Online Purchase debited 4 years later

Ltazdevil76 on 12/01/2019 - 02:16

I purchased an item online back in 2014, paid for using Visa Debit card. I received the item no problems. However, the merchant for some reason never processed the payment. Now fast forward to today, so last week the transaction from 2014 got processed on my Visa Debit Card and as there was not enough funds, the transaction has overdrawn my account.

I have raised a disputed with my bank based on the fact of timeframe. Its not my fault the merchant did not process the transaction back in 2014 when there was funds in the account. Wondering what OzB members think of this. Should there be a limit of time for a merchant to process a transaction?

Financial

Comments

  • Seedy seed on 12/01/2019 - 02:18
    -3

    Chargeback 😂😂😂

  • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 02:30
    +34

    Get them to provide Aus Post proof of sending.

  • garetz on 12/01/2019 - 06:35
    +20

    Seems abit of a stretch to charge someone for something 4 years after the fact. Just talk to your bank and state its an unauthorised transaction.

    • spaceflight on 13/01/2019 - 16:36
      +4

      But it isn't unauthorised.

      • CharityCase on 15/01/2019 - 10:09
        +2

        Then it's up to the seller to prove it

  • JimmyF on 12/01/2019 - 07:37
    +9

    I have raised a disputed with my bank

    Ok, so what did they say and why is there a need for a thread?

    • dcep on 12/01/2019 - 13:53
      +13

      Wondering what OzB members think of this. Should there be a limit of time for a merchant to process a transaction?

        • ensanguined on 14/01/2019 - 00:09
          +9

          Go away pest.

          • Zondor on 14/01/2019 - 10:26
            -1

            @ensanguined: He raises a valid point, our opinion doesn't matter it's what the bank deems valid or not.

            • Imhereforcomments on 14/01/2019 - 17:39
              +1

              @Zondor: @Zondor But then again he has opened up a public discussion for opinions like many other threads on this site.

            • nith265 on 15/01/2019 - 10:31
              +3

              @Zondor:

              He raises a valid point, our opinion doesn't matter it's what the bank deems valid or not.

              You raise a ridiculous point - OzB opinion never matters for any topic. This is a forum, people ask questions (good and bad), some users might have an angle, or an experience they could share.

              But failing someone having any useful information on the topic OP has literally asked:

              "Wondering what OzB members think of this"

    • drprox on 13/01/2019 - 18:51
      +8

      I'll tell you why. Because the bank will go through a standard trace process where they contact the vendors bank and see what the result is. It'll take weeks and no guarantee of the funds being returned. If it were me I'd just move on, it's unusual but if OP got the item why do they deserve it for free? They had the benefit of the monies for 4 years.

      • praga on 15/01/2019 - 23:05
        +1

        Who is going to pay for the overdrawn account fees?

  • jjjaar on 12/01/2019 - 07:38
    +22

    Just out of curiosity, how did you know what the transaction was for if it was so out of the blue? I’m assuming it wasn’t just a nominal $5, but rather something large?

  • Hardlyworkin on 12/01/2019 - 08:13
    +8

    Karma is a b*tch isn't it ;)

  • Halo375 on 12/01/2019 - 08:17
    +76

    You bought something and got it for free. For four years you had their money and earned interest. Now they’re asking for you to pay what you owe them. Not a big deal I reckon, but I agree they should have notified you in advance to make you aware.

    • whooah1979 on 12/01/2019 - 09:25
      +40

      they should have notified you in advance to make you aware.

      To be fair op didn't contact the store four years ago to offer to pay for the good. OP let it slide in hope of getting it for free.

      • Diji1 on 12/01/2019 - 12:07
        +38

        It's not OP's responsibility to waste their time with a poorly run business. They already provided all the correct information for the payment to happen in a timely fashion and it didn't.

        • whooah1979 on 12/01/2019 - 12:46
          +15

          Customers receiving goods have a legal responsibility to pay for the goods.

          • Harold Halfprice on 13/01/2019 - 22:17
            +5

            @whooah1979: To what extent must a customer go to to cover for negligence on the stores behalf?

            OP did everything correctly and by the book, with full intention of paying.

            The store willingly sent him the goods, obviously being satisfied that their requirements and been met, and then for whatever reason did not process the payment.

            What if OP called the store and informed them that he still hasn't been charged, but the store still wouldn't process his payment? When is his legal responsibility satisfied?

            • HighAndDry on 14/01/2019 - 15:28
              -1

              @Harold Halfprice:

              OP did everything correctly and by the book, with full intention of paying.

              Except for actually paying.

            • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2019 - 12:48

              @Harold Halfprice:

              To what extent must a customer go to to cover for negligence on the stores behalf?

              Legally, probably not a lot. Morally, the op knew they hadn't paid and was trying to get one over on the seller. That makes them an (profanity) regardless of the legalities.

              I see this all too often. Customers who exploit online pricing mistakes are some of the worst. There was an example recently where someone on the forum went to elaborate lengths even after the online store had fixed the mistake and refunded everyone. This customer kept haranguing the store cashier (physical confrontation) until they relented and gave them the discount. They were so proud of their "bargain". All I could think was "what an (profanity)".

              Do people forget there are real human beings at the other end of the computer screen? Op gets a $50 "discount" (or whatever) but that money didn't come from nowhere. If it's a small business owner you're taking that money out of their wallet. If it's a large business it's seemingly easier to justify but it's morally just as bankrupt.

              It's not like Op "forgot" to pay. Op knew they hadn't paid and hoped nobody would notice. They got caught and now they're still trying to weasel their way out of paying. As with the other person in the previous example all I can think is "what an (profanity)".

          • lint on 14/01/2019 - 10:27
            +6

            @whooah1979: It seems to me like they already did that when they provided the store with their card details. The rest is the store's responsibility.

            I'm not sure the store is entitled to charge them four years later without first notifying them. A quick email like "Hey, sorry we were auditing our system and it looks like payment for this order dated such and such was not processed. We will charge your card on five days time, please ensure there is sufficient funds or credit. If the card is no longer valid, please contact us with new card details."

            Otherwise, it's the store's oversight and their loss.

        • wkd on 14/01/2019 - 13:08

          and its not the businesses responsibility that OP's debt card was overdrawn.

          too bad, so sad.

  • loulou1 on 12/01/2019 - 08:19
    +21

    Did you contact the merchant four years ago when the payment wasn’t processed? I have had payments not go through when I have bought things and contacted the merchant to advise them after a reasonable period of time has passed.
    You owed the money, you should pay it. I doubt very much that the bank will side with you.

    • singlemalt72 on 12/01/2019 - 13:26
      +14

      Does you check every purchase to make sure the funds have come out of your account? I certainly don't.

      • HighAndDry on 12/01/2019 - 15:14
        +1

        But you also don't complain when a valid payment is taken.

        • Flying Ace on 13/01/2019 - 16:21
          +10

          I would if it was four years ago.

        • Marty131 on 14/01/2019 - 15:23
          +1

          Isn’t the issue that the delayed payment has triggered an over balance fee?

          • HighAndDry on 14/01/2019 - 15:26
            -1

            @Marty131: OP is claiming they shouldn't pay any of the price, not just the overdraw fee.

            • AG_ACT on 15/01/2019 - 16:14
              +1

              @HighAndDry: I didn't read that in the OP.

              I would have an issue if I got lumped with fees that could easily have been avoided by an sms/email/phone call. I've had a hotel booking come through on a credit card after it was closed 14+months later, no fees, so no issues, but if I had incurred a fee, i'd be expecting the merchant to foot the bill not me…. Not my fault they couldn't get their act together.

              I 100% agree that charges need to be paid, but business needs to take some responsibility for the delay.

              • HighAndDry on 15/01/2019 - 16:22

                @AG_ACT: From the OP:

                I have raised a disputed with my bank based on the fact of timeframe […] Should there be a limit of time for a merchant to process a transaction?

                OP wants there to be a time restriction on businesses processing transactions, i.e. they think the business shouldn't be able to process this transaction at all.

  • Samsungnote10 on 12/01/2019 - 09:31
    +4

    More importantly, how or why did they keep your card detials for 4 yrs!

    • Nice one baby on 12/01/2019 - 14:17
      -1

      They may not have settled their EFTPOS machine for 4 years. I have heard of a B&B that hadn't for 2 years. They hadn't been keeping track of their books and didn't notice that they hadn't been paid for any of their electronic transactions. The transactions were processed once they knew how to settle the machine.

      • spaceflight on 13/01/2019 - 16:38
        +4

        EFTPOS machines automatically settle

        • derpdeder on 14/01/2019 - 19:58
          +1

          Not if they're not connected to the bank's network and running in offline mode.

          • smartazz104 on 15/01/2019 - 18:36

            @derpdeder: For four years though?

            • derpdeder on 16/01/2019 - 12:55

              @smartazz104: If a unit was kept powered for that time to maintain the memory and not connected ever to the bank's network, it would have no reason to purge the transactions. I've had an Ingenico machine post a transaction that was a month old but I have no idea if there is an upper limit. Most eftpos machines now have 3G backup so the phone/network connection issues that cause offline don't seem to occur. OP however stated subsequently that this was not the issue in their particular transaction.

      • BartholemewH on 15/01/2019 - 07:31
        +1

        If that is the case it is sad that none of the customers notified them.

    • h4zey on 14/01/2019 - 18:58
      +2

      don't your card expired?

  • txb on 12/01/2019 - 09:41
    +9

    So youve essentially received a free item and your complaining you have to pay for it now? What a time to be alive, you privileged princess

    • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 10:35
      +32

      No. They got a fee for being overdrawn. You are the one with the anti snowflake hair trigger.

      • whooah1979 on 12/01/2019 - 10:41

        Some credit card providers only charge an overdrawn fee if the amount is more than their overdraw limit. The limit could be anything between $100 to $20000.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 10:44

          That would be a funny dispute with the bank, over $0. It's the principle!

        • MITM on 13/01/2019 - 13:06

          Debit card with insufficient funds.

      • txb on 12/01/2019 - 11:37

        After paying nothing in the first place.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 11:46
          +21

          First place being four years ago. It's not a blood debt. Can a buyer say four years late that it didn't arrive and they need a refund?

          • HighAndDry on 14/01/2019 - 15:29
            -1

            @[Deactivated]: If they can prove it, yes. It'd be a hellavuh process going through the courts but absolutely possible.

            • [Deactivated] on 14/01/2019 - 16:43

              @HighAndDry: That would mean very many companies are trading insolvent as they can't cover 4+ years of sales if they all went missing and were simultaneously refunded.

              • HighAndDry on 14/01/2019 - 17:31
                -1

                @[Deactivated]: What?

                No - if OP was a company, the invoice would be listed under "Payables" in liabilities. It'd absolutely be accounted for, and wouldn't fall off after an arbitrary amount of time. You can write off receivables at your discretion, you can't do the same for payables.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 09:53
    +31

    Wouldn't your card have expired and been re-issued in this time?

  • Melb69 on 12/01/2019 - 09:56
    -5

    I love these posts when OP put them up to be flamed. What comes around goes around. You got an item for free that you clearly knew you hadn't paid for fully after receiving the item. Then a complaint about the overdrawn account and that seller should of let you know. Come on OP. Think about what you are complaining about here.

    Another post blaming others for his/her own lack of responsibility.

  • Donaldhump on 12/01/2019 - 11:30
    +6

    there is a legal timeframe to be charged, i don't thinj companies can charge a bill after X months (i don't know what but pretty sure it exists)

    the fact the person didn't get charged in the first place is not the issue, they may have never been aware, it is the fee they are fuming about, and i would be too.

    how many of us really know whether we paid out internet bill last month, when you have 500 other charges from your wife's obliteration of shoe and clothes shops. (you just assume it has been charged), and thus need to keep money in the account

    • Melb69 on 12/01/2019 - 12:03
      -7

      You should be more aware of your finances given potential hacking of your accounts. When you get your monthly bills you should question every item. OZB.

      Understand that the merchant should have probably written it off way back when, rather than 4 years later. Seller provided item, Buyer doesnt deny recieving it. Pay up or shut up.

      • Donaldhump on 12/01/2019 - 14:25
        +6

        you sit there and go through every transaction, man that must be boring and a waste of your time.

        if it is approximately what i expect ill pay it.

        so if i forgot to charge you $5 in 1972 and you knew that, and i debited your account today which had $4.67 in it, you would be sweet with the $30 fee?

    • HighAndDry on 12/01/2019 - 15:15

      The legal timeframe is 7 years.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 11:47
    +5

    About 4 years ago my partner and I flew to the UK over Xmas. To make the flight we needed to catch 4 different airlines, and booked though Expedia. We took the flights, came back (it was a total of $6k, flights around Xmas are expensive), and Expedia never charged us. I've used Expedia since, without issue (and have been charged). I hope they don't charge me after all these years. Someone suggested it could be to do with booking multiple airlines (apparently Expedia don't charge you until all the other airlines have charged them, so if one forgot, I'm scott free).

    • Samsungnote10 on 12/01/2019 - 11:55
      +17

      for that amount of money and that time frame, I would deifnitely close the card or get a new one issued,

      • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 11:58

        That kind of makes it stealing. Where as if I maintain the status quo, and let the universe sort it out, my karma levels remain in tact.

        • Samsungnote10 on 12/01/2019 - 12:00
          +5

          not really, it is the merchants fault for not charging, espeically time frame?

          my friend about 10 years ago did a solar panel installation for like $12k,
          they asked for a bill about 6 times, it never came

          I wouldnt be happy if I got cahrged that amount after all this time, especially requesting invoices

          • Melb69 on 12/01/2019 - 12:06

            @Samsungnote10: If as a buyer you followed up and advised the seller they hadn't charge you within the first month or so and nothing happens. Then it is not reasonable for the seller to charge you back after such a long period for their accounts incompetence. Having said that. You still need to pay. Wouldnt want them to come and take the solar panels off your roof. Would you.

            • Samsungnote10 on 12/01/2019 - 12:11
              +1

              @Melb69: im no lawyer, but im pretty cponfident, that if you could prove that you requested payment, offered payment, and they didnt do anything, for the seller to come and remove the solar panels with no notice or notification,

              id have a legal case for compensation or similar

              • Melb69 on 12/01/2019 - 12:27

                @Samsungnote10: Yes you could proceed with speaking with your lawyer for advise. May still save you the 12k you should of paid in the first place. I don't want to justify the sellers incompetence. Just a pain in the arse for the buyer. Should be a simple transaction, especially if you are the buyer and chasing the seller up. Must be earning to much to keep up with their own invoice chasing.

                • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 12:35
                  +2

                  @Melb69: Advise is a verb.

                • Samsungnote10 on 12/01/2019 - 14:00

                  @Melb69: its advice….not advise,

                  like I said, its not me but my friend,
                  had it been me, i deem my job done if ive offered to pay, and tried to pay

                  and had they uninstalled it without notice , then yes lawyers is definitely something id be considering

                • Donaldhump on 12/01/2019 - 14:27

                  @Melb69: advice not advise

                • onetwothreefour on 12/01/2019 - 14:52
                  +2

                  @Melb69: not sure if anyone has told you or not but it is advice not advise

                  • Melb69 on 12/01/2019 - 15:02
                    +2

                    @onetwothreefour: Has anyone not noticed I did correct myself. My typo. I do know the difference.:)

                • CVonC on 13/01/2019 - 12:45
                  +2

                  @Melb69: everyone barking up your advise tree yet they all ignored the

                  should of -_-

                • hypie on 13/01/2019 - 14:04
                  +1

                  @Melb69: I advise you to use advice in this situation.

                • RiotDealz on 13/01/2019 - 20:20

                  @Melb69: Keep lawyers out of your life, free tip.

              • HighAndDry on 12/01/2019 - 15:16

                @Samsungnote10: Compensation for what? You're not entitled to free goods.

                • Samsungnote10 on 12/01/2019 - 21:49

                  @HighAndDry: I could think of many things
                  Trespassing
                  Inconvenience
                  Increased energy bills.

                  The amounts may not be high but the point is you simply cannot go into a property and do that stuff without permission.
                  Especially if it was a hot water system or a electrical switch board or similar

            • Seedy seed on 13/01/2019 - 16:51

              @Melb69: Yes, can get new ones to replace prob alot cheaper too.

          • MITM on 13/01/2019 - 13:12

            @Samsungnote10: Send a final request for the invoice as you wish this matter to be finalised by X date whence funds will be allocated to other purposes and therefore permanently unavailable.

        • johnno07 on 13/01/2019 - 23:09
          +1

          That kind of makes it stealing. Where as if I maintain the status quo, and let the universe sort it out, my karma levels remain in tact.

          Dumbest thing I've ever heard. What you're saying is that you are morally OK with low-key fraud, but not OK with overt fraud.

          • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2019 - 08:44
            -1

            @johnno07: Except it's not fraud, everything was done correctly on my end.

            • johnno07 on 15/01/2019 - 09:55
              -2

              @[Deactivated]: Except you've knowingly received a service for which you were supposed to pay, but did not pay.

              The DEFINITION of fraud is dishonestly receiving a benefit/property/service. See: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/…

              So, if you honestly believe in hoodoo of karma - yours is buggered.

              • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2019 - 11:34
                -1

                @johnno07: Except I did pay. I gave them my credit card details, with the full intention of paying. If they charge me, I won't protest the charge. Their mistake is not my fault.

                • johnno07 on 15/01/2019 - 13:02
                  -1

                  @[Deactivated]: Except you didn't pay - BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T PAID.

                  • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2019 - 14:35
                    -1

                    @johnno07: I have given Expedia every opportunity to take my money. It's not fraudulent if they can't do their job properly. I haven't closed my account, I've reused their service, I have the same credit cards. You're trying to put the ball in my court, but I've already hit it over the net, and I've been waiting for the return for 4 long years. If it doesn't come, then so be it.

                    • johnno07 on 15/01/2019 - 18:18

                      @[Deactivated]: You seem to be misunderstanding. I don't care that Expedia is out a few grand because of their inability to properly take payment - that is their fault, and it just becomes a cost of their doing business. What I take issue with is you claiming the ethical high ground by drawing some ridiculous line in the sand where purposely and overtly defrauding someone is morally wrong, but committing fraud by omission (which is what you are doing) is morally OK.

                      I have given Expedia every opportunity to take my money.

                      No you haven't. Every opportunity would be notifying them.

                      And can I reiterate, you are committing fraud. It's fraud that is unlikely to ever be noticed, or ever result in any sort of penalty if it is noticed, but fraud nonetheless. You are dishonestly obtaining a benefit. Do I care that Expedia is out a few bucks? No. Are you in the right? Also no.

                      • [Deactivated] on 15/01/2019 - 19:40

                        @johnno07: To say I'm committing fraud is just stupid. At no point have I ever tried to withhold payment, or get out of paying.

                        • johnno07 on 15/01/2019 - 22:52
                          -1

                          @[Deactivated]: Mate - it's not. If you read the Criminal Code I linked above (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/…)

                          408C Fraud
                          (1) A person who dishonestly—
                          …
                          (b) obtains property from any person; or
                          …
                          (d) gains a benefit or advantage, pecuniary or otherwise, for any person;
                          …
                          commits the crime of fraud.

                          (where "property": "includes credit, service, any benefit or advantage")

                          3(b) a person’s act or omission in relation to property may be dishonest even though—
                          (i) he or she is willing to pay for the property; or
                          (ii) he or she intends to afterwards restore the property or to make restitution for the property or to afterwards fulfil his or her obligations or to make good any detriment; or
                          (iii) an owner or other person consents to doing any act or to making any omission; or
                          (iv) a mistake is made by another person

                          And to reiterate what I said before - I'm not commenting on the likelihood of you being caught, nor the likelihood of any actual penalty if it does come to light. However, what you're doing absolutely fits the above description. Not notifying the other party that payment was unsuccessful is dishonest, and you gained property (in the form of a service). I don't care that you've gotten a good deal out of Expedia - they can foot the bill because they made a mistake - but the fact that you think you are morally right, when you are, to the letter of the law, committing a crime, is absolutely ridiculous.

                        • giles on 15/01/2019 - 23:38
                          +2

                          @[Deactivated]: Ugh. Burnertoasty authorised the payment, by one of the merchant’s requested methods, and the merchant provided the good/service. Calling this fraud is fanciful.

                          Ye olde chequing system (which, granted, I don’t miss at all) allowed cheques to go stale if not banked by the payee. It’s completely defensible for a buyer to expect a merchant to draw the funds authorised within a reasonable amount of time.

  • Diji1 on 12/01/2019 - 12:09
    +7

    Dispute it, not your responsibility.

    The business should have debited you in a timely fashion. Their loss.

    • whooah1979 on 12/01/2019 - 12:41

      Op were supplied with the good, but didn't pay for it. What is op disputing?

      • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 14:56
        +1

        Banks often charge fees for an account being overdrawn.

        • sheamas88 on 12/01/2019 - 17:39
          +1

          And they are disputing what though?

          • [Deactivated] on 12/01/2019 - 17:53
            +3

            @sheamas88: OP can speak for themself, but in my case, I put my money into an interest bearing account rather than the transaction account with debit mastercard. If some random transaction from 4 years ago sends it into overdraft when funds were in the interest account and a fee is charged, I wouldn't be happy either. Transactions aren't open forever, there is a reasonable time to process a charge. If foreign exchange was involved, of course they can't wait forever.

      • [Deactivated] on 13/01/2019 - 15:02

        NO,OP had authorised payment, but the seller did not take it.

        • HighAndDry on 14/01/2019 - 15:31

          OP authorized it - there was no time-limit on that authorisation (technically). Seller is now taking it. It's still fully within the authorisation that OP gave them.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join