Find out what is the credit cards fee on your means of payment.
Credit card sales
Bank must prove abuse
Deny a customer the use of his credit card, and therefore contradicts ominous strains of his account, the bank is under an obligation to prove that the credit card business was made by the customer or that was responsible for the misuse of the card. The bank can not take the evidence, they must refund the money.
A lack of safety standards in the bank can not be a burden to the customer, according to the court.
(Photo: picture-alliance / dpa / dpaweb)
Revokes a bank customer credit card processing because it denies the underlying credit card business, the bank, which has to account for the withdrawals, either prove that the credit card business of the customer have been made or that he is responsible for the misuse of credit cards. The bank can not lead this evidence, they must reimburse the customer the debited amount of money, a judgment of the District Court of Munich.
A client closing at their bank a MasterCard agreement, according to which the amounts paid by credit card should be pulled from their account. A few months later she found out that the credit card statement appeared withdrawals, which she had not even initiated. Had them block the card. The bank filed a hesitation the unaccepted amounts. The client himself had installed a precautionary virus program on your computer. Her a new credit card was issued. A month later she noticed another unknown, not even prompted withdrawals, whereupon the applicant could also disable the second card and criminal charges refunded and affirmed assured that it has not even made the transactions in question.
All good things come in threes
The customer has now received its third Mastercard and not discovered again by their past sales. The bank filed a time not the full amount, but only 57.74 Euro. The balance in the amount of € 710.86 was refunded. The bank took the view that the customer has either led or third billing itself recklessly gives the opportunity to use the map. This follows from the fact that getting the same dealers were concerned, though new cards were issued. The suspicion lies that these dealers could have arrived at the new data just by a violation of customer care. Misuse by employees of the bank was excluded because this my Verification on the back of the card has no reputation. Moreover, the customer would need to check their computers for viruses immediately, the bank argued. In contrast, defended the bank customer and complained.
The action of the bank customer before the Munich District Court was successful. The bank had to reimburse the plaintiff for the full amount of the transactions at issue, the court said.
By debiting the account of the customer on the part of the Bank's asset increase had occurred. In order to keep this can must be detected by the bank that the credit card transactions through the customer has actually been paid or that it is responsible for the abuse. This proof was not here to lead the bank.
No burden of proof
Some banks continue to collect
Loan fees remain in dispute
If the bank claims that the customer did not have the map stored with sufficient care and this assertion based on the fact that the new map data are assigned to the same payees become known, this is purely conjecture represents the bank has not explained how the data transmission should have played. The same applies to the assertion that it submitted to a virus in the computer system of the customer.
A burden of proof under the principles of prima facie evidence, is out of question here. Such would imply that it is established, a factor that could be drawn from the logical thinking of a final. Because the bank only works with mere assumptions and existed many ways the emergence of data abuse, get a prima facie case at the expense of the customer is not eligible, the court ruled.
Requires the Bank without further checks to companies whose permission had previously been disputed by the applicant, it could risk her that they need the money from the merchant no longer gets back, not passed on to the customer. Require the bank to the billing by the dealer without further examination and without evidence, so to speak, automatically, allows, is their problem. Wool they protect themselves, they should adjust their program at least so that it charges from dealers, were lodged against the opposition no longer permitting. The lack of safety standards in the defendant could not be a burden to the applicant, the court said.