Ever think maybe it's your bank that sucks?

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

Thinkinng back at all the rage I've been seeing about ClickandBuy issues, it's been "Wells Fargo" this, "Chase" that, "Bank of America" and so forth... you know, some of the darlings that caused our current economic woes to begin with (along with a whole grocery list of other sins).

Have people considered that maybe they wouldn't have all these issues with ClickandBuy if their banks didn't suck so much?

Conversely, who's been having trouble with ClickandBuy while trying to use a credit card from a non-evil financial institution?

[Zagen]

Conversely, who's been having trouble with ClickandBuy while trying to use a credit card from a non-evil financial institution?

There is no such thing... any financial institution is out to make money and to make money you have to make "evil" decisions.

Also I've dealt with Well's Fargo, Chase, WaMu (before the merger), and Bank of America and had no issues that weren't either my fault or another person's fault and not the bank's fault.

[Korpg]

Actually, Bank of America doesn't have a problem with Click and Buy.

[Korpg]

There is no such thing... any financial institution is out to make money and to make money you have to make "evil" decisions.

...and, the tinfoils arrive....

[Zagen]

...and, the tinfoils arrive....

LOL tinfoils? Try realist >.> if you're in business you're going to have to make decisions that are "evil" to some...

[Pharaun]

Thinkinng back at all the rage I've been seeing about ClickandBuy issues, it's been "Wells Fargo" this, "Chase" that, "Bank of America" and so forth... you know, some of the darlings that caused our current economic woes to begin with (along with a whole grocery list of other sins).

Have people considered that maybe they wouldn't have all these issues with ClickandBuy if their banks didn't suck so much?

Conversely, who's been having trouble with ClickandBuy while trying to use a credit card from a non-evil financial institution?

And yet again you miss the point so hard that it's not even funny. I work for a small credit union (what you would call a non-evil financial institution) as the credit/debit card specialist and I can't get my own card to work for Click and Buy because they are such a shady company and our automated fraud analysis always trips when the transaction tries to go through. So I ask you kindly to quit trying to white knight for SE and this horrible decision.

[RAIST]

I actually appreciate the over-zealous watchdogs on my accounts. They've called me several times to verify a transaction--AMEX has even called me on my cell at the register once to authorize a major purchase. Wachovia contacted me to tweak my ICR when I was buying my last car with a down payment from that account and we negotiated a better deal right there on the spot and wound up knocking @$13 a month and a whole year off my loan right there in the dealership over the phone.

Sometimes it's nice to know someone's got your back.

[Korpg]

LOL tinfoils? Try realist >.> if you're in business you're going to have to make decisions that are "evil" to some...

Oh wait, I misread your post, sorry.

[Zagen]

Oh wait, I misread your post, sorry.

Haha np ^^ though now I'm curious what you read lol

[Korpg]

Haha np ^^ though now I'm curious what you read lol

I missed the "non-evil financial institution" part of the OP.

So, naturally, I thought you were the one referring to the "evil" of banks and such.

[Zagen]

I missed the "non-evil financial institution" part of the OP.

So, naturally, I thought you were the one referring to the "evil" of banks and such.

Ah heh ^^

Adding more words because apparently "Ah heh ^^" is too short >.> go go amazing filtering

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

"Fraud protection," "overzealous watchdogs"... again, people seem to be misinterpreting.

By law and by contract, a credit card user is not liable for fraudulent charges. Feel free to read the terms in your credit card agreement yourself. The only catch is that you need to spot it on your statement within a month or two.

Now, what happens when you spot that fraudulent charge? The bank reimburses you for it. More often than not, the money for the reimbursement comes out of the bank's own pocket.

These "fraud protection" calls and other measures that work to prevent the charge are to protect them, not you. They consider it cheaper and easier to hassle you than to risk having to swallow a $12.95 reimbursement.

Sometimes these automated systems are triggered because they come from a known fraudster. Other times, in the name of protecting their (i.e. not your) money, the systems are rigged to be triggered simply if the charges are coming from someone unfamiliar, or from someone outside the United States; both of these apply to ClickandBuy.

Now, a non-evil financial institution probably wouldn't hassle you to begin with, as you're an account-holder and a customer. But even if they did hassle you, they'd be willing to accept, after a brief conversation, that this particular charge was authorized by you and they should let it through, please-and-thank-you.

An evil financial institution, on the other hand, would have their bottom-tier call-center minions repeat corporate policy and refuse the charge despite your assurances to the contrary. More likely, the message you receive would be automated (email, robocall, SMS, etc.), leaving no chance for a reply or recourse. Because what are you going to do, change banks?

And, naturally, all of these "fraud warnings" would include flowery prose about how it's about protect "you," when really it's nothing of the sort.

[Korpg]

"Fraud protection," "overzealous watchdogs"... again, people seem to be misinterpreting.

By law and by contract, a credit card user is not liable for fraudulent charges. Feel free to read the terms in your credit card agreement yourself. The only catch is that you need to spot it on your statement within a month or two.

Now, what happens when you spot that fraudulent charge? The bank reimburses you for it. More often than not, the money for the reimbursement comes out of the bank's own pocket.

These "fraud protection" calls and other measures that work to prevent the charge are to protect them, not you. They consider it cheaper and easier to hassle you than to risk having to swallow a $12.95 reimbursement.

Sometimes these automated systems are triggered because they come from a known fraudster. Other times, in the name of protecting their (i.e. not your) money, the systems are rigged to be triggered simply if the charges are coming from someone unfamiliar, or from someone outside the United States; both of these apply to ClickandBuy.

Now, a non-evil financial institution probably wouldn't hassle you to begin with, as you're an account-holder and a customer. But even if they did hassle you, they'd be willing to accept, after a brief conversation, that this particular charge was authorized by you and they should let it through, please-and-thank-you.

An evil financial institution, on the other hand, would have their bottom-tier call-center minions repeat corporate policy and refuse the charge despite your assurances to the contrary. More likely, the message you receive would be automated (email, robocall, SMS, etc.), leaving no chance for a reply or recourse. Because what are you going to do, change banks?

And, naturally, all of these "fraud warnings" would include flowery prose about how it's about protect "you," when really it's nothing of the sort.

You know, I don't get your post.

You are correct in stating of the fraud protection and who it really serves, but then you go to tinfoil mode and state that banks and such are just out to hassle you forever and a day.

I just don't understand you at all.

[Neisan_Quetz]

If multiple people across multiple banks across multiple countries are getting cards frozen (even during a public holiday no less in my country's case, including from HSBC) attempting to get verified with Click and Buy, it's not necessarily the bank's problem...

[Korpg]

If multiple people across multiple banks across multiple countries are getting cards frozen (even during a public holiday no less in my country's case, including from HSBC) attempting to get verified with Click and Buy, it's not necessarily the bank's problem...

Blaming a company for the actions of their customers is not right either.

[RAIST]

who cares if it is to protect their self-interest. By extension, it protects me. If they stop someone from buying a ton of sporting goods in the UK right after I used the card to buy gas in the US, and then call me on it and I'm able to resolve the dispute right then and there on my drive home....well, it saves me a lot of headache and time disputing all the charges they managed to slip onto my card during the next 21 days till the bill arrives and I catch it.

Whether there motivation is to cover their own butts, I don't care--it's protecting mine as well.

[Pharaun]

Now, a non-evil financial institution probably wouldn't hassle you to begin with, as you're an account-holder and a customer. But even if they did hassle you, they'd be willing to accept, after a brief conversation, that this particular charge was authorized by you and they should let it through, please-and-thank-you.

Read my post again and then stfu and gtfo ->

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

Read my post again and then stfu and gtfo ->

First off, credit unions can be evil too.

Secondly, fine, you're a "credit card expert." Then perhaps you can look into your system and tell us what, exactly, is warranting these blocks, beyond vaguely being "shady?" Are there outstanding reports against them? Or is it just "We've never heard of them and they're outside the country?"

Do you know what's going into the automated system to begin with?

[Juri_Licious]

My Grandfather's wallet has no pathetic cards Kaiba.
But it does contain the unstoppable MASTER CARD.

[Korpg]

First off, credit unions can be evil too.

Sorry, I see this first sentence, and all I see is "tinfoil hat go!"

[Pharaun]

First off, credit unions can be evil too.

Secondly, fine, you're a "credit card expert." Then perhaps you can look into your system and tell us what, exactly, is warranting these blocks, beyond vaguely being "shady?" Are there outstanding reports against them? Or is it just "We've never heard of them and they're outside the country?"

Do you know what's going into the automated system to begin with?

Wow, you are trying to white knight this nonsense so hard.

The transactions are being blocked for a variety of reasons, and yes one reason is because it is a foreign transaction. Foreign transactions are much more likely to be fraudulent than domestic ones, so there is a one strike against it. The second and bigger strike is that due to the nature of their business they're used as a shell by purely fraudulent companies/people to try and hide fraudulent activity on stolen card numbers. The third strike is that their "verification" activity being a small $1-2 charge looks suspiciously similar to the kind of activity used to check and see if a stolen card number is valid.

Now to be fair not all of 2 and 3 is the fault of click and buy, paypal faced similar problems as they developed as well, but the combination of those three things make any transactions coming from that company look highly suspect. They do offer many legitimate services, but unfortunately they have allowed enough fraudulent services to go through them that they are not a trusted company by the U.S. banking system in general.

[Alhanelem]

There is no such thing... any financial institution is out to make money and to make money you have to make "evil" decisions.I guess you've never heard of this thing called a credit union; credit unions are not-for-profit.

Click and buy is nothing great, to be sure, but it is also true that some banks suck more than others and love giving people a hard time for no good reason.

In most cases, you should be able to notify your bank about forign transactions in advance so that they can approve it knowing that its you making the transactions. But I guess some banks are so anal about it that they just flat out don't allow it.

[Zagen]

I guess you've never heard of this thing called a credit union; credit unions are not-for-profit.

not-for-profit =/= non-profit. Credit Unions still need to make a money if they didn't they wouldn't have money to loan... the difference between a credit union and a bank is that a cerdit union's "profit" is considered a "surplus" instead because it is money used by its members and not the union itself. This doesn't excuse them from making decisions which some may deem as "evil".

[Korpg]

not-for-profit =/= non-profit. Credit Unions still need to make a money if they didn't they wouldn't have money to loan... the difference between a credit union and a bank is that a cerdit union's "profit" is considered a "surplus" instead because it is money used by its members and not the union itself. This doesn't excuse them from making decisions which some may deem as "evil".

...actually, the money they have to loan people money is the deposits from their customers......

Nothing evil about it at all. They charge interest rates on loans to pay for the people working there, and for insurance and stuff. You know, overhead.

[Zagen]

...actually, the money they have to loan people money is the deposits from their customers......

Nothing evil about it at all. They charge interest rates on loans to pay for the people working there, and for insurance and stuff. You know, overhead.
Interesting theory, so by that logic someone who fails to pay a loan to a credit union costs the costumers money since there is no "surplus" to cover that... I highly doubt that.

