Amazon Overcharge Vent!

daytona0

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

It's not close minded, it's irrelevant to the OP's complaint.

IT IS closed-minded to assume that an alternative point of view is "irrelevant to the OP's complaint". You are writing off the alternative view without giving it any thought. I HAVE GIVEN YOUR POINT OF VIEW A FAIR ASSESSMENT but you do not extend the same courtesy to geerex, or myself whom speculates on the alternatives.

All the Amazon apologists say that this is how their payment system works, so even they admit that Amazon knowingly operate in such a way that their customers are getting incorrectly charged, even if only temporarily.

I don't know how geerex feels, but my point is about the CARD ISSUER potentially being at fault. Don't give a monkeys about what Amazon does. A concept called 'assigning blame'.

That's bad enough but not having CS trained to immediately admit the error and reassure the customer that the transactions will soon be corrected is unforgivable.

That's a bold thing to state, considering you weren't with the OP when they made their call. Do you have inside knowledge of companies like Amazon? I can kinda buy the whole useless CS thing, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THIS THREAD to suggest that this was DEFINITIVELY the case.

Not really. Even the most ardent Amazon apologist has not suggested that the card issuer made up the amounts. The root of the problem is Amazon not simply taking the amounts that had been agreed between themselves and the customer.

If these "Amazon apologists" are not referring to the CARD ISSUER then that is fair enough. I am, however, referring to these and STILL you try and shoot down my advice! Like you do not care to listen to what I have to say.

To make a very BROAD-MINDED comment, but I do not disagree with you in the fact that Amazon MAY HAVE taken the incorrect amount as part of the root problem. My whole beef is basically trying to tell you that you are closed-minded in that you aren't listening to other suggestions which do not implicate Amazon, but alas I don't think that you are one who allows contrary information to sink in.

Can you point to some posts where people say the idea is wrong rather than irrelevant?

No need to point to posts. People didn't AGREE with the idea, so they posted counter-arguments. If this wasn't the case then nobody would be opposing geerex, and I wouldn't have posted. Don't be silly and ask stupid questions!

Because no one is even suggesting that any other party made up the figures. Amazon are the ones who failed to simply take the agreed amount(s) and charged other amounts which cause the customer to be overcharged.

Amazon ----> third party (usually card issuer) ----> customer

That is how payments go through, and some companies may have multiple middle men. Prove to me that Amazon are responsible, as apposed to the 'third party'. I can't prove it, so I sure as hell don't expect you to be able to!!

It's only relevant in that it shows other retailers also use the system in such a hare brained way that it results in the user being overcharged. Amazon are still at fault.

The company I worked for was a chop shop. They went for customer's money and little else, but their payment system was probably their best thing. I would speculate that Amazon are 100x better than them. Just to put things into perspective....

You might be right about Amazon's system, but be mindful that it is probably one of the best payment systems on the internet (when it comes to online retailers)! I mean who else is going to rival Amazon at the moment?!

You're getting REALLY desperate here and clutching wildly at straws. "every excuse" is obviously a figure of speech otherwise OP would have been on the phone for a lot longer that 20m.

Oh, you finally responded to this comment?! Well done Hopefully you, to quote yourself, "re-read OP's post" to verify what was discussed.

But that aside, be mindful that OP was angry and possibly upset (so not 100% accurate in their OP). If you are to take OP at face value then "every excuse this morning" should be perceived as such too, so it isn't a "figure of speech". If you don't want to take it at face value, and assume that "every excuse this morning" DOES NOT imply that the correct answer was given, then you must also be mindful that the CS employee MAY NOT have been as useless as specified by OP. A bit of a catch 22 in my eyes, unless you are using your own opinions to cloud your opinion here!

Yes. Remembering the context, the other view is that the intricacies were relevant. All I was saying is that more people took one view than the other and that is why one post was thanked more than another. You seem to be trying to base an argument on peoples choice of which post was most useful. Which seems a bit presumptuous.

Not arsed about who is right or wrong, but I saw geerex's post and thought that it had merit. I also saw the likes of you and other posters completely disagreeing with him. I thus gave what I thought a fair summary for BOTH points of view.

This is a black or white situation, but we are all in the grey at the moment. I just wish that dark grey would shake hands with light grey.

I'm not opposed to it, just his high handedness and rudeness (which he has exhibited in other threads) and the fact that it does not let Amazon off the hook for using a system that can generate this problem and abysmal (in this particular instance) customer service.

Glad to hear you aren't apposed to it, which is basically my beef!

Can't do much about rudeness, we all can be like that when getting our swingers out on these threads! :rotfl:

daytona0

Azari wrote: »

Just out of interest, how do you think the conversation with CS went. Was it:

CS: Yes madam, that's how our systems work, it will be corrected in a day or two.
BEG: I don't believe that, tell me another.
CS: String of spurious excuses.

or was it:

CS: String of spurious excuses.
CS: Yes madam, that's how our systems work, it will be corrected in a day or two.
BEG: I don't believe that, tell me another.
CS: Sorry, I've run out of excuses.

If CS knew what they were talking about the conversation would have taken about 30 seconds and would not have required the OP to send a screenshot of her bank account.

Why don't you upload the .mpeg or .avi file of the conversation between OP and CS, as witnessed by you, and we can actually listen to it?

daytona0

In somewhat ironic fashion, my bank has just made £20.98 available again for an Amazon book order which I put through on the 28th August and cancelled on the bank holiday Monday! :rotfl:

I can appreciate why OP, and others, would be upset but these things resolve automatically after a few days. I didn't need to contact CS and it was all sorted.

