refund only to credit card?

CarolynCh

I have deleted this post as I do not like the rude, judgemental replies given by some (not all) of the posters. This forum is supposed to be supportive and helpful - posters should not make things up (Uggs??) and suggest that people have tried to be fraudulent when there is no indication of that.

My situation was a very simple problem - faulty goods (accepted by the retailer) but no physical way of getting a replacement or a refund.

I love MSE and lots of posters on the forums are incredibly helpful to others but some are clearly just out there to push their own opinion and try to be destructive. Please try to think before you post next time.

unholyangel

CarolynCh wrote: »

Does anyone know if shops are allowed to have this rule? I appreciate that the item was a gift and as such I don't have the same rights as the original purchaser but they didn't have any problem with that at all, just having the card physically.

Yes. They are effectively providing a good will gesture, they technically dont need to offer you anything as you were not the one they entered into a contract with (unless it was purchased with a gift receipt as then that forms part of the contract).

SuperHan

Most card services companies require shops to have this policy in place. What's to say you're not money laundering by asking for a refund to a different bank account, in a different name? Uggs are a fairly substantial amount of money, so this is potentially a risk.

Also, retailers have to pay for every card transaction they process. If they reverse the original transaction, they offer get a refund of the original card transaction fees. Refunding to another card will incur a new fee.

Take the gift voucher and wait for replacements to come in to stock.

Jakg

For credit cards theres a special case - Barclaycard (for example) paid for the shoes, you then owe Barclaycard the money. If the shop need to refund, they shouldn't refund you - as you didn't pay. The money has to go to Barclaycard.

phill99

It's part of the money laundering regulations.

If you pay by card (credit or debit), the money has to go back on the same card.

arcon5

That and the fact the retailer should get a refund on the transaction fees.

pmduk

You should be grateful they haven't told you they'll only deal with your parents who are the only one with legal rights.

George_Michael

pmduk wrote: »

You should be grateful they haven't told you they'll only deal with your parents who are the only one with legal rights.

The OP is obviously fully aware of this point which is probably why they mentioned it themselves in their original post.

I appreciate that the item was a gift and as such I don't have the same rights as the original purchaser but they didn't have any problem with that at all

Jakg

CarolynCh wrote: »

What would happen if the card had been stolen and replaced with a new account?

Is that what happened? Or did the shop not allow you to fraudulently abuse this procedure?

wealdroam

For completeness, here is the original Original Post...

CarolynCh wrote: »

My parents bought me a pair of boots in December for a Christmas present. A few weeks ago I noticed that the "fabric" was coming off on the upper. Today I managed to get back to the shop to complain.

I showed the boots to the assistant and she agreed that they were faulty. As they didn't have any replacement ones in stock or any others which I liked, I asked for a refund (I did have the receipt). They were quite happy to give a refund but only if I could give them the original credit card which was used for the purchase. I explained that it was my parents' card and that they live on the other side of the country and could they please process the refund manually. They told me that they could only refund if they had the original card or otherwise they could give me a gift voucher. As they don't have any boots which I like, a gift voucher is no use to me.

Does anyone know if shops are allowed to have this rule? I appreciate that the item was a gift and as such I don't have the same rights as the original purchaser but they didn't have any problem with that at all, just having the card physically.

unholyangel

George_Michael wrote: »

The OP is obviously fully aware of this point which is probably why they mentioned it themselves in their original post.

But op said they realise they dont have the same rights. Thats not true, they dont have any rights at all unless it was sold to her parents as a gift. Semi aware perhaps but not fully.

Sorry, sometimes I just cant help myself from being pedantic. And very often where consumer rights are concerned, you need to be pedantic and state the obvious because if you dont, people misunderstand their rights. Sometimes a little detail (like a gift receipt) makes all the difference.