As to just covering "overhead" if that was the case I would get a cheaper interest rate from a credit union than I would from say Bank of America. Quick search relevant to my location on a 30 year fixed rate loan:

Nevada Federal Credit Union: 4.50%
Silver State School Union: 4.676%
Bank of America: 4.375%

So Credit Unions must have a much higher overhead to worry about than a big bank...

Also I never said they were evil I said they are not excused from making decisions that others may deem "evil".

[RAIST]

actually, a portion of the interest rate is based on the federal rate charged for the bank to get the funds from the Federal reserve. That's why things go bonkers when the fed evven jsut TALKS about changing their lending rates. Lenders' will start adjusting their rates in advance if they know the rate is going up, to compensate in advance.

And BoA.. REALLY? That's a national chain being compared to more locallized lendors. Walmart strategy--larger company is better equipped to negotiate and otherwise distribute their costs and pass savings on to their customers.

[Zagen]

And BoA.. REALLY? That's a national chain being compared to more locallized lendors. Walmart strategy--larger company is better equipped to negotiate and otherwise distribute their costs and pass savings on to their customers.
Considering I've left BoA for other banks because they offered better rates I don't really buy the "walmart" strategy. Discount BoA a 0.176% difference between 2 credit unions is a fairly big difference when they'd both just be covering overhead on top of the federal rate.

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

Wow, you are trying to white knight this nonsense so hard.

No, I'm trying to see where this "worse than PayPal" attitude is coming from, and I already hate PayPal with the firey passion of a thousand suns. I've already decided not to use ClickandBuy to begin with.


Now to be fair not all of 2 and 3 is the fault of click and buy, paypal faced similar problems as they developed as well, but the combination of those three things make any transactions coming from that company look highly suspect.

That still doesn't explain why it's rejected even after the customer has explicitly stated that these charges are legitimate, as in your case, where you apparently have to fight the system "every time." One would think that a bank could handle pre-clearing a single, regular, fixed-price transaction like this subscription fee.

[Pharaun]

It's because it's not really possible to deactivate the automated fraud detection for one specific transaction, you either have to shut it off for all transactions on the account or leave it on completely. I'm not willing to turn it off for everything just to allow one transaction to go through.

There are basically two levels of the automated fraud detection. The highest level will automatically decline the transaction and place a temporary block on the card until the card holder can be contacted. The lower level will just flag the transaction as suspicious and then send a report to a fraud analyst to look over and determine if it looks suspicious enough to warrant blocking the card and calling the card holder or if it seems to be consistent with regular account activity. Unfortunately the actions of Click and Buy and some of the people/merchants who use their system have landed them in the higher level.

[RAIST]

Considering I've left BoA for other banks because they offered better rates I don't really buy the "walmart" strategy. Discount BoA a 0.176% difference between 2 credit unions is a fairly big difference when they'd both just be covering overhead on top of the federal rate.

Maybe I should have gone into more detail so you got what I was saying. BOA is a big chain. They are able to pull together more bargaining power to cut costs on all their services like CC processing, check printing, advertising, etc. They have exponentially more customers and more opportunities to generate revenues. They have more capital for investments in various technologies, real estate--they can pull together a much more diverse investment portfolio for not only themselves but for their customers as well. All this adds up to more profits to the bottom line coming in from more sources which allows them to further discoutn their services.

[RAIST]

That still doesn't explain why it's rejected even after the customer has explicitly stated that these charges are legitimate, as in your case, where you apparently have to fight the system "every time." One would think that a bank could handle pre-clearing a single, regular, fixed-price transaction like this subscription fee.


It's somewhat situational. The local bank may not be the one ultimately controlling the policy--they may have partnered with someone else to provide the credit cards, so you may be subject to the policies of the bigger conglomerate (Chase or something) who simply has a blanket policy and they aren't going to micro-manage and allow Joe Dirt in Kettletown to opt out of it permanently so you have to override it on a case-by-case basis.

[Zagen]

Maybe I should have gone into more detail so you got what I was saying. BOA is a big chain. They are able to pull together more bargaining power to cut costs on all their services like CC processing, check printing, advertising, etc. They have exponentially more customers and more opportunities to generate revenues. They have more capital for investments in various technologies, real estate--they can pull together a much more diverse investment portfolio for not only themselves but for their customers as well. All this adds up to more profits to the bottom line coming in from more sources which allows them to further discoutn their services.
And my point was I've left them because they don't discount enough or offer better rates for savings when compared to local and/or other nationwide banks. Which is why I don't agree with them employing a Walmart business model.

[RAIST]

you were comparing national chain to mom and pop...which always happens with Walmart, it's not just walmart itself for the comparison, it's just a concept most people grasp in general--more resources available than a local mom&pop that enables them to cut costs and pass them on to their customers, making them more competitive than the mom&pop.

You were comparing a national chain with over $100 Billion in net annual revenue and over $200 Billion in annual shareholder equity to two locally owned/operated institutions. Not exactly a level playing field for comparing there interest rate offerings on a home loan.....

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

It's because it's not really possible to deactivate the automated fraud detection for one specific transaction, you either have to shut it off for all transactions on the account or leave it on completely.

I'm not convniced that you're talking for all banks and not just your bank, though.

You've brought up the example of PayPal, mentioning that ClickandBuy is in the same situation that PayPal once was. PayPal apparently got out of the hole, however, and I'm doubting they'd be able to have pulled it off if all banks blocked all PayPal transactions, with no questions and no exceptions. Somebody was making exceptions somewhere to allow PayPal to improve its reputation.

[Leonlionheart]

Well, I had no problem. Small bank in Hawaii, but I guess the banks here are the best in America.

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

Well, I had no problem. Small bank in Hawaii, but I guess the banks here are the best in America.

When all the local businesses have signs that say "We accept JCB!" then the local banks probably already know a thing or two about international transactions. :P

[Korpg]

Interesting theory, so by that logic someone who fails to pay a loan to a credit union costs the costumers money since there is no "surplus" to cover that... I highly doubt that.

As to just covering "overhead" if that was the case I would get a cheaper interest rate from a credit union than I would from say Bank of America. Quick search relevant to my location on a 30 year fixed rate loan:

Nevada Federal Credit Union: 4.50%
Silver State School Union: 4.676%
Bank of America: 4.375%

So Credit Unions must have a much higher overhead to worry about than a big bank...

Also I never said they were evil I said they are not excused from making decisions that others may deem "evil".

Actually, yes they do. But Bank of America has less risk of bank closing than any credit union too, but that is besides the point.

Bank of America has trillions of dollars in deposits, and can issue out more loans than most, if not all, banks. Not including state or federal owned banks of course. That also means that anyone who defaults a Bank of America loan won't bankrupt the bank (see if you can find the pun in that).

On a side note, do you know what overhead is?

[Alhanelem]

not-for-profit =/= non-profitUmm... they ARE the same thing. "Non-profit" groups still need to collect money to cover their operating costs or they will cease to operate. Credit Unions generally have lower fees and loan interest rates, which are how banks make money, and these fees are set such that they can pay their operating costs and not more than is necessary.

Remember, there are people in non-profit organizations that get compensated for their time- "Non Profit" doesn't necessarily mean the labor is free/donated/volunteered. Labor is an operating cost. It does however mean that the money past the operating costs goes back into the business instead of adding to the owner/CEO's bank account.

[RAIST]

rthere actually are some legal distinctions between non-profit and not-for-profit. One class can qualify for special considerations that the other cannot. Here's a post I found on techimo drawing one of the distinctions:

Similar legalities for non-profit and not-for-profit, as far as I am aware,. Some maintain it's a fine disctinction with what you do with "profit", meaning money earnt. Non-profit say we don't "keep" any profit, we give it all away; not-for-profit say we don't "keep" profit but put it back into the buisness of the association/charity. No shareholders or distribution of profit to any workers or managers, though.

I work in a not-for-profit hospital group. We actually lose money ATM, but if we made a profit, it would be put back into better resources for the hospitals, not to shareholders or executive bonuses.

One gives profit away (ie, back into the community maybe), while the other re-invests all profit back into itself. This is a distinction for whether an entity qualifies for various grant considerations and certain stuff in the tax code.

[Raxiaz]

Oh my friend, the banks are the ones everyone should not trust. It'd be great if we could just be like "Hey SE, here's our money," straight from us, but oh no. We have to go through the banks... Unless of course you go through pre-paid cards. Which could very well be the solution to all this bull**** in the first place.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OQzH07u0U

[Atomic_Skull]

So I ask you kindly to quit trying to PLD for SE and this horrible decision.

Fixed that for you

[malf]

My thought of what i'm currently hearing about the C&B company could be synthetized like this : A wanabee businessman wanted to make a clone of Paypal because it's cool and his son knows an "IT specialist" who managed to install a website who will be the CTO. With poorly implemented rules and poorly support they now score everywhere as shaddy company. I wouldn't be confident at all in the security of the data, If I had to put my CC information in this kind of company.

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

The CTO will be who ever Deutsche Telekom (a/k/a T-Mobile) says it will be, since they own the company and all.

I'm not saying that ClickandBuy may not be shady/questionable/evil, but small-time and fly-by-night they are not, at least at this point.

[malf]

Thanks for the information (didn't even take the time to get it, it was deliberate, kinda douched with ffxi I think)and yeah seems owned by a big company. But finance/payment and telecom is not necessary same business. ( Working for 15 years for some major telecom operator).

Anyway it doesn't mean that it's not poorly designed since the beginning, will not take time to dig info about it. It means that they are financialy viable.

A recent example about not being good in security :
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9218636/Director_of_US_CERT_quits_abruptly
http://www.cert.org/

[RAIST]

regardless of how they may have started, where they are now, and where they are working towards regarding security in the future...one simple fact remains:

In the financial community, they have a bad reputation.

These things don't change overnight--it takes time. Until then, financial institutions will remain skeptical and not trust them until they prove themselves worthy of that trust. This could be next week, next month, next decade--doesn't really make a difference at this point in time. In the shorter term of the here and now, this is a big problem as SE is relying on them for CC processing for users' subscription fees outside of the JP region.

[Korpg]

regardless of how they may have started, where they are now, and where they are working towards regarding security in the future...one simple fact remains:

In the financial community, they have a bad reputation.

These things don't change overnight--it takes time. Until then, financial institutions will remain skeptical and not trust them until they prove themselves worthy of that trust. This could be next week, next month, next decade--doesn't really make a difference at this point in time. In the shorter term of the here and now, this is a big problem as SE is relying on them for CC processing for users' subscription fees outside of the JP region.

Somehow, I get this feeling that you are the type of person who broads over things forever.

[malf]

Somehow, I get this feeling that you are the type of person who broads over things forever.

And you giving useless comments ?

[Korpg]

And you giving useless comments ?

There is a point to my post, you just got to look beyond the words and see what the meaning is.

Shouldn't be too difficult for you to do.

[RAIST]

Just the facts ma'am

Facts are facts. C&B makes the call in the end. If they declare you have to prefunded, then they prefund. So, it is an open possibility.

I could have simply stated that, but then that would be challenged and I would have to go back and explain it in exhaustive detail over multiple posts and provide a hypothetical situation and so forth. I've spent a lot of time planning and troubleshooting implementations and development over the years. Puts you in the habit of trying to cover as many angles in a situation as you can. For example, migrating email for an entire college campus from an outdated Alpha/Linux based system to a brand new IBM server cluster in Windows/MS-Exchange---you can run into a buttload of snags along the way. You quickly get in the habit of hoping for the best and planning for the worst.

I'm simply in the habit (and prefer) to just get it all out there up front at once. Sorry if it offends you that I try to be a little more thorough at times.


Edit:

OOPS!!!

This was actually supposed to go into another thread. Stupid multitasking...musta thought I came back to a different post when I put this in. But...strangely enough it still does apply. Occupational hazard of being a troubleshooter I guess...always trying to catch the potential glitches in a process and find ways to prevent/counter them. hope for the best, plan for the worst. Kinda gets you locked into being a bit of a pessimist though...not good when you were a cynic to start with...heheh

[RAIST]

May have stumbled on something about C&B. There might actually be a specific reason why some financial institutions are rejecting them, just haven't been able to get further details as it looks like the site I was in just hit a maintenance window while I was on it.

Click&Buy is stating they are authorised and regulated by the FSA UK:

ClickandBuy International Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom. (Register Number: 454127)
http://www.clickandbuy.com/EU/en/sa/help/pages/04505.html&bereich=surfer

So out of curiosity I went to pull up their reports on them, but can't get any real info on them just yet as it looks like they've started stopping some webapps for maintenance or something while I was browsing. This particular one went offline just after I pulled it up, but the first page from my search was still in my cached pages so I was able to grab at least their basic info:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/register/index.shtml
searched on firm registration number: 454127



Basic details for:
454127 - ClickandBuy International Limited

Current status: No longer Authorised
Effective Date: 01/07/2011
Tied Agent:
Undertakes Insurance Mediation:
Registered under Money Laundering Regulations:
Address: Lincoln House
137/143 Hammersmith Road
London
W14 0QL

Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Website:
44 020 7605 0670
44 020 7751 1848
No e-mail supplied
www.clickandbuy.com

Notices:
Other information: The firm now has an e-money record. Please check the e-money link for more information.

Clicked the e-money link and that's when pages started coming up as unavailable. Guess I hit it right when they were taking things down.

Interesting that their basic info states they are not authorised. Which is a little concerning as they are still claiming on their site that they are authorised.

When you go to the FSA's detail on status entries, it simply states

No longer authorised
A firm is no longer allowed to carry out certain types of business that we regulate.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Register/use/firm_status/index.shtml

Which makes me even more curious about just what they are no longer authorized to do, and why. Wish I could get at the reports to get more info.

[Pawkeshup]

Actually Click and Buy is a terrible option. So far I've seen:

- Repeated charges due to their problematic interactions with other website
- International charges for NA players
- 5.9% charge for currency exchange
- 2.00 charge for using Euros per transaction

I think it's pretty obvious C&B sucks.

[Alhanelem]

- 5.9% charge for currency exchange
- 2.00 charge for using Euros per transactionNone of these charges apply to EasyCollect payments to SE or anyone else who C&B handles online payments for. All of these charges only govern funds going into/out of your E-money wallet, which you're not using if you chose to use C&B to process payments.

RAIST (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/members/5100-RAIST) if you look at the section of the site you linked about e-money, you'll see that they ARE authorized for htat, which means the site may have been recategorized, rather than really b eing deauthorized becuase they screwed up.

(It's a long list of companies that are authorized to conduct "e-money" transactions on the internet.)

[RAIST]

The regulation governance dictated they be reclassified. The big question is WHY. Something happened somehow, somewhere, between 2001 and 2011 and they had to change their classification to an e-money clasification (specifically noted this class is under new Money Laundering Regulations). To me, that implies that these guys are not credit card processors--they are currency vendors and nothing more. In the past these currency vendors have been caught shuffling moneys through exchanges to shave off a few points here and there and pocket the difference (collect in pounds, bounce it into other currency(ies) and back to pounds again before it is finally sent to the endpoint. Think back to the Click2pay fiasco.

Just curious if maybe it wasn't just a change in regulations. Is it a mere coincidence that it took place when the firestorm of overbilling, rejected payments, chargebacks and all that crap happened with WoW, iTunes, and various other services (people were contemplating class action against them in some circles)? Or was there something more specific to it that is at the heart of why they are getting rejected by the banks?

[Alhanelem]

The big question is WHY.Businesses often shift focus. That's not exactly a rare event. Perhaps initially their aim was to be a full fledged online financial institution (e.g. Capital One) but they decided to focus on the online payment system instead.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but basically I'm just saying that it wasn't necessarily some kind of faliure on their part to comply with a law or regulaiton, and there may in fact have been some good reason for it.

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

Yes, if you go looking for things to be afraid of and angry over, odds are you going to find it. But I will bet that if you were to give your bank's depository agreement the same kind of scrutiny, if you read over PayPal's terms with the same attention... hell, if you actually sat down and read the FFXI license, you could find just as many things to be up in arms over if not more.

The trick is that you're not looking at those. Nerd rage and fear of change have you looking for monsters in only one specific place.

I didn't ask for a list of reasons to hate the ClickandBuy T&C; looking at most of the posts on the subject, most of you aren't careful readers to begin with and I could do a better job of finding them myself.

I also didn't ask to hear stories about of a friend of a buddy of some guy who posted on BG about what he heard shouted in Jeuno. If nothing else, the problem with eighth-hand stories like that is nobody knows if the problems were self-inflicted.

What I am actually wondering about is if you, personally, the person reading these words, had problems setting up ClickandBuy for payment. And, if so, were your own, personal probems an issue with ClickandBuy actually scamming you, or yotur own bank simply saying they were trying to scam you?

[Maacha]

Proof that ClickandBuy is not doing what SE said they were supposed to be doing. We were not supposed to have to pay any international fees to use that service, but when I tried setting it up a few days ago, here is what happened to my bank account:

http://images.bluegartr.com/bucket/gallery/df43a04d4ed8de0df1fed6adfc58027e.jpg

This was using my US Debit card, since I was unable to register my Korean credit card at all. I cannot use my US card to pay for FFXI because I am unable to send enough money to the US to cover my subscription for more than a couple months. I cancelled the ClickandBuy service that same day, before these charges had even been made, here is the email they sent me when I cancelled:


Dear Ms. Park,

Thank you for contacting ClickandBuy and for your message.

Our records do not reflect the charges mentioned in your message. This indicates that you are referring to pre-authorised charges or reservations, which either occurs when you attempt to make a purchase that fails or when we verify the validity of your payment method during the registration process.

This transaction is purely a reservation and no funds are taken from your account; they are merely reserved by your payment provider. After approximately five working days, the reserved charges are automatically released.

In the event that the reserve does not get released please contact your credit card issuer to speed up the process.

Please select answer or reply when responding to this email as opposed to sending a new email as this will aid us in resolving your issue with more efficiency.

Yours sincerely,

ClickandBuy Service Team

Those were not precharges, they were actual charges and I got charged fees for them. Even if the charges themselves are reversed in a few days, I highly doubt I will be getting those fees back. Sure it's only a few cents, but I should not have incurred those charges at at all...

[Alhanelem]

That's how it works. They put small charges on, then refund them. Any fees you're incurring should be your bank's fees, not C&B's.

My card was "tested" and there were no fees, only the $2 charge they said they were charging.

[Maacha]

That's how it works. They put small charges on, then refund them. Any fees you're incurring should be your bank's fees, not C&B's.

My card was "tested" and there were no fees, only the $2 charge they said they were charging.

According to SE, we aren't supposed to pay those fees, that is the point. I will see in a few days if those charges actually are reversed, but from reading other threads, I've heard some people say those charges were not reversed at all, simply credited to their "emoney account," which since I cancelled my account before these charges were even made means I lose that money completely. To quote the FAQ:


No, customers who have chosen ClickandBuy as their payment method will NOT incur any additional fees when paying for subscriptions.

[Alhanelem]

According to SE, we aren't supposed to pay those fees, that is the point.It's not a fee, it's card verification, and you get that money back. And neither SE or C&B is responsible for fees from your bank/card issuer.


No, customers who have chosen ClickandBuy as their payment method will NOT incur any additional fees when paying for subscriptions. Note the bold underline. You aren't paying for your subscription yet. You're just registering the card and undergoing a verification process.

Now, I have to ask: How did you register payment info and create a clickandbuy account. Did you do it from the SE account page? or did you go to the clickandbuy website and register from there? It probably matters.

[Maacha]

It's not a fee, it's card verification, and you get that money back. And neither SE or C&B is responsible for fees from your bank/card issuer.

Note the bold underline. You aren't paying for your subscription yet. You're just registering the card and undergoing a verification process.

Now, I have to ask: How did you register payment info and create a clickandbuy account. Did you do it from the SE account page? or did you go to the clickandbuy website and register from there? It probably matters.

I registered from the SE account page. What makes you think a subscription charged by the same service would not incur the same fee as the verification charges which may or may not be refunded?


Sorry if it wasn't clear because we didn't list every fee that is associated with a separate ClickandBuy E-Money account, but again to clarify, no fees will be charged beyond the subscription cost for customers using ClickandBuy to pay for their subscription.

By fee I meant the international service fee, which we were told we would not be charged. 5 cents per charge may not seem like much, but after being told by SE we should not be having any associated fees, it's a kick in the nuts.

[Alhanelem]

By fee I meant the international service fee, which we were told we would not be charged. 5 cents per charge may not seem like muchClickandbuy is not charging that fee. Your bank is. There was no 5 cent charge on my card for anything. Only the $2 test charge to verify the card.

[Maacha]

Clickandbuy is not charging that fee. Your bank is. There was no 5 cent charge on my card for anything. Only the $2 test charge to verify the card.

I know it's not clickandbuy, but it is because clickandbuy is considered a foreign company even though they are supposed to be performing this service in the US in US dollars. I am not the only one whose bank charged extra fees for a transaction from this company, who SE contracted to handle US subscriptions from and who we were told we would not face international fees to use.

[Romanova]

Clickandbuy is not charging that fee. Your bank is. There was no 5 cent charge on my card for anything. Only the $2 test charge to verify the card.

Point is it's good for people to know. With SE stating that there would be no fees some people might not expect these charges.

Now we know that people might still get charged (by their banks) for using CnB. Which tbh is still stupid fyi. CnB has a branch in the US as well. They shouldn't be using their international service to charge US accounts in the first place.

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

By fee I meant the international service fee, which we were told we would not be charged. 5 cents per charge may not seem like much, but after being told by SE we should not be having any associated fees, it's a kick in the nuts.

They said ClickandBuy wouldn't, not that your bank wouldn't.

And if your credit card is in US dollars and ClickandBuy is billing you in US dollars, the bank shouldn't be charging that fee to begin with. Call your bank about it.

[Romanova]

They said ClickandBuy wouldn't, not that your bank wouldn't.


no.


No, customers who have chosen ClickandBuy as their payment method will NOT incur any additional fees when paying for subscriptions.

They didn't say CnB only. Now yes, it could be implied that SE is stupid and didn't think to mention bank fees, but they didn't actually say it like you claim.

[Ziyyigo-Tipyigo]

They didn't say CnB only. Now yes, it could be implied that SE is stupid and didn't think to mention bank fees, but they didn't actually say it like you claim.

Fine, then go be pissed off that your credit card is charging you interest on your FFXI subscription. You're making unreasonable and unrealistic assumptions simply to justify your nerd rage.

My original question was "Did you consider it's your bank's fault instead?" and the answer here is obviously "no," and you refuse to consider the possibility. If you're too dense to consider the possibility that your bank is cheating you... well, it ain't my money. Knock yourself out.

By the way, ClickandBuy has no presence outside of England; physical, legal or otherwise. Note the complete lack of any jurisdiction other than England in the T&C. If you're going to start unfounded rumors about "a branch in the US," you could at least try to provide a mailing address.

[RAIST]

Businesses often shift focus. That's not exactly a rare event. Perhaps initially their aim was to be a full fledged online financial institution (e.g. Capital One) but they decided to focus on the online payment system instead.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but basically I'm just saying that it wasn't necessarily some kind of faliure on their part to comply with a law or regulaiton, and there may in fact have been some good reason for it.


Yes, if you go looking for things to be afraid of and angry over, odds are you going to find it. But I will bet that if you were to give your bank's depository agreement the same kind of scrutiny, if you read over PayPal's terms with the same attention... hell, if you actually sat down and read the FFXI license, you could find just as many things to be up in arms over if not more.

The trick is that you're not looking at those. Nerd rage and fear of change have you looking for monsters in only one specific place.

I didn't ask for a list of reasons to hate the ClickandBuy T&C; looking at most of the posts on the subject, most of you aren't careful readers to begin with and I could do a better job of finding them myself.

I also didn't ask to hear stories about of a friend of a buddy of some guy who posted on BG about what he heard shouted in Jeuno. If nothing else, the problem with eighth-hand stories like that is nobody knows if the problems were self-inflicted.

What I am actually wondering about is if you, personally, the person reading these words, had problems setting up ClickandBuy for payment. And, if so, were your own, personal probems an issue with ClickandBuy actually scamming you, or yotur own bank simply saying they were trying to scam you?



Actually, I have reviewed the FFXI ToS... just went through it aq few days ago because of an ongoing debate over Crysta, and yes.. it is a shoddy TOS. But almost all of them are--they are always designed to add all kinds of unreasonable protections to the business and not the consumer, as they have much more at stake if they loose a challenge. Sit down and read through some Microsoft licensing sometime. Some people are not aware of just how Windows tracks your hardware to determine if you've moved the license to a new system. You can actually trip up one of your alloted migrations by simply upgraded your PC if you aren't careful of how you do it--and you haven't really changed PC's, just reconfigured your existing one. But.. that's a different argument.

The point I'm getting at is the timing of WHEN it went down. They had regulatory changes in 2007 that flipped people's classification away from large scale Financial Firms. There were several cycles from 2009 to early 2011 where C&B had recurring problems with their transactions--and it got REALLY bad in late 2010 through 2011. iTunes accounts were getting frozen out, gambling accounts were getting locked and people couldn't get their winnings because C&B was telling the casinos they were in default to C&B (but never disclosed that they were in that state because of an error on C&B's side) and people were seeking legal advice to see if they had grounds to SUE them over it for LIBLE. And then, they got reclassified by the FSA right in the middle of it all.

Could have been simply because of a shift in the regulations--I already stated that. But also, that shift in the regulations could have come about ultimately BECAUSE of the problems that C&B and other similar companies were having/causing (again, reference Click2pay's "laundering" scheme). If it was in fact the latter, then the banks have a very valid reason not to trust them because they were obviously part of a bigger problem in the industry as a whole with their particular type of business that ultimately led to the FSA revising regulatory practices and shifting those business into a new category by themselves.

It isn't that I'm paranoid and trying to make something up. I'm genuinely trying to find out just what happened with the company to cause the PROFESSIONAL distrust of their company. I'm not the one going around and labeling anyone as a white-knighter or tin-foiled hat wearer--I'm just tring to dig up what actually happened to cause all these banks to flat out refuse to accept C&B's transactions when they have a nice list of reputable companies that DO work with them.

There have been people here challenging posters to PROVE their claim that they are a shady company and not to be trusted.
Heaven forbid someone is actually trying to step up to the plate and accept that challenge.

[Alhanelem]

I know it's not clickandbuy, but it is because clickandbuy is considered a foreign company even though they are supposed to be performing this service in the US in US dollars. I am not the only one whose bank charged extra fees for a transaction from this company, who SE contracted to handle US subscriptions from and who we were told we would not face international fees to use.
SE doesn't have any control over what your bank does. When it says there are no fees, it means there are no clickandbuy fees. They can't stop financial institutions from charging fees for anything.

