Shoppers warned about quick online payment option that could end up costing you £1,000s
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
A WARNING has been issued to shoppers over a quick payment option that can cost £1,000s.
Which? is urging caution over use of the "pay by bank" feature which lacks key consumer protection.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
1
Which? has issued a warning over the "pay by bank" payment feature
Credit: Getty
The payment feature lets shoppers pay for products without the need to enter bank details or use a card.
It is used by popular online retailers such as WHSmith, Just Eat, Funky Pigeon and Ryanair.
You can also use it to settle credit card balances or pay bills.
However, Which? has raised concerns people may be unaware it can leave them unprotected if something goes wrong with a purchase.
The option lacks Section 75 and chargeback protections that shoppers get when paying through other methods.
Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, a credit card company can be held jointly liable for a purchase that turns out to be shoddy or does not materialise.
This means a shopper can potentially get a refund from the credit card company if they cannot recover their costs from a retailer.
Those using a debit card or credit card for purchases can also potentially get their money back via the chargeback scheme.
Which? said pay by bank is a "potential game changer" for businesses as they can sidestep card transaction fees and also benefit from receiving customer funds immediately.
There is also appeal for shoppers as refunds can be processed instantly.
Shopping discounts - How to make savings and find the best bargains
While card details are not shared when making a transaction – eliminating the risk of them being stolen or compromised.
People do have general purchase rights under the Consumer Rights Act, meaning that goods must be fit for purpose, as described and of satisfactory quality.
But Which? said these protections are not always easy to enforce and in some cases may end up with people needing to go to a small claims court.
People may also face difficulties in the event of a business going bust.
This could particularly be the case if there is an issue with a future-dated purchase such as a flight, a festival, or a household big ticket purchase such as a kitchen or a sofa.
Jenny Ross, Which? money editor, said: 'Innovations like pay by bank present opportunities for businesses and consumers alike, but they're not without risk, particularly as they lack the rigorous purchase protections you get when paying by card.
'We're calling on the regulator to act to ensure consumers can use pay by bank with confidence, but in the meantime, we'd urge consumers to think carefully before using it to book events or make substantial purchases – for now, your good old-fashioned credit or debit card may be the best option.'
A spokesperson for banking and finance industry body UK Finance said: 'There are a range of options for making payments online which provides customers with choice as to how they wish to pay.
"Different payment methods do come with different levels of protection and it's worth being aware of these when shopping online, particularly when making higher value purchases."
What is Section 75 protection?
Section 75 protection offers you consumer protection on credit card purchases worth between £100 and £30,000.
It applies to any products or services you've bought that end up being faulty, broken, or were not delivered at all.
It also covers you in the case a retailer you've bought from goes bust.
Section 75 applies to goods bought online, over the phone or via mail order.
You aren't covered by Section 75 if you bought anything with a debit card, but may be under chargeback.
To make a claim under Section 75, you need to contact your credit card provider.
It should then send you a claim form which you can fill in and your provider will use to process your application.
Your card firm might ask you to provide evidence such as a receipt or a report verifying that the item is faulty.
In the scenario where a retailer has not gone bust, you should complain to them first.
If you find that your card company has been unhelpful and refused your claim, you can take your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.
Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Major high street retailers duping shoppers with ‘misleading discounts' on pricey TVs, Which? warns
Plus, we've explained how to compare prices to always get the best deal SHOPPERS looking for a new television may want to think twice before trusting the discounts advertised by some of the UK's biggest retailers. An investigation by consumer champion Which? has revealed questionable pricing practices at Currys, Very, and other major sellers, potentially misleading customers into believing they are getting better deals than they actually are. Advertisement 1 Lisa Webb, Which? consumer law expert, said: "Shoppers deserve clear, honest pricing - not smoke and mirrors." Credit: Getty Which? analysed over 1,600 television deals across five retailers. More than half (56%) of the "was" prices used in promotions were not the most recent prices charged before the discount. Which? said this tactic can create the illusion of massive savings when, in reality, the higher price may not have been charged for months – or was only briefly in place. Plus, four in 10 TVs (40%) had a "was" price that was only in effect for less time than the discounted price. Advertisement And a third of all the TVs reviewed (33%) were doubly misleading, with both intervening prices and promotional periods longer than the higher "was" price. Which? said the findings are concerning because UK consumer protection guidance states that a "was" price must represent the genuine price immediately prior to the discount. Retailers that dodge these rules risk enforcement action from authorities such as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Lisa Webb, Which? consumer law expert, said: "Shoppers deserve clear, honest pricing - not smoke and mirrors. Advertisement "If retailers are using dodgy was/now discounts to create the illusion of a bargain then we expect the competition regulator to take enforcement action. 'Anyone in the market for a new TV or any other expensive purchase should take any such discounts with a pinch of salt and check price tracking sites like CamelCamelCamel or Price Runner to ensure they are getting a genuine deal before making a decision." Shopping discounts - How to make savings and find the best bargains Which retailers were the worst offenders? Very emerged as the worst offender in the Which? investigation. Of the 399 TV deals reviewed, nearly nine in 10 (87%) used "was" prices that were not the most recent, and over half (53%) had higher prices that were in place for less time than the promotional price. Advertisement For example, the LG OLED65B46LA 65-inch TV was advertised with a "was" price of £2,499 and a "now" price of £1,499. However, the £2,499 price hadn't been charged for five months and had been replaced by seven lower price points during that time. Currys also came under fire, with three-quarters (75%) of its 608 TV deals featuring outdated "was" prices. Plus, it had the highest rate (68%) of TVs where the higher price applied for a shorter time than the discounted price. Advertisement An example includes the LG UT73 50-inch TV, which had a "was" price of £399.99 and a "now" price of £299.99. The higher price had only been in place for 25 days, compared to 207 days at the lower price. What about other retailers? While AO was also found to use intervening prices in a third (33%) of its deals, it provides transparency by publishing the dates of its "was" prices and acknowledging that lower prices may have applied. This makes AO's deals less likely to mislead shoppers, Which? said. Advertisement Argos performed the best, with nearly all of its "was" prices reflecting the price immediately before the promotion, offering customers a more accurate picture of potential savings. Amazon's pricing practices were also reviewed, but the retailer uses a different approach. Its "was" prices reflect the median price paid by customers over the past 90 days, excluding promotional offers. While this is a distinct method, Which? has concerns that it could still confuse shoppers and make discounts appear larger than they are. Advertisement Which? also revealed earlier this week that Sports Direct shoppers are being misled by deceptive pricing tactics, creating the illusion of bargain deals.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Major high street retailers duping shoppers with ‘misleading discounts' on pricey TVs, Which? warns
SHOPPERS looking for a new television may want to think twice before trusting the discounts advertised by some of the UK's biggest retailers. An investigation by consumer champion Which? has revealed questionable pricing practices at Currys, Very, and other major sellers, potentially misleading customers into believing they are getting better deals than they actually are. 1 Which? analysed over 1,600 television deals across five retailers. More than half (56%) of the "was" prices used in promotions were not the most recent prices charged before the discount. Which? said this tactic can create the illusion of massive savings when, in reality, the higher price may not have been charged for months – or was only briefly in place. Plus, four in 10 TVs (40%) had a "was" price that was only in effect for less time than the discounted price. And a third of all the TVs reviewed (33%) were doubly misleading, with both intervening prices and promotional periods longer than the higher "was" price. Which? said the findings are concerning because UK consumer protection guidance states that a "was" price must represent the genuine price immediately prior to the discount. Retailers that dodge these rules risk enforcement action from authorities such as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Lisa Webb, Which? consumer law expert, said: "Shoppers deserve clear, honest pricing - not smoke and mirrors. "If retailers are using dodgy was/now discounts to create the illusion of a bargain then we expect the competition regulator to take enforcement action. 