Online order - company closed down

dalesrider

arcon5 wrote: »

If no funds remain in the merchant account they are simply unable to return the funds to the origin leaving ops bank the choice of either taking the hit or informing up the chargeback was unsuccessful.

No the retailers bank takes the hit. It makes no difference if there are funds there or not to the OP.

arcon5

j0nathon2 wrote: »

The OP or their bank should not take any hit; the merchant's acquiring bank assume all risk with the transaction.

Do you have anything to substantiate this wild claim?

j0nathon2

arcon5 wrote: »

Do you have anything to substantiate this wild claim?

Eight years of implementing payment card solutions for retail companies.

The acquiring bank will have to refund the value of the transaction; it's in their interest to make sure their merchants are liquid and operating good business practices so the above never happens and they lose out, but ultimately the risk is all theirs.

Johno100

j0nathon2 wrote: »

Eight years of implementing payment card solutions for retail companies.

The acquiring bank will have to refund the value of the transaction; it's in their interest to make sure their merchants are liquid and operating good business practices so the above never happens and they lose out, but ultimately the risk is all theirs.

Quite correct the retailers merchant will be left with the bill.

I am aware recently of a bank taking a seven figure hit following the administration of a PPI claims management company, due to the bank having to refund up-front fees paid by credit and debit card.

arcon5

j0nathon2 wrote: »

Eight years of implementing payment card solutions for retail companies.

The acquiring bank will have to refund the value of the transaction; it's in their interest to make sure their merchants are liquid and operating good business practices so the above never happens and they lose out, but ultimately the risk is all theirs.

In which case maybe you can explain why when companies go under consumers are ever creditors of the company if they are refunded by the acquiring bank?
Many big companies have gone under over the last couple of years leaving consumers (who are amongst many creditors) receiving pennies to the pound back in refunds from liquidators - if what you saying was true, the consumer would never lose out.

Johno100

arcon5 wrote: »

In which case maybe you can explain why when companies go under consumers are ever creditors of the company if they are refunded by the acquiring bank?

For amongst other reasons:

- They paid by cash, cheque or other none card payment methods
- They used a credit card but the amount was under £100
- Failed to action a Section 75 claim within 120 days of becoming aware they would not be receiving the goods or services they paid for.
- Paid by Debit Card and failed to action a Charge Back within the required period.

arcon5

By the way, there isn't a time limit for a section 75 claim.

j0nathon2

arcon5 wrote: »

In which case maybe you can explain why when companies go under consumers are ever creditors of the company if they are refunded by the acquiring bank?
Many big companies have gone under over the last couple of years leaving consumers (who are amongst many creditors) receiving pennies to the pound back in refunds from liquidators - if what you saying was true, the consumer would never lose out.

I don't know, lack of consumer and bank awareness would probably be the biggest reason. Also it will only cover goods not turning up, or turning up mis-described; it will not cover something going faulty after a few weeks etc.

Also, for credit cards it only applies to < £100, and consumers may just write this off. (Section 75 is the more appropriate route for over £100).

By the way, there isn't a time limit for a section 75 claim.

Indeed, charge backs are limited to 120 days from the day things go wrong though, so long as this means the claim is within 540 days of the original transaction.