getting dodgy charge back

glider26

I called the bank back and explained the situation (namely that a genuine cardholder had made the transaction). The transaction may appear on my account at which point I can dispute it if I wish. The bank confirmed that there would be no effect on my credit score, CIFAS etc.

I've also emailed the EHIC "provider" to ask that they cancel the sale. It probably won't happen but there you go!

Thanks for the advice.

meer53

So if you receive your EHIC cards and you are debited £20 will you be happy ?

dalesrider

glider26 wrote: »

Hi,

I was upset and called the credit card company to ask for a refund. They asked whether the payment had been made by a named cardholder. The truthful answer would have been "yes" but since I was after a refund, I said that no, the payment had been made by our daughter who was not authorised to do so. To my surprise they then said that along with cancelling the payment they would also have to cancel the cards and issue us with new ones.

I now wonder whether I should call them back and say "look, it was my wife who made the payment, not our daughter" or if I should just leave things as they are, the end justifying the means. Could there be a negative outcome from this, like an effect on our credit score or other? The company which took the £20 is def dodgy and not deserving of any money.

As someone who works in a fraud department....

YES....

When the information comes back from the Co's with your details on you are going to be redebited.
There is also the issue that you have lied to them. As such they could close the account down and ask for full payment. As there has been a breech of trust.

In fact given that you have said it was your daughter, you should have been asked to report to the police.... Before they would do anything.
Unless they are going to do that themselves. Not uncommon now, as many cases like this end up with the CC co's out of pocket, as the family pull out later on before court... CC won't....

The companies are not doing anything wrong. They are providing a service to apply for that card for you.

There is no right to a refund via the credit card on this basis. Only if they had not provided the Ehic would you have a right to get the credit card co to action a chargeback.

dalesrider

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

Firstly leave things as they are as you won't now be able to uncancel the cancellation of the cards.
.

You can't uncancel a cancelled card.....

Sleazy

You can't 'undo' the wrong information that you've already given, so I suggest do nothing - what's done now is done and as previously mentioned if you do 'own up', although the honest thing to do may cost you in the long run.

You can. And thankfully the OP has done the right thing.

Owning up will be seen as a good thing now. Rather than a couple of weeks down the line when the truth outs from the paperwork.

chattychappy

dalesrider wrote: »

When the information comes back from the Co's with your details on you are going to be redebited.

They might not. An "associate" of mine operated a similar business - rather on the margins. They always accepted chargebacks even when they had clear evidence that the cardholder had indeed performed the transaction. They just didn't want disputes to escalate (perhaps with other authorities involved).

NB Distance Selling Regs apply to services and might have been useful here especially if the sales process lacked the necessary pre-sale info. (The DSRs are EU-wide legislation.)

dealer_wins

The bank will definitely apply a "CIFAS" marker against the cardholders, as it appears that the cardholders have a family member committing fraud against them.

It means that every single check for new credit, references etc will be held up and possibly declined!!

If you phone up and admit it was the cardholder that made the transaction, the CIFAS marker will still be added with different notes made!!

dalesrider

dealer_wins wrote: »

The bank will definitely apply a "CIFAS" marker against the cardholders, as it appears that the cardholders have a family member committing fraud against them.

If you phone up and admit it was the cardholder that made the transaction, the CIFAS marker will still be added with different notes made!!

What a load of rubbish.......

I always say thank you for your honesty. Then close the case down.

Only time a Cifas would go on is if the person lies and continues to deny even when evidence is produced.

dalesrider

chattychappy wrote: »

They might not. An "associate" of mine operated a similar business - rather on the margins. They always accepted chargebacks even when they had clear evidence that the cardholder had indeed performed the transaction. They just didn't want disputes to escalate (perhaps with other authorities involved).

NB Distance Selling Regs apply to services and might have been useful here especially if the sales process lacked the necessary pre-sale info. (The DSRs are EU-wide legislation.)

Well that is upto the retailer. But why should they lose out.

As far as Visa go it would not go any further.

Only time any other authority would get involved would be if the customer decided to take it elsewhere.
But given how many CBA, its unlikly. :rotfl:

With this type of company charging for a free Gov service I always ask them to complain to the department involved. But feedback seems to be that they are not bothered.....

Kinda makes you wonder if its a side line by staff to make a bit on the side :rotfl:

chattychappy

dalesrider wrote: »

Well that is upto the retailer. But why should they lose out.

I agree. But in the case of my friend, it's just a business decision they took. The margin on their business is very high, but it's a business that which has been investigated by the OFT a number of times. They want as few complaints as possible. Some customers regret or are embarrassed about getting involved with them (or being discovered being involved by family members) so deny the transaction. The company accepts the chargeback - that is the end of the matter for both sides. If they didn't, then they are concerned the customer will continue complaining - perhaps to the OFT or their licensing authority. (Part of what they do is under a licence.)

EHIC is different, but I do remember some media attention being given to these websites and some gov official being quizzed on some consumer programme about why they weren't being shut down. So I can imagine "services" such as these might just let the minority of transactions that get charged back go through without a fuss.