On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:28:51 +0100, "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Happy Oyster" <happy.oyster@ariplex.com> wrote in message
>news:upjqc5ljnmvmduo11835qh23p480ntv687@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:02:06 +0100, "M.I.5¾"
>> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Happy Oyster" <happy.oyster@ariplex.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dvgnc5dmkcm6hbd592dq6bug2uq87ngb6d@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:45:36 +0100, "M.I.5¾"
>>>> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4acaf815$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Happy Oyster" <happy.oyster@ariplex.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:cbvbc55g170403gtg7s8fqgqqn42r9td00@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:19:26 +0100, "M.I.5¾"
>>>>>>> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Happy Oyster" <happy.oyster@ariplex.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:mq22c5hjco5f2prq6i0a60oop0f1188f99@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.nickveasey.com/
>>>>>>>>> **** WARNING **** The web-hoster Globat.com steals money from your
>>>>>>>>> credit card account. If you are a customer of Globat.com, never
>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>> them any credit card information. If you can't erase the
>>>>>>>>> information,
>>>>>>>>> then do delete the old card and get a new one! **** WARNING
>>>>>>>>> ****
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If true (which I doubt), cancelling the old credit card won't stop
>>>>>>>>them
>>>>>>>>charging it, nor stop the card company expecting you to settle the
>>>>>>>>bill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They cannot charge the old card because that one was deleted by the
>>>>>>> card
>>>>>>> company. As Globat does not have the new card number, they cannot
>>>>>>> charge
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a commonly held myth that cancelling a credit card prevents
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> from charging to it under a continuous credit card authority.
>>>>>
>>>>>I should also add that relying on the offered credit card to go outside
>>>>>of
>>>>>its expiry date doesn't always work either. Many larger organisations
>>>>>have
>>>>>to ability to use a special expiry date code once the real expiry date
>>>>>has
>>>>>passed. Smaller organisations have to find out the new expiry date.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even today, one organisation still charges me $9.95 per month for a
>>>>>service
>>>>>that I haven't used for over 5 years, charging it to a card number that
>>>>>'hasn't existed' for at least 3 years. And it would certainly have
>>>>>expired
>>>>>by now. The only reason I can't cancel it is that the organisation
>>>>>concerned doesn't publish either phone numbers or addresses - you have
>>>>>to
>>>>>do
>>>>>everything on line (and cancelling an account isn't one of the things
>>>>>you
>>>>>can do).
>>>>
>>>> Do they get the money or not? If they do, then just close the bank
>>>> aacount
>>>> and
>>>> open a new one.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's a credit card. They still send the monthly bill.
>>
>> NO! That card is taken out of the system and the bill is rejected.
>>
>
>You may care to think that, but it is not the way it works.

If you do not believe it, I can't help it.

So, then do close the credit card account and open a new one.
--
"Als hätt' er nicht genug verbrochen, * Gott zwingt hungernde Mütter,
läßt Jahwe Mütter Kinder kochen. * ihre Kinder zu kochen
Es staunt nur noch der "'Atheist", * (Klagelieder Jeremias, Kap. 4)
was Christen alles heilig ist." http://www.reimbibel.de

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hajnd7$6qa$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On the subject of killing the ability to block charges to a credit card by
> canceling the credit card ....
>
> Keep in mind that, first, we are dealing with different legal
> jurisdictions.
>
> And, second, we are dealing with different credit card issuers.
>
> NO credit card issuer is REQUIRED (in the US, at least) to honor ANY
> particular charge; they can always deny a charge. But, that said, they
> can also honor any charge and bill the card holder, even if the card
> itself is expired (there normally is fine print in the "card holder
> agreement" that makes the card holder legally obligated to pay such bills
> ***IF*** they are issued).
>
> Bottom line ... two people can state diametrically opposite positions as
> to the consequences of canceling a card or notifying the card issuer to
> dishonor certain charges .... and both can be right. In their respective
> jurisdictions, for cards issued by their respective financial institution.

That is also the position within the UK (and it is now spreading to the rest
of Europe following the recent directive on credit card conditions).

Within Europe once the directive is fully operational, a credit card company
will be able to process any continuous charge (and many other types of
debit) even if the card has been cancelled or has expired. One of the
effects of the European Directive is to restrict the grounds on which such a
charge can be refunded (effectively limited to fraudulent transactions
only).

This has always been the position within the UK (though there are a several
tweaks following the directive).

This would also have been the position with Direct Debits in the UK had
consumer resistance not forced the banks to offer a Direct Debit Guarantee
which effectively allows a Direct Debit system to be cancelled by notifying
the Bank only. Under that guarantee, the bank may still transfer funds to
the payee but they have to reimburse the account holder whether they recover
the money from the payee or not. This guarantee is additional to European
requirements and may not be universal throughout Europe.

No such guarantee was ever set up for Continuous Credit Card authorities and
as such cancelling such an authority, or indeed the card does not actually
cancel the authority. That can only be done by the payee.

"Happy Oyster" <happy.oyster@ariplex.com> wrote in message
news:08sqc5l1f7768ea3bmf2t9gcat3flsg7v4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:47:47 -0400, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On the subject of killing the ability to block charges to a credit card
>>by canceling the credit card ....
>>
>>Keep in mind that, first, we are dealing with different legal
>>jurisdictions.
>>
>>And, second, we are dealing with different credit card issuers.
>>
>>NO credit card issuer is REQUIRED (in the US, at least) to honor ANY
>>particular charge; they can always deny a charge. But, that said, they
>>can also honor any charge and bill the card holder, even if the card
>>itself is expired (there normally is fine print in the "card holder
>>agreement" that makes the card holder legally obligated to pay such
>>bills ***IF*** they are issued).
>
> If this is so, then the credit card bankers are even more criminal than we
> ever
> guessed.
>
I assume that you are in Germany. Your rules are about to change courtesy
of a recent EU directive. If you haven't been notified of the change from
your credit card issuers, you are about to. they are sending out the
revisions to the T&Cs quite literally as we type (mine arrived - quite
coincedentally - yersterday).

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:41:24 +0100, "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Happy Oyster" <happy.oyster@ariplex.com> wrote in message
>news:08sqc5l1f7768ea3bmf2t9gcat3flsg7v4@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:47:47 -0400, Barry Watzman
>> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On the subject of killing the ability to block charges to a credit card
>>>by canceling the credit card ....
>>>
>>>Keep in mind that, first, we are dealing with different legal
>>>jurisdictions.
>>>
>>>And, second, we are dealing with different credit card issuers.
>>>
>>>NO credit card issuer is REQUIRED (in the US, at least) to honor ANY
>>>particular charge; they can always deny a charge. But, that said, they
>>>can also honor any charge and bill the card holder, even if the card
>>>itself is expired (there normally is fine print in the "card holder
>>>agreement" that makes the card holder legally obligated to pay such
>>>bills ***IF*** they are issued).
>>
>> If this is so, then the credit card bankers are even more criminal than we
>> ever
>> guessed.
>>
>I assume that you are in Germany. Your rules are about to change courtesy
>of a recent EU directive. If you haven't been notified of the change from
>your credit card issuers, you are about to. they are sending out the
>revisions to the T&Cs quite literally as we type (mine arrived - quite
>coincedentally - yersterday).
>

Thanks for the warning.
--
"Als hätt' er nicht genug verbrochen, * Gott zwingt hungernde Mütter,
läßt Jahwe Mütter Kinder kochen. * ihre Kinder zu kochen
Es staunt nur noch der "'Atheist", * (Klagelieder Jeremias, Kap. 4)
was Christen alles heilig ist." http://www.reimbibel.de

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:39:07 +0100, "M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk>
wrote:

>That is also the position within the UK (and it is now spreading to the rest
>of Europe following the recent directive on credit card conditions).
>
>Within Europe once the directive is fully operational, a credit card company
>will be able to process any continuous charge (and many other types of
>debit) even if the card has been cancelled or has expired. One of the
>effects of the European Directive is to restrict the grounds on which such a
>charge can be refunded (effectively limited to fraudulent transactions
>only).

So the criminals will haven even more freedom for their crimes than they had
before. Which makes it demonstratively obvious: bank business is a crime.

The banks OF COURSE could add more information into their transaction logs as
about WHO is getting the money. But they don't. Because of this the money cannot
be traced and the criminals can go on. The politicians are their accomplices.
--
"Als hätt' er nicht genug verbrochen, * Gott zwingt hungernde Mütter,
läßt Jahwe Mütter Kinder kochen. * ihre Kinder zu kochen
Es staunt nur noch der "'Atheist", * (Klagelieder Jeremias, Kap. 4)
was Christen alles heilig ist." http://www.reimbibel.de

"Happy Oyster" <happy.oyster@ariplex.com> wrote in message
news:cqbrc5d7mtpdttff6on673vfig9k93rrai@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:39:07 +0100, "M.I.5¾"
> <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>That is also the position within the UK (and it is now spreading to the
>>rest
>>of Europe following the recent directive on credit card conditions).
>>
>>Within Europe once the directive is fully operational, a credit card
>>company
>>will be able to process any continuous charge (and many other types of
>>debit) even if the card has been cancelled or has expired. One of the
>>effects of the European Directive is to restrict the grounds on which such
>>a
>>charge can be refunded (effectively limited to fraudulent transactions
>>only).
>
> So the criminals will haven even more freedom for their crimes than they
> had
> before. Which makes it demonstratively obvious: bank business is a crime.
>

No one in the UK has ever doubted this.

> The banks OF COURSE could add more information into their transaction logs
> as
> about WHO is getting the money. But they don't. Because of this the money
> cannot
> be traced and the criminals can go on. The politicians are their
> accomplices.
>

Anyone who thinks the banks asking about your money is to do with money
laundering is seriously deluded. It is about checking that the money has
had the appropriate tax paid on it.