We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
What are my rights in this situation?
Comments
-
You're the one who is confused.
Visa Chargeback regulations apply to ALL card issuers, they don't differ from bank to bank. They cover purchases on Credit and Debit cards. As per my previous post, this situation is not covered by ANY Visa Chargeback Code.
Breach of Contract only comes into play when a Section 75 claim is made by the OP. (Only valid for purchases made using a Credit card) You cannot action a chargeback for breach of contract but you can make a Section 75 claim if this can be established.
I think you're mixing up your Visa Chargeback Regulations and your Section 75 claims. They are 2 completely separate procedures.
As i explained previously, the Chargeback for Non Recipt of Refund would only apply IF the OP had returned the goods, the retailer had agreed to refund (which they haven't yet) and that said refund wasn't showing in the OP's bank account. As this hasn't happened, there is no chargeback right which covers the OP's situation.
I am sure you believe what you write, but this board is awash with examples of posters successful chargeback requests being accepted in this very situation.
The advice from Which? seems to agree.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Please can we have a link to one example?
The board is "awash" with successful chargebacks in this situation ? I'd like to see an example too.
I believe what i write because i AM right. I've been reading Visa Regulations and Section 75 claims on a daily basis for a long time now.
he "Which" website information stated below is discussing grounds for "Compensation where there has been breach of contract", their information is misleading. Their quoted timescales are correct for Visa Chargebacks, these timescales DO NOT apply to Section 75 claims.
I'll say it again BREACH OF CONTRACT ONLY APPLIES TO SECTION 75 CLAIMS - NOT TO VISA CHARGEBACK PROCEDURES.
From the 'Which' website:
Conditions and requirements of chargeback
The main requirement for compensation is evidence that there has been a breach of contract.
There is also a time limit on claims - Visa, for example, sets a 120 day time limit which starts from the day you are aware of a problem. In the case of tangible goods that you've purchased from a shop or online it would therefore be from the day you receive the items.0 -
The board is "awash" with successful chargebacks in this situation ? I'd like to see an example too.
I believe what i write because i AM right. I've been reading Visa Regulations and Section 75 claims on a daily basis for a long time now.
he "Which" website information stated below is discussing grounds for "Compensation where there has been breach of contract", their information is misleading. Their quoted timescales are correct for Visa Chargebacks, these timescales DO NOT apply to Section 75 claims.
I'll say it again BREACH OF CONTRACT ONLY APPLIES TO SECTION 75 CLAIMS - NOT TO VISA CHARGEBACK PROCEDURES.
From the 'Which' website:
Conditions and requirements of chargeback
The main requirement for compensation is evidence that there has been a breach of contract.
There is also a time limit on claims - Visa, for example, sets a 120 day time limit which starts from the day you are aware of a problem. In the case of tangible goods that you've purchased from a shop or online it would therefore be from the day you receive the items.
Can I suggest that you contact Which & tell them they are wrong?
When I checked the 'Which' website & obtained the info you have just re-quoted it was clearly about chargebacks NOT section 75 claims.
I'll say it again ACCORDING TO WHICH, FOR A SUCCESSFUL CHARGEBACK THE MAIN REQUIREMENT IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACT.0 -
The OP has gone very quiet. I wonder if she's getting a refund?0
-
Can I suggest that you contact Which & tell them they are wrong?
When I checked the 'Which' website & obtained the info you have just re-quoted it was clearly about chargebacks NOT section 75 claims.
I'll say it again ACCORDING TO WHICH, FOR A SUCCESSFUL CHARGEBACK THE MAIN REQUIREMENT IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACT.
I didn't say Which were wrong, i said their information was misleading. People often mix up Chargebacks and Section 75 claims, it's easily done if you don't work in that environment. For a chargeback to be actioned, you do not have to prove there has been a breach of contract so it is not a "main requirement"
My opinion is that the OP will struggle to get their refund, but good luck to them. All i can offer is advice based on my experience, which is considerable in this type of query.0 -
I didn't say Which were wrong, i said their information was misleading. People often mix up Chargebacks and Section 75 claims, it's easily done if you don't work in that environment.
My opinion is that the OP will struggle to get their refund, but good luck to them. All i can offer is advice based on my experience, which is considerable in this type of query.
Surely you ARE saying that 'Which' are wrong?
You say:
'BREACH OF CONTRACT ONLY APPLIES TO SECTION 75 CLAIMS - NOT TO VISA CHARGEBACK PROCEDURES.'
Whereas 'Which' say in regard to Chargebacks:
'The main requirement for compensation is evidence that there has been a breach of contract.'
Either you are right or 'Which' are right.
0 -
The OP has gone very quiet. I wonder if she's getting a refund?
More likely been scared off, or just disgusted, by the way they have been treated on this thread.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
More likely been scared off, or just disgusted, by the way they have been treated on this thread.
The point is, Flyboy, that with rights come responsibilities.
If the OP hadn't cut off the tags and had tried and failed to return the rucksack then I guess everyone would be backing her up
However, she has and - in my view - abused the very regulations that are there to protect shoppers.
If telling her that is abusing her then she needs to grow a thicker skin2014 Target;
To overpay CC by £1,000.
Overpayment to date : £310
2nd Purse Challenge:
£15.88 saved to date0 -
mountainofdebt wrote: »The point is, Flyboy, that with rights come responsibilities.
If the OP hadn't cut off the tags and had tried and failed to return the rucksack then I guess everyone would be backing her up
However, she has and - in my view - abused the very regulations that are there to protect shoppers.
If telling her that is abusing her then she needs to grow a thicker skin
Come on, have you not read the thread? There have been several posts that have been judgmental and nothing to do with giving advice. This always happens on here; a new member posts asking for support and advice and they get bombarded with insults and biased, overbearing opinion.
If there was a responsibility to not to remove packaging the regulations would have said so. But, they don't, in fact they specifically mention that packaging does not have to returned.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards