PSD - Refunds and Complaints By Robert Tripp, August 2007 | | |
The PSD creates the concept of the “unique identifier” for payee. The payer’s PSP should state what is the unique identifier it requires to be able to carry out a transaction (BIC and IBAN, to be able to carry out a transaction (PayPal) etc) in its contract with the payer. If the payer’s PSP then carries out the instruction in accordance with the unique identifier supplied by the payer then it is deemed to have carried out its responsibilities, even if the unique identifier is inconsistent with the name and address of the payee also given by the payer.
This is big clarification of responsibilities for banks. In the past it was not clear whether the name and address took precedence over the account number in instructions from payers.
It is now clear that the responsibility is on the payer to know the bank account number of the beneficiary. This should reduce the number of queries and complaints.
The bad news for banks is that the general thrust of the legislation is to give the customer the benefit of the doubt. Refunds are the norm unles the Payer’s PSP can prove fault on the part of the Payer on the Payee’s PSP (e.g. unapproved direct debit claim from payee’s PSP). Furthermore the Payer’s losses on lost or stolen instruments such as credit cards or security tokens is limited to EUR150.
Back to Top
|
|
Contents
Good News for Banks
Bad News for Banks
Related Reports
This report should be read in conjunction with the following reports:
|
Comments
If you would like to comment on any of the issues raised in this report or you would like to add your own views on this topic for others to see or you feel you could contribute an interesting report to Howbankswork.com then please contact us.
Further Information
If you would like a paper copy of this report please contact us including your full name and address in the email.
Copyright
The arguments and ideas in this report can be freely used as long as original authorship is acknowledged.
|
|
