Forum: Unfair for customers to pay bank first for disputed transactions on credit cards

In the past three months, my wife and I have been victims of unauthorised transactions on our credit cards.

Around 30 foreign small-value transactions were charged to our credit cards in total across consecutive days from the same commercial entity. These multiple transactions added up to hundreds of dollars.

We were able to detect these unauthorised transactions quickly from our banking app, and reported them to the bank promptly to cancel our credit cards and dispute the transactions. 

Initially, the bank’s call agent insisted we pay these transactions in full first, as it might take up to 12 weeks to complete the investigations. After we pursued the matter, the bank offered to credit the full amount of the unauthorised transactions to my next credit card bill to offset the charges. If this was not done, I could call the bank again for the refund. 

Why can’t banks in the first place hold such disputed transactions in the interim while they investigate them, especially since the multiple foreign transactions appear highly suspicious? 

If the unauthorised transactions were of larger amounts, in the thousands or more, would it be fair and reasonable for bank customers to pay first?

Albert Foo