Althrough I am hesitant to work with a company that has such hatred directed at it, nearly every such company has some kind of hate group working against it, so I am reluctant to take everything anyone says at face value, especially considering I myself have not had the problems people say there are.

Paypal is pretty well hated too, and we actually have people asking FOR it (even though we already have it). Look no further than http://www.paypalsucks.com.

[RAIST]

I know it's not clickandbuy, but it is because clickandbuy is considered a foreign company even though they are supposed to be performing this service in the US in US dollars. I am not the only one whose bank charged extra fees for a transaction from this company, who SE contracted to handle US subscriptions from and who we were told we would not face international fees to use.

This is the point being missed in this particular case. BECAUSE SE is cramming this down our throats, people are now getting charged ADDITIONAL fees for their subscriptions that thay have NOT been hit with for nearly a decade. Still the same company we are trying to pay, still with the same account and instrument. What has changed? The medium used. What was that change? SE -->Click&Buy.

AGAIN...in case you've lost sight of it...the point is, SE is forcing 2/3 of it's regions to switch to another method of payment that, through NO FAULT OF THE CONSUMER is causing them to pay a higher price--and tt is not because SE raised their fee. It doesn't matter if it is a penalty imposed by C&B, the Clearing House, or the user's bank. It is because of HOW they are now FORCING those consumers to make payments--it is causing them to suffer penalties they didn't have to pay before when using the same card with the same bank as before.

[Alhanelem]

Perosnally, I'd advise you to find a better bank without as many fees. My bank (TD Bank, well known on the East Coast) never charged me anything for the clickandbuy $2 hold, and since that hold was released, there is nothing in my records remaining to even know it happened in the first place. The $2 hold was placed and removed within minutes. They obviously have no problem with me sending money to a UK payment processing service.

[RAIST]

That could also be because the hold didn't actually go through. Some people have had these charges actually show up on their bills--not as a pending transaction that has yet to be released. Until you have actually had a payment from them be processed, it is an unknown if you will be assessed a fee from the bank. These people have had transactions go through, and were charged a transaction fee.

[Alhanelem]

If the hold didn't go through, then the card would not have been confirmed.

[RAIST]

From a PDF I found with a quick Google search:
http://www.tdbank.com/popup/onlinedisclosure_combo.pdf


3 TD Bank will impose a 3% foreign transaction fee on the converted U.S. Dollar amount of the transaction and any transaction made outside the U.S. Account transactions (including Purchases and Cash Advances) made in a foreign currency will be converted to U.S. Dollars by or on behalf of Visa U.S.A. Inc. (or any of its affiliates) using its currency conversion procedures and charges then in effect, as of the date on which the transaction is first posted to the VISA system.

Might want to keep an eye on the charges when they start going through.

[RAIST]

If the hold didn't go through, then the card would not have been confirmed.

Actually yes it can. The test is not to see if it goes through. This is actually a test that mirrors what 3DS protocol does. They are checking to make sure the account given is actually owned by the person purchasing the service. In 3DS, a message is sent for verification from the account holder. If the correct "password" (it can be a digicert, so it happens automaticallly for known safe transactions) is given, it is considered legit. C&B "pings" the account to show activity and waits for the account holder to verify they've seen that activity. It's essentially the same concept.

And when processing a credit card, there are two ways it can be done. You can request authorization and close it right away, or you can pre-authorize a transaction. The latter posts as a pending amount, and is temporarily deducted from the available funds for that account for the purpose of any future transactions that may occur before this transaction actually closes. Rental companies and hotels do this all the time. Put a hold for $300 so they know no matter what, they will get their $300. You bring the car back or check out of the hotel and then they go back and actually process it for the actual amount.

And no, I'm not talking out of my butt. We did this all the time at Alamo. All CC transactions were held as pending posts--even ones that were done for the exact amount up front for extra things like extra insurance and such. At the end of the day, we ran a batch command that closed all the pending transactions for the day. So, a charge made at 9AM actually didn't close and fully post to their account until 5:30PM.

[Romanova]

By the way, ClickandBuy has no presence outside of England; physical, legal or otherwise. Note the complete lack of any jurisdiction other than England in the T&C. If you're going to start unfounded rumors about "a branch in the US," you could at least try to provide a mailing address.

55 Broad Street 16th Fl, New York , NY 10004

http://www.bbb.org/new-york-city/business-reviews/electronic-equipment-and-supplies-dealers/clickandbuy-com-in-new-york-ny-94189/

[RAIST]

hmm.. that may explain why it's hit-and-miss on who is getting nailed with transaction fees. Some may be getting properly converted to USD for the charges, while others aren't--sounds like something that needs to be addressed internally by C&B.

[Maacha]

Perosnally, I'd advise you to find a better bank without as many fees. My bank (TD Bank, well known on the East Coast) never charged me anything for the clickandbuy $2 hold, and since that hold was released, there is nothing in my records remaining to even know it happened in the first place. The $2 hold was placed and removed within minutes. They obviously have no problem with me sending money to a UK payment processing service.

I have never had a problem with my bank before now. Also, since I am currently residing outside of the US, I do not have the option of opening up another US bank account. The only reason I tried C&B in the first place using my US account was to hopefully smooth over the transition until something better was allowed, but I changed my mind while still in the process of setting up the account with C&B and cancelled the account. The charge on my card came several hours after I had already cancelled my C&B account.

Those so called preauthorization charges are still on my account 3 days after they were made, only 1 business day though, so they still have 4 business days to refund my money before I go batshit on them.