The system for contesting transactions through the FPS will become mandatory for banks
[ad_1]
At the end of June, the system for contesting transactions through the FPS, which has been operating in a voluntary mode for almost two years, will become mandatory for banks. This means that the sender’s bank will be obliged to accept the claim, and the recipient’s bank will consider it. In most cases, the mechanism will affect payment for goods and services. Bankers fear that they will be held responsible for the return of funds, their risks will increase, and the authorities will not agree to raise the tariff.
At the NSPK technological conference held on June 7 (SBP transaction, payment and clearing center, SBP OPCC), it was announced that from June 30 a mandatory dispute procedure (challenging transactions) in the SBP was introduced. However, for transfers between citizens, it will only be valid in the event of an unsuccessful operation or fraud. As a Kommersant source in the payment market explained, if the sender made a mistake in dialing the recipient’s number when transferring funds, then he will have to return the money on his own.
When paying for goods and services, the dispute procedure can be launched if the goods or services are not received, are of inadequate quality, or the order is cancelled. In order to file a claim, a citizen will have 180 days, the maximum period for considering a dispute is set at 30 calendar days, as is the case with cards of the Mir payment system.
The process of initiating an SBP dispute will be the same as with the Mir cards. The client applies to the bank from the account where he made the disputed transaction. The bank then initiates a dispute on the NSPK platform. The beneficiary’s bank considers this dispute by contacting its client, the TSP, and analyzes the information received. If a positive decision is made on the disputed transaction, the OPCC will conduct automatic settlements between the parties to the dispute.
As explained in the NSPK, the mechanism for resolving disputes on payments through the FPS has been operating since 2021, but has not yet been mandatory for banks. “On June 30, 2023, in the Dispute+ system, in which transactions with Mir cards are disputed, the Dispute process for the SBP will appear, it will become mandatory for all banks participating in the system,” they noted.
The innovation is due, among other things, to the fact that the SBP is becoming an increasingly popular tool for online and offline payment for purchases, the number of transactions in the SBP is growing rapidly, and in the event of disputes, clear regulations are needed to resolve them, the NSPK noted.
The total volume of transactions through the SBP in the first quarter of 2023 reached 5.38 trillion rubles, of which 400 billion rubles. accounted for payment for goods and services (20% higher than in the fourth quarter of last year).
Russian Standard Bank noted that the dispute service makes the SBP more convenient for everyday use by bank customers in terms of payments for goods and services. At the same time, a number of bankers believe that they will now have significantly more problems, especially when challenging payment transactions through the SBP. According to a Kommersant source in the banking market, now the return is from the store to the buyer through the bank, but the latter acts solely as an intermediary, in case of any claims they are addressed to the store. “Now, if it is necessary to return, banks will take the rap, giving away their money first, and then knocking it out of the store, while the bank cannot get anything from the store without a claim,” says the interlocutor of Kommersant. According to him, banks, as a compromise, asked to increase tariffs for payments under the FPS (0.2%, 0.4% or 0.7% of the volume of the transaction) in order to compensate for the risks, but did not receive a positive response.
As Dmitry Vishnyakov, an independent expert in the payment card market, explained, the payment system operator acts as an arbiter in resolving disputes and thereby ensures the return of funds to the party that has suffered losses. “This is always a long procedure, because it requires an investigation by the operator and costs a certain amount of money, and is only appropriate for fairly large amounts,” he notes. At the same time, according to him, sometimes the banks participating in the payment system prefer not to spend time and money on investigating fraudulent cases, indemnifying the damage voluntarily, but if the amount is large enough, then it will be convenient for banks to use the dispute procedure and challenge the write-off of money.
[ad_2]
Source link
