Third party payment by card

[Ivan]

For some years I have paid a Green flag subscription for my daughter as a Christmas gift. I have always used my own Visa dedit card. Fairly recently I tried to renew but Green Flag refused my payment on the grounds that only the actual named member can pay by card and they accept no other method.
Since my daughter has no cards I gave up on Green Flag and tried the RAC on line only to get a similar rejection. The AA did however accept my payment.
Is this some legal requirement now? It will cause problems for people who for one reason or another do not have cards?

Ivan Farmer

[Annie Shaw]

Not sure. It may be a new rule to try to eliminate card fraud - purchases only allowed by the card holder. I can't think many people try to commit fraud over motor breakdown insurance, but it may just be a blanket rule they have brought in for other parts of the organisation which has caught you in the net.

I'll ask them and report back.

[Annie Shaw]

I've received this reply from Green Flag, part of RBS:

Firstly, we have spoken to Mr Farmer and explained the reasons behind what happened - he was happy with that and intends on returning to Green Flag next year all being well.

Essentially, he was concerned that what had happened was a signal of wider change happening to all financial businesses. Clearly, I cannot speak for any other organisation but regarding this instance with Mr Farmer, Green Flag can normally process 'gift' payments but because the policy is in the name of another person, and is in effect a contract, we would have to talk to his daughter on at least 1 occasion to get her explicit consent for him to deal with the policy. We can also deal with a spouse or partner provided they are named on the policy.

Ultimately, following changes that have come into place over the last year, it is all in the interest of protecting the customer and data protection which remains our priority.

Hope this sorts out your problem. Clearly you are not going to be able to give a Green Flag policy as a "surprise" present in future if your daughter now needs to talk to the firm, but at least your daughter can continue to use GF services now you know what the new procedures are, as long as you are prepared to follow them.

While extra security is always a nuisance for the consumer, it does benefit us all, as ID theft and embezzlement from accounts really does ruin lives. So, although the new rules are annoying, they are probably for the best.

[Jonathan Hill]

Apologies for going off topic

Whilst data protection in principal undoubtedly has benefits, I do have concerns about the effectiveness of some polices. One growing example being when financial companies phone customers and expect them to ID themselves for an incoming call and the willingness of customers to give personal data to a caller who they have no way of identifying seems to me to defeat the object.

My own feeling is not to give any personal data to any incoming caller, but instead to ask they put their request in writing. Data protection works two ways and as consumers we have a responsibility to protect ourselves.

[Annie Shaw]

Indeed Jon. I find it very ironic that you get a call from the bank who then asks YOU for ID. They get very shirty when you ask them to ID themselves first because, surprise surprise, they could easily be fraudsters trying to get your details!