handle the reporting of frauds to the police and pushing for prosecutions - it's unrealistic for individual retailers to take legal action outside their own country, but a large organisation may be able to deal with that on behalf of the retailers fairly easily.

the organisation could also highlight issues with fraud, put pressure on card issuers and card processing companies to back the retailers and take positive anti-fraud measures etc.

yes, it would take a lot of time, money and effort to set up and there are a lot of legal issues to resolve, but it's perfectly possible. if sufficient numbers of retailers joined up, the workload and costs could be shared and would be pretty low for each retailer.

thoughts?

topr8




msg:648586
 12:48 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

hehe... gsx, too true

the truth is regarding customer not present transactions is that if the customer disputes it you have no leg to stand on, however carefully you have checked up.

we flag certain sales when they meet our criteria (we are high ticket - multiple sales a day, but not what you'd call a volume merchant) and i've been known to telephone customers if i'm suspicious

the bottom line is that fraud exists to a different degree in all areas, you must find out the degree of fraud in your sector/your experience and build it into your costs and therefore your prices - just like high street stores do for shoplifting/staff pilfering.

--- side note regarding intangible goods, while it is annoying to be ripped off, generally i don't think people commiting fraud would have paid anyway, so what have you lost. <<ducks>>

gsx




msg:648587
 2:06 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

And if you sell intangables and do process a fraudulent transaction, you pay for it...

If you have AVS and a test account (WorldPay provide a test account, set testmode parameter to 100), and process your own cards. The AVS results may surprise you how inaccurate they are. Usually, matched means matched, but not always. Not matched and not supported can mean anything!

I feel that it is a crime that they wouldn't stop the cards that were obviously fraudulently used. So obvious that it was fraud, that the UK police were interested in the details (which is not normal :) ).

4crests




msg:648588
 5:28 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

personally, I could care less about the Fraud part. The thing that really pisses me off is the Chargeback fees. My credit card processor does allow address verification, but i chose to disable it. I was losing more sales than was worth the small amount of fraud.

So, i have simply learned to live with the occasional fraud.

However, there is no excuse for the $10-$15 fees that most credit card services charge for a chargeback.

Here is an example of one that recently happened to me:

I received an order for $50.00 recently. I sent the product to the customer. In this case, the address DID match the card. A month later, i received a chargeback letter in the mail. The customer said that he was pretty sure that one of his ex-friends was mad at him and charged a bunch of stuff on his card and sent it to the cardholders address.

So, i was out the $20 cost of the product, out the $50.00, out the 2.5% transaction fee, plus my credit card service charged me a $15.00 chargeback fee. So, at this point i am out a bunch of money. What part of all of this was my fault ?

Why should i be penalized with a $15.00 fee ? What did i do to deserve a penalty ? Who is the ONLY loser in this situation ?

It seems that the credit card processor has made money off of my misfortune. If someone here could put a positive spin on this one, i would love to hear it.

Frank_Rizzo




msg:648589
 6:06 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

Guys, you are missing the point if your'e complaining about card fees.

Have you not heard the bricks and mortar stores say that lifting 'ads to the price for normal shoppers'? i.e. prices would be cheaper if no tealeaves went obtaining five finger discounts in the high street.

Put your prices up 5% and accept the fact that there is always going to be the odd fraud, just like one of your packing guys is going to have it away with some of the goods, just like the delivery guy is going to drop the parcel and the customer blames you.

Back to the original posters statement. I have always believed that CC's are very reluctant to wipeout CC fraud. Many programs here in the UK have shown that only 10% of the population bother to check their bank and CC statements.

Do you know what the biggest rip off of all is? Banks overcharging customers. Simple things like chraging the 30% overlimit overdraft fee instead of the usual 7-10%.

There was program a year ago which followed local rozers in Bluewater mall. In it there was an over dramatized (no, dumb down) section which followed the process of CC fraud. A teenager attempted to buy a watch with a stolen card. Usual cut scene to Barcingmad CC. Show storemanager detecting card crime and talking to Barcingmad woman. She tells him to keep the thief there. Well after 2 hours later and 3 burly rozers, the girl was arrested. The Barcingmad CC woman had an orgasm, the rozers had 2 days of paper work to fill in, the thief got let off with a warning. And for what? For a poxy 30 watch from Ratners.

How many 48" plasma screens were fraudulently purchased while that was going on eh?

IanTurner




msg:648590
 6:06 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

I must admit the credit card company charging the vendor for a chargeback is a bit much.

This really needs to be looked at carefully when choosing a provider.

Anyone fancy putting together a comparison of merchant services providers with charge comparisons or at least finding one on the net

mivox




msg:648591
 7:58 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

From a CC issuer's perspective, the cardholder is their client. They want to keep their cardholders happy, because they're the ones paying the interest rates that keep the CC issuer in business. The CC issuers are the ones who initiate chargebacks at the drop of the cardholder's hat. And well they should. If one of my CCs refused to process a chargeback for me, I'd be looking for their replacement the next day.

Now, the company that issues my card is not the same company that processes your transactions... if you have problems with chargeback fees or lack of verification options, etc., your problem is with a CC processing company or your merchant bank.

If your processor offers no verification services, and still levies a fee for chargebacks, I'd find another processor as quickly as I'd find a new CC if one refused my chargeback request. If your processor does offer verification services, and you decline to use them, I'd consider chargebacks/fraudulent transactions a risk you've accepted... your processor might feel the same way, giving you little room to complain about chargeback fees.

Perhaps, if you have excessive problems with people entering the wrong address on your site (making verifications impossible), you need to separate "billing address" and "shipping address" entry areas more clearly (you do give the option of entering a separate shipping & billing address, right?)...

Put bold red letters under the "Billing Address" header: "Billing Address MUST EXACTLY MATCH the address where you receive your credit card statement. Your order will NOT BE PROCESSED otherwise." This helped cut order processing time for my employer's site a great deal.

Crazy_Fool




msg:648592
 9:20 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>if you have problems with chargeback fees or lack of verification
>>options, etc., your problem is with a CC processing company or your
>>merchant bank.

i believe (although not 100% positive) that the chargeback fees exist because the card issuers charge the processing company (or bank) for every chargeback. processing companies have to cover that cost somehow, so they either swallow it in higher processing fees, or they apply a separate charge. the latter penalises those companies that don't pay attention to orders and blindly ship every order that comes in, and benefits those that take a hard line on verification.

either way, it's still the retailer that loses out even when the retailer is totally innocent of any wrongdoing. either way, the card issuers do absolutely nothing to pursue or prosecute fraudsters, nothing to help retailers, and nothing to prevent fraud. instead, they leave everything to the processing companies and the retailers. the entire system is wrong.

>>you do give the option of entering a separate shipping & billing
>>address, right

bad move - leaves the door wide open for fraud. retailers should only ever ship to the cardholder's address so that fraudsters can never receive goods they have fraudulently ordered with someone else's card, and so that the retailer can obtain the cardholder's signature as proof of delivery. call it golden rule no1.

Crazy_Fool




msg:648593
 9:22 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>Anyone fancy putting together a comparison of merchant services
>>providers with charge comparisons or at least finding one on the
>>net

i'm working on one as and when time permits, but there is so much information out there it's gonna take time .....

mivox




msg:648594
 9:46 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

I agree that the merchant gets stuck with the bill no matter what goes wrong. In many cases the merchant has done nothing wrong... but it is the merchant's responsibility to screen transactions against fraud, IMO. Whether online or in-person, if you don't do the homework on a questionable transaction, fraud is a risk you take.

I think in-person transactions are even more prone to fraud, personally... In the past 3 years, I have only ONCE been asked to show ID when using a credit card in a retail store... and at least 50% of the time, the clerk does not look to compare my receipt signature to the one on my card. As if that weren't bad enough, I can send my boyfriend into a store with my credit card, and I've never once seen anyone refuse to process a transaction for a man carrying a card that says "Teresa" on it.

I think that sort of carelessness is equivalent to an online merchant without some kind of credit card verification procedure in place...

retailers should only ever ship to the cardholder's address so that fraudsters can never receive goods they have fraudulently ordered with someone else's card, and so that the retailer can obtain the cardholder's signature as proof of delivery. call it golden rule no1.

