Anonymous

    >> >> * Could they legally (in the UK) charge my credit card for the
    >> >> difference, or would they have to sue me for it?
    >> >
    >> > If you have paid with a credit card, charging the debt to the card
    >> > would be the usual way to recover it.
    >>
    >> Is it legal in the UK for a company to make an unauthorised charge to
    >> someone's credit card in order to collect an alleged debt?
    >
    > In this case it isn't an "unauthorised charge".

So if I think you owe me damages for whatever reason (your dog's
barking keeps me awake), I can claim it on your credit card as a
shortcut instead of using the civil courts?

Nomen Nescio

    > ...
    >> I don't believe I have ever authorized a credit card to pay anything but
    >> a
    >> *given amount.* I.e. the fare as paid at the time of the charge.
    >> Except when the card provides a guarantee, which this deal would not
    >> seem to require; even then, they can't arbitrarily go add stuff.
    >
    > When you give your credit card to an hotel at the start of a stay, you
    > are authorising them to deduct whatever charges you incur during that
    > stay, including the then unknown amounts that you might charge to the
    > room in the restaurant or bar or in telephone or mini bar charges. I
    > would say that is essentially the same as authorising Eurotunnel to
    > charge the fare you agreed (c.f. the room rate) plus any surcharge you
    > incur under their terms and conditions (c.f restaurant, etc.).

That's a good analogy, but I'd offer two objections to it.

1a. In the hotel example, the "unknown amounts" become known to you as
you incur them by explicitly requesting _additional_ services:
e.g., you go into the restaurant, look at the menu, consider the
prices, and order a meal to be charged to your room. You're
getting goods and services in addition to lodging and the hotel is
incurring additional costs in providing them.

1b. In the Eurotunnel case, the company is charging you extra for
_not_ using all the services included in the rate (not using the
return journey). A hotel analogy that more closely approximates
this situation would have a tariff like £50 bed, £40 bed &
breakfast. You book the cheaper rate. When you go to the breakfast
buffet they don't have anything you find appetising, so you don't
eat. The waiter makes a note of this and the hotel charges you £10
extra?!?!

2. Liability is normally for additional costs to the offended
party. If you accidentally break something in a shop, you are
liable for the _cost_ to the shop of replacing the article, not
the _price_. In the tunnel case, the company's cost incurred by
your failure to use the return journey is at most nil and probably
negative (they sell the empty place to someone else).

Adrian Boliston

wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > When you give your credit card to an hotel at the start of a stay, you are
    > authorising them to deduct whatever charges you incur during that stay,
    > including the then unknown amounts that you might charge to the room in the
    > restaurant or bar or in telephone or mini bar charges. I would say that is
    > essentially the same as authorising Eurotunnel to charge the fare you agreed
    > (c.f. the room rate) plus any surcharge you incur under their terms and
    > conditions (c.f restaurant, etc.).

You give them an imprint only as a guarantee against "doing a runner". You still
have to sign for the actual amount on checkout.

Bigbrian

On Wed, 7 May 2003 12:03:33 +0100, "Adrian Boliston"
wrote:

    > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> When you give your credit card to an hotel at the start of a stay, you are
    >> authorising them to deduct whatever charges you incur during that stay,
    >> including the then unknown amounts that you might charge to the room in the
    >> restaurant or bar or in telephone or mini bar charges. I would say that is
    >> essentially the same as authorising Eurotunnel to charge the fare you agreed
    >> (c.f. the room rate) plus any surcharge you incur under their terms and
    >> conditions (c.f restaurant, etc.).
    >You give them an imprint only as a guarantee against "doing a runner". You still
    >have to sign for the actual amount on checkout.
But they can and do charge a supplmentary charge to the card if they
subsequently find charges that hadn't been included on the original
bill (last day minibar charges, for example)

Brian

Greg Byshenk

Anonymous wrote:
[ others wrote: ]

    > >> Is it legal in the UK for a company to make an unauthorised charge to
    > >> someone's credit card in order to collect an alleged debt?

    > > In this case it isn't an "unauthorised charge".

    > So if I think you owe me damages for whatever reason (your dog's
    > barking keeps me awake), I can claim it on your credit card as a
    > shortcut instead of using the civil courts?

If you have a contract with the offending party by which such charges
are authorized, then the answer would be 'yes'.


--
greg byshenk - [email protected] - Leiden, NL
hate spam?

nightjar

"A.Melon" wrote in message
news:3058406054de1040c956014d82d1e0f...raffickers.com...
    > >> I'm inclined to agree with you (after pursuing this question into
realms
    > >> of thought so tortuous my head still hurts).
    > >>
    > >> ISTM that Eurotunnel can argue they did not sell the customer two
trips,
    > >> of which he chose not to take one, but sold him only one trip; and he
    > >> then unilaterally decided to take a different trip. The fact that the
    > >> different trip was identical to a portion of the originally-purchased
    > >> trip may be a red herring. This is more or less what you're saying,
    > >> right?
    > >
    > > That would seem to be a fair summary.
    > Here's an analogy. If you placed an order for a set of something to be
    > sent in two shipments, paid for the whole set, and told them to cancel
    > the second shipment after you'd received the first, the company would
    > have no grounds for demanding more money from you. So why should
    > Eurotunnel be able to get away with doing just that?

You are making the mistake of thinking that a single trip is half of return
trip, rather than an entirely different trip that happens to look similar.

Say you go into a furniture store to buy a sofa. You see a sofa, priced at
£800, that you like and you tell the store that you will return to collect
that sofa next day. Next day you decide that you really much prefer a sofa
that costs £400 and take that instead. Would it be fair that you pay for the
sofa you said you would take, or for the one you actually did take? You
still get something that looks similar and does the same job. The same
principle applies in the case of fares, confused only by the oddity of the
pricing structure that results in some return fares being cheaper than some
single fares.

    > I know you're stating what you believe to be the legal facts here. But
    > I'm curious -- do you think they should be allowed to operate and
    > enforce this offensive pricing structure?

What is offensive about being able to buy cheap return fares, subject to
certain restrictions, at less than the single fare price? I think it is a
good deal. Only people who want to fiddle the system are disadvantaged by
the present structure.

    > Or should consumer groups
    > put pressure on the DTI to do something about it?

Getting the DTI involved would almost certainly only result in the end of
cheap period returns, in favour of full fares for everyone.

Colin Bignell

nightjar

"Adrian Boliston" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > When you give your credit card to an hotel at the start of a stay, you
are
    > > authorising them to deduct whatever charges you incur during that stay,
    > > including the then unknown amounts that you might charge to the room in
the
    > > restaurant or bar or in telephone or mini bar charges. I would say that
is
    > > essentially the same as authorising Eurotunnel to charge the fare you
agreed
    > > (c.f. the room rate) plus any surcharge you incur under their terms and
    > > conditions (c.f restaurant, etc.).
    > You give them an imprint only as a guarantee against "doing a runner".
You still
    > have to sign for the actual amount on checkout.

It is a long time since I last recall having to sign on leaving. My
experience is that it is now common for an hotel to use the authority given
when booking in.

Colin Bignell

nightjar

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
...
    > That's a good analogy, but I'd offer two objections to it.
    > 1a. In the hotel example, the "unknown amounts" become known to you as
    > you incur them by explicitly requesting _additional_ services:
...
    > 1b. In the Eurotunnel case, the company is charging you extra for
    > _not_ using all the services included in the rate

What they are doing is charging you the difference between the fare you paid
and the fare you should have paid for the service you used. You knowingly
incur that extra cost by not complying with the conditions of use for the
ticket issued, which include returning within a set time scale. A single
trip is not half of a return, but a separately priced and different service.

Colin Bignell

Devil

On Wed, 07 May 2003 13:37:59 +0000, greg byshenk wrote:

    > Anonymous wrote:
    > [ others wrote: ]
    >
    >> >> Is it legal in the UK for a company to make an unauthorised charge to
    >> >> someone's credit card in order to collect an alleged debt?
    >
    >> > In this case it isn't an "unauthorised charge".
    >
    >> So if I think you owe me damages for whatever reason (your dog's
    >> barking keeps me awake), I can claim it on your credit card as a
    >> shortcut instead of using the civil courts?
    >
    > If you have a contract with the offending party by which such charges
    > are authorized, then the answer would be 'yes'.

Absolutely not.

Devil

On Wed, 07 May 2003 13:47:22 +0100, bigbrian wrote:

    > On Wed, 7 May 2003 12:03:33 +0100, "Adrian Boliston"
    > wrote:
    >
    >> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>> When you give your credit card to an hotel at the start of a stay, you are
    >>> authorising them to deduct whatever charges you incur during that stay,
    >>> including the then unknown amounts that you might charge to the room in the
    >>> restaurant or bar or in telephone or mini bar charges. I would say that is
    >>> essentially the same as authorising Eurotunnel to charge the fare you agreed
    >>> (c.f. the room rate) plus any surcharge you incur under their terms and
    >>> conditions (c.f restaurant, etc.).
    >>You give them an imprint only as a guarantee against "doing a runner". You still
    >>have to sign for the actual amount on checkout.
    > But they can and do charge a supplmentary charge to the card if they
    > subsequently find charges that hadn't been included on the original
    > bill (last day minibar charges, for example)

It is by no means clear whether they could make these stick if you contest them
though.

I have had a rental car company charge unauthorized stuff to me, in a
similar scenario. When they failed to show the basis for the charge in
question is was denied by the CC.

Devil

On Wed, 07 May 2003 08:18:56 +0100, nightja wrote:

    >
    > "devil" wrote in message
    > news[email protected]...
    > ...
    >> I don't believe I have ever authorized a credit card to pay anything but a
    >> *given amount.* I.e. the fare as paid at the time of the charge. Except
    >> when the card provides a guarantee, which this deal would not seem to
    >> require; even then, they can't arbitrarily go add stuff.
    >
    > When you give your credit card to an hotel at the start of a stay, you are
    > authorising them to deduct whatever charges you incur during that stay,
    > including the then unknown amounts that you might charge to the room in the
    > restaurant or bar or in telephone or mini bar charges. I would say that is
    > essentially the same as authorising Eurotunnel to charge the fare you agreed
    > (c.f. the room rate) plus any surcharge you incur under their terms and
    > conditions (c.f restaurant, etc.).

I don't believe trhis is quite the correct interpretation. You sign the
slip *as a guarantee.* Not quite the same as a blank cheque. They can't
just arbitrarily add stuff.

The credit card company will not let itself be pushed into the position of
a court, of having to interpret a contract. In other words, these charges
will likely stick only if you don't contest, or if they have a signed
document.

Try returning a damaged rental car. They sure will have you sign the
bill.

A . Melon

I think we're never going to agree on this!

    > You are making the mistake of thinking that a single trip is half of
    > return trip, rather than an entirely different trip that happens to look
    > similar.

I would say that a single trip is to a return trip as volume 1 is to a
2-volume set, not as an £800 sofa is to a £400 sofa. If you pay for a
two-volume set and only take volume 1, _and_ someone else may buy
volume 2 by itself later, why should the seller be able to claim
damages?

    > the same job. The same principle applies in the case of fares, confused
    > only by the oddity of the pricing structure that results in some return
    > fares being cheaper than some single fares.

You say "oddity", I say "predatory behaviour". They charge £150 for a
single and between £260 and £300 for a normal return but £15 to £35
for various types of day return. Either (1) they are making a profit
at £15 and absolutely gouging the public at £260 or (2) the cheap day
returns are anti-competitive behaviour calculated to attack the
ferries.

    > What is offensive about being able to buy cheap return fares, subject to
    > certain restrictions, at less than the single fare price? I think it is a
    > good deal. Only people who want to fiddle the system are disadvantaged by
    > the present structure.

Actually everyone except smugglers is disadvantaged by the present
structure.

    >> Or should consumer groups
    >> put pressure on the DTI to do something about it?
    >
    > Getting the DTI involved would almost certainly only result in the end of
    > cheap period returns, in favour of full fares for everyone.

But those full fares would almost certainly be lower than they are
now. Only smugglers would lose out.

Bigbrian

On Wed, 07 May 2003 14:23:26 GMT, "devil" wrote:

    >On Wed, 07 May 2003 13:47:22 +0100, bigbrian wrote:
    >> On Wed, 7 May 2003 12:03:33 +0100, "Adrian Boliston"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>> When you give your credit card to an hotel at the start of a stay, you are
    >>>> authorising them to deduct whatever charges you incur during that stay,
    >>>> including the then unknown amounts that you might charge to the room in the
    >>>> restaurant or bar or in telephone or mini bar charges. I would say that is
    >>>> essentially the same as authorising Eurotunnel to charge the fare you agreed
    >>>> (c.f. the room rate) plus any surcharge you incur under their terms and
    >>>> conditions (c.f restaurant, etc.).
    >>>You give them an imprint only as a guarantee against "doing a runner". You still
    >>>have to sign for the actual amount on checkout.
    >> But they can and do charge a supplmentary charge to the card if they
    >> subsequently find charges that hadn't been included on the original
    >> bill (last day minibar charges, for example)
    >It is by no means clear whether they could make these stick if you contest them
    >though.

Assuming you don't contest charges that you know to be valid - which
would be an act of deception - its entirely clear that you can't
contest them.

If you complain to the credit card company that the hotel has
subsequently (after checking out) charged you for items which you
acknowledge are valid, but which you wish not to pay because they
didn't include them on the original bill, you'll get pretty short
shrift.

    >I have had a rental car company charge unauthorized stuff to me, in a
    >similar scenario. When they failed to show the basis for the charge in
    >question is was denied by the CC.

Unauthorised is not the same as valid, supplementary charges

Brian

Bigbrian

On Wed, 7 May 2003 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT), A.Melon
wrote:

    >I think we're never going to agree on this!
    >> You are making the mistake of thinking that a single trip is half of
    >> return trip, rather than an entirely different trip that happens to look
    >> similar.
    >I would say that a single trip is to a return trip as volume 1 is to a
    >2-volume set, not as an £800 sofa is to a £400 sofa. If you pay for a
    >two-volume set and only take volume 1, _and_ someone else may buy
    >volume 2 by itself later, why should the seller be able to claim
    >damages?
    >> the same job. The same principle applies in the case of fares, confused
    >> only by the oddity of the pricing structure that results in some return
    >> fares being cheaper than some single fares.
    >You say "oddity", I say "predatory behaviour". They charge £150 for a
    >single and between £260 and £300 for a normal return but £15 to £35
    >for various types of day return. Either (1) they are making a profit
    >at £15 and absolutely gouging the public at £260 or (2) the cheap day
    >returns are anti-competitive behaviour calculated to attack the
    >ferries.

Its not like manufacturing a specific item with fixed manufacturing
costs. The trains are going to be running anyway, carrying the £260
and all the other return passengers, so why not try and stimulate some
extra revenue by offering the excess capacity at fares that are going
to appeal to people who wouldn't otherwise travel at all? The ferries
can and do do the same thing, btw.

    >> What is offensive about being able to buy cheap return fares, subject to
    >> certain restrictions, at less than the single fare price? I think it is a
    >> good deal. Only people who want to fiddle the system are disadvantaged by
    >> the present structure.
    >Actually everyone except smugglers is disadvantaged by the present
    >structure.

I'm not a smuggler and I'm not disadvantaged by it.

    >>> Or should consumer groups
    >>> put pressure on the DTI to do something about it?
    >>
    >> Getting the DTI involved would almost certainly only result in the end of
    >> cheap period returns, in favour of full fares for everyone.
    >But those full fares would almost certainly be lower than they are
    >now. Only smugglers would lose out.

How many of the passengers actually pay it? I've never paid more than
c £100- £120 for a return on Eurotunnel on any of the dozens of times
I've travelled.

Starwars

    >> I know you're stating what you believe to be the legal facts here. But
    >> I'm curious -- do you think they should be allowed to operate and
    >> enforce this offensive pricing structure?
    >
    > What is offensive about being able to buy cheap return fares, subject to
    > certain restrictions, at less than the single fare price? I think it is a
    > good deal. Only people who want to fiddle the system are disadvantaged by
    > the present structure.

seems obvious that fiddle is exactly what the OP wanted to do and
asked for advice about getting away with it!