Refund now re-charged?

zippy1969

Hi.

I was wondering if anyone knows how one would stand in this situation?

A customer writes to their credit card company regarding unsatisfactory warranty support from a major electronics manufacturer on an item costing more than £100. After supplying supporting evidence, the credit card company refund £480 based on the information given.

The credit card company then fail to recoup that £480 from the company concerned. They then write to the customer informing them of this and ask for more information, otherwise they will re-charge the £480 back to the customers card. They require a response within ten days of the date of their letter, dated 11/10/11, but not received by the customer until 17/10/11. The customer responds immediately, sending the reply on 18/10/11 via Royal Mail 'signed for' service. The letter is tracked online and is signed for by someone at the credit card company on 21/10/11. The tracking shows an image of the signature and the date.

The credit card company respond again, informing the customer they have re-charged their account for £480 because they did not respond within the timescale given, yet the customer clearly did and has evidence to prove it.

The customer has written again enclosing a printout of the signature and date.

Each time the credit card company ask for more information, the customer supplies it, and the credit card company respond asking for different information. They do this even though they made a refund based on information given previously.

Any thoughts anyone?

Thanks in advance if you can assist;)

meer53

Your letter was needed by 21 October, the cc issuer received it on 21 October, they probably wouldn't have looked at it until 22 October which is why they sent you the letter saying they were re debiting you. You need to call them.

zippy1969

meer53 wrote: »

Your letter was needed by 21 October, the cc issuer received it on 21 October, they probably wouldn't have looked at it until 22 October which is why they sent you the letter saying they were re debiting you. You need to call them.

Thanks for the reply:T

It's actually someone else who is having the issue and I'm posting on their behalf:)

Yes, they have tried calling. All they get is a call centre, possibly in India, who have no awareness of the issue. They say that the relevant department cannot be called, they have to call you. A call is promised but never materialises.

I find it astonishing that any letters received by the credit card company are not marked with the date they were actually received.

Regardless of this, can the credit card company legally re-charge given that they issued a refund based on previous information supplied? If they cannot then recoup the money, that is not the fault of the customer. In issuing a refund initially, are the credit card company not accepting joint liability?

chattychappy

zippy1969 wrote: »

can the credit card company legally re-charge given that they issued a refund based on previous information supplied?

Yes.

zippy1969 wrote: »

If they cannot then recoup the money, that is not the fault of the customer.

Yes, correct.

zippy1969 wrote: »

In issuing a refund initially, are the credit card company not accepting joint liability?

No (they're not).

zippy1969

chattychappy wrote: »

Yes.

How is this legal? Giving a refund based on information supplied and then re-charging it?

chattychappy wrote: »

Yes, correct.

So it isn't the fault of the customer that the credit card company cannot recoup the money. So surely the credit card company should take action against the company concerned, not penalise the customer?

chattychappy wrote: »

No (they're not).

If an item costs more than £100, and the customer does not receive the service they expect in support of goods purchased, I was under the impression credit card companies were jointly liable?

lisyloo

So it isn't the fault of the customer that the credit card company cannot recoup the money. So surely the credit card company should take action against the company concerned, not penalise the customer?

I agree with this.
The credit card company are jointly liable and are clearly trying to wiggle out of it.
I would advise the person involved to do a moneyclaim on line and go through the small claims track of the county court.
I guess the only remaining question is whether to pursue the retailer or the credit card company.

dazza.mk

zippy1969 wrote: »

If an item costs more than £100, and the customer does not receive the service they expect in support of goods purchased, I was under the impression credit card companies were jointly liable?

How are they holding them liable?

You talk about unsatisfactory warranty support from a major electronics manufacturer? was the electronics manufacturer also the retailer as the credit card would only have joint liability with the retailer - the manufacturer is unconnected (the fact that they may offer direct warranty support is over and above the joint liability unless this was all specified on purchase)

Also did the customer make clear that they were making a Section 75 claim rather than a chargeback?

zippy1969

dazza.mk wrote: »

How are they holding them liable?

You talk about unsatisfactory warranty support from a major electronics manufacturer? was the electronics manufacturer also the retailer as the credit card would only have joint liability with the retailer - the manufacturer is unconnected (the fact that they may offer direct warranty support is over and above the joint liability unless this was all specified on purchase)

Also did the customer make clear that they were making a Section 75 claim rather than a chargeback?

The retailer was an internet retailer and it was specified that warranty support moves over to the manufacturer 28 days after purchase.

Yes, it was made clear that it was a section 75 claim...not a chargeback.

The credit card company made a refund based on the supporting evidence supplied by the customer. In effect, this constitutes acceptance that the supporting evidence makes a case for a refund. To then re-charge it back to the customer because they can't get it back themselves seems unfair.

dazza.mk

zippy1969 wrote: »

The retailer was an internet retailer and it was specified that warranty support moves over to the manufacturer 28 days after purchase.

Yes, it was made clear that it was a section 75 claim...not a chargeback.

The credit card company made a refund based on the supporting evidence supplied by the customer. In effect, this constitutes acceptance that the supporting evidence makes a case for a refund. To then re-charge it back to the customer because they can't get it back themselves seems unfair.

Problem is the credit card companies liability is the same as the retailers, from the above 28 days, so, unless you can say the 28 day support breaches Sale of Good Act (or similar) any Section 75 liability on the credit card has already lapsed.

Edit:- The Credit card company would have handled it as a chargeback (rather than Section 75), the retailer would have disputed it (they were only liable for 28 days) and it was posted back to your account.

bris

How do you know that they can't get the money off the company? They are not going to tell you this. It seems to me that the retailer may have put up a good case for the the S75 to fail. The retailer does get to put their case across, hence the need for more information. The CC company will look at both sides, if the retailer puts up a better case then the S75 will fail.

zippy1969

bris wrote: »

How do you know that they can't get the money off the company? They are not going to tell you this. It seems to me that the retailer may have put up a good case for the the S75 to fail. The retailer does get to put their case across, hence the need for more information. The CC company will look at both sides, if the retailer puts up a better case then the S75 will fail.

The credit card company actually sent out a letter saying that they had not been able to recoup the money. They admitted this freely and without being asked. They then stated that, because of this, they were going to re-charge the customer.

dazza.mk wrote: »

Problem is the credit card companies liability is the same as the retailers, from the above 28 days, so, unless you can say the 28 day support breaches Sale of Good Act (or similar) any Section 75 liability on the credit card has already lapsed.

Edit:- The Credit card company would have handled it as a chargeback (rather than Section 75), the retailer would have disputed it (they were only liable for 28 days) and it was posted back to your account.

Thanks for this.

But if the warranty transfers to the manufacturer, and they do not uphold the terms of this warranty, that must mean that there is liability with the warranty supplier and thus jointly help with the credit card company?