'Anyone in the market for a new TV or any other expensive purchase should take any such discounts with a pinch of salt and check price tracking sites like CamelCamelCamel or Price Runner to ensure they are getting a genuine deal before making a decision." Shopping discounts - How to make savings and find the best bargains Which retailers were the worst offenders? Very emerged as the worst offender in the Which? investigation. Of the 399 TV deals reviewed, nearly nine in 10 (87%) used "was" prices that were not the most recent, and over half (53%) had higher prices that were in place for less time than the promotional price. For example, the LG OLED65B46LA 65-inch TV was advertised with a "was" price of £2,499 and a "now" price of £1,499. However, the £2,499 price hadn't been charged for five months and had been replaced by seven lower price points during that time. Currys also came under fire, with three-quarters (75%) of its 608 TV deals featuring outdated "was" prices. Plus, it had the highest rate (68%) of TVs where the higher price applied for a shorter time than the discounted price. An example includes the LG UT73 50-inch TV, which had a "was" price of £399.99 and a "now" price of £299.99. The higher price had only been in place for 25 days, compared to 207 days at the lower price. What about other retailers? While AO was also found to use intervening prices in a third (33%) of its deals, it provides transparency by publishing the dates of its "was" prices and acknowledging that lower prices may have applied. This makes AO's deals less likely to mislead shoppers, Which? said. Argos performed the best, with nearly all of its "was" prices reflecting the price immediately before the promotion, offering customers a more accurate picture of potential savings. Amazon's pricing practices were also reviewed, but the retailer uses a different approach. Its "was" prices reflect the median price paid by customers over the past 90 days, excluding promotional offers. While this is a distinct method, Which? has concerns that it could still confuse shoppers and make discounts appear larger than they are. Which? also revealed earlier this week that Sports Direct shoppers are being misled by deceptive pricing tactics, creating the illusion of bargain deals. How to compare prices to get the best deal JUST because something is on offer, or is part of a sale, it doesn't mean it's always a good deal. There are plenty of comparison websites out there that'll check prices for you - so don't be left paying more than you have to. Most of them work by comparing the prices across hundreds of retailers. Here are some that we recommend: Google Shopping is a tool that lets users search for and compare prices for products across the web. Simply type in keywords, or a product number, to bring up search results. Price Spy logs the history of how much something costs from over 3,000 different retailers, including Argos, Amazon, eBay and the supermarkets. Once you select an individual product you can quickly compare which stores have the best price and which have it in stock. Idealo is another website that lets you compare prices between retailers. All shoppers need to do is search for the item they need and the website will rank them from the cheapest to the most expensive one. CamelCamelCamel only works on goods being sold on Amazon. To use it, type in the URL of the product you want to check the price of.
Scottish Sun
3 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Households face council tax hikes and £10billion stealth levies as Reeves gets boxed into corner by shrinking economy
Economists warned the circumstances meant tax hikes are almost certain this autumn GOGGLE-BOXED IN Households face council tax hikes and £10billion stealth levies as Reeves gets boxed into corner by shrinking economy HOUSEHOLDS face council tax hikes and £10billion in stealth levies as Rachel Reeves gets boxed into a corner by the shrinking economy, experts warn. The Chancellor, who wore protective goggles during a visit to the University of Derby yesterday, learned growth fell 0.3 per cent in April — less than 24 hours after her £113billion spending review splurge. Advertisement 2 Rachel Reeves wears protective goggles during a visit to the University of Derby Credit: Simon Walker / HM Treasury 2 Households face council tax hikes and £10billion in stealth levies Credit: Getty Businesses are reeling from the National Insurance rise, a jump in the minimum wage and ongoing uncertainty over Donald Trump's global trade war. Economists warned the circumstances meant tax hikes are almost certain this autumn — along with hard-pressed town halls having to up council tax rates by five per cent next year to pay for local services. Former Office for Budget Responsibility committee member Andy King said 'the writing was on the wall for another fiscal hole' — which would trigger tax rises or possible spending cuts in the Budget. Another expert accused Ms Reeves of 'making up numbers' in her spending review as there were few clues where savings would be found. Advertisement READ MORE ON SPENDING REVIEW TAX BLOW Council tax bills to rise at fastest rate in 20 years after Reeves' review Paul Johnson, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said her demands that all Whitehall departments cut administration budgets by ten per cent a year were not the result of a 'serious analysis'. He also said that if Ms Reeves was forced to raise taxes, the most politically straightforward approach would be to extend the freeze on income tax thresholds. Mr Johnson added that her plans will result in a 'sting in the tail' because local authorities would have to raise their levies. More than half of Brits — 52 per cent — reckon Ms Reeves' spending review will have a negative economic impact rather than positive. Advertisement But one piece of good news did emerge yesterday, as it was revealed the UK was finally ready to sign its trade deal with the US.
