EFTPOS transaction and incorrect vendor trading name

Money
42

I just had a light globe moment and I thank many contributors to my post for this.

As Consumers, why do we not press for legislation that obliges retailers to ensure that the information on printed receipts, or the information that appears on consumers bank transactions actually confirms the identity of the business with which the transaction occurred.

The identity of the business means the identity on signposting that the business chooses to use, and indeed the name used in any advertising employed.

Let’s progress further and legislate that printed receipts are only mandatory in the case of cash transactions (for warranty purposes) and that such printed receipts are required to be printed with non-fading ink.

All electronic transactions, which I assume are the vast majority, especially since Covid-19, must faithfully identify in resulting bank statements, the business that the Consumer believed they had dealt with. Printed receipts are, from commentary on this site, not a preferred option of consumers.

Let’s legislate that failure of businesses to correctly identify their business for Consumer bank statement transaction purposes be liable to refund the charged amount to the consumer. (and damages for the inconvenience of cancelled credit / debit cards?)

Given my experience, some posters to this site may argue Y2K limitations in opposition to this proposal. This will not be an issue. Have a peek at the Wesfarmers website and the multitude of businesses this corporation operates. ( https://www.wesfarmers.com.au/our-businesses/our-businesses ).

Has anyone received an electronic bank transaction with Wesfarmers that has been other than identifiable as the business where the transaction took place (e.g., Bunnings, Coles, Officeworks, Target). I counted 27 associated businesses at the Wesfarmers website. My issue has been with a business with just 3 associated businesses and who failed to correctly identify the actual business I had dealings with.

If you think there is value in my proposal and it is one that Choice might pursue, please give a “like” to this post.

2 Likes
43

I have been using spreadsheets for approximately 20 years for all my credit card (and other) banking transactions. Overtime I have even made a column wide enough to say what I bought. This has helped immensely if/when I have a worry or perceived error (it’s usually a pebkas problem), and I can easily retrieve the receipt from my monthly (saved and printed out from the Bank’s web site) statement reconciliations.

1 Like
44

An option that someone might like to comment on from experience is this ACCC app?

It includes a tool for recording copies of your receipts etc using your mobile phone camera.

Of course it’s also possible to do this using standard photo tools and a selected folder, or any one of a number of basic document scanner apps. Some are free and others paid for, although not expensive.

Spreadsheets.
Back when the first PDA’s were released (ignoring Apple’s Newton).
For business I first used a Toshiba followed by a Dell to provide a running spreadsheet of expenses. It enabled a basic entry as you went. The idea of sitting down every night to spreadsheet, copy and store all, a step to far for some.

No cameras, or mobile connection until HP added a phone function, and then the Apple 3GS came along.

Of course in this day and age if we can tap and go to pay, we should be able to tap, go and electronically receipt.

1 Like
45

Interesting reading … I had a retail business years ago, operating as a sole-trader and the bank accounts were in my name along with ‘trading as’. Then the bank issued eftpos machine, printed receipts only in my personal name which caused some people some confusion if they did not know me by name. I always stapled the eftpos receipt to a register receipt, which had trading name on it, so hopefully there could be no confusion in people reconciling their accounts …

3 Likes
46

Being a sole trader, the business would be your name.

I wonder if there has been a change in legislative requirements in more recent years where business name (not trading name) is reported through with the transaction. I can see why it is done as the registered business is where the financial transaction lies and not under a trading name.

1 Like
47

Doesn’t appear to apply to Wesfarmers? My bank statements faithfully record OfficeWorks, Coles, Target, Bunnings etc. depending upon where my purchase took place.

1 Like
48

These are all separate companies/registered business in their own right, owned by Westfarmers…

Each will have bank accounts in their own names as they are companies/businesses. These companies/registered business names will be referenced on a bank statement, like you have indicated.

Westfarmers is the parent listed on the stock exchange.

1 Like
49

Depending on what some companies are, some will be a different vendor name to what the business name is, for example a sex shop, may use another name for the vendor, so no prying eyes can see what someone had purchased, but one I have dealt with in the past, tells you that it will appear under such and such name.

2 Likes
50

Whatever. I have a wavepay transaction with one of these businesses and that transaction is faithfully represented on my bank’s records of transactions with the business / trading name (and location!) that I had an electronic transaction with clearly indicated.

I’m happy!

Actually, in my estimation 99.9% of my EFTPOS transactions have the same result.

However I am truly annoyed when a business is unable to achieve this basic result, is for all intents not contactable and obliges one to cancel their debit card in fear of a scam having been perpetrated.

Notwithstanding my request to my bank to provide payment to the provider of my coffee, I note that this has not yet occurred. The amount is $19. I note that the Commonwealth bank, as one example only, charges a cashback fee, as part of providing EFTPOS facilities , of $30. So I’m guessing this business is currently in deficit by $49.

Just maybe, this is the incentive for this business to transact their affairs transparently.

51

I am sure the business will appreciate this and the action you have instigated to reverse what has happened.

Many businesses in the hospitality and tourism sector, which you indicated the business in question is, are really struggling due to COVID. Any unnecessary cost impost could have significant impact on the business and hopefully if the bank had charged the business a chargeback fee, this is also reversed by the business’s bank.

In Australian, there are around 2 million small businesses (out of about 2.4 million) which are most likely to be sole traders, partnerships (including family) and potentially trusts.

While not all these businesses are active, a significant number would be. There is also a high potential that these businesses use a public trading name which better describes the services/products provided. These include business which use trading names for:

  • trade or professional services
  • retail/wholesale/importing activites
  • hospitality and food providers
  • tourism
  • Franchises etc.

It is also highly likely that if one engages the services of or purchases a product from a small business (especially with those structures outlined above), the business name recorded for financial transactions will be different to the trading name which one would recognise and associate it with the product or service.

The business is no different to others and hasn’t done anything which would be seen as illegal or intentionally deceptive. If this were the case, any business than trades under a different name (and there are a large number) would also be in the same boat.

While the current system may not be perfect, any changes allowing anyone to create bank accounts using a potentially unregistered or unaccountable entity could make it less perfect than that which currently exists. I can see the shonkiest of the shonky businesses would use such opportunities.

52

Today I have sent the following email to the Commonwealth Government Business.gov.au website and the Reserve Bank of Australia which appears to have a monitoring role in the operation of Australia’s EFTPOS system.
" A transaction appeared on my debit card account which I could not identify. I visited the business name’s website and tried to ring the phone number listed on the website. This number was disconnected.

On the advice of my bank, I cancelled my debit card.

It subsequently transpired that the coffee shop I had purchased coffee at had replaced their coffee shop EFTPOS machine for their Farmstay EFTPOS machine and it was the Farmstay details that appeared on my debit card transactions.

Is there any obligation on traders to ensure, especially in our “paywave” world, that the business with which the transaction occurred is the same business that appears on their customers bank transactions?"

I will of course share any responses.

1 Like
53

They will possibly say yes as the business (the registered ABN business) is the same, but trading name is different. Possibly the question should be
“should the business be showing the trading name or business name on customers bank statements”.

I also just found this Westpac page that confirms information obtained about NAB and trading/business names…

It states…

Be aware also that many businesses have a trading name that differs from the billing name.

Westpac also states…

Keeping vouchers and transaction records from merchants, financial institutions, or by electronic terminals such as ATMs will help you to reconcile your transactions.

1 Like
54

I think @rabbittt you are pursuing this issue to try and get a result that is just not going to happen.
The system of card payments on the Eftpos system operates the way it does, and both buyers and sellers need to be aware of potential problems in the tap and go world.

I really feel sorry for merchants, small businesses, that have to respond to chargeback claims from their bank for legitimate sales that come into dispute because of misunderstandings on names on statements.

Just take responsibility purchasers for knowing what you have bought and when and from where. Why is that so hard to manage? A receipt is so easy to request. And keep.

1 Like
55

Advice from Westpac in the link you provided is " Remember, the first step in rectifying any issue is to contact the business that processed the transaction – this will help ensure your card and account details have not been compromised."

What do you do when you visit the business’s website, as recommended, obtain a contact phone number but find that that number is disconnected. The same phone number is also found across multiple websites.

It has been this phone element alone that has caused all my angst and prompted my dialogue with the Choice community. If a phone conversation had been available at that point, the problem would have been undoubtedly resolved. Instead I am left with the concern that I am being scammed and follow my bank’s advice and cancel my debit card with all the attendant inconveniences that this entails.

And guess what? I was also self employed with an ABN so I do not have a thing about the 2 million small businesses in Australia.