Patience is a virtue.

BlueEyedGirl

daytona0 wrote: »

In somewhat ironic fashion, my bank has just made £20.98 available again for an Amazon book order which I put through on the 28th August and cancelled on the bank holiday Monday! :rotfl:

I can appreciate why OP, and others, would be upset but these things resolve automatically after a few days. I didn't need to contact CS and it was all sorted.

Patience is a virtue.

Patience is a virtue, I agree. BUT when Amazon take too much money for an order, then leave someone short to cover a direct debit because there system is screwed, patience is irrelevant!

The-Truth

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

not having CS trained to immediately admit the error and reassure the customer that the transactions will soon be corrected is unforgivable.

I always find it amazing how things are over dramatised when some people are consumers.

I could trawl through the front page of BBC news and find things there that I would class as unforgivable but using that word when a customer service staff makes a mistake it laughable!

Moglex

daytona0 wrote: »

Maybe plan your finances better, as to avoid being less than £50 away from financial disaster when purchasing some books? Dare I ask whether some cheapish paperback books constitute a luxury item, or a necessity? We could even quiz you on the direct debit, and it may turn out to be a luxury item (ie a gym), but nah.

Does anyone else find this patronising and offensive?

In the first place, the poster didn't say that she had a problem, but was just pointing out that this could adversely affect people.

Secondly, it's not for some busybody here to tell people that they should rearrange their finances to accommodate Amazons balls ups.

Thirdly, you wouldn't need to be living on a knife edge for this to adversely affect you. If you ordered a high price item and some accessory, and Amazon pulled this stunt, you could have a serious hole in your finances until things sorted themselves out.

"when Amazon take too much money" - that is the crux of the whole reason why I'm posting! I just don't think that it sinks in, what I'm actually saying!

I presume that you are an Amazon shareholder here, because I've rarely seen anyone so desperate to defend corporate malpractice.

If you want to pretend that it isn't malpractice, which of these would you disagree with:

Fact 1: Payment processors often (always?) cannot cope with payments that do not add up to amounts pre-authorised.

Fact 2: This means that customers WILL, from time to time be denied access to money that is rightfully theirs.

Fact 3: Amazon are aware of this and yet knowingly and wilfully operate a payment system that will deprive customers use of their own money.


No matter how desperate you are to defend them, and how many walls of text you produce, I don't see how you can argue with that, or defend it.

And trying to shift the blame to the payment processor is, tbh, ridiculous. Amazon know how the system works and yet continue to operate it in a manner that they know will not work correctly.

BlueEyedGirl

daytona0 wrote: »

Maybe plan your finances better, as to avoid being less than £50 away from financial disaster when purchasing some books? Dare I ask whether some cheapish paperback books constitute a luxury item, or a necessity? We could even quiz you on the direct debit, and it may turn out to be a luxury item (ie a gym), but nah.

"when Amazon take too much money" - that is the crux of the whole reason why I'm posting! I just don't think that it sinks in, what I'm actually saying!

It sinks in, BUT my finances really have NOTHING to do with you, so Mr Nosy I suggest you go mither someone else because I am not bowing down to your pathetic questioning! :dance:

BlueEyedGirl

Moglex wrote: »

Does anyone else find this patronising and offensive?

In the first place, the poster didn't say that she had a problem, but was just pointing out that this could adversely affect people.

Secondly, it's not for some busybody here to tell people that they should rearrange their finances to accommodate Amazons balls ups.

Thank You!

It is clear daytona0 is the kind of person that thinks they can make assumptions about others when they know nothing. It's not possible for someone to have more than one bank account etc. They know best, when really they know sod all! Being a MS Forum they seem to be on a one man / woman mission to rectify everyone's finances - A kind of 'Got to save the world' ego trip!

Azari

Moglex wrote: »

Does anyone else find this patronising and offensive?

Yes.

In the first place, the poster didn't say that she had a problem, but was just pointing out that this could adversely affect people.

Secondly, it's not for some busybody here to tell people that they should rearrange their finances to accommodate Amazons balls ups.

Thirdly, you wouldn't need to be living on a knife edge for this to adversely affect you. If you ordered a high price item and some accessory, and Amazon pulled this stunt, you could have a serious hole in your finances until things sorted themselves out.



If you want to pretend that it isn't malpractice, which of these would you disagree with:

Fact 1: Payment processors often (always?) cannot cope with payments that do not add up to amounts pre-authorised.

Fact 2: This means that customers WILL, from time to time be denied access to money that is rightfully theirs.

Fact 3: Amazon are aware of this and yet knowingly and wilfully operate a payment system that will deprive customers use of their own money.


No matter how desperate you are to defend them, and how many walls of text you produce, I don't see how you can argue with that, or defend it.

And trying to shift the blame to the payment processor is, tbh, ridiculous. Amazon know how the system works and yet continue to operate it in a manner that they know will not work correctly.

Whilst I agree with the crux of your post, I do think the payment processors are operating in a somewhat illogical fashion.

Surely, their procedure should be to always reduce ring fenced funds by the amount of any actual payments taken. I cannot see any sensible reason why they cannot operate like that.

Having said that:

That is not the way the system works.

Amazon know that is not the way the system works.

Amazon still use the system in such a way that customers are incorrectly deprived of the use of funds.


Amazon are at fault.

JReacher1

It seems to be getting a bit abusive now.

I think mocking someone for having debt problems goes against the principles of this website....

Quite a lot of people on this site come here for debt advice and I think using their posts in another thread for cheap point scoring is very very unpleasant behaviour.