Debt collection agency due to credit card chargeback

planteria

Davereid82 wrote: »

I would rather just pay it and not have it hanging over me then try and get it back but I think if I pay it then I will definitely never see my money again.

i can understand that you don't want it hanging over you, but if you pay it, i agree, you'll never see it again.
it sounds as though they are scamming to me. and, assuming you Know that you didn't damage the car, tell your solicitor that. don't tell your solicitor that 'you don't think you scratched it'. be certain.

System

It does have 'legal bearing' as all parties agreed to the rules of the card scheme for said transaction.

It isn't similar the DD guarantee, you as have to satisfy your issuer that you have a valid chargeback reason and also the merchant can dispute the validity of the chargeback. By not even replying, they are not disputing the validity of the chargeback.

grumbler wrote: »

Chargeback is just an internal Mastercard procedure that has no any legal bearing.

In many respects chargeback is similar to the DD Guarantee. One can claim the money back almost without any genuine reason, but has to settle everything with the company directly regardless.

grumbler

Heng_Leng wrote: »

It does have 'legal bearing' as all parties agreed to the rules of the card scheme for said transaction.

Nope.
If the company doesn't challenge the chargeback, this doesn't stop it from using legal routes of recovering money from the customer.

It isn't similar the DD guarantee, you as have to satisfy your issuer that you have a valid chargeback reason

However, the issuer isn't in the position to check all facts and replace a court. Especially as the issuer has only one side of the story and the other bank has the other side. This works only in the simplest and most obvious cases.
And you can't even take the bank to court if it rejects your claim. But you can take the supplier to court, and, similarly, the supplier can sue you regardless of the bank's and issuer's decision.

and also the merchant can dispute the validity of the chargeback. By not even replying, they are not disputing the validity of the chargeback.

Yes, but this can't stop them from using other ways of recovering the money - like this case clearly demonstrates and similarly to a DD.
The OP can't say that they don't have the case just because they failed to dispute the chargeback.

planteria

sounds good to me Heng Leng, and that hopefully gives Davereid hope. i'll be disappointed if you reply to tell us that you've decided to just pay them Dave;)

planteria

the fact that they didn't reply though, grumbler, does shift the case in the favour of Davereid, would you agree? they have been given an opportunity to argue their case, which they didn't take.

i would be certain that i hadn't scratched the car and reckon my solicitor would front that argument strongly and successfully.

grumbler

planteria wrote: »

the fact that they didn't reply though, grumbler, does shift the case in the favour of Davereid, would you agree? they have been given an opportunity to argue their case, which they didn't take.

Yes, in a court this argument can be used, but hardly as a decisive evidence.

chanz4

A court of law requires what can be proved, and that a contract existed. Op charging back and the merchant not challenging wouldn't really make a difference just like a dd reversal

planteria

fair point grumbler.
but surely it does chanz4, as the card provider has completed the chargeback, based upon their customers version of events, and the merchant did not make a case to retain the funds.
the merchant now has to prove that Davereid is responsible for the damage to the car. he is [should be] very clear that he did not damage the car, and returned it in perfect condition. and the merchant didn't provide Davereid or his card provider with evidence to the contrary..
until they sent a blurred photograph of a scratch on a car door that may not be the car that Davereid hired, may have happened after he dropped it back to the car hire base (as guided to by them--not his fault there was noone available to confirm it was in good order) and the merchant can be demonstrated [i assume from the above] to be trying this trick with foreign customers on a regular basis.

Tigig

Hi Dave - Exactly the same is happening to me at the moment with Locauto at Pisa airport. Mastercard got the money back on the basis that they asked Locauto's bank to provide justification and evidence. They could not so by law had to reimburse the money back to Mastercard. I thought that was the end of the matter until I received a demand from an Italian debt collection agency yesterday. Trawling through the internet I have seen that this is the modus operandi of Locauto. I would also like all readers to note that when i booked the car through Aotoeurope they told me that the hire was with Enterprise which i thought was a reputable company. When I arrived in Pisa I realised that Locauto is now affiliated to Enterprise. Had i known that the rental was with Locauto i would never have booked having read their appalling feedback. Also Autoeurope were useless in dealing with the situation. They still haven't replied to an email sent in November. Do you have any info on how to proceed?

System

Their only realistic recourse is a European Small Claim.