Mastercard rules - charge back refused

excel

Hello All,
I'm hoping someone can help me on this,

A parcel delivery contract bought paying through Tesco CC / Mastercard arrived damaged. Having exceeded all options with the courier booking company I approached Tesco CC requesting a Charge back for the actual booking fee.
As the booking fee cost less than 100 pound section 75 doesn't apply.
Together with the booking fee I also bought additional full compensation for the parcel - which the courier booking company didn't honour after the event.
Tesco CC wasted my time by letting me fill out lengthy forms including copies of the contract and other evidence.
They only got back when I chased them after 4 weeks stating they cannot process the charge-back (ie they haven't even tried claiming it from the courier company!) as allegedly Mastercard's rules do not allow disputing a transaction as it concerns the 'standard of service received'. This sounds completely contradictory to the whole idea of charge backs - ie being able to charge back costs for goods or services not received or goods or services not being as described?!!
Hence could anybody with knowledge of the Mastercard regulations confirm if that's true, secondly provided Tesco CC made a mistake - would I be able to pursue the actual value of the insured parcel as a 'consequential loss' along the lines of this example on MSE under the "Section 75 refunds"-title:
"Savvy Salma spots the high-tech TV she's been planning to buy at half-price for £500, including delivery, in a high street sale. Yet she's only got £10 left on her card limit (don't worry, it's a cashback card, she's going to pay it off in full).
Salma pays £10 of the cost on her credit card and the rest on her debit card. Sadly the next day the store goes bust, before her telly is delivered. Yet she can claim the WHOLE £500 back from the credit card company, because she paid in part on the card."

Thanks very much!!!

meer53

Quality of service isn't covered under chargeback regulations, non receipt of goods or services is. You need to provide more details as to what you ordered, and what happened. You mention damage ? Did you pay for the goods by CC card or just the postage ? If the postal service delivered the goods then they have provided the service, why didn't they pay out if the goods were damaged and you took out extra cover ?

The example you quote relates to non receipt of goods, not consequential losses. You can claim consequential losses through Section 75 but as you state it was less than £100 you have no claim via this method.

excel

meer53 wrote: »

Quality of service isn't covered under chargeback regulations, non receipt of goods or services is. You need to provide more details as to what you ordered, and what happened. You mention damage ?

So essentially when talking about postal services - they could potentially smash up all the goods during transit and as long as they deliver the remaining pieces they are not liable under charge back regulations?
That sounds very alarming as it almost means they can do whatever they want with goods in their care?!
As stated below - I ordered the shipping which wasn't too cheap on its own due to international shipping including additional full compensation insurance cover.
The item was posted in pristine condition and arrived damaged at the recipient (scratches to the paintwork, parts broken & damaged etc.). Due to that the recipient didn't pay any money.

meer53 wrote: »

Did you pay for the goods by CC card or just the postage ? If the postal service delivered the goods then they have provided the service, why didn't they pay out if the goods were damaged and you took out extra cover ?

I had the goods already and paid for the postage through CC.
The postal service didn't pay based on the pretext of 'inadequate packaging' - however they've come to this conclusion without initially even seeing photographic evidence of the packaging - hence it was just a pretext to bailout from their obligations.

dalesrider

'standard of service received'

Sorry, will not be covered. Neither is quality of goods. These are subjective things.

They delivered the goods. OK they broke it. Thus they should be liable.

As Meer. You need to provide further info on what was purchased, how it was paid for and what the damage was.

Other option would be to sue the company in the small claims court.

dalesrider

excel wrote: »

So essentially when talking about postal services - they could potentially smash up all the goods during transit and as long as they deliver the remaining pieces they are not liable under charge back regulations?
That sounds very alarming as it almost means they can do whatever they want with goods in their care?!.

Yep. Your contract with them is the delivery service. How they provide it is down to them.

As you took out insurance. Your claim is via that, and not your credit card co.
And that would apply if it had been over £100 as well. As your contract was to deliver the goods. Which they did. :eek:

Chargebacks are not the be all to end all. They are extra cover provided by the card issuer.
Remember you still have your legal consumer rights avaiable to you... Just now YOU have to do the leg work.

meer53

The extra insurance is what covers you for damaged goods. If they say the packaging was inadequate then it's up to you now to argue that with them.

chattychappy

Whether you have any claim on the courier company comes down to their conditions of carriage (to the extent these are consistent with unfair terms legislation etc). Most will cover a certain amount of damage and extra cover beyond that is chargeable. Obviously here there is a dispute about the packaging.

If, as you say, the service had cost more than £100 then under s75, the CC would be jointly liable for providing that service. It would not provide extra cover, only an alternative party to go after. Ie if the conditions of carriage were - "we're only responsible for £10/kg", then the CC wouldn't be liable for anything more than that. Just s75 gives you the right to claim this from the CC as an alternative to going after the merchant.

Chargeback doesn't give you any direct rights - it is an arrangement between the CC and merchants. It's probably not written into your contract with the CC. Because of this, previously you had no facility to "force" a CC to initiate a chargeback on your behalf. The FOS has said that given the availability of the scheme and a CC's duty to act fairly, they would expect CCs to attempt chargebacks where the claim fits the scheme. But you are limited to what the scheme provides.

excel

dalesrider wrote: »

As your contract was to deliver the goods. Which they did.

Sure, yet regarding the mentioned consumer rights - under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 any trader/ service provider is supposed to use reasonable care and skill which given the damage incurred was not the case and hence could be seen as breach of contract rather than just "quality of service received". Consequently the contract had not been fulfilled.

Otherwise a holiday/tour operator bringing tourists to some destination via road/air and the bus/train/plane crashes on arrival leaving most passengers severely injured wouldn't be liable because they fulfilled their contract of transporting the passengers to their destination? That can't be true?!! Certain contracts imply by their nature a more comprehensive level of "success"?!

meer53

excel wrote: »

Sure, yet regarding the mentioned consumer rights - under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 any trader/ service provider is supposed to use reasonable care and skill which given the damage incurred was not the case and hence could be seen as breach of contract rather than just "quality of service received". Consequently the contract had not been fulfilled.

Otherwise a holiday/tour operator bringing tourists to some destination via road/air and the bus/train/plane crashes on arrival leaving most passengers severely injured wouldn't be liable because they fulfilled their contract of transporting the passengers to their destination? That can't be true?!! Certain contracts imply by their nature a more comprehensive level of "success"?!

Your problem is that they have said that your packaging was inadequate, maybe it wouldn't have mattered how much care they took, the goods might still have been damaged ?

Really depends on whether you can show that your packaging would have prevented damage. Bit of a difficult one to argue really.

excel

meer53 wrote: »

Really depends on whether you can show that your packaging would have prevented damage. Bit of a difficult one to argue really.

Ok - 2 things - first of all another Mastercard provider confirmed that the applicable code for "Cardholder Dispute—Defective/Not as Described" is right and Tesco CC had to admit after some arguing that they could attempt a charge back under this code however then came up with another bail-out clause i.e. that it is beyond the 120 day time frame.

Re packaging - as I recently received damaged goods from s.o. else I can only say that no matter how good the packaging (in this case it was extremely thorough) - items falling from 2m height will most likely incur damage and it seems standard practice with quite a few courier companies to try getting away with it by blaming it on the packaging...

withabix

DID your packaging comply with their terms and conditions? (eg double-wall, no movement space in box, box filled with padding/quavers/wotsits etc)

What was the item and how did you package it?

Was the item excluded from their insurance cover?

You aren't accepting anyone else's opinions, yet you won't provide any more information to us....