Forum Moderators: buckworks
If you have actually lost property, then a crime has been committed against you and you can insist that the police investigate the complaint.
If you are uk based then you might as well not bother, the Police are a complete waste of time and totally clueless.
I have reported all our cases of fraud to them, are they bothered?..............nope.
I could rant on for hours about this, but I will spare you the ear ache :)
Typical.
It is scandalous that they do not care. I could provide them with dozens of compromised credit card numbers but they could care less. I just dont get it.
Chargeback law is unfair to merchants and needs to be changed. Merchants should have recourse, which is for all practical purposes unavailable.
If you have actually lost property, then a crime has been committed against you and you can insist that the police investigate the complaint.
i don't think there's a crime there at all so not a police matter
goods have been sent, payment has not been received
correct procedure is to recover goods or recover costs via the courts
The goods were shipped but not the REAL owner of the C.C.
simple, effective, pure common sense
yet again, this is nobody else's fault ....
It is scandalous that they do not care. I could provide them with dozens of compromised credit card numbers but they could care less. I just dont get it.
there are any number of reasons why banks don't care about "compromised credit cards" (or more correctly, "possibly compromised credit cards"
they may only be "possibly compromised credit cards"
it might have been the genuine cardholder mistyping their card number that caused a rejection
it could be our nigerian friends trying random card numbers
and so on
ANY (or EVERY) card number could be "possibly compromised" very easily - the whole world would grind to a halt if they were to cancel every single "possibly compromised" card
it is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the merchant's responsibility to check for signs of fraud - and if merchants take their responsibilities seriously, they can cut out the vast majority of fraud ..... simple as that .........
Well we do, and we gets lots of attempts. Very few succeed.
Railman you certainly have more faith in the banks than I do, and the many others on this board who have been fighting this battle for years with zero help from the banks. Most of the "possible" compromised cards as you call it, are indeed compromised.
You still get charged your percentage fee, which they get. You get charged a chargeback fee, which they get. The customer who's card it is doesn't get penalized, so they don't have to worry about dis-satisfied customers. And they know that we, the merchants, can not stop taking credit cards, so it's a no lose situation for them.
If the laws were changed and the credit card companies were forced to swallow fraululant credit card transactions, there would be ways to truly prevent it by tomorrow.
It is like insurance, vendors charge to use the service but a few cents on a $850 dollar order seems worth it to never have to eat a $850 dollar chargeback.
Railman you certainly have more faith in the banks than I do,
not really - it's not the banks at fault, it's the merchants who simply dont use common sense and simple anti fraud checks ..... simple as that
If the laws were changed and the credit card companies were forced to swallow fraululant credit card transactions,
why should the banks be forced to pay for someone elses crime and a merchants negligence in not checking transactions properly?
if you have a shop and someone hands over a $17 bill, do you accept it then complain to the bank? of course not. so why accept dodgy credit card payments?
I got the judge and the commisioner of Fish and Game to write a sworn statement to the fact that I had fullfilled my obligation to the customer but due to the fact they had broken the law they would not be getting their fish back. Well the CC company was unwilling to give back for the 3rd time my money due to the fact that the customer never received their fish.
There is no winning.
so the court established you were entitled to payment, but you tried to force payment by a specific method, which was denied by the card company. i take it that you then called in debt collectors to recover the debt? this is the standard way of recovering bad debts ..... recovering bad debts by credit card is not a good idea .....
Well our software for processing credit cards was supposed to verify address and did so. I even verified after receiving the charge back.
that's good news. you know that the goods have been delivered to the cardholder, so you can now recover the goods or call in the debt collectors to recover payment.
although i suspect that (considering this person is still placing orders and that you haven't taken recovery action) you haven't actually verified the address and shipped the goods to the cardholder's address at all .........
If you are willing to spend all the time, money, and effort on this, then good for you. I know this for if this happens to us, I am not willing to fly 8000 miles from where I am to the UK or US to do this. Even if we were defrauded locally, I would think many times before I go ahead with legal action. Taking into consideration that most of our orders are less than $50.
Most of these people don't have much money anyway. Even if the court or small claims tribunal find it your favour, you are unlikely to collect much if not at all. The same applies to automobile third party claims against people who can't afford to buy third party insurance.
I remember that CurlyKurl have a lot of experience with these so called "Friendly Frauds". I wonder if you could tell us what you would do?
That's not true. The AVS system is pretty much broken, from what I can see. Lots of people move and never notify their bank. Then there are addresses that are just rejected by the software, period. Like PO boxes. 75% of the time, they will get rejected even though they are actually the customer's billing address. A merchant is forced to gamble constantly because the system does not work.
My average purchase is around $30, but I do get some that are in the $850 category. If it's from someone I am not familiar with, I call or email them and ask for the customer service number from the back of the card and the name of the issuing bank. If they don't reply or get testy, end of story. This has stopped fraud for me on big purchases.
