Paypal disputes

magpiecottage

The Financial Ombudsman Service has just published some case studies on Complaints Involving e-money.

It does not say who the "e-money issuer" is but I think we can all take an educated guess as to who it means.

Interesting reading if you have a dispute with an "e-money issuer".

custardy

well the first one is someone thinking they can buy an iphone from Hong Kong for £50

Miss G saw a well-known brand of smartphone listed on an online auction website and bought it for £50, using her e-money account.

When the phone was delivered, she found that it was a brand she had never heard of and that all the phone’s functions were displayed in Chinese. She complained to the seller, who said she had no grounds for a refund as he had never suggested that the phone was made by the well-known brand.

Miss G then contacted her e-money issuer and asked for its help in getting her money back. It, too, told her there were no grounds on which she could claim a refund. It said the phone had not been described in a way that suggested it was made by the well-known brand.

It also said she should have realised, from the comparatively low price she paid, that the phone could not be a premium brand. Miss G then referred her complaint to us.

complaint upheld
Although we do not cover complaints about the sellers of goods – we do cover complaints about e-money issuers.

We looked at the terms and conditions of Miss G’s e-money account. These said she was entitled to a refund from the e-money issuer in certain circumstances, including where goods had been paid for but never received, or where goods differed significantly from the seller’s description of them.

We checked the description of the phone that had appeared on the auction website. We took the view that this was clearly intended to suggest the phone was made by the well-known brand. The brand was not only mentioned in the heading but was also referred to several times in the description of the phone.

We accepted that the asking price was unusually low – and might therefore have aroused some suspicion. However, we thought the description would have led any reasonable person to believe they were purchasing a phone that was genuinely made by the well-known brand.

We told the e-money issuer to refund the amount Miss G had paid for the phone and to reimburse her for all related postage costs, including the cost of returning the phone.