Please see my original post " I am advised that as the EFTPOS machine for had broken down, they had substituted this machine for the inserted <other business, completely different name> EFTPOS machine."
I have been careful to delete any references to the two business names so perhaps there is some difficulty in the reading.
I took that this was the reply from the bank…using internal messages. I would not rely on what the bank says persay as they are onky providing hearsay information.
I also took the second response was from the business, is that correct. It is the second response I am referring to. This message indicates that the company has three trading names. Was the receipt from the company with an ABN…as this would have been correct way of providing a receipt to meet their legal obligations.
The substitution of EFPTOS machines was advised when I first contacted the business by phone when they finally responded to an email, but after I had cancelled my debit card.
I drafted a letter for their bank with the plan to have another coffee at the business and ask for a receipt so that the bank could be identified. My wife thought sending the letter to the bank was a bad idea, so I sent the letter direct to the business instead. (without her knowledge) The tenor of the response I received is the factor that prompted me to share my experience with the Choice community.
The receipt won’t necessarily indicate the bank. It may only indicate who may own or have previously owned the Eftpos machine. Generally it won’t say (look at most retailer’s receipts).
If it was say a non-bank machine (e.g. Squareup or similar), there definitely will be no banking information at all.
Their response makes sense and appears to be reasonable. They have advised that the company name used for the transaction exists and there are three businesses/trading names under the company. This is the way all companies who have trading names operate. Receipts/Tax Invoices issued by a trading name business must have the ABN companies details. It appears that this may have been the case if you had kept the Eftpos receipt at the time of purchase.
Possibly a lesson to be learnt is to ensure that credit/debt card receipts are kept until the next statement so that one can as a minimum, check the receipts should there be a transaction which one can’t recall. You are not alone and many of our own customers don’t ask for receipts when offered…which does surprise us as it is difficult reconcile spending if one doesn’t have them. In your case, retaining the receipt would have prevented the position you found yourself in. It isn’t the businesses fault that you didn’t have a receipt for the transaction, and most likely what they have done is legitimate and meets their receipt/tax invoice requirements. Without a receipt for the transaction in question, guessing what might have been is speculation.
My post of 5 days ago "
Thanks all, I have learnt to now request a receipt every time.
Copy of email response from business " is a legitimate company registered with the ATO with ABN number*
and we operate 3 businesses under the same ABN which is completely legal.
We have EFPOST documantation and video camera record on the date of 13/12/2020 for your purchases at …
You have complete legal rights to dispute this transaction with your bank which you are welcome to do so.
We are very happy to provide our record to the bank regarding this transation.
Please feel free to contact us if you need futher information”
(Spelling is as received)"
May I suggest that this business, and you , have completely missed the point of my posts.
I am missing something.
There is nothing untoward. Yes there are spelling mistakes, but this is not a reason to have an issue with the business. I regularly make spelling mistakes especially on small devices where the text can be hard to see and where autocorrect functions may not be present.
They advised that
What they have done is trying to help you resolve the concerns you have and have possibly done so more than many other businesses would.
The only possible error or omission on their part was not having updated contact details for their company…possibly an oversight, but many companies no longer make such information available online (the updated ones may be on their receipts though)…and lead you to believe that it was potentially an authorised transaction and the action that you took.
All of the misunderstandings would have been avoided by simply keeping receipts of transactions and reconciling against statements, especially those which one can’t recall occurring.
phb,
This is my last post on this subject. As most people understand, there is always a context. In my case I have previously been scammed through my on-line account notwithstanding a very strong password. My bank was the one that identified, and rectified this scam.
On this occasion:
This seems to have lost any sense.
There is no argument that a trading name and business name as per a credit card statement or business name for tax purposes need to be the same,
It is a simple statement that if a business has an identity for financial transactions that is different to the trading name It Should Have Both Names detailed against the credit or bank debit transaction.
Are customers offered a receipt with every card or contactless transaction? I don’t know. Mostly I am asked.
What does a business provide when I say yes?
Some provide a single print output from the card machine. Some provide two, with a cash register or computer generated receipt plus a card transaction record. Keep both and you have a tecord that should always reconcile.
What does the ANZ show happening when promoting contactless payment in it’s TV advertisements?
The convenience of forgetting your wallet to pay and zero receipt being asked for or provided. Have I missed this in their promotions?
Paperless contactless transactions.
If that is the future, the banks and payment service providers need to be held to account. When you contactless pay for $7.50 of cake and coffee at ‘The Hub Cafe, Warana’ the electronic record needs to say this. Not $7.50 Spotless Services PL Melbourne, or any other that might represent a national owner.
