Interesting banking industry practice uncovered.

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification.

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › Interesting banking industry practice uncovered.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

meow
13579 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10910

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3439076 1-Dec-2025 17:47

bigreddog: Is the list of organisations that can do this available anywhere?

No.

As I previously mentioned though - if you wanted to avoid this with any merchant (eg, Spotify) then a virtual Revolut card is a great way to do so.

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

OldGeek

989 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3441946 9-Dec-2025 10:51

Update 2: The issue (as I understand it) revolves around the Visa Account Update service (VAU). This allows card issuers to issue a 'token' to trusted payment providers when a replacement card is issued. Card replacements can be issued (where an existing card number rendered useless because a new card with a different number has been issued) for a number of reasons:

Suspected fraud or disputed transaction.
Card reaches its expiry date.
Customer reports card lost.

There may be others that dont come to mind at present and I will edit this post if necessary.

When new card numbers are issued for 2 above, the VAU service is valid and payments submitted by merchants using the old card number may be honoured using the new card. It is then up to the customer to take any issue up with the merchant (just cancel the account with the merchant and remove the old card as a payment method).

When new card numbers are issued for 1 above, the VAU service should not be used in any circumstances. It currently is (at least for 1). The point here is that the old card has actually been cancelled such that it is intentional unusable, replaced by a new card number. There should be no VAU tokens issued. The ANZ maintains that tokens can be issued - but not to the merchant of a disputed transaction. This is how Fing got to post a transaction to a new card number that Fing knew nothing about. The old card number that Fing used was cancelled months ago because of a disputed transaction unrelated to Fing. I believed that card cancellation is exactly that, and when the cause is a transaction dispute or any form of fraud that the ANZ should never advise anyone of the replacement card.

I am not involved in item 3 and cannot comment further as that is out of scope, but it seems logical that the VAU should also not be used here.

There are general consents in the ANZ Ts&Cs regarding providing information to third parties, but these are general in nature and are not limited to credit card use. The ANZ claims such clauses cover the VAU. I have formally complained about this and the ANZ is conducting an 'internal review'.

I lodged a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, and the ANZ know that they are an interested third party in the result of the 'internal review'.

--

OldGeek.

Quic referal code: https://account.quic.nz/refer/581402 and use this code for free setup: R581402E48MJA

Senecio

2853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3162

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3441954 9-Dec-2025 11:33

OldGeek:

Update 2: The issue (as I understand it) revolves around the Visa Account Update service (VAU). This allows card issuers to issue a 'token' to trusted payment providers when a replacement card is issued.

My understanding (and I'm by no means an expert). The sentance that I have highlighted above is not correct. The token is not issued when a replacement card is issued, it is issued upon first payment taken. Therefore the retailer has no knowledge if a card has been replaced or the reason for its replacement. Unless that toekn is revoked they are free to continue to charging against it.

I think what you should be asking for is that the token is repealed in the case that a card is replaced due to being reported lost, stolen or due to suspect activity.

michaelmurfy

meow
13579 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10910

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3441958 9-Dec-2025 11:50

OldGeek: When new card numbers are issued for 1 above, the VAU service should not be used in any circumstances. It currently is (at least for 1). The point here is that the old card has actually been cancelled such that it is intentional unusable, replaced by a new card number. There should be no VAU tokens issued. The ANZ maintains that tokens can be issued - but not to the merchant of a disputed transaction. This is how Fing got to post a transaction to a new card number that Fing knew nothing about. The old card number that Fing used was cancelled months ago because of a disputed transaction unrelated to Fing. I believed that card cancellation is exactly that, and when the cause is a transaction dispute or any form of fraud that the ANZ should never advise anyone of the replacement card.

Incorrect as previously posted: https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=191&topicid=323403&page_no=2#3438608

Lets also be clear... this wasn't fraud nor is it the definition of fraud. It was simply a forgotten subscription.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41036

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3441959 9-Dec-2025 11:57

OldGeek:

This allows card issuers to issue a 'token' to trusted payment providers when a replacement card is issued.

As above, the token is issued when the subscription is created, not when a replacement card is issued. Banks won't go around disclosing a replacement has issued.

OldGeek:

The ANZ maintains that tokens can be issued - but not to the merchant of a disputed transaction. This is how Fing got to post a transaction to a new card number that Fing knew nothing about.

See point above. Fing had the token from the original transaction, not because of a card replacement. Fing still doesn't know about card numbers.

OldGeek:

The old card number that Fing used was cancelled months ago because of a disputed transaction unrelated to Fing. I believed that card cancellation is exactly that, and when the cause is a transaction dispute or any form of fraud that the ANZ should never advise anyone of the replacement card.

They didn't advise anyone of the replacement card.

I'm out of this thread now.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

OldGeek

989 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3441973 9-Dec-2025 12:57

Just a comment on responses to update 2: The update in terms of bank process is what they have told me. The bank will issue a 'final determination' but it might take months given the time of year. I am OK with that.

--

OldGeek.

Quic referal code: https://account.quic.nz/refer/581402 and use this code for free setup: R581402E48MJA

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#3442925 12-Dec-2025 02:37

I think it's fair and reasonable that:

1: Payment page(s) for subscriptions should clearly communicate they are creating a "direct credit" (like a direct debit but via credit card) / payment token

2: The banks need to provide a way to view and revoke active tokens / direct credits to the user in their apps/websites.

That's what'd I'd be asking the regulator for.

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#3442928 12-Dec-2025 06:21

Ragnor:

I think it's fair and reasonable that:

1: Payment page(s) for subscriptions should clearly communicate they are creating a "direct credit" (like a direct debit but via credit card) / payment token

2: The banks need to provide a way to view and revoke active tokens / direct credits to the user in their apps/websites.

That's what'd I'd be asking the regulator for.

Part two is no different to a direct debit. With the credit card you effectively sign a direct debit and give authority to the merchant. So they are the only ones who can cancel it. So you're not likely to get a feature in the banking app which allows you to cancel it.

Ultimately this all comes down to cancelling a, service or subscription properly, rather than cancelling or changing a credit card number. There are plenty of bank processes such aren't spelt out in detail for the customer.

cddt

1965 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1904

#3442930 12-Dec-2025 06:50

Ragnor:

2: The banks need to provide a way to view and revoke active tokens / direct credits to the user in their apps/websites.

The problem with this is that there is no way to revoke active tokens. You are stuck with them unless you can cancel the subscription, and the merchant follows your instruction to cancel.

My referral links: BigPipe | Mercury

OldGeek

989 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3442991 12-Dec-2025 08:40

I acknowledge responses and point out the following:

With the ANZ at least, with direct debits the customer authorises the bank to accept Direct Debit transactions from the merchant. The DD authority is between you and your bank, in favour of the merchant. You should most certainly cancel with the Merchant to try and stop them issuing future transactions, but you must also cancel with your bank to ensure any transactions dated after cancellation are rejected. If your bank refuses to accept cancellation, saying you must only do this with the merchant, they are wrong. I have a Banking Ombudsman case (many years ago now) who ruled that the DD agreement is between the customer and the Bank, and that therefore the bank must accept cancellation.
The ANZ have said that my issue with tokens is being considered. The Banking Ombudsman has now said it cannot compel the bank to do anything any issue with Visa payment practices is beyond its remit. I have applied for an equivalent American Express card in the hope that it operates separately to Visa/Mastercard.

--

OldGeek.

Quic referal code: https://account.quic.nz/refer/581402 and use this code for free setup: R581402E48MJA

michaelmurfy

meow
13579 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10910

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3443000 12-Dec-2025 09:12

cddt: The problem with this is that there is no way to revoke active tokens. You are stuck with them unless you can cancel the subscription, and the merchant follows your instruction to cancel.

erm… yes there is however with most banks you do need to talk to them. Just like direct debits this isn’t exposed to the end user.

@OldGeek not sure why you signed up to a whole new credit card when services like Revolut allow for disposable cards and virtual cards. Seems like an easy way to prevent forgotten subscriptions in future given this is your main complaint?

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#3443005 12-Dec-2025 09:32

OldGeek:

I acknowledge responses and point out the following:

With the ANZ at least, with direct debits the customer authorises the bank to accept Direct Debit transactions from the merchant. The DD authority is between you and your bank, in favour of the merchant. You should most certainly cancel with the Merchant to try and stop them issuing future transactions, but you must also cancel with your bank to ensure any transactions dated after cancellation are rejected. If your bank refuses to accept cancellation, saying you must only do this with the merchant, they are wrong. I have a Banking Ombudsman case (many years ago now) who ruled that the DD agreement is between the customer and the Bank, and that therefore the bank must accept cancellation

Which begs the question, why bother with direct debit at all? Convenience? Why not just set up an AP or pay in full?

This has popped up a few times where I play golf. Members will agree to join for the year, then pay via DD monthly, then halfway through the year, move etc and try cancel the DD. And wonder why the debt has been sent to collection. The agreement was for the year, they've just chosen to pay in installments.

OldGeek

989 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3443014 12-Dec-2025 10:05

michaelmurfy:

@OldGeek not sure why you signed up to a whole new credit card when services like Revolut allow for disposable cards and virtual cards. Seems like an easy way to prevent forgotten subscriptions in future given this is your main complaint?

Airpoints rewards. Looking to move from ANZ Platinum to Amex Platinum Airports cards.

--

OldGeek.

Quic referal code: https://account.quic.nz/refer/581402 and use this code for free setup: R581402E48MJA

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10209

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3443016 12-Dec-2025 10:15

This is why paypal is a better option to use when offered as it will list everyone saved and authorised to charge you, and let you revoke that.

Banks really need to up their game, since to most people they are just an app that holds their money and a card to access it and there are a hell of a lot of better options with more coming along that offer better functionality.

Call our customer service to do a chargeback or similar may as well not be a service they offer IMO. If its not able to be done in the app or the website, they don't do it.

Richard rich.ms

geek3001

220 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 331

ID Verified

Subscriber

#3443082 12-Dec-2025 11:02

michaelmurfy:

... not sure why you signed up to a whole new credit card when services like Revolut allow for disposable cards and virtual cards. Seems like an easy way to prevent forgotten subscriptions in future given this is your main complaint?

@michaelmurfy, if I understand earlier posts correctly, the token is linked to your credit card account, not to any specific card linked to that account, meaning when a card is replaced (either routine or after fraud) the existing token held by a merchant remains valid.

If that is the case, then if one was to use services like Revolut, would the (single??) token for card(s) issued by them be linked to your Revolut account, meaning subsequent cards (virtual or otherwise) would be linked to the same token, meaning that a merchant could still charge the token that is linked to your Revolut account regardless of whether you had cancelled a virtual card and created another one?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6