If something is fishy... say the billing addy is in New York, and the delivery addy is in Florida, and the contact phone number is a cell phone in Panama (it happened to us - the card number was stolen off a paper receipt at a business convention in NYC)... you confirm the order by phone before shipping. Always ship with signature delivery confirmation on all shipments.

However, as a consumer, if I am ordering something valuable why shouldn't I be able to have it shipped to my Post Office Box instead of my street address/billing address, for my own security reasons? Both are "the cardholders address"... I am the cardholder, and I have more than one valid address. In the case of UPS shipments, I want to have the products shipped to my office, because UPS won't deliver to my house.

Yesterday, while comparison shopping, the first three vendors I looked at lost my business because of their shipping options. One wouldn't ship to Alaska. One charged an extra $40 flat fee for UPS 2nd Day shipment (on a 1lb. item! - UPS Ground isn't available from the lower 48 to Alaska, so 2nd Day is my cheapest UPS option). The third would only ship via USPS, but wouldn't allow PO Boxes as delivery addresses.

IanTurner




msg:648595
 10:56 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

We as merchants do as much as we can to take out dodgy transactions, US billing address / romanian shipping address - you've got no chance mate!

But the real difficulty is when you have a dodgy neighbourhood in you own country, the decision is marginal, too many No answers and you're losing money too many Yes's and you're losing money.

From a merchants point of view if you are on a 35% margin 1 chargeback takes 3 extra sales to recover.

Don't I just love selling software licenses - 100% margin on each sale - and you don't lose anyhting on fraudulent transactions. Just wish I had more software only product available.

Crazy_Fool




msg:648596
 11:32 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>why shouldn't I be able to have it shipped to my Post Office Box
>>instead of my street address/billing address, for my own security
>>reasons? Both are "the cardholders address"

how can retailers verify that a PO Box belongs to the cardholder? credit cards are never registered to PO Boxes so AVS etc won't help. how can you get the cardholder's signature (required just to stand a chance of preventing a chargeback) if you don't deliver to the cardholder?

fact is, a cardholder's address for billing and a "please deliver to my PO Box number because i'm ummm .... working away ...." note is used by fraudsters all the time. PO Box numbers are an easy and cheap way to get a temporary delivery address for goods ordered fraudulently with stolen credit card numbers and cardholder details. retailers have absolutely no hope of tracing the fraudster as anyone can get a PO Box number any time they want.

at least by delivering only to cardholders, if the order was fraudulent, the cardholder will sign for them or reject them and you can get your goods back and refund the cardholder without incurring a chargeback.

mivox




msg:648597
 11:41 pm on Aug 15, 2002 (gmt 0)

how can retailers verify that a PO Box belongs to the cardholder? credit cards are never registered to PO Boxes so AVS etc won't help.

Actually, after running into hassles with this, I switched two of my credit card addresses to bill to my PO Box...

how can you get the cardholder's signature (required just to stand a chance of preventing a chargeback) if you don't deliver to the cardholder?

When I pick up a signature confirmation package at the post office, I still have to sign for it. If it's delivered to a post office, whoever picks it up has to sign for the package. If the post office doesn't ask for ID when you pick up your package, I suppose anyone could sign the slip... but that's no different than stores not checking ID with in-person sales.

What if you ship a large box to the billing/street address? It won't fit in the mailbox, so the mailman leaves a little slip in the mailbox for the recipient to take to the post office... What if the fraudster uses the correct address, and checks the mailbox for the slip every day? Then takes the slip to the PO Box and picks up & signs for the large package? The total insecurity of a street-side mailbox is the #1 reason I don't want merchandise sent there in the first place.

One of the warnings you used to always hear about credit card fraud was people applying for cards through someone else's name and address, stealing the new card out of their mail box when it arrived, and going on a shopping spree... Even when mailing to someone's home address, there is no guarantee that person is the one who will retrieve the mail.

<added>I'm not saying it's fair, by any means... I'm saying that if you want to do business by mail order or internet, fraud has always been one of the risks you take. Why sue the credit card company (as proposed in the first post of the thread) for it? It's not their fault either.</added>

Receptional




msg:648598
 9:30 am on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

The credit card companies AND the validation companies are at fault.

The card issuers (by this I mean VISA and MASTERCARD) must be at fault for not working out a way to allow processing compaines to check a card number against a name on a card. Indeed they may be seen as negligent by not INSISTING that a processing company carries out a check which would at least require the buyer to HAVE a card rather than a random 16 digit number that fits the algorithm.

The processors/validators (ie Netbanx) must be at fault for the same reasons. Their check has the ability to be far more secure without having to resort to probabilty of accurate addresses - simply the name on the card will satisfy most web frauds. The fact that they have not strived for this with due vigor is an act of negligence.

Someone asked for a table of charges comparisons. Protx have one, but they are naturally biased.

Dixon.

Crazy_Fool




msg:648599
 11:42 am on Aug 16, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>i think if a large enough group of retailers were to get together,
>>we could take some positive action

i've just found a couple of sites that claim to do this - www.merchant911.org and www.merchantfraudsquad.com.

first one is run by one man. no idea if it's any good yet as i'm waiting for membership approval.

second has been set up by american express and claims some 3000 members with a forum on yahoogroups. site is still under construction but has some good advice there. i guess it'll pick up longer term.

shelleycat




msg:648600
 1:43 am on Aug 17, 2002 (gmt 0)

The total insecurity of a street-side mailbox is the #1 reason I don't want merchandise sent there in the first place.

I totally agree. I don't sell anything online but I do buy stuff reasonably often (both locally and internationally). The last thing I want to happen to my new purchase is for it to sit right beside the road in my letter box all day. Not only can it get stolen but it will get wet if it rains. It would need to be a very large parcel before the post office can't deliver it due to the way our mail system works. Even couriers leave things at the front door in plain view of the street. I don't have a PO box (can't afford it) and can't get things delivered to where I work (the joys of being a full time student, I don't even have a specific work place). So instead I have things shipped to where my boyfriend works. Therefore there is just no way I can give a mailing address that matches my credit card one even closely. I know other people who have things shipped to odd addresses for equally legitimate reasons. Letterboxes just aren't safe.

At the same time, I watched a TV program last week where a local supermarket was catching a credit card fraudster. The fraudster had stolen a credit card from a mail box, ordered stuff over the internet and had the goods delivered to the home of the person who owned the card, while that person was at work. They then nipped in and took away the boxes when no one was looking. The cardholder had no idea any of it was happening despite the delivery being made literally to their front doorstep. This was not fiction, it was one of those reality TV things (and yes, they caught the bad guys).

So it seems to me that being overly strict on making people use their home addresses for delivery just isn't going to work from either angle.

Luckily for me, most online companies I've wanted to buy from give the option to have seperate billing and mailing addresses. And if they don't there's nothing I can do, so I take my money elsewhere.

gsx




msg:648601
 9:34 am on Aug 17, 2002 (gmt 0)

We don't have that delivery box problem in the UK :)

Then again, we are reported to have the best postal service in the world (but I haven't compared them all - so I can't tell you for sure).

Here, all mail is put through the letterbox on the door, if it does not fit, they knock. If there is no-one in, they put a card through the door and you have to go and collect it from the nearest mail office.

However, when in comes to couriers, most deliver between 9am - 5pm and that is when we get a similar problem to yours.

Crazy_Fool




msg:648602
 2:50 pm on Aug 17, 2002 (gmt 0)

mivox

nobody needs to leave their mail in a publicly accessible mailbox - lockable, securable and vandal proof mailboxes are available that can take not just post, bust small parcels too.

nobody needs to separate delivery address - they can arrange for post and other deliveries to be forwarded to another address (inluding a PO Box) to which only they will have access. setting up the postal forwarding requires proof that the person setting it up is the householder and is therefore not a fraudster. that means people can still use their home address as the delivery address and retailers can deliver knowing that only the cardholder can collect the deliveries.

there is no way to combat fraud when consumers insist on using the same ordering and delivery systems that fraudsters use and when retailers continue to support these systems by allowing separate delivery addresses.

i still stand by what i said - deliver only to the cardholder's address and require a signature for the delivery. if retailers begin insisting on this, it'll help stamp out fraud.

sure it won't stop all fraud, but it'll go a very long way to stopping a lot of it.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Ecommerce
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved