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!
Mastercard rules - charge back refused
Comments
-
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.
Well another co might say (as they won't actually be doing it) so. But Tesco are the ones who will have to action it and then if contested redebit you...
120 days is not a bail out clause. It is a timescale in the regulations...
On that 120 days. Why did you wait so long?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.
Mastercard and also Visa regs do not take into account such legal regulations. Which are your right. But requires you to do all the work.Never ASSUME anything its makes a>>> A55 of U & ME <<<0 -
Yes, corrugated cardboard box outside, completely filled with polystyrene chips (no movement) up to bespoke manufacturers sturdy cardboard box containing the item - which again included additional foam padding to fix the item in place- this packaging is identical to the one used by the manufacturer for shipping the items from Asia to Europe - if it were insufficient, the manufacturer would have gone out of business.DID your packaging comply with their terms and conditions? (eg double-wall, no movement space in box, box filled with padding/quavers/wotsits etc)
Pls see above - a highly detailed item made of metal/brass - and the damaged parts were all metal as well.What was the item and how did you package it?
No, otherwise I would have used a different courierWas the item excluded from their insurance cover?0 -
dalesrider wrote: »120 days is not a bail out clause. It is a timescale in the regulations...
On that 120 days. Why did you wait so long?
It took the service provider that long to raise the claim - first with the contracted courier, then with their own insurance. I was still hoping to get the money through their shipping insurance which I had paid for!
Can anyone clarify please, what is meant by: Central Site Business Date?
As this seems to differ from the transaction date.
Besides here on the MSE-forum the chargeback guide (same on other websites) talks about the point of time when one becomes aware of the problem rather than transaction or delivery date?!
Which date is the correct one?0 -
This isn't a chargeback issue. The service was provided as ordered. They just damaged the item in transit.
You need to raise a Small Claims Court action against the delivery company, or at least send them a Letter Before Action.British Ex-pat in British Columbia!0 -
Can anyone clarify please, what is meant by: Central Site Business Date?
As this seems to differ from the transaction date.
Besides here on the MSE-forum the chargeback guide (same on other websites) talks about the point of time when one becomes aware of the problem rather than transaction or delivery date?!
Which date is the correct one?
That is a date that is encoded in the transaction reference. Usually it is the actually processing date (auth date) or a day or 2 later.
Date is taken from date of debit. Unless it is something like a ticket for a show, when it then becomes 120 days from the date of the show.
So for say your courier. It would be from the date they picked up the goods.
Remember this disclaimer from the bottom of the page....We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.
So if you ever have issues with a purchase. Talk to the card provider ASAP... To get the correct advice.:DNever ASSUME anything its makes a>>> A55 of U & ME <<<0 -
Sorry have to correct myself- had been so overtired this evening that I almost took Tesco's statement regarding the 120 days for granted - and the CSA seems also not to have counted correctly - at the time when I submitted the claim to Tesco I was actually still within the 120 days time-frame so should be able to give it another go with them 2mo..dalesrider wrote: »120 days is not a bail out clause. It is a timescale in the regulations...
On that 120 days. Why did you wait so long?
0 -
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
Bear in mind, that s16 of SOGSA 1982 allows the supplier to exclude such implied terms subject to the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Your position under UCTA is weaker as it seems you are not a consumer: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.0 -
This isn't a chargeback issue.
Why not, they are supposed to carry out the service as described when it was contracted - and it didn't state anywhere in their t&c: we're entitled to dump yr goods in whichever condition suits us...
Thanks, I'm in the process, still trying to get a clear picture of what entails all my statutory rights etc re statutory law...You need to raise a Small Claims Court action against the delivery company, or at least send them a Letter Before Action.0 -
0 -
Yet as far as I'm aware negligence can't be excluded for consumers
You are assuming the damage was caused through negligence. Also bear in mind, that excluding liability (eg we're not responsible for our negligence) is one thing, restricting liability (eg in the event of this type of damage as a result of our negligence, our liability is limited to X) is another.
[on s16]
16(1)Where a right, duty or liability would arise under a contract for the supply of a service by virtue of this Part of this Act, it may (subject to subsection (2) below and the 1977 Act) be negatived or varied by express agreement, or by the course of dealing between the parties, or by such usage as binds both parties to the contract.What does exactly say?
26(2)An express term does not negative a term implied by this Part of this Act unless inconsistent with it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards