Bits: mystery Supercard charges, £120 LAN Madrid to Frankfurt business class deal

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Andy S says:

  13 Jul13 July 08:18

  Looking at some reviews on play (for the supercard app) they mention Revolut – is this another card like this, any good ? (I assume not as it’s not been mentioned on this site)

  • Rob says:

    13 Jul13 July 08:32

    Revolut is a product for people who can’t get credit cards, which is not exactly the HFP target market. It is fiddly as you need to load it up. Far easier to use a 0% credit card, and the Lloyds Avios card beats it as you earn Avios on top of getting 0%.

    • Sandgrounder says:

      13 Jul13 July 09:47

      Revolut is much more than a product for people who cant get credit cards. You can hold balances in GBP, USD and EUR and swap between them at veey close to spot rates. Topping up and converting £2k when it started to become clear we were brexiting took seconds and saved me quite a bit of cash on the summer spend. You can also send SEPA transfers for free. No point earning options, but it is a useful tool in your wallet.

    • John says:

      13 Jul13 July 12:23

      Really? I thought it uses Mastercard rates.

      Your second sentence is incorrect. Mastercard rates are better than spot over 50% of the time (but you don’t know what it is in advance). Visa rates are fixed for the next working day shortly after midnight CET. If your home currency falls after that, the Visa rate will be better.

      If pilot supercard was still working on June 24/25, you could have withdrawn £1000 in foreign cash at pre-referendum rates.

    • Rob says:

      13 Jul13 July 17:10

      But not so far off that the rewards element from using Supercard or Lloyds Avios would outweigh it ….

• Natalia S says:

  13 Jul13 July 08:22

  Yes, Mastercard uses settlement date. I am now interested in HOW THEY CHOOSE the exact settlement date though.

  My example:
  I’ve got Halifax Clarity, used it abroad the day before the EU referendum for large amount of cash and had to do it in 5 transactions due to ATM limitation. My 1st cash withdrawal transaction was charged at pre-referendum rate; but four others (done literally within 20-30 seconds from the 1st – getting the card out of ATM, putting back in, and pressing few buttons!) were “conveniently” held to go from pending to settled for 2 extra days – and I got hit with the SIGNIFICANT rate change. The total difference was more than £30.

  I plan to question this to Halifax, as it looks really fishy. Seems like a too good an opportunity for the bank to play with your currency exchange rates abroad, and get extra profits by just choosing another day to settle – especially when the bank sees a downward trend for the currency…

  • Genghis says:

    13 Jul13 July 08:34

    That does seem very fishy. I’d seriously question it and hold your corner.

    • Natalia S says:

      13 Jul13 July 09:32

      Thank you, I will.

      For me it raises a larger question: I see “the exchange rate at settlement date” as a door widely open to malpractices in the retail banking world in general. Kind of “few pence here and there as the difference from daily exchange rate difference – nobody will really notice…” I wonder what controls are in place, if any.

      And I guess, nobody would pay too much attention to several pence difference. It’s just that in case of Supercard it became so bluntly obvious because the charge from currency exchange rate difference shows as a separate transaction. The “normal” banks just hide things related to exchange rates better (and have better written T&Cs which allow them to do it without being dragged to court). It must be huge money on the scale they operate. Well worth a bit of tweaking how to “redistribute” transaction settlement dates.

    • Callum says:

      13 Jul13 July 10:09

      Not really fishy, unless you’re suggesting they employ people to monitor people’s spending and deliberately delay some transactions for a – normally – marginal gain?

      With their lax compensation policies you may get them to refund the difference as a “goodwill gesture”.

      • Rob says:

        13 Jul13 July 10:14

        It’s not a marginal gain, it would be a huge chunk of money across a large customer base. When you remember that FX fees are – in the new world of 0.3% interchange fees – the only way to actually make any money off ‘non interest paying’ card holders these days, it would not be surprising if certain people were playing with rates.

        In a world where my old employer – nominally the best regarded bank in the world when I worked there – turns out to have been running a secret banking operation for Mexican drug barons to allow them to rinse their gains, I doubt anyone would give a 2nd glance to rigging card FX rates.

        I was also lucky enough to work at Black Horse Financial Services (the old Lloyds bancassurance business) around 1990 as a University placement and, thinking back, some of the stuff that was going on there in terms of product selling was reprehensible.

        • Natalia S says:

          13 Jul13 July 13:11

          Agree, that’s what I meant to say. Large customer base would make it a huge potential gain. And on a personal level it seems so small that nobody would pay attention. I guess, a potential area for Fin.Ombudsman to look into – at least to make sure that there ARE some controls and flags to prevent it, and no legal loopholes.

