Clydesdale Mastercard / Skrill / Simply Electronics (winding up)

marky9074

Long time lurker but no real issues until now. I have been a customer of the HK based Simply Electronics for a while, buying at least one item each year, and contrary to the reviews always had my item delivered within the expected time frame.

A few weeks ago I ordered a new phone, then out of curiosity went back a week later and got the message that they were no longer trading and to contact my card provider. To that end I contacted Clydesdale MasterCard today, who stated that as Skrill made the transaction (and they have no issues with Skrill) that they could not do a chargeback.

I contacted Skrill and got fobbed off that it was nothing to do with them and they were just providing the transaction. Back to Clydesdale and I stated that I wanted to make a claim under section 75 (as the merchant has gone bust). I got elevated to someone else who told me the same story that I could not get a chargeback (yet I hadn't asked for one) and to contact Skrill (and/or trading standards).

To that end I emailed Clydesdale pointing out that I had asked to make a claim under section 75 (and not a chargeback), and how to proceed. I got the same 'not our problem' contact Skrill but in written form.

I have contacted Skrill by email stating that I want to make a claim under section 75 but as of yet have not received a reply. I would like to ask you kind folk if Clydesdale are dong the right thing, because I do appreciate that the buck is passed to Skrill, however I can see from the TrustPilot reviews that many people initiated the claim through their bank, who in turn got the wheels in motion with Skrill.

Feeling pretty frustrated with this infinite loop. So any help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

marky9074

And this is the reply from Clydedale:

Thank you for your enquiry. When you make a payment through a company such as Skrill or Paypal etc the Bank have not been in direct contact with the company the payment was made to. We are given no details of the transaction being made when you make a payment through this company. We receive the amount requested under the name Skrill and no other details are disclosed to us. Unfortunately due to this the Bank are unable to help with this specific query and we would advise that you contact Skrill. This company should be able to assist with this

wealdroam

marky9074 wrote: »

Long time lurker but no real issues until now. I have been a customer of the HK based Simply Electronics for a while, buying at least one item each year, and contrary to the reviews always had my item delivered within the expected time frame.

A few weeks ago I ordered a new phone, then out of curiosity went back a week later and got the message that they were no longer trading and to contact my card provider. To that end I contacted Clydesdale MasterCard today, who stated that as Skrill made the transaction (and they have no issues with Skrill) that they could not do a chargeback.

I contacted Skrill and got fobbed off that it was nothing to do with them and they were just providing the transaction. Back to Clydesdale and I stated that I wanted to make a claim under section 75 (as the merchant has gone bust). I got elevated to someone else who told me the same story that I could not get a chargeback (yet I hadn't asked for one) and to contact Skrill (and/or trading standards).

To that end I emailed Clydesdale pointing out that I had asked to make a claim under section 75 (and not a chargeback), and how to proceed. I got the same 'not our problem' contact Skrill but in written form.

I have contacted Skrill by email stating that I want to make a claim under section 75 but as of yet have not received a reply. I would like to ask you kind folk if Clydesdale are dong the right thing, because I do appreciate that the buck is passed to Skrill, however I can see from the TrustPilot reviews that many people initiated the claim through their bank, who in turn got the wheels in motion with Skrill.

Feeling pretty frustrated with this infinite loop. So any help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

In my opinion, Clydesdale are probably doing nothing wrong.

Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act requires a direct link between the credit provider and the merchant. Skrill being in the mix, at best, muddies the waters.

This short extract from The Financial Ombudsman Services website may help explain that:

In some cases we see, the consumer has bought online, using a credit card on a website that uses a secure third-party payment system to process credit card payments.

Section 75 may not always apply to transactions made this way, because this payment mechanism can break the chain of arrangements that must be in place between the consumer, the lender and the supplier.

But there are many different types of payment mechanisms used on suppliers' websites and not all of them prevent section 75 from applying. Where there is a dispute on this point, we look at the specific payment mechanism used and decide whether section 75 applies in the particular case.

It costs nothing to refer your complaint to The FOS.

marky9074

As its a grey area, who exactly should I be reporting to the FOS, Clydesdale or Skrill? From what I see from the comments on TrustPilot, other people seem to have managed to get a refund from Skrill but only after getting their card issuer involved, as in the refund originated from Skrill but was extracted and paid back through the card issuer (if that makes sense).

marky9074

This is the sort of thing I am reading:

Barclays were brilliant setting the wheels in motion immediately after explaining Skrill Ltd are very like PayPal but on a smaller scale and are regulated the same as banks and other money exchanging companies which gave me some comfort. Barclays sent me a letter/form within days including providing proof of purchase and my attempts to receive the goods. Within a further few days as promised by Barclays the money in full was back in my current account. My Bank explained that Skrill Ltd would refund the payment and go after Simply Electronics Ltd.

wealdroam

marky9074 wrote: »

As its a grey area, who exactly should I be reporting to the FOS, Clydesdale or Skrill? From what I see from the comments on TrustPilot, other people seem to have managed to get a refund from Skrill but only after getting their card issuer involved, as in the refund originated from Skrill but was extracted and paid back through the card issuer (if that makes sense).

If I were in your situation I would be asking Clydesdale for their written conclusion - if I didn't have it already.

Then follow the FOS process. You are complaining about Clydesdale.

marky9074

Many thanks for that. Just got a reply from Skrill:

Thank you for contacting the Skrill Help Team.

Skrill has successfully processed your transaction. We process the payment but are not responsible for approving and delivering your order, we recommend you contact the merchant directly to obtain more details about the status of your order or to request a refund.

If they cannot assist you, we suggest you to contact directly your bank issuing the credit card used for the payment in order to receive more assistance.

The merchant's contact details are shown on their official website. To help the merchant locate the received payment more easily, please give them the following Skrill transaction reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx / xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

We hope you find this information useful.

m0bov

Ask for a letter of deadlock from your cc provider.

arcon5

Don't see how ops credit card company are liable. Op didn't pay the merchant directly

shaun_from_Africa

arcon5 wrote: »

Don't see how ops credit card company are liable. Op didn't pay the merchant directly

Agreed that they are not liable but there is no reason why they couldn't attempt to get the money returned by way of a chargeback.

unholyangel

arcon5 wrote: »

Don't see how ops credit card company are liable. Op didn't pay the merchant directly

All depends on how exactly the payment was made - as is the case when you purchase by paypal.

This might make for interesting reading:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/70/70vw05.htm

A growing number of UK retailers are including an eMoney payment option in their checkouts:

-PayPal used by 976 of the UK and 572 of the US major stores.

-Skrill (Moneybookers) used by over 135,000 merchants.

When 52% of the adult population have a PayPal account, UK online retailers naturally feel obliged to offer PayPal on its websites.

The key issues which determine the applicability of section 75 are identified very clearly in Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others [2006] EWCA Civ 268 7 and the Bank of Scotland v Alfred Truman (a firm) [2005] [EWHC] 583 (QB). This is legal authority that section 75 protection does exist where one has paid on credit card for a product, via an eMoney service