1 Like
56

I know some voters who vote for candidates that do not stand a snowball’s chance of getting elected in a certain first past the post world.

Like @rabbittt and many others who approach what they do as they do, as taking a first step, because if they do not ‘vote’ for what they want nothing will ever change. It is more than tilting at windmills even if as in our own preferential system it probably won’t. Yet someday, just maybe.

3 Likes
57

If one had kept receipts (as recommended by Westpac and possibly other banks) rather than relying on one’s memory the value for purchases made, then there would not have been an issue.

If one had kept receipts and say noticed a discrepancy such as…

  • You cancelled a reservation within a business or retailer’s cancellation period, but were still charged
  • Transaction amount differs to what your receipt states
  • Services have not rendered
  • Merchandise is defective
  • You suspect fraud.

on most recipts/tax invoices there is the contact details of the business, as part of the sellers identity (such information, while not mandatory, is recommended information by the government).

It appears the circumstances you have gone through has caused significant inconvenience and was stressful. This possibly could have been avoided if simple advice had been heeded, namely taking and keeping receipts. Trying to find blame (against business, which hasn’t done anything wrong apart from forgetting to maintain it’s website, or a system which has been in place for many years) for something which could be avoided may only unnecessarily increase ones stress or angst.

It is also worth noting that conditions of use of credit/debit cards states for transactions to assist resolving those in dispute (such as Commonwealth Bank’s conditions of card use)…

Keep all receipts and records of payment arrangements to help us
resolve any refund request as quickly as possible.

Not doing so appears to be inconsistent with these terms of use. I wonder how many of us read the Terms of Use and know of such requirements. I for one haven’t read them for many years and didn’t know such requirements apply.

58

There are two issues, one being how ‘it’ works and how ‘we’ should abide by ‘the way it works’.

The second is a suggestion that probably has merit, how it should work especially in these days of everything being more and more digital.

I think @rabbittt has the message about keeping track and that aspect is ‘in bed’.

Whether the system of finance and taxes and card processing are fit for purpose as regards to identifying a particular shop not just a company, or some company has been presented.

In context of the topic, terms of use are written in some form other than indelible ink and can be changed at will. Refusals to change them sometimes are not technological, they are ‘just tell us why you don’t want to’ types of issues.

1 Like
59

The issue isn’t new and existed predigital. The main change is we tend to have an over reliance on technology thinking it solves every problem. Technology can assist in solving such problems, but ‘reinventing a wheel’ to solve a relatively minor issue which could readily be avoided isn’t warranted.

@rabbittt identification of the confusion caused is important for others to know and how to easily prevent. I have also had new, initially unrecognisable transactions. One I can recall is the green grocer we used in Brisbane changed hands and the business noted on the bank statement changed making the transaction look different and potentially suspicious, but this resolved as soon as the receipt was read. The receipt/tax invoice which had been kept had the new business owners details. When next in store I mentioned to the manager I see the business had changed hands and seemed surprised I know… as the store, staff, name etc remained the same.

They can be and our bank sends us updated versions with printed statements maybe every year or two.

Changes are usually minor and why I don’t read them from cover to cover.

One wouldn’t expect the condition to keep receipts in the Condition of Use to change unless the requirenent for businesses to issue receipts/tax invoices changes. Will this occur, don’t know but is unlikely as they currently are a critical part of the business/taxation system to verify expenditure.

60

Pre-digital people routinely took their receipts. Now increasingly they don’t. Peoples’ behaviour is what has changed and a valid question is whether systems are there to serve people, or people are to serve systems.

Some issues are minor to one, and more important to others. How to avoid this ‘problem’ has been presented and accepted. I for one would be happy to never need to get receipts or try to reconcile statements, and having a clear statement of the actual shops I spent money with would go a step toward enabling that.

Tilting at windmills or making a small step to highlight one view of a better world may be in the eye of each reader. I’ll step back on this one now.

1 Like
61

That is true. But sometimes trying to fix a minor problem can significant consequences, fixing a minor problem to satisfy one can easily turn into major headache for many others. Governments in the past have done such trying to oil a small squeaky wheel. I suppose the consequences of making changes and flow on amendments keeps government busy and like they are doing something in the eyes of the constitutents.

I would to as time spent reconciling personal and business transactions could be better spent elsewhere, but its solution is possibly a different topic.