Seeking Advice, Please

On Thu, 21 May 2009 07:53:34 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

They would claim that it reduces fraud. I've never really understood
what kind of scammer would turn up at the airport having identified
himself sufficiently to satisfy Homeland Security, to use a ticket he'd
bought with a stolen card (and more than that, before the real
cardholder had reported the fraud, at which point the airline would
simply cancel the ticket).

Someone told me that because the cardholder is obtaining the
product/service that it doesn't properly count as Cardholder Not
Present, whereas if it's for a third party it does. Doesn't explain
why some airlines (e.g. all budget ones I've used) don't require it,
though.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In message , at 20:14:54 on Mon,
25 May 2009, Neil Williams remarked:

They would claim that it reduces fraud. I've never really understood
what kind of scammer would turn up at the airport having identified
himself sufficiently to satisfy Homeland Security, to use a ticket he'd
bought with a stolen card (and more than that, before the real
cardholder had reported the fraud, at which point the airline would
simply cancel the ticket).

Someone told me that because the cardholder is obtaining the
product/service that it doesn't properly count as Cardholder Not
Present, whereas if it's for a third party it does.

Even if this were true (and I have my doubts) all it means is a slight
shift in the liability towards the airline. But as they cancelled the
ticket as soon as they learnt it was a fraudulent transaction, what's
the problem?

Doesn't explain why some airlines (e.g. all budget ones I've used)
don't require it, though.

Presumably because they are more grown up and realise it's a waste of
everyone's time?
--
Roland Perry

In message Roland Perry
was claimed to have wrote:

Even if this were true (and I have my doubts) all it means is a slight
shift in the liability towards the airline. But as they cancelled the
ticket as soon as they learnt it was a fraudulent transaction, what's
the problem?

Better yet, don't cancel anything, just arrest whoever shows up to use
the tickets.

The holy grail of credit card fraud is being able to know exactly where
the fraudster will be at a specific point in time.

In message , at 10:45:52 on
Tue, 26 May 2009, DevilsPGD remarked:

Even if this were true (and I have my doubts) all it means is a slight
shift in the liability towards the airline. But as they cancelled the
ticket as soon as they learnt it was a fraudulent transaction, what's
the problem?

Better yet, don't cancel anything, just arrest whoever shows up to use
the tickets.

That's presumably the reasoning behind the recent "Watchdog" story about
Easyjet cancelling tickets where they [mistakenly] claim a fraudulent
card has been used, and failing to inform the customer until they turn
up at the airport.

The funny thing is, none of these reports involve the person being
arrested - merely told they've been bumped off the flight, that they
can't get a refund, and if they are lucky there might be a seat at the
vastly increased price "on the day".

What I can't work out is why these cases have got as far as Watchdog,
because it seems like an open and shut case against the airline.

The holy grail of credit card fraud is being able to know exactly where
the fraudster will be at a specific point in time.

You'd have thought so - but what kind of dumb crook actually turns up
(rather than trying to get a refund remotely, and obviously laundering
it in some way so it isn't simply put back into the original card
account)?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:45:52 on
Tue, 26 May 2009, DevilsPGD remarked:

Even if this were true (and I have my doubts) all it means is a slight
shift in the liability towards the airline. But as they cancelled the
ticket as soon as they learnt it was a fraudulent transaction, what's
the problem?

Better yet, don't cancel anything, just arrest whoever shows up to use
the tickets.

That's presumably the reasoning behind the recent "Watchdog" story about
Easyjet cancelling tickets where they [mistakenly] claim a fraudulent card
has been used, and failing to inform the customer until they turn up at
the airport.

The funny thing is, none of these reports involve the person being
arrested - merely told they've been bumped off the flight, that they can't
get a refund, and if they are lucky there might be a seat at the vastly
increased price "on the day".

What I can't work out is why these cases have got as far as Watchdog,
because it seems like an open and shut case against the airline.

The holy grail of credit card fraud is being able to know exactly where
the fraudster will be at a specific point in time.

You'd have thought so - but what kind of dumb crook actually turns up
(rather than trying to get a refund remotely, and obviously laundering it
in some way so it isn't simply put back into the original card account)?
--
Roland Perry

In cases such as this what seems to happen is that someone offers cheap
tickets (as we all know, even easyJet tickets get expensive at times). The
passenger pays the intermediary and the intermediary pays the airline using
the fraudulent card.

In message , at 09:33:10 on
Wed, 27 May 2009, Graham Harrison
remarked:
In cases such as this what seems to happen is that someone offers cheap
tickets (as we all know, even easyJet tickets get expensive at times).
The passenger pays the intermediary and the intermediary pays the
airline using the fraudulent card.

I can understand why there is greater risk when the ticket is paid for
by a third party - but when the Credit Card is in the same name as the
passenger, why are Easyjet cancelling those tickets too?

(Of course, we should also be asking where the false "card declined"
messages are coming from. I have experienced this several times
recently, but for flights/train-tickete at the time of ordering so I
simply used a different card; but one long-standing CC monthly charge
was falsely bumped[1], and a phone company cut me off!)

[1] Phone company says it was declined, Card Company say they were (a)
never asked and (b) have in any event never declined any transaction on
that card.
--
Roland Perry