Natwest Refuses Chargeback

MsBlonde

dazza.mk wrote: »

You can leave a deposit on whatever you like as long as it is made via "an organised distance sales or service provision scheme", see below copied from the OFT link I posted above.

"The DSR's don't apply where you and the consumer make no binding contractual commitment until the car is either delivered to the consumer or they collect the car from your premises but, in these cases, the consumer will be free not to go ahead with the purchase and cannot be required to forfeit any prepayments or deposits."

A deposit is taken to "hold" the car/bike (or whatever) because you want it? This as I saw it, was because you were interested in it and it gave you time to come up with the cash, and stopped them selling it to someone else etc. If you wasted the sellers time by NOT buying it, then you were not entitled to the deposit back?

Do deposits work differently now? Do we now have to pay a deposit to see the car/bike before we even decide if we want it or not? I honestly do not see the logic in it at all lol

dazza.mk

MsBlonde wrote: »

A deposit is taken to "hold" the car/bike (or whatever) because you want it? This as I saw it, was because you were interested in it and it gave you time to come up with the cash, and stopped them selling it to someone else etc. If you wasted the sellers time by NOT buying it, then you were not entitled to the deposit back?

Do deposits work differently now? Do we now have to pay a deposit to see the car/bike before we even decide if we want it or not? I honestly do not see the logic in it at all lol

Think its just the same as the rest of the Distance Selling Regulations, that if you are committed by the deposit it potentially falls under the distance selling regulations and you therefore can change your mind for any reason (which must really irritate retailers!)

chattychappy

dazza.mk wrote: »

Think its just the same as the rest of the Distance Selling Regulations, that if you are committed by the deposit it potentially falls under the distance selling regulations and you therefore can change your mind for any reason (which must really irritate retailers!)

Yep my point really. Either there is a binding contract, in which case it comes under the regs (assuming it falls into the ambit of the regs anyway) else the deposit is refundable cos there's no binding contract.

MsBlonde wrote: »

thought the whole point of deposits were they were unrefundable, because if they were refundable, whats the point of putting a deposit down? They might as well said yeah just come look.

The DSRs do undermine the concept somewhat. But - once exception is for bespoke items. This is where retailers may well want to charge a deposit and it woudn't be refundable.

Another reason for deposits is simply to show the customer is "serious". I was in involved in a business where we would take deposits to hold something. They were always fully refundable. But it was a good way of testing how serious a customer was about a purchase. An ideal answer to "will you put it aside for me". Sometimes they wanted a refund, but usually the ones that put down the deposit did take the goods. (It was B2B).

moonrakerz

dazza.mk wrote: »

Sounds like they're still treating it as a chargeback rather than a Section 75 claim.

Unfortunately, the OP is not actually putting forward a coherent argument to the bank.

Ignoring the aspects of whether the deposit IS actually refundable - what exactly is he claiming ?

In his first post he calls it a "chargeback" - then in another post he seems to be talking about a Sect 75 claim. Looking at this from the bank's point of view it is not surprising that they refused his request - they just said to themselves, "this guy doesn't know what he is talking about"....... "tell him to push off"

leecasey

moonrakerz wrote: »

Unfortunately, the OP is not actually putting forward a coherent argument to the bank.

Ignoring the aspects of whether the deposit IS actually refundable - what exactly is he claiming ?

In his first post he calls it a "chargeback" - then in another post he seems to be talking about a Sect 75 claim. Looking at this from the bank's point of view it is not surprising that they refused his request - they just said to themselves, "this guy doesn't know what he is talking about"....... "tell him to push off"

Um did you read the complete thread? At first I tried claiming as a chargeback. Which was refused. I spoke to the helpful people on here who advised me to approach it via a long dist seller reg claim in which I received the response I got.

I am no expert, hence why I came here so instead of telling me I dont know what I'm talking about why dont you tell me how I should be putting my case across?

dazza.mk

No Lee, I think you don't still quite get it, you could make a claim under Section 75 of the consumer credit act to hold th credit card company jointly liable for the failure to honour your rights under the Distance Selling regs.

The credit card company sound like they're still dealing with it as a chargeback

moonrakerz

leecasey wrote: »

Um did you read the complete thread? At first I tried claiming as a chargeback. Which was refused. I spoke to the helpful people on here who advised me to approach it via a long dist seller reg claim in which I received the response I got.

I am no expert, hence why I came here so instead of telling me I dont know what I'm talking about why dont you tell me how I should be putting my case across?

Firstly, I didn't tell you that you didn't know what you are talking about - perhaps YOU should read what I wrote.

You need to understand under what you are claiming and IF you think it will succeed go ahead with the claim. Don't change horses half way through - that immediately tells the bank that they are onto a winner.

Your claim, whatever it is submitted under, rests on the WORD of the supplier to refund the deposit. As someone has already said, why would he need to ask for a deposit for you to withdraw interest penalty free. You have no evidence that he made such a promise.
MsBlonde has hit the nail on the head with their response.

The DSR thing is a very doubtful move of desperation - let me know how you get on - I don't think you will get very far.

ILW

I would wonder why a retailer would want a deposit if they are just going to refund it. Sort of defeats the point really.

leecasey

ILW wrote: »

I would wonder why a retailer would want a deposit if they are just going to refund it. Sort of defeats the point really.

They claim it was to show them I was genuinely interested in the bike and not a joy rider or time waster. I am neither so had no problem putting the deposit down. When I got there they dropped a bomb shell that it hadnt had a service since 2006. I knew there was a risk I wouldnt get the depsosit back if I didnt want it as I know a dealers word is as good as the paper its written on most of the time.

Its no big deal anyway. I'll either just take the loss as a lesson or might just get the bike inspected and go for it still. I'm not going to bother taking it further for the sake of £100.

Thank you everyone who has helped.

ICan'tStandIt

dazza.mk wrote: »

Sounds like they're still treating it as a chargeback rather than a Section 75 claim.

It's my understanding that the only way a card issuer can get the money back from a merchant is via a chargeback. A Section 75 claim would come out of the card issuer's (in the case Natwest) funds.

Therefore it is in Natwest's best interest to treat it as a chargeback.

moonrakerz wrote: »

Unfortunately, the OP is not actually putting forward a coherent argument to the bank.

Ignoring the aspects of whether the deposit IS actually refundable - what exactly is he claiming ?

In his first post he calls it a "chargeback" - then in another post he seems to be talking about a Sect 75 claim. Looking at this from the bank's point of view it is not surprising that they refused his request - they just said to themselves, "this guy doesn't know what he is talking about"....... "tell him to push off"

In his defence, it is not for him to give a "coherent argument to the bank". As long as he gives them all the facts, it is then for the bank to tell him what all his options are and what to do in the future to protect himself.

Many people in such situations call their banks not having heard of Section 75 or a chargeback. Should they be told to "push off" as you put it just becuase they do not have the knowledge you do ?