Presently the bank and at least two different payment services providers I’m familiar with fail this test. The transaction records provide minimal detail. The date of the transaction is also unreliable. (It’s a given. Please no excuses as to why this is so. It is just how it is.)
Contactless does not equal paper receipt-less, although that is how it is being promoted. Nor is the system foolproof. Both myself @mark_m and @rabbittt have personal examples of failures, but different in cause.
The lesser is a credit card payment record issued using the wrong trading name of the business, but one owned by the same parent company?
The worse is a credit card payment record issued using a business name not associated in any way with the actual business that provided the goods or services.
In both instances the respective banks/card service providers were incompetent and incapable of reliably identifying the transaction as valid or fraudulent.
Why?
Because their systems were flawed and deficient.
I can’t see any reason to defend the businesses involved. In both instances they were likely aware of the discrepancies at the time of accepting payment.
Yes, the consumer is always at fault and the banks and businesses are always correct is a common call.
That does not make it the best consumer outcome. Just a convenient excuse for bad business practices.
Unless one is to argue poor consumer behaviours misplacing receipts or forgetting to ask for one excuse bad business practices.
I’m a former business equipment service tech, & we used to run into this problem all the time. The problem is that someone buys a used fax machine without the manual, & the new owner has no idea how to re-program it, & surprisingly often doesn’t even know that it needs to be done. Contrary to popular opinion, fax machines have no way of knowing what their own phone number is, so it has to be programmed in by the owner or a tech, & to make matters worse, the user interface varies by manufacturer or even model, & is even worse than that of a typical VCR. It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that EFTPOS terminals suffer from the same problem.
Having just got off the phone from an ex-brother-in-law who works in NAB business banking, it appears that we may have made the wrong assumptions in relation to details on a bank statement.
He indicated that the name displayed on a bank transaction is based on the bank account name of the business and not details a retailer can enter into the eftpos machine. In Australia, the banking account name are required to be that of the business/company and not trading name (companies are registered for tax/GST and not trading names). Banks can only create accounts in a business/company name and not a trading name. The trading name will only appear on the statement if it is the same as the business/company name (he indicated like large companies like Coles, Woolworths, Myer etc).
Irrespective of the details entered into the eftpos handset by the retailer, the business/company name on the bank statement will remain the same. If the company has a number of trading names, these can be changed in the handset but the name on a bank statement will still be the bank account name of the business/company.
He believes this is a legislative requirement to assist with financial tracking/tax reporting. He also believes that if trading names were used, this could provide a opportunity for tax avoidance as thousands of unregistered trading names could be created to spread or hide income.
So in the case of @rabbittt, irrespective of what eftpos console was used (if they had a number of consoles for different trading names), the same company name would have appeared on the statement.
He also said that the only way to get around this would be to create a P/L company for each trading name so that the trading name and company name were the same. Then banks could set up separate accounts and account names for each trading name. He said this could be a ‘revolutionary’ change to the business system/legislation which allows for partnerships, trusts and sole traders. These other structures possibly would have to disappear or be restructured in a way that facilitates a company over an existing non-company structure.
He agreed that if this occurred, as outlined in a previous post, it would be a significant impost on a business and those small companies with multiple trading names would have to take on the additional burden and costs. The costs come from running multiple accounts and meeting business reporting/accounting requirements. There would also be a greater auditing time and requirement to ensure that expenses are assigned to the right company etc.
Edit: The other thing I forgot to mention was that he said that the account (company) names are used for auditing and data sharing purposes (suspect the ATO for example). He also said that some larger businesses use company names to also assist with reconciling their accounts. Since trading names aren’t registered or legal entities, if they were used for reporting it would change the value of the data and its ability to be scrutinised/analysed.
It depends, it if was their own website in their control, then if the contact details were incorrect it is sloppy. Usually a business keeps its own contact details on its own website up-to-date.
If it is one of the many data harvesting websites (Facebook, Google, Local Business Directories etc), these pages are outside the control of the business and it can be very difficult to get them changed. To get changes can take some time (and can be frustrating) and often not successful.
We have struck with the recent acquisition of our own business that some of them want proof of change in ownership, such as a sale contract, to change contact details. We have refused to provide such information when requested as it is one piece of the puzzle to potentially identify theft should it get into the wrong hands. There are also non-business blogs/social media pages run independently of a business and one needs to contact the page administrator and request changes. Often requests are ignored.
There are other websites (like Google Maps) where anyone can make a change suggestion. We have regular issues with Google as they often get change requests to change our domain to .au when in fact the host domain is .com and the .au is a mirror. When the change is made to .au, they also often change the email address to .au which doesn’t exist. We then have to request each time for it to be changed back when we identify it. We have asked Google to lock changes, but they say they don’t want to as it prevents user input to keeping their data up-to-date (such as photos, reviews and such like).
So, it is likely that a business contact details are not correct, not through fault of the business but through the the vagaries of the internet.
Sorry, I said my last post was my last…but hopefully this one will be. Phone number was on the farm stays website. The same phone number was on multiple web sites. I will provide details to the moderator of this site if requested.
Welcome to the community @Nop.
With EFTPOS machines, I was previously advised the business customer (at least those who only need one or two) did not have the ability to change any of the programmed details. Up to the business user to contact their bank to have any errors in details corrected.
Perhaps they can do this without need to return the terminal?
This topic was automatically opened after 13 hours.
Which is where the system could work better for consumers.
The banks and card providers could ensure their statements and EPTPOS services provide also the additional details of the outlet/trading business name are included on the bank issued statement.
Is this an impost on a business? It’s hard to see how. It requires no changes by the business, just a simple exchange of existing data. Each EFTPOS terminal is authenticated and logged on securely to the service provider or bank network.
There is also zero reasons why a company cannot include the business name on the EFTPOS printout along with the trading name and store location. I’ve seen this on some payment receipts. Hardly a challenge if the business can add that detail, or advise the provider as to what text is appropriate.
EG
The Three Flying Puggles PL; t/a The Roast Meat Shop, Noosaville.
Equally usable for sole traders, partnerships, family trusts etc, where the public face and tax/business registration may have different identities.
Is there any bank or tax wisdom that says it is unreasonable or improper to provide both? The account and business name separated from the store/trading name. It seems so simple.
Well at least for some more customer aware businesses?
A popular local bakery CJ’s has numerous outlets in the district. It is more than capable of displaying on my Visa Statement as ‘CJ’s Pastries Glass House M’. Or other per the local store site location.
SFS The Container by Birtinya is a little cryptic. (Spotless Food Services).
Point Parking Kawana is less obvious. It’s not in Kawana! They may have added SCUH to the end to help, or SCU Hospital P2.
M Putzolu and SN Cesa Glass House M is the most odd. But based on the multi digit sized debit they could only be the local hair stylists, “Follow Me Hair Fashions”.
It seems it is possible to do better and abbreviations or shortened names and details appear quite acceptable.
This would be a significant change. From my understanding, the reference on the statement (for NAB) is the name of the business account subject of the transaction. To allow additional information, this possibly would have to be included in the business account name (e.g. Smith Pty Ltd trading as ACME Foods)…which then means that each trading name would need its own business account. As highlighted above, this would be a additional substantial cost to the business. It would also have mandatory government reporting impacts as well as information is presented to the government from a business perspective, and not a trading name perspective.
Another option would be to do away with trusts, sole trading and partnerships as business structures and make every business a company where the trading name is the same as the company name…good luck this happening as there would be significant political backlash due to the change and its costs on existing businesses. I would be one to join the chorus of complaints to government.
The other option would be for the POS payment system to transit data to the banks so that the banks could then place it on the customer’s statements. I am not sure whether this is possible and may require replacement of all POS payment systems to allow this to occur and changing how information is handled by the banks. Again, a significant cost to banks/business (which costs would be passed onto the consumer). It could be rolled out over a number of years, but it would need agreement of any POS payment system provider (either online or at shop front).
There are also international transaction, Australia doesn’t have much influence of how banks in other countries present bank account of transaction information.
This is usually done and easy to do (and is required for a Tax Invoice). However, including such information on a receipt/tax invoice isn’t much use unless consumers ask for a receipt/tax invoice to reconcile their own bank statements.
As also indicated, larger businesses which are companies generally have their trading name and business name the same. Woolworths which you had an receipt extract is one of thousands of examples. Where the trading name and business name are the same (Woolworths), the bank account will also be easily identifiable (i.e. Woolworths).
As indicated, a solution to the issue is very simple and requires no change to the status quo. Ask for a receipt (paper or digital) when making a purchase and keep these until at least the next bank statement is issued. If there are any purchases one does not recognise, then reconcile with the receipts and when one doesn’t reconcile, contact the bank. This is not very difficult to do and would have possibly resolve the confusion originally identified earlier in the thread. It also won’t cause the disruption and challenges faced changing the status quo.
Nailed it. Simple. Common sense.
What makes this common sense?
Common sense for a business!
But not common sense for consumers.
We have sufficient examples of the former to suggest that consumers always come off second best when businesses apply common sense.
P.S.
Are you interested in changing the way businesses and credit service providers report through the banking system? Receipts or no receipts they can do better. 
Happy New Year 
If the idea, @mark_m, is to alter all the transaction processing systems at huge expense to cater to those who cannot, or will not, remember what they have spent their money on is one you champion, then good luck to ya.
And all the best to you for a better next year too. 
