Capitalone is charging me for disputed transaction

orcadian

In July I fell for a non-timeshare holiday scam in Tenerife operating on unlabelled premises not on the site of our hotel virtually identical to the one exposed on Holiday Watchdog but trading under a new name "Capital Edge". (Sadly I had not seen that episode). The scam salesman claimed they were ATOL but this was totally untrue it is really a front company. Within 3 days on Saturday 6th July before leaving Tenerife we made the decision that we wanted to cancel our contract for a full refund. We telephoned Capital Edge on the phone number on their letterhead and received a recorded reply that the telephone number does not accept incoming calls. We did not manage to speak to anyone. On the same day 6th July, before leaving Tenerife, we contacted CapitalOne Mastercard disputes department to reverse the payment of 2,350.20 euros to Capital Edge and wrote and posted a letter to Capital Edge cancelling our contracts for a full refund and informing them this letter is formal notice of cancellation of our contracts as the nature of this contract was misrepresented to us. On return to UK Capital Edge phoned me stating I was not entitled to a refund as the transaction "could not be cancelled" and I told them on the phone this was untrue I could cancel it and I wrote back to them again reiterating I had cancelled the transaction for a full refund. CapitalOne Mastercard placed the transaction into dispute and I was not charged in July or August on my card. Now the amount has been added back to my CapitalOne card statement in September with a footnote that it is in dispute. I phoned CapitalOne Mastercard last night. They accept the amount is in dispute and state they are still investigating the matter (however I don't know why as I responded immediately to all their requests for information in July, it is not me that is being slow here and they have not now asked for any further information), but as they have not yet resolved their investigation they would like me to pay this sum to them on 10 October (I pay off my card by full direct debit each month) and they will later refund the sum if they find in my favour. If I choose not to pay the sum in October CapitalOne Mastercard will charge interest on it to me at normal credit card rate which will later be refunded if they find in my favour. Is CapitalOne Mastercard entitled to do this to me? Surely they cannot charge me for an amount that is in dispute.

Hominu

Here's a bunch of white space to turn your wall of text into paragraphs -->

CKhalvashi

Please split into paragraphs, as it's a nightmare to read.

Cap1 are correct.

CK

dzug1

mm

It's arguable that you got what you paid for - albeit that is something of very poor value - and that there is noting to dispute

Clearly Capital Edge have made a good enough case to your card issuer to this effect. It sounds as though they are not fully convinced though - hence wanting more information

Tiddlywinks

Cannot be bothered to tackle that huge block of text...

How about using a few paragraph breaks?

orcadian

I'm sorry I gave you too much information.

Let's summarise the key points:

1. As stated in the heading "CapitalOne is charging me for disputed transaction" this enquiry relates to whether a credit card company can invoice for a disputed transaction that's still in dispute. The dispute is not yet settled. The card company agree it's not settled.

2. The enquiry is not about whether the dispute will or will not be settled in my favour.

3. The dispute is on grounds that the product ("the nature of this contract") was misrepresented to us. This is clearly therefore a Section 75 claim on my card.

4. For information on Section 75 see http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

5. So once again: if I am disputing a charge and the dispute has not been settled, can the card company debit the sum and expect me to somehow fund this at my own expense while they investigate at their leisure?
Is that what Section 75 protection boils down to? If so, it does not boil down to very much. What are my rights here?

Middle_Sister

orcadian wrote: »

I'm sorry I gave you too much information.

Let's summarise the key points:

1. As stated in the heading "CapitalOne is charging me for disputed transaction" this enquiry relates to whether a credit card company can invoice for a disputed transaction that's still in dispute. The dispute is not yet settled. The card company agree it's not settled.

2. The enquiry is not about whether the dispute will or will not be settled in my favour.

3. The dispute is on grounds that the product ("the nature of this contract") was misrepresented to us. This is clearly therefore a Section 75 claim on my card.

4. For information on Section 75 see http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

5. So once again: if I am disputing a charge and the dispute has not been settled, can the card company debit the sum and expect me to somehow fund this at my own expense while they investigate at their leisure?
Is that what Section 75 protection boils down to? If so, it does not boil down to very much. What are my rights here?

All I can say is I used Section 75 with Capital One and they argued it the whole time. I went to the Financial Ombudsman in the end and Capital One still did not agree. However, after going back and forward they must have known I wouldnt give up and they did pay up EVENTUALLY. Be prepared to slug it out.

grumbler

orcadian wrote: »

I'm sorry I gave you too much information.

Let's summarise the key points:

1. As stated in the heading "CapitalOne is charging me for disputed transaction" this enquiry relates to whether a credit card company can invoice for a disputed transaction that's still in dispute. The dispute is not yet settled. The card company agree it's not settled.

2. The enquiry is not about whether the dispute will or will not be settled in my favour.

I think it's not that simple. The dispute with the supplier can last forever, but this doesn't mean that you can use the disputed money meanwhile.
It's different for an unauthorised transaction.

3. The dispute is on grounds that the product ("the nature of this contract") was misrepresented to us. This is clearly therefore a Section 75 claim on my card.

S75 says just that the CC company is jointly liable with the supplier. "Misrepresentation" is a very vague term, not a clear-cut. E.g. if you take the case to the court there is no guarantee that you'll win.
In fact the CC company can easily reject your claim and wait until you sue them. And this would be very understandable as you used their money to pay to some rogue company abroad and it can be very hard, if not impossible, to recover it.