On the smaller ones, if the AVS does not match, then I will check whether the name and address match the real-world name and address, since I have read that thieves never ship to their real name. If it matches, I send it. If not, I tell them they need to contact their bank because there is a discrepancy between the billing address the bank has on file and the address they gave. Because of this and some other things I do to stop fraud (for instance, I quit selling a number of widgets that attracted fraud), I haven't had a chargeback, no evil eye, in the past three years.
I don't really understand what is going on with this denial you got on the $850 charge if you sent it to the AVS address. Maybe you do not have tracking info?
If you are willing to spend all the time, money, and effort on this, then good for you.
and if not, sell the debt to someone who is willing to chase it up - lots of debt collectors willing to chase debts - that's what they're there for
That's not true. The AVS system is pretty much broken, from what I can see.
worldpay give me about 80% match on address, CVV and card issue country
of the remaining 20%, some are obvious frauds and others are partial matches (CVV+card issue country but "AVS not supported")
AVS relies on what the shopper types in - it has to deal with mistypes, errors etc - it does a pretty good job, but i guess it would take a lot of work to improve on what it does right now
Lots of people move and never notify their bank.
Then there are addresses that are just rejected by the software, period. Like PO boxes. 75% of the time, they will get rejected even though they are actually the customer's billing address.
you need to be honest with yourself - you are making excuses to ship the goods ......
IMO, the systems we have are not perfect and probably never will be, but IMO they are pretty good and merchants should start to trust them a bit more, not find excuses not to trust them
A merchant is forced to gamble constantly because the system does not work.
i bet most of your chargebacks have come from your gambling, not from orders with AVS matches ...........
Railman we do check for fraud, extensively. In more than 6 years of ecommerce we have only been burned 2 or 3 times. What I am talking about is, when you get an obvious fraud attempt, we used try and give the banks a heads up. You sit on hold for a half hour, then they seem completely uninterested in taking the information. So we have given up telling them because we did not lose anything and why should we spend our time on it. You would think they would have an easy way to gather the information.
This is completely wrong. We get customers with PO Boxes everyday. It is very common in rural and suburban areas. Not to mention corporate credit cards for large companies.
A PO Box is only a minor red flag. A bigger red flag for us is "123 Main St.".
On one occassion, a fraudster from Vietnam got frustrated that he actually placed an order using the cardholder's billing and shipping address. We were very luckly to have caught that one.
Railman, so what you are saying about your own experience with Worldpay and AVS does not apply to everybody. Morover, the stuff you may be selling are probably not that attractive to frausters in the first place, and the UK is not a high risk country for credit card fraud.
By the way, who would buy a $35 debt?
I don't use worldpay. I use authorize.net, one of the largest cc processors in the world. I have even sometimes called at the customer's behest when the AVS gives no match and what do you know? It is in fact their correct billing address, exactly as typed. Also, about 15% of my orders now are from abroad, and AVS does not return a result on a foreign bank card. So AVS is not by any means sufficient.
"how many people live in your street? how many have moved in the last 3 or 4 months?"
I live in a rural area, and most property is at least an acre. Nevertheless, the house across the road, which is a rental, has had three different families living in it in the past two years. In the US, the average time a family lives in a house they OWN is seven years. People who rent move much more often. When I lived in the city, I used to move every 2 years.
"again we're talking about a tiny minority of cardholders that use PO boxes - the vast majority of the time, if a shopper gives a PO box number, it's a fraud."
This is not true. Where I live, many people use PO boxes because in the winter, it is impossible to keep the snow clear from around the mailbox in a way that satisfies the post office. Also, many people find it easier to use a PO box if they get a lot of packages, or if they move often, and some consider it a security thing. Even the post office is now advertising using a po box for security reasons.
"you need to be honest with yourself - you are making excuses to ship the goods ...... "
Don't be patronizing. I've had NO chargebacks in the past three years. How many have you had? You are always complaining on these forums about your thieving, dishonest, stupid customers. You must have a lot of chargebacks.
"i bet most of your chargebacks have come from your gambling, not from orders with AVS matches ..........."
I bet you are wrong, and I win. Most of my chargebacks were the result of me being new at being a merchant. My total number of chargebacks in the five years I have been in business: five. In the past three years: none. So I think I know something about preventing chargebacks, even though I am forced to gamble by the cc companies.
again we're talking about a tiny minority of cardholders that use PO boxes - the vast majority of the time, if a shopper gives a PO box number, it's a fraud.
Not true.
Fraud rates are far too industry and product specific to make these sorts of generalizations.
What's far more annoying is that I have to pay high card-not-present rates as other Internet merchants when my fraud risk is miniscule to the point of absurdity.
