[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: Burner and Scan
- To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Burner and Scan
- From: "Brian G. Reynolds" <brian.g.reynolds@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 09:32:10 +0100
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Makes sense but does not explain why they can deliver to work from a phone
order but not from the web! if it was the first time (which it was) then OK
but from then on why not the work address? by using the card details they
match with my name and address and the fact that I had the missed delivery
card, what more do they need!
A while back BBC's Watchdog (spit) were instigating a policy for delivery
companies to adopt and a lot of the companies signed up to it as they are
well aware of the difficulties of not having out of hours deliveries etc.
not sure what stage the policy is now at but I noticed Watchdog is now back
on the box.
Time to email Watchdog.
B.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hetherington (egroups)
> [mailto:mark.egroups@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 21 September 2001 00:31
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Burner and Scan
>
>
> > I did send them an email suggesting that after the first order
> > maybe a second delivery address could be specified and given the
> > option in the web order form for delivery. Haven't had a reply
> > yet though. Maybe it's just the card company's rules (although
> > Ebuyer operate a similar policy).
>
> IME, credit card companies insist that mail order deliveries are only
made
> to the cardholder address as part of fraud prevention procedures. It
is
> entirely the retailer's responsibility if this is not actually
followed.
> However since Credit Card companies offer no protection to
> retailers at all
> in the event of fraud, I am surprised so many bother to follow the
rule at
> all. I do believe that they can revoke the merchant agreement, but
rarely
> enforce it since any fraudulent payments have to be repaid by the
retailer
> in addition to loss of the original goods.
>
> Where fraud insurance is available to a retailer, the insurance
> company will
> not cover claims where shipping is not made to the cardholder address,
so
> maybe companies refusing to deliver to alternate address do so under
the
> terms of fraud protection insurance.
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
> For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subscribe: ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe: ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> List owner: ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|