          Also quite simple to implement automatically, no need to hire a “real” person trying to keep an eye on things to squeeze a few pence. System-wise, it should be almost exactly as normal currency trading, but working only one way (making automatic “bets” for currency going up next day, but never down); with the difference being that If bank “loses” its bet, it can pass the losses to the cardholder. If it wins, no need to share. Seems an easy and attractive scheme for me, nothing too new to implement (with similar systems already in place), good potential for solid improvement to bank bottom line – and all this coming risk-free. I can see a very convincing business case for a bank, a bit dodgy, but not on par with Mexican drug barons cash laundering (surely it must be illegal by now?) 🙂

      • Genghis says:

        13 Jul13 July 10:43

        Bearing in the mind the size of the numbers across the industry, it’s pretty significant.

        I’d say having 5 consecutive cash withdrawals with the last four going through at a different (and worse) rate to the first is rather strange.

        • Callum says:

          13 Jul13 July 11:27

          Of course its strange, fishy implies deliberate manipulation. Which would make little sense for them to not do it with all the transactions.

          As to the suggestion that banks would be doing this on a wide scale, while I don’t have Raffles industry experience I can only refuse to believe such blatant manipulation happens in this closely regulated industry (its not the 90s anymore). The drug laundering claim (assuming it’s HSBC?) doesn’t seem overly accurate either?

        • Natalia S says:

          13 Jul13 July 12:49

          I’ll find some time to write to the bank, and will be extremely interested in the official reply (even much more than in c.£30). I personally cannot think of an adequate explanation.

          To make sure that I am fair to Halifax, I’ve just checked the exact time of withdrawals to make sure that I did NOT incidentally hit some cut-off time between the first transaction and the rest (that would be a real bad luck of mine, but not bank’s fault) .

          No chance, local UK time for the transaction would be 14:06 to 14:13. Same cash machine, same amount in foreign currency, but the first withdrawal is charged as £52.49 at the rate for the 23rd, and the rest seven (it happens to be eight, not five altogether, I forgot the details) are at £56.26 each – and they appeared on my statement as settled on the 27th.

          Interesting and thought provoking read, these bank statements, who would have thought… 🙂

        • Mr Dee says:

          13 Jul13 July 16:55

          Lets be realistic the people that work in the banks are interested in the numbers and will delegate tasks to others and somewhere along the line people may go off track and the customer maybe manipulated.

          Back in the day I applied for a Loan with Lloyds and was told I had to take PPI even though I had been approved for the loan, the guy said I can’t take the loan unless I have the rip off PPI as well. In the end had to go elsewhere due to the call centre staff forcing PPI onto me as at the time most people were taking it and the banks were making their money with it.

• Phil Layton says:

  13 Jul13 July 08:33

  Just returned from Spain last week, and apart from a few PIN declines (which I have never experienced on other cards) it all went well. Everything showed up on the app. Yesterday I noticed 5 new transactions on my linked Tesco card with small transactions of £2 or less marked IC CASH 01 and wondered what they were… until this post of Raffles.
  Separately, on Monday I paid the balance of some accommodation in the US for October and this has gone through twice on the app. I rang support (who after 15mins wait) told me that one was for approval and one was for pending and the funds would be ‘released’ in a few days. However, both transactions have hit the Tesco card and I cannot see a ‘release’ coming without a credit refund going through. Still to be sorted.
  I have to agree, not worth the aggro with all these small charges and worry…shall stick with the Clarity card (and its contactless) in future.

  • Worzel says:

    13 Jul13 July 09:00

    Good move Phil;

    ‘……not worth the aggro with all these small charges and worry…shall stick with the Clarity card….’ .

    Keep domestic and foreign spend separate.

    Annual statement here(Santander Zero-but could be Clarity)- £9k spend(£6k purchases/£3k cash)/£0 interest/ zero aggravation!

    • Callum says:

      13 Jul13 July 10:15

      Why keep them separate?

      • Mr Dee says:

        13 Jul13 July 10:22

        As it can be hard to reconcile which random supercard charges were for business or pleasure as they are not tagged to the original transactions.

      • Worzel says:

        13 Jul13 July 11:40

        Reply to Callum 10:15:

        ‘Why keep them separate?’ .

        There are enough posts here today to summarise why(!)- these posts further to previous discussion on HFP.

        I don’t see any positives, however, if it works for a few then well done.

        Politely posted.

• Mr Bridge says:

  13 Jul13 July 08:39

  As a Pilot user, I experienced problems with charges showing up on the app, although they ever hit my card. I was hoping the new card would prove to be glitch free. Not used it yet, think i will send it back

  • Mr Dee says:

    13 Jul13 July 10:22

    Just keep it or bin it, there wasn’t a charge for it so no need to return it.

• Thywillbedone says:

  13 Jul13 July 09:26

  Have been using the supercard for over a week in Italy and was only checking spend on the app rather than my underlying credit card – have now noticed a raft these mystery “cash” charges. Very very sneaky; depending on how it is handled by Supercard I will likely be binning this card.

• Leon says:

  13 Jul13 July 09:27

  I too have these charges, albeit only totalling a couple of £’s.

  I’d compare the values in the app with what I have been charged, but the app has gone back to wanting me to activate my card. I tried going through the process, but it rejects the last four from my card. So now I’m left with a duff app.

  6 months from now, Super what?

• Gulz says:

  13 Jul13 July 09:50

  I spent €1600 on 5th July on Supercard (Supercard said I saved £33 something). Got a charge of £30.59 yesterday as IC Cash from supercard. So effectively I saved maybe just a couple of quid. Not happy about it. Won’t be using Supercard anymore.

  • Mr Dee says:

    13 Jul13 July 10:21

    Awful service there, that just wiped out the most benefit of any points gained

  • Jason Cousins says:

    13 Jul13 July 10:38

    I had similar. I’ve disputed this with my credit card as the second transactions were not authorised.

• Jason Cousins says:

  13 Jul13 July 09:57

  Quite frankly this is a disastrous launch of a product which has had the benefit of a pilot scheme for 2 years. Apart from the exchange rate issues above, for which the handling is appalling, the new main issue for me, for which I have now contacted the FCA, is ringfenced amounts.
  On a hotel stay last week, the hotel took from my Supercard, a ringfenced amount of $200.00. Normally, on a credit card, they simply hold it (as pending not showing on a statement) until the hotel put through the actual charge (in this case, and importantly lower) at $35.00. Supercard instantly charge the original amount as actual onto the credit card. When the final amount comes through, Supercard does not change the Sterling Charge. On the App It updates to read: $35.05 @ £1.00=$0.2337 =£149.95!!! That’s pretty much a rate of £4 to $1. Customer Services are fairly uninterested until you mention the Financial Conduct Authority. Basically they have stolen around £125.00

  • Mr Dee says:

    13 Jul13 July 10:19

    That charge seems like a bug in their app, I would assume that you’ll get a seperate charge for the $35.05 and a refund for the original amount after about 7-10 days from the original charge.

    They are charging preauthorisations and then charging the final amount seperately, I think I will be avoiding supercard as well by the sounds of it unless I am desperate.

    This whole situation is the same as the Curve card, it is without a doubt to do with Wirecard and how their technology works, this wasn’t a problem when the product was in beta. Curve and supercard may have little way of changing the way Wirecard works but it is severely limiting their business, doesn’t excuse their customer support though….

    • Jason Cousins says:

      13 Jul13 July 10:27

      What you say about the separate charges for preauthorisation and final seem perfectly logical, and would have expected Supercard to state this, but so far, customer services have not. In fact they are only interested in seeing an actual bill before looking further into it, despite the obvious error contained wholly within Supercard.

      • Mr Dee says:

        13 Jul13 July 15:28

        Well it doesn’t seem right if you are preauthorised and charged to your card £500 on a hotel stay and then the next day charged another £300 for the actual final total, meaning your card is charged £800 and 10 days later the £500 refunded.

        The point is it’s an actual charge not a simple preauthorisation, the pre south charges are going through as a charge which will mess up your cards available balance. This is not acceptable a pre auth should be pre authorised not charged, it worked in Supercard beta but not now by the looks of it due to this wirecard technology.

        • Genghis says:

          13 Jul13 July 15:40

          As well – presumably if the underlying card’s statement date is between payment and refund 10 days later, that is cash out of your actual pocket as opposed to a balance just sitting on an account.

  • Cheshire Pete says:

    13 Jul13 July 10:19

    I thought FCA wasn’t responsible as its issued in Gibraltar ? Or is that the Ombudsman that isn’t.

  • AO says:

    13 Jul13 July 11:36

    I also encountered this issue yesterday for a hotel stay last week, but it seems to have gone a step further as they have charged the difference between the amount held at the start of the stay and the amount on checkout as an “IC Cash” rate adjustment of £385!

    Currently for a 603 EUR hotel stay I have been charged in total £898 across three transactions. After a long and confused conversation with Customer Services, they ‘think’ the extra charge will be refunded when the original hold updates from pending to complete.

    Has anyone had any experience to confirm?

    • Jason Cousins says:

      13 Jul13 July 12:07

      Yes, the exact problem. I’m still awaiting to hear back from them.. It’s clearly a major problem, but one they seem inexperienced or incapable to deal with. A ‘completed’ transaction for me has resulted in a final charge of $35.05 being settled at the original amount of £149.95. I’d report this to the Financial Conduct Authority as I have.

      • John says:

        13 Jul13 July 12:36

        Yes, this is a very worrying bug, but you can easily avoid it next time (if you haven’t melted your supercard in frustration) by not using the supercard for authorisations.

        For hotel and car hire I always check-in with my Amex to make use of the lack of credit limit. At checkout I pay with a different card (or sometimes cash – when I got it at a better rate with the old supercard :p ). Also Amex has better dispute resolution so if there is a spurious charge from hotels later, Amex helps out. I wouldn’t want a hotel to randomly charge supercard later when the maid steals from the minibar

        • Mr Dee says:

          13 Jul13 July 15:32

          Good point but a pain in the ass for Supercard users

    • Mr Dee says:

      13 Jul13 July 15:31

      Yes there card should not be used for anything that may involve a preauthorisation as their system is charging twice and you will need to wait up to 10 days for the original charge to be refunded same rubbish as Curve.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.