I can't believe you won't help me!

[MrSmiley]

Also some companies never bother to release authorizations, they just let them fall off after 8-12 business days and some people can't tell the difference between an authorization (intent to charge that amount-shows as pending)and an actual charge (shows as recent activity or on a statement as a charge). Personally as a CC CS rep, I hate the companies that authorize many charges but can't be bothered to release them if they aren't going to charge the card (this ties up the customers credit for that 12 business days). Airlines & gas stations are particularly bad at this. And the cc company can't release it. It could be valid. The merchant has to just call authorizations and tell they to release it and boom, released within 24 hrs (often within 10 minutes) the customer can continue to use card.

Our computer systems are supposed to release any "unused" pre-auths that are flagged as "done" at the end of the day, however it's in imperfect system and sometimes it doesn't work. So sometimes we get these.

My alternative method for clearing this out is to phone a 1-800 number for our credit card management company. They then forward me to an automated line where I have to punch in the information. It takes about 3.8 minutes if I speed through it and about 5 minutes if I fully listen to each prompt. The only problem here is that you have to follow the prompts exactly with no way to make corrections. Make a mistake and you have to hang up and start all over. Additionally the automated system is just holding the #s to check later so there's no verification of typos or invalid #s or anything. Furthermore the credit card company runs these through their system but never bother to send us any status updates on whether the pre-auths get released or not. So basically I phone a line, enter numbers and cross my fingers.

The real problem in my opinion is these credit card companies who are including pre-authorizations on a person's credit card statement in the same manner as a charge. It confuses the customer and sometimes leads to shouting matches over the phone ("No we haven't charged your card. That is a hold on the funds. No I don't know why it looks like a charge. We haven't charged your card. *repeat*). If they want to show the customer that information, fine (my personal credit card doesn't list them as transactions, pre-auths just come out of the "funds available" line), but stop presenting the information wrong... especially since it's YOUR company that came up with this scheme of different credit card operations in the first place.

[PepperElf]

I wonder if the original $300 transaction that never went through was the fraudulent one. Is that the impression everyone got? It's strange that you'd get a transaction for the exact same thing and the exact same amount days before a complaint of fraud.

i'm thinking that maybe the SC was trying to scam her into shelling out 300 bucks or something like that.

[wolfie]

Again, it's not for us to discuss "what should be".

The legalities surrounding credit card acceptance are more suited for fratching.

After reading the other thread on this subject, I had a few fratching-type comments, so I created this thread over there. Anyone else with "what should be" comments just needs to click the link.

[raudf]

What I think the SC was trying to do was to get the OP to say something that she could throw at her bank to say, "See, THEY SAID THIS BLAH, BLAH, BLAH." Putting the bank into a he said-she said sort of situation. If that was the case, she went about it the possibly stupidest way possible. I'm actually surprised she didn't go with the old standard of "Well, I'm never shopping there again!"

The only time I called a store after a card number was stolen was QVC and they were on the ball, having already flagged fraud on it. When my hubby's card number was stolen, it never occurred to me to call the individual chain stores or even their corporate. I just called the number on the back of the card and flagged it stolen, killing the card. File disputes and let the bank deal with the hassle.

(It was an easy dispute. We still had the physical card and all the purchases were "physically" made in another state a few states away from ours, making it impossible for us to have gone there and gotten back overnight. Literally, my husband and I went into the bank the next morning as soon as they opened..)

[emax4]

Initially, I had come up with two ways of shutting them down. But if you suspect a scam, it might be best to string them along. How? Social Engineering.

If you have an associate there to help you, have them pretend that they're the store manager who can get in touch with someone higher up. Or you can put them on hold and tell them you need to grab an "official fraudulent card form" (make something up). In either case, get their phone number first along with the credit card so that you can contact them back regarding "this critical issue". Once the caller hears specific words that mean that they're going to get the result in their favor, they're more likely to comply with you, but just because you say it doesn't mean you'll do it.

Put the caller on hold and contact the police or the credit card company. Advise them that you have suspicion of fraud, then give them the information. It might be a good idea to ask who you're calling (authorities or CC company) how to handle the situation at that point, whether to tell the caller specific information or transfer them over (if possible).

You're not really passing the buck in the above situation. The caller, a scammer or not, calls regarding suspicious activity. You're calling the authorities or CC company, which is what would be necessary.