chargeback - payment via unauthorised agent

Degenerate

patbrat72 wrote: »

I will certainly complain, just wonder what path to take - as a fraud or chargeback?

Neither. It's a complaint against HSBC, not the dodgy engine dealers. The point is that you must either be entitled to a section 75 claim, or if HSBC's get-out clause of an "agent" is correct, then you have a valid fraud claim as you did not consent to this. As they are refusing to let you claim by either route, their postion is indefensible.

meer53

If you're wanting to action a chargeback for "not as described" you need to be able to provide evidence that you have not received what you ordered. This will be difficult for you if you can't confirm (with documents) that you were sold an engine with 37k miles, but received one with 100k+ miles. The added problem is that as you were debited by a third party you might not be able to try a Section 75 claim either.

I think your best course of action is a written complaint to HSBC.

patbrat72

thank you all, I have filed a complaint against HSBC as suggested. I described a situation as alternative A & B (chargeback with valid contract or fraud with invalid contract) and asked them directly to select which one applies and why. I hope it will at least prompt them to a situation that they determine the path I can follow. We pay for the insurance in every transaction, so if I can not use the protection while paying more (few percent on a CC transaction) - I should be exempt from it whenever it does not apply. That's my simple Winnie the Pooh understanding.
Certainly I will update the post when any news arrive

pvt

Degenerate wrote: »

By which time the transaction has authorised and it's too late.

Exactly!

And whoever checks the CC receipt to make sure the name of the company is what you expect? It's compleletly reasonable for the OP to assume that he was paying the vendor directly, that's who he gave his card to, and that's who handed him the machine to put his PIN into. It's not at all uncommon for the name to be different, as in Ideal trading as JA, or JA trading as Ideal, etc.

From a purely practical point of view, I wonder if the OP may be better off going down the fraud route than the s75 route as he won't have to jump the hurdles of proving the recon neddy wasn't a nag.

meer53

pvt wrote: »

Exactly!

And whoever checks the CC receipt to make sure the name of the company is what you expect? It's compleletly reasonable for the OP to assume that he was paying the vendor directly, that's who he gave his card to, and that's who handed him the machine to put his PIN into. It's not at all uncommon for the name to be different, as in Ideal trading as JA, or JA trading as Ideal, etc.

From a purely practical point of view, I wonder if the OP may be better off going down the fraud route than the s75 route as he won't have to jump the hurdles of proving the recon neddy wasn't a nag.

Where is the fraud though ?

pvt

meer53 wrote: »

Where is the fraud though ?

Hmmmmm. You may have a point there!

Ben8282

I still can't agree that there has been any fraud. In order for 'fraud' to have taken place in this context, the use of a different merchant's terminal would have had to have been for the express purpose of preventing you from obtaining s75 cover. What motive would either company have for such an action?

pvt

Ben8282 wrote: »

I still can't agree that there has been any fraud. In order for 'fraud' to have taken place in this context, the use of a different merchant's terminal would have had to have been for the express purpose of preventing you from obtaining s75 cover. What motive would either company have for such an action?

Well the more likely scenario is that the reputable boys at Ideal can't find a bank on the planet that would let then within 100 yards of a card facility - so they front it through an intermediate company, JA.

patbrat72

the JA is simply their previous name they gave up after so much publicity (BBC watchdog) and court appearances. The fraud context appeared purely for the reason that HSBC claims it is not the same company so I can not claim chargeback against JA as I do not have a contract with them - they asked me to prove there is any link between ideal and JA. In this case I can easily reverse the claim - if they claim there is no link and I can not claim it as chargeback, so as I did not have any contract with JA they simply took money without authorisation, without my knowledge and without legal grounds - and that's fraud. Imagine quite simply situation that I need to prove in court I paid to the ideal in order to get guarantee - they might say I never paid in the first place and/or there was no contract and any guarantee is not their obligation

patbrat72

by previous name I do not mean previous trading name, it is a company registered (and dissolved) at the owners address - different entity legally (found after some investigation)
they traded as well under names Mr Engines (google it pls as I can not paste links, you will see endless pages of results with complaints), Nippon spares and SMR Engines

they are shells - the 'supplier' company winds up every now and then and you can not get any money back as everything is owned by the mother company (in this case JA, but no longer as they dissolved it in february 2012, now it is most likely another name) - they most likely 'rent' space, tools, spares, office from the mother company to avoid any liability and problem with bailiffs.

do I still need to explain that the last thing I can assume is that it is just my pettiness, not their con?

at the end of the day I can force them to make the engine good (as it is just poorly assembled) and sell it to another unsuspecting person hoping it would not break down in the first 1000 miles and getaway with money. But it does not comply with my sense of honesty. I know it is a con and I just need to sort it out by whomever is in position to address it. At this particular moment only bank can force them to reveal the genuine data (by freezing assets) and sort out the issue at the very source. Allowing any firm to act like this is an outrage. But they do - for the last 4 years under 4-5 different names producing not less than 100 customers that I found on various websites scammed at minimum £500 each. We pay extra on every credit card transaction and we pay in APR to cover cost of any botched, fraudulent transaction, assuming that they would not let any fraudster to be involved in their (banks) profit-making. But they do. And they should take over part of the cost. Or address the issue at the very source that the unauthorised agent transaction is still part of the chargeback, because as someone noticed before - they act as an agent to the merchant, not to me, and I have no way to check beforehand that the money would go to the firm my CC transaction with extra 2% would protect me from loss