Amazon Overcharge Vent!

GreatBeyond

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.

I suppose it's speculation but I would definitely think that the CS rep has made an !!!! of explaining it. They should never have asked for a screenshot of the OP's account though, there is absolutely nothing they would do with it.

Azari

GreatBeyond wrote: »

Now we are getting somewhere - you think that Amazon have made a mistake in choosing that system. That's absolutely fine and you are entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to argue that at all.

It's absolutely not the point I'm making however, their system worked exactly as intended so from that aspect no mistake was made.

Looking at the whole thread (and I admit I have only skim-read most of it), I can't actually see that anyone has ever disputed this. The problem seems to have been with certain posters implying that because that's the way the system works the OP was in error, or unreasonable, for complaining.

So people have been saying that where the fault occurred was not the issue.

The issue was that the fault did occur and the OP's query was not dealt with properly.

Azari

GreatBeyond wrote: »

Amazon did not take a penny more than the agreed amount - the OP's bank were holding the £20 and then made it available again to the OP.

The only money that Amazon have taken is the £50.

He didn't say they did.

He said that the problem was that they didn't just take the correct amounts.

To be quite honest, all this waffle about split deliveries is a load of dingo's kidneys.

Amazon knew they had the items in stock and that they were going to be delivered. (They are quite capable of closing the 'cancel this order' option before anything leaves a warehouse.)

There is absolutely no reason why they could not have taken a series of payments that eventually added up to the correct amount, rather than using the cack-handed system they do, which evidently confuses certain payment handlers.

GreatBeyond

Azari wrote: »

He didn't say they did.

He said that the problem was that they didn't just take the correct amounts.

To be quite honest, all this waffle about split deliveries is a load of dingo's kidneys.

Amazon knew they had the items in stock and that they were going to be delivered. (They are quite capable of closing the 'cancel this order' option before anything leaves a warehouse.)

There is absolutely no reason why they could not have taken a series of payments that eventually added up to the correct amount, rather than using the cack-handed system they do, which evidently confuses certain payment handlers.

They did, the series of payments they have taken total £50 which was the amount the OP's orders came to.

Basically the system is set up that way so that people get their goods as soon as possible, as cheaply as possible. If they waited to transport the items so that they would all be dispatched together it would add a couple of days on to the delivery while the items were all shipped to a central location and then boxed together. It's also going to add on extra cost for the extra handling and deliveries to a central warehouse.

In the main it all works perfectly, and in general people want their stuff as soon as possible.

Azari wrote: »

Looking at the whole thread (and I admit I have only skim-read most of it), I can't actually see that anyone has ever disputed this. The problem seems to have been with certain posters implying that because that's the way the system works the OP was in error, or unreasonable, for complaining.

So people have been saying that where the fault occurred was not the issue.

The issue was that the fault did occur and the OP's query was not dealt with properly.

I'm only referring to the posts I have made in the thread - in never said the OP was wrong, I just explained why it happened and that it wasn't a mistake in terms of something going wrong. Basically what Amazon CS should have done.

The OP was correct to call it out especially when they didn't feel they were getting anywhere with Amazon CS.

Azari

GreatBeyond wrote: »

They did, the series of payments they have taken total £50 which was the amount the OP's orders came to.

I think one of us has misinterpreted the first post. I think I've got it right.

This is my interpretation:

The £20 order was processed without any problems at all and was over and done with.

The only reason why it was added to the £30 figure was because the CS rep was struggling to make sense of the amounts taken*.

However, looking at the resolution mentioned in post #21, it seems that an amount of £20 was returned to the OP's account and a further small amount was taken to bring the total up to £50.

Now, I can see absolutely no reason why they would suddenly involve an order that was done and dusted, charging for it again, only to return the exact amount later. That does not look like the normal 'ring fence' problem.

I would reiterate that there is absolutely no reason why, at one point, £66 had been taken from the OP's account for £50's worth of products.

This is definitely not the same at the supermarket 'ring fence' problem where they ring fence one amount and then charge a different amount, sometimes resulting in a temporary double 'charge'.

At no point do Amazon take the correct amount for the £30 order. They took a series of incorrect amounts totalling well over the specified cost and then made two adjustments - one in and one out.

It looks to me far more likely that there was a glitch in their system and that someone sorted it out manually - as evidence the utterly pointless inclusion of the historic transaction in the £30 set.


* Note to nit pickers: By 'taken', 'charge' and 'returned' I mean made unavailable and made available. I have no idea what amounts were actually transferred.

Sheldon_Cooper

Azari wrote: »

At no point do Amazon take the correct amount for the £30 order. They took a series of incorrect amounts totalling well over the specified cost and then made two adjustments - one in and one out.

It looks to me far more likely that there was a glitch in their system and that someone sorted it out manually - as evidence the utterly pointless inclusion of the historic transaction in the £30 set.

Looking at what you've written here, it does look very much as if this does not follow the usual authorise/charge problem.

My understanding is that in that case, something very specific happens.

1) Customer places order
2) Retailer decides order will cost £X and authorises £X
3) At dispatch, retailer realises that order will cost a different amount and charges £Y
4) Payment processor processes £Y but does not realise it relates to the £X authorisation and the amount £X is unavailable to customer until authorisation expires.

That process in no way explains the refunding of £20 from a historic transaction and the small make-up payment.

One other small point. Is it usual for authorisation only amounts to show as transactions? In my experience they are only detectable as reductions in the "total available" amount. I've never seen one listed as a transaction. If they were statements would be covered in spurious debits and credits which I have never seen on any bank or CC account.

GreatBeyond

Azari wrote: »

I think one of us has misinterpreted the first post. I think I've got it right.

This is my interpretation:

The £20 order was processed without any problems at all and was over and done with.

The only reason why it was added to the £30 figure was because the CS rep was struggling to make sense of the amounts taken*.

However, looking at the resolution mentioned in post #21, it seems that an amount of £20 was returned to the OP's account and a further small amount was taken to bring the total up to £50.

Now, I can see absolutely no reason why they would suddenly involve an order that was done and dusted, charging for it again, only to return the exact amount later. That does not look like the normal 'ring fence' problem.

I would reiterate that there is absolutely no reason why, at one point, £66 had been taken from the OP's account for £50's worth of products.

This is definitely not the same at the supermarket 'ring fence' problem where they ring fence one amount and then charge a different amount, sometimes resulting in a temporary double 'charge'.

At no point do Amazon take the correct amount for the £30 order. They took a series of incorrect amounts totalling well over the specified cost and then made two adjustments - one in and one out.

It looks to me far more likely that there was a glitch in their system and that someone sorted it out manually - as evidence the utterly pointless inclusion of the historic transaction in the £30 set.


* Note to nit pickers: By 'taken', 'charge' and 'returned' I mean made unavailable and made available. I have no idea what amounts were actually transferred.

So the actual amounts that Amazon have taken from the OP's bank account are as follows -

£13.63 - 4 books - shipment 1
£16.66 - 5 books - shipment 2
£16.37 - 5 books - shipment 3
£3.84 - 1 book - shipment 4

Initially when the orders were placed and to confirm the card selected was valid Amazon communicate with the bank and let them know the cost of the order, £20 and then £30 - the bank then hold the money ready for Amazon to apply for the payment in full, this would happen at the dispatch stage.

The items weren't all able to be shipped together (in terms of 6 books in one shipment and 9 books in the other) so dispatched at different times and payment was taken for each shipment as it dispatched.

The bank appear to have recognised this with the £30 order and either used the £30 they were holding to make the payment or released the hold straight away so that it wasn't noticed by the OP.

The bank didn't recognise one of the payments was related to the £20 they were holding and kept holding the £20 until it looks like the last item was shipped (basing that on the post saying a further £3.84 was taken and the £20 was released back.)

From Amazons side they are not able to see whether or not the bank are holding money or not and they can't make the bank release it, what they can see is that £x was taken and what the payment relates to.

GreatBeyond

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

Looking at what you've written here, it does look very much as if this does not follow the usual authorise/charge problem.

My understanding is that in that case, something very specific happens.

1) Customer places order
2) Retailer decides order will cost £X and authorises £X
3) At dispatch, retailer realises that order will cost a different amount and charges £Y
4) Payment processor processes £Y but does not realise it relates to the £X authorisation and the amount £X is unavailable to customer until authorisation expires.

That process in no way explains the refunding of £20 from a historic transaction and the small make-up payment.

One other small point. Is it usual for authorisation only amounts to show as transactions? In my experience they are only detectable as reductions in the "total available" amount. I've never seen one listed as a transaction. If they were statements would be covered in spurious debits and credits which I have never seen on any bank or CC account.

The £20 wasn't refunded by Amazon, it was released by the bank - if it was refunded by Amazon the OP would have received a series of emails from Amazon confirming the refund (these are automatic so couldn't just be missed by an incompetent member of CS).

It was then take 2/3 days depending on the banks internal processing time for the refund to show as available in the OPs account.

The following page on Amazon has a bit about this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_left_v4_sib?ie=UTF8&nodeId=201253820

BlueEyedGirl

JReacher1 wrote: »

It is hard sometimes to be a retailer. A customer who has shopped with you for 9 years and ordered over 2,000 items decides never to shop with you again due to one relatively minor issue over authorisations!

It's very unforgiving!

I doubt Amazon give a toss, I wouldn't expect them to! Let us not forget this is not the first problem I have experienced with Amazon this year, it was one of many and that is the reason I am choosing to no longer shop with them!

JReacher1

BlueEyedGirl wrote: »

I doubt Amazon give a toss, I wouldn't expect them to! Let us not forget this is not the first problem I have experienced with Amazon this year, it was one of many and that is the reason I am choosing to no longer shop with them!

How many problems have you had in the 2,000 plus items you've ordered?