£35 Peacocks gift card and can't spend it

Helix

Farepak_Victims_Committee wrote: »

The FVC wrote a letter to Tesco and asked them to protect their Savings Club (also not regulated) and were told that they had been asked to set up a "PREPAYMENT GUARANTEE" but they have refused, they will wait until Government brings in regulations that makes them!!!!

Well if Tesco go under and are unable to fulfil the christmas scheme I think the country will have a lot more to worry about than some people not getting their christmas shopping.

arcon5

lisyloo wrote: »

I could be wrong here, but I was under the impression that chargebacks went to the retailers bank and hence worked when a company no longer existed.

They go to the retailers merchant account holding bank. The merchant account holds funds before releasing to the retailers business account for an agreed period (usually 1-7 days depending on the type of industry). It is likely either the DD between the merchant account and business account is either cancelled or one or both have been frozen, thus no money can go in and out without the banks involvement (unlikely though, the administrators will likely be able to access the account now). But if there's no money there, the consumers bank will not be able to recover the funds from the merchant (irrespective of the validity of the chargeback).

So who takes the hit on a failed attempt to recover the funds, the consumer or the consumers bank? I don't know a definitive answer to this but would hazard a guess it is the consumer -- based on the fact the chargeback system is not a legal requirement.

Lavendyr

Farepak_Victims_Committee wrote: »

Change Unsecured Creditors to Preferred Creditor - New Zeland has.

Are you suggesting that ALL unsecured creditors should be 'preferred'? And preferred to whom? Perhaps you mean that consumer creditors should be preferred to trade creditors? If so, why would this be any fairer - after all trade creditors need to have some rights too?

Ultimately there has to be some kind of pecking order when these things happen. The administrators/liquidators have to take some kind of priority, otherwise they simply wouldn't do the job - they need to get paid after all! Then those who have fixed charges need to be able to enforce those charges - otherwise there would be no point in the security they accepted.

Perhaps some kind of consumer protection - similar to the PPF for pension schemes - could be set up, but it would need to be a separate (i.e. third-party) fund into which members pay levies annually. I can't see how it'd work otherwise.

arcon5

Farepak_Victims_Committee wrote: »

Change Unsecured Creditors to Preferred Creditor - New Zeland has.

How does this though affect their position in the hierarchy of creditors. In cases like this (as much as I would hate to be on the loosing end), i'm not sure having consumers money as preferential has any major benefits -- it simply means the knockon effect of the company going under could be much greater for those creditors standing to loose so much more money, potentially resulting in further job losses, more companies going into administration and also interest rates going up for business' if the position of secured creditors now becomes much weaker.

lisyloo

I have been told a few days ago by Cap One that they are processing my chargeback.
They believe the bank are ultimately liable.
I realise it can be rejected/appealed (not sure of the term), but will let you know.
Anyone else disputed the charge with their CC provider?

halibut2209

I'd put those who have given a company money above HMRC who haven't