"We can only deliver to the cardholders address"

  Sir Radfordin 09:29 21 Jan 2004

Internet shoping seems to have one major downfall that is increasingly common. When paying by Credit Card you can only have goods delivered to the card holders address.

Suppliers claim this is for 'fraud' reasons but there are some who are quite happy to deliver to an address different to the Invoice address, though sometimes only after the first delivery to the Invoice address.

Is this something that they HAVE to do or something that they choose to do?

Is there any way around it - what would happen if you told them a different address?

This is a major problem for me because I live most of the time 50+ miles from my 'admin' address!

  rickf 10:18 21 Jan 2004

Why not just get your bank to change your details to match where you live? If my card had been stolen and someone tried to buy goods and have them delivered to a different add. I would be most upset.

  carver 10:21 21 Jan 2004

Look at it as a means of saving you a lot of trouble explaining to your CC company that you didn't order that lovely HI-FI unit at £800, or the new TFT monitor was not ordered by you. If someone clones your card he or she(must be politically correct)or any gender in between, could order any thing he liked without you knowing any thing about it for 5 weeks.

  961 10:33 21 Jan 2004

In many cases I believe this is a requirement of the card issuer. If the retailer does not abide by it he will stand the loss himself if the item goes astray

  wee eddie 11:33 21 Jan 2004

Should a Card be used fraudulently, the Card companies are now holding the Retailers responsible.

If delivery is only to the Cardholders address, at least the unordered goods can be returned.

  Stuartli 13:55 21 Jan 2004

It may be inconvenient but it's simply common sense.

You may be the most honest person in the world, but an online retailer who receives your first order with payment made by credit card doesn't know that for a fact.

As you say, after your first order some companies will afterwards deliver to a different address once confirmation of your status has been established.

Coming far more into use as well is the requirement to also provide the smaller three digit number at the end of your card number; it's on the signature side of a card.

This ensures that anyone fraudulently using your card through, for instance, having obtained its account number from a receipt or similar item still cannot use it on a Cardholder not Present basis.

As 961 points out retailers are probably required to take such measures by credit card companies.

It's also worth noting that credit card fraud has been reduced in the past year or so because of various methods which have been adopted; the latest chip bearing cards are intended to reduce it still further.

  Forum Editor 17:13 21 Jan 2004

Retailers have to foot the bill if a card is used fraudulently, and this has made many of them very wary. You'll find many companies refusing to send goods to any address other than the one registered with the card provider, and it's for them (the retailers) to decide what their policy will be.

It's no fun to find that you've sent a £1000 worth of computer to the wrong address, and that the card was being used by someone other than the cardholder. In such circumstances the card provider will not pay you, even though you have their authorisation code for the transaction. Few companies will be prepared to run the risk, and with card fraud on the increase you can hardly blame them.

  Gemma 18:02 21 Jan 2004

It's to do with rates and risk.
Cardholder present, signature checked, amount authorised on-line = least risk, lowest rate.
Cardholder not present, no signature, not authorised = highest risk, highest rate.

There are lots of combinations in between and the rules of the game are in the Merchant Agreement between the Retailer and the Acquirer (the bank or financial institution). The Scheme (Visa, MasterCard,.....) sets the general rules, the Issuer (who provide you with the card) handles the Account and the Acquirer takes care of authorisation thru the Banking network (on-line or verbal by phone) and the data collection and distribution.

Most acquirers can authorise on-line in a couple of seconds if the retailer runs on-line. A dial- up "auth" from a desk top terminal will take 15 - 30 seconds to dial and connect. To reduce traffic, only transactions over the floor limit (typically £30 in a dept. store) will be "authed". Everyone is pushing to get the floor limits to zero.

All the rules talked about in the posts above are to do with minimising risk by trying to ensure that the buyer is the card holder.

The big change is due in 2005 when "chip and PIN" becomes a requirement for certain transactions. The good old fashion signature is replaced with your PIN number. You will notice that your cards will be "smart" and increasing numbers of new counter top terminals and PIN pads attached to electronic point of sale machines. A lot of new keyboards are appearing on cash machines too. This is because EMV (Europay, MasterCard, Visa) are mandating triple DES encryption (it was 2DES before) and more secure hardware to stop PIN theft.

The new rules do little for on-line or on the phone ordering. For on-line there is talk of digital signature exchanges where the Issuer (he wants you to use your card) will get into the act and make it a three way transaction.

  spuds 00:21 22 Jan 2004

As Gemma stated, things are due for change. Some retailers have already been forewarned that they will need to change their systems from mid 2004 to the PIN verification type.

Sending items to a card registered address, is a safeguard that will assist the retailer, if things go belly up, and the police and credit card company investigators are involved.

  rupie 00:33 22 Jan 2004

If you are living at an address different then all your details then what do you expect. You are under obligation to tell C.card and other people you have accounts with if you change address. If you cannot be bothered to do so then why should they be bothered to change the rules.

  Sir Radfordin 08:25 22 Jan 2004

All the points people have made are no doubt valid, but then they are things I already knew.

It has long been a problem with mail order items that you have to wait around to take delivery of it at home. If however you can have it delivered to a place of work then life is so much easier. This doesn't seem to be a problem.

The reason for this posting came about because following a conversation with someone else. They had offered to send the company they were buying from various bits of ID to prove who they were and the two addresses were the right ones.

rickf and rupie - as I pointed out I live MOST of the time 50+ miles away from my admin address. All my post goes direct to my home address. My parents then forward mail to rented accomodation. I have not changed my address I just live in two places.

carver - believe me, if someone cloned my card I would know about it in less than 24 hours, thanks to the joy of Internet banking! And if someone did clone the card they could happlily use it in the 'real' world without any problems.

Personnaly I don't think this solution is the best answer to the problem. As I point out it does cause problems - I can't be the only person who hates sitting at home all day waiting for a delivery to turn up when I could be working...am I?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Huawei MateBook X Pro review: Hands-on

The art of 'British' pulp fiction

Best password managers for Mac

TV & streaming : comment regarder le Tournoi des Six Nations 2018 ?