We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!

Flowers Delivered Late, Missed Event. Seller not Refunding

Options
2

Comments

  • dalesrider
    dalesrider Posts: 3,447 Forumite
    shaun_from_Africa wrote: »
    I never stated that it was.
    What I did say is that you can use the SOGA or DSR's as a basis for a chargeback.

    Which is not right.
    Legal rights have no bearing on any chargeback right. These are over and above any legal right you have.
    shaun_from_Africa wrote: »
    Barclaycard for example have codes for the different reasons for a chargeback, so if for example you received something different to that which you ordered and the seller refused to refund you, (which according to the SOGA, they are legally obliged to do) then if you asked for a chargeback, Barclaycard would raise a V53 claim.

    Again the fact the retailer is in breech of your legal rights. is not the basis of the chargeback.
    It is the fact that the retailer has broken their agreement they have agreed with visa/mastercard/amex.

    Yes many of these chargbacks do mirror your legal rights. But do not form the basis of the chargeback.
    shaun_from_Africa wrote: »
    I wouldn't be using the SOGA to force a chargeback, simply stating it to show that the seller was breeching it and that I was legally entitled to a refund.

    And if the retailer rejects the chargeback. You would have to resort to you LEGAL rights to claim the money back.


    You still do not seem to understand that while some of the chargeback rights may mirror your legal rights. That is not the basis for the chargeback.
    Never ASSUME anything its makes a
    >>> A55 of U & ME <<<
  • agrinnall
    agrinnall Posts: 23,344 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    dalesrider wrote: »
    Under visa regs a retailer has 15 days to deliver the goods. Unless you have something in writing stating deliver by a certain date. So if you had a email stating next day delivery, remember that is upto midnight.
    Sadly something on a retailer site is not good enough.

    We've established in a previous thread that you know a lot more about chargebacks than I do, so I'm sure everything you've said is likely to be correct. However, what you appear to have missed in this case is that the OP's order was not just delivered late, it didn't even come in the 'up to midnight' timescale, it was dumped by Parcelforce the following day. so clearly there was a failure to perform next day delivery, so I would assume that a chargeback should be successful.
  • Flyboy152
    Flyboy152 Posts: 17,118 Forumite
    dalesrider wrote: »
    Care to show me where.....

    As someone who deals with chargebacks on a daily basis. I think I know what I'm talking about.


    Legal rights and chargbacks are two totally seperate things.

    We have seen many times, on these boards, that those dealing with chargebacks rarely have any idea about how they work.

    If any company promises something on their terms and conditions, e.g., chargebacks, they are legally obliged to conform with that condition.
    The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark
  • dalesrider
    dalesrider Posts: 3,447 Forumite
    Flyboy152 wrote: »
    We have seen many times, on these boards, that those dealing with chargebacks rarely have any idea about how they work.

    If any company promises something on their terms and conditions, e.g., chargebacks, they are legally obliged to conform with that condition.

    I know exactly how they work.... Many weeks of training. having to keep upto date with all the changes on a regular basis.

    Remember a retailer has a right to reject a chargeback. Same T/C for them as the card issuer.

    Only way this chargback would work is if the Op has something in writing stating that delivery will be on X day. Order before x time for next day. Off the website, will not cut it

    I think you are missunderstanding exactly where legal consumer rites and chargebacks fall as rites.
    Legally you can sue a retailer that breaks SofGA. A chargeback has no legal standing.
    Never ASSUME anything its makes a
    >>> A55 of U & ME <<<
  • Flyboy152
    Flyboy152 Posts: 17,118 Forumite
    dalesrider wrote: »
    I know exactly how they work.... Many weeks of training. having to keep upto date with all the changes on a regular basis.

    Remember a retailer has a right to reject a chargeback. Same T/C for them as the card issuer.

    Only way this chargback would work is if the Op has something in writing stating that delivery will be on X day. Order before x time for next day. Off the website, will not cut it

    Why?
    I think you are missunderstanding exactly where legal consumer rites and chargebacks fall as rites.
    Legally you can sue a retailer that breaks SofGA. A chargeback has no legal standing.

    Again I repeat, if the company has agreed with the cardholder that chargebacks will happen, based on predefined circumstances, they will have a legal standing as per contract law.
    The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark
  • dalesrider
    dalesrider Posts: 3,447 Forumite
    Flyboy152 wrote: »
    Why?

    Because, Visa say it is not good enough. You have to have it stating it will be delivered by x date.
    Reason being a retailer can have various levels of delivery. So who is to say that you have not chosen another option, rather than next day.
    You have to prove your case.
    Flyboy152 wrote: »
    Again I repeat, if the company has agreed with the cardholder that chargebacks will happen, based on predefined circumstances, they will have a legal standing as per contract law.

    And again chargebacks have NO legal standing. Compared to your LEGAL rights under consumer protection law.

    You could not take your card provider to court because a chargeback failed. Unlike a retailer who failed to deliver.
    Never ASSUME anything its makes a
    >>> A55 of U & ME <<<
  • Flyboy152
    Flyboy152 Posts: 17,118 Forumite
    dalesrider wrote: »
    Because, Visa say it is not good enough. You have to have it stating it will be delivered by x date.
    Reason being a retailer can have various levels of delivery. So who is to say that you have not chosen another option, rather than next day.
    You have to prove your case.

    So, Visa has its own definition of contract and advertising law?
    And again chargebacks have NO legal standing. Compared to your LEGAL rights under consumer protection law.

    And again, if its in the terms and conditions, it is covered by contract law.
    You could not take your card provider to court because a chargeback failed. Unlike a retailer who failed to deliver.

    You can, if they refused to provide it under their own terms and conditions.
    The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark
  • dalesrider
    dalesrider Posts: 3,447 Forumite
    Flyboy152 wrote: »
    So, Visa has its own definition of contract and advertising law?

    As far as their chargebacks go yes..... THEY ARE NOT NOT A LEGAL RITE

    Flyboy152 wrote: »
    And again, if its in the terms and conditions, it is covered by contract law.

    Can you find any mention of chargebacks in the T/C ????

    Flyboy152 wrote: »
    You can, if they refused to provide it under their own terms and conditions.

    Well if a customer won't chase a retailer via the legal menas... They sure are not going to take a bank to court and lose :rotfl:
    Never ASSUME anything its makes a
    >>> A55 of U & ME <<<
  • withabix
    withabix Posts: 9,508 Forumite
    Can I just be a Christmas Spelling Pedant....

    The word is RIGHT.
    British Ex-pat in British Columbia!
  • Flyboy152
    Flyboy152 Posts: 17,118 Forumite
    dalesrider wrote: »
    As far as their chargebacks go yes..... THEY ARE NOT NOT A LEGAL RITE

    Visa cannot re-write law, it is not a government. It is not Visa's choice to obey the laws they choose. If a retailer makes a promise on its website, they are bound by law to ensure, amongst other things, that it is honest, reasonable and fair. Visa cannot decide to ignore that.
    Can you find any mention of chargebacks in the T/C ????

    Are you telling us that credit card issuers do not have any mention of chargebacks in their terms and conditions?
    The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture