Store helping themselves using my Debit card details

dm_1976

Please can someone give me some advice here?

Circumstances are:

Brought a watch from a reputable store for £x,xxx.
After 2 weeks, I needed the money back for a property purchase. I therefore emailed the store asking if they'd take it back. Person 'A' offered me, £x,xxx via email. I never accepted this offer and advised I'll be coming into the store.

I go into the store, and the Manager (Person 'B', different from the first person who made me the initial offer), has offered me £350 more than Person A. I accepted this, did the refund on my debit card, left the store.

A few days later I check my account; the higher offer has been credited, as agreed in store. But they've helped themselves to the £350 difference from my account between the initial offer by email, and the higher offer I accepted in store.

I therefore contact my bank, advise them I did not authorise this transaction, sign their forms and they initially credited this back to my account.

Person 'A' has then put in a chargeback rejection saying the higher refunded amount was a 'mistake' (it wasn't, it was a calculated deal by the manager).

The bank have now taken this £350 back from my account, advising, 'they can not help me further'.

What do I do ? I'm considering legal action, as this is not acceptable. They surely can't retrospectively help themselves to someone's account if they feel they could have got a better deal ?! It's ridiculous.

Comments / opinions / advice welcome.

Thank you.

meer53

Don't suppose you have anything in writing from either person ? If not, can't see you getting anywhere without proof.

Darren07

I've landed in an almost identical position, I don't suppose it's Santander you bank with?

From my experience it seems to be coming down to a matter of you and the merchant providing evidence and the bank making a decision based on that evidence. Unfortunately the bank in my instance have been more than happy to accept fraudulent evidence from the merchant which is why I've now gone down the legal route.

Absolute nightmare, I wish you all the best and will be curious to hear how you get on.

ValHaller

Bank are entirely in the wrong here, it would seem. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the transactions relating to the watch, there is an authorised transaction to put the money to your account. There is no authorised transaction to take £350 back.

If the bank refund, the store has the option to attempt to recover £350 by legal means, not by unauthorised direct debit

bris

ValHaller wrote: »

Bank are entirely in the wrong here, it would seem. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the transactions relating to the watch, there is an authorised transaction to put the money to your account. There is no authorised transaction to take £350 back.

If the bank refund, the store has the option to attempt to recover £350 by legal means, not by unauthorised direct debit

No the bank are not entirely in the wrong, a genuine transaction has taken place which is now a civil matter between both parties.

banks will not get involved when a merchant insists they are in the right they leave the courts to decide, they have this right when the op gave them the card details.

meer53

ValHaller wrote: »

Bank are entirely in the wrong here, it would seem. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the transactions relating to the watch, there is an authorised transaction to put the money to your account. There is no authorised transaction to take £350 back.

If the bank refund, the store has the option to attempt to recover £350 by legal means, not by unauthorised direct debit

The bank have actioned a chargeback. Which was rejected by the retailer, the bank haven't done anything wrong at all. The retailer is entitled to reject it, the bank then have to re debit the OP. It is now up to the OP to resolve this with the retailer themselves.

ValHaller

bris wrote: »

No the bank are not entirely in the wrong, a genuine transaction has taken place which is now a civil matter between both parties.

banks will not get involved when a merchant insists they are in the right they leave the courts to decide, they have this right when the op gave them the card details.

The £350 is not a genuine authorised transaction. As you rightly state, this is now a civil matter between the parties. OP has handed over a watch in exchange for a sum of money, to all intents and purposes that transaction is complete. It is not for NatWest to conspire with the shop to decide that it should have been a lesser amount of money. Otherwise, if we accept your argument, if you fill your car and pay for it, you could then expect the bank to aid and abet you in recovering 5p/litre if you felt you had overpaid. NatWest are entirely in the wrong here.

vuvuzela

ValHaller wrote: »

The £350 is not a genuine authorised transaction. As you rightly state, this is now a civil matter between the parties. OP has handed over a watch in exchange for a sum of money, to all intents and purposes that transaction is complete. It is not for Satander to conspire with the shop to decide that it should have been a lesser amount of money. Otherwise, if we accept your argument, if you fill your car and pay for it, you could then expect the bank to aid and abet you in recovering 5p/litre if you felt you had overpaid. Satander are entirely in the wrong her.

The OP has neither confirmed nor denied it is Santander...

dm_1976

Morning all.The Bank concerned here is Natwest.
I don't know who best to pursue here; the bank for honouring an unauthorised transaction based on pure lies from said store, or the store.
It's not so much about the money now, it's the principle. I agreed to hand the watch back for the higher amount, not the lower offer. They've taken money from me they had no right to, I could have been in my rights to call the police on them as this is theft, simple as.
I can't let them get away with this as their behaviour is disgraceful.
Thanks all.

stardoman

dm_1976 wrote: »

Morning all.The Bank concerned here is Natwest.
I don't know who best to pursue here; the bank for honouring an unauthorised transaction based on pure lies from said store, or the store.
It's not so much about the money now, it's the principle. I agreed to hand the watch back for the higher amount, not the lower offer. They've taken money from me they had no right to, I could have been in my rights to call the police on them as this is theft, simple as.
I can't let them get away with this as their behaviour is disgraceful.
Thanks all.

Its always hard to prove a negative. However, to take money from your account you would expect that they would have to use your pin number. Presumably, they have had to put it through as a card not present transaction. Would this angle be of any help?

Also, would the bank be able to tell you the time it was put through? Perhaps you could prove you were somewhere else? Did the store have your contact details. If they didn't then they can't argue that they rang you up. Alternatively, if they say that they rang you then you could use phone call logs to prove they didn't.

Are these store employees - could you go to the owner of the store, as I bet this money didn't go to the store. I reckon it will have been split by the two staff members.

HTH.

arcon5

The chargeback failed - i'd accept that and moved on tbh. The bank are not the courts.

The fact they initially refunded x combined with your email saying you'll come in store would likely persuade a judge what you later agreed... and the latter debit of £350 also go to substantiating your claim.

I'd be sending a 'Letter Before Action' before going to small claims