Shoppers urged by Which? to consider protections when using ‘pay by bank'
Pay by bank allows people to quickly and securely pay money directly from their bank account without needing to enter the recipient's bank details or use a card.
But Which? raised concerns that people may be unaware of a 'protection gap' if something goes wrong with a purchase.
People may be familiar with using pay by bank to settle credit card balances or pay bills, and it has also become an option for retail purchases, the consumer group said.
But Which? warned that the option lacks the Section 75 and chargeback protections that people may have when using some other payment methods.
Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, a credit card company can be held jointly and severally liable for a purchase that turns out to be shoddy or does not materialise, in certain circumstances.
This means that a shopper could potentially get a refund from the credit card company if they cannot recoup their costs from the retailer.
People using a debit card or a credit card for purchases could also potentially get their money back via the voluntary 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 consumers too as refunds can be processed instantly, and 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, particularly 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, the consumer group said.
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.'
Riccardo Tordera-Ricchi, director of policy and government relations at the Payments Association, said: 'Pay by bank offers real advantages – from lower merchant fees to faster settlement and improved security through reduced reliance on card details.
'But as it becomes more widely used, especially for high-value or future-dated purchases, it's essential that consumers understand the protections associated with different payment methods.
'As payment options diversify, making informed choices is just as important as the technology behind them.'
Mr Tordera-Ricchi described Section 75 as 'a powerful example of how regulatory frameworks can meaningfully protect consumers'.
Tom Burton, director of external affairs and public policy at bank payment company GoCardless, said: 'Open banking payments are good news for British consumers: they offer bank-grade security measures, instant refunds, reduced fraud risk and, crucially, small businesses that use them don't face the same high fees as they do for card acceptance. Lower merchant costs mean shoppers get cheaper prices – a real win-win.
'There is more to do though if open banking is to genuinely compete with cards, including building on the foundations of the consumer protections that are already in place. GoCardless is working hard to make that a reality for consumers and merchants by closely collaborating with the Government, regulators and others.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
6 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
6 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.
Wales Online
a day ago
- Wales Online
Watchdog warns over common payment method where you 'need protection'
Watchdog warns over common payment method where you 'need protection' Which? has raised concerns over the 'protection gap' for shoppers who will not be covered by consumer rules Items purchased through online shopping Shoppers are being urged to consider what protections they have when making payments, with the rise in 'pay by bank' as an option. Pay by bank allows people to quickly and securely pay money directly from their bank account without needing to enter the recipient's bank details or use a card. But Which? raised concerns that people may be unaware of a 'protection gap' if something goes wrong with a purchase. People may be familiar with using pay by bank to settle credit card balances or pay bills, and it has also become an option for retail purchases, the consumer group said. But Which? warned that the option lacks the Section 75 and chargeback protections that people may have when using some other payment methods. Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, a credit card company can be held jointly and severally liable for a purchase that turns out to be shoddy or does not materialise, in certain circumstances. This means that a shopper could potentially get a refund from the credit card company if they cannot recoup their costs from the retailer. People using a debit card or a credit card for purchases could also potentially get their money back via the voluntary 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 consumers too as refunds can be processed instantly, and 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. Article continues below People may also face difficulties in the event of a business going bust, particularly 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, the consumer group said. 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.' Riccardo Tordera-Ricchi, director of policy and government relations at the Payments Association, said: 'Pay by bank offers real advantages – from lower merchant fees to faster settlement and improved security through reduced reliance on card details. 'But as it becomes more widely used, especially for high-value or future-dated purchases, it's essential that consumers understand the protections associated with different payment methods. As payment options diversify, making informed choices is just as important as the technology behind them.' Mr Tordera-Ricchi described Section 75 as 'a powerful example of how regulatory frameworks can meaningfully protect consumers'. Article continues below Tom Burton, director of external affairs and public policy at bank payment company GoCardless, said: 'Open banking payments are good news for British consumers: they offer bank-grade security measures, instant refunds, reduced fraud risk and, crucially, small businesses that use them don't face the same high fees as they do for card acceptance. Lower merchant costs mean shoppers get cheaper prices – a real win-win. 'There is more to do though if open banking is to genuinely compete with cards, including building on the foundations of the consumer protections that are already in place. GoCardless is working hard to make that a reality for consumers and merchants by closely collaborating with the Government, regulators and others.'
