Debit Card Consumer Rights

exel1966

never-in-doubt wrote: »

we'd have probably suggested you complain to your bank that your card was cloned or whatever i.e. never used by you!

That's rather presumptuous ! I don't think WE would have, you maybe NID.

I'm not in the habit of perpurtrating or conspiring with others to commit possible offences !;)

never-in-doubt

:rotfl:, ok maybe a handful of you wouldn't agree but the majority would (I forgot the do-gooders were around) - after all, hasn't the OP just been scammed? Unlike the company that took the funds - the OP would be getting their money back from the bank who would then reverse the original payment from the 3rd party bank who in turn would then deduct it from the receiving account therefore nobody loses out except the original scammer (their account would just go overdrawn or whatever).

You tell me what is wrong with that? To me it shouldn't be illegal, its dog eat dog. Yea, before you all start I know the legalities but i'm saying in my opinion it shouldn't be illegal - after all, the OP isn't a criminal for buying something which is all they done, isn't it?

savagej

exel1966 wrote: »

In that case you have no protection under any recognised scheme as Mastercard (Maestro) do NOT offer a chargeback scheme, unlike VISA which do or Credit Cards which are covered under the CCA 2006.

Maestro cards used for ecommerce purchases are able to be charged back, it is in the Mastercard chargeback rule book. I dont know if this cover situations like this will try and find out.

savagej

"

B.1.3.2 E–Commerce Transactions
An issuer may request a copy of the order information that was processed at
the time of the transaction. An original copy of the transaction receipt for an
e-commerce (electronic commerce) transaction cannot be requested, because
none exists.
The acquirer must obtain order information from the merchant, if it is requested
to do so by an issuer.
The acquirer must validate that the order information supplied by the merchant
corresponds to the message digest of the order information contained in the
original transaction.
The acquirer must make the merchant’s contact address and telephone number

available to the issuer.

B.2 Message Reason Codes for Interregional Transactions

Chargeback Reason Goods or Services Not Delivered (e-commerce only)

Europe Members use Reason Code 4855
Members outside Europe use Reason 79

Code PIN-based? Yes
Signature? N/A"

So, a chargeback can be made for this transaction. You will need to point Natwest disputes dept. in the right direction.

Hope this helps and you get your money refunded soon.

exel1966

never-in-doubt wrote: »

:rotfl:, ok maybe a handful of you wouldn't agree but the majority would (I forgot the do-gooders were around) - after all, hasn't the OP just been scammed? Unlike the company that took the funds - the OP would be getting their money back from the bank who would then reverse the original payment from the 3rd party bank who in turn would then deduct it from the receiving account therefore nobody loses out except the original scammer (their account would just go overdrawn or whatever).

You tell me what is wrong with that? To me it shouldn't be illegal, its dog eat dog. Yea, before you all start I know the legalities but i'm saying in my opinion it shouldn't be illegal - after all, the OP isn't a criminal for buying something which is all they done, isn't it?

The majority? Come on, that's rather arrogant! Nothing to do with being a 'do gooder', I'm far from that, it's about advising others to possibly break the law. Yes, the company who have 'dissappeared' maybe scum, and deserve what they get, but why should the banks be held responsible for that?
As you say yourself there are legal ways to put things right, they may be long winded and bureaucratic, but would you prefer an anarchist state without law where everybody took things into their own hands. Rightly or wrongly the law is there to serve and protect.

exel1966

savagej wrote: »

Maestro cards used for ecommerce purchases are able to be charged back, it is in the Mastercard chargeback rule book. I dont know if this cover situations like this will try and find out.

As you know we've had this discussion before and what you're quoting relates to internal chargebacks for errors within the organisation and nothing more.

savagej

exel1966 wrote: »

As you know we've had this discussion before and what you're quoting relates to internal chargebacks for errors within the organisation and nothing more.

I know we have had the arguement before and I can catergorically state you are wrong. I have listed the details from the Maestro card processing section with respect to chargebacks. If you order using e-commerce and the product or service is not delivered you can get a chargeback.

If you think this is wrong please quote the section from the manual that contradicts what I have posted and shows I am incorrect.

ILW

Does not the chargeback ultimately come from the merchant, via the bank? Therefore if the merchant is no longer trading and has no assets, there cannot be a chargeback.

savagej

ILW wrote: »

Does not the chargeback ultimately come from the merchant, via the bank? Therefore if the merchant is no longer trading and has no assets, there cannot be a chargeback.

At that point the liability falls on the aquirer.

NickX

ILW wrote: »

Does not the chargeback ultimately come from the merchant, via the bank? Therefore if the merchant is no longer trading and has no assets, there cannot be a chargeback.

We don't know that the merchant has gone bust - they could just be scammers.

I'd definitely push for a chargeback on this one.