Clydesdale Mastercard / Skrill / Simply Electronics (winding up)

marky9074

Thanks for the replies everyone. I pushed Skrill again this morning and got the following:

Thank you for contacting the Skrill Help Team

Further to your request, we kindly inform you that we are unable to process a refund for this transaction.

As previously suggested, you should contact your bank from where the payment have been made, providing them the reference code sent in order for them to reverse the transaction.

We hope this helped

I find it a little bemusing that contrary to what is stated above, they did not suggest this (as you can see from their reply they said to speak to the merchant for a refund). So what is the likelihood of Clydesdale even attempting to try to chargeback using the reference number quoted by Skrill.

If Clydesdale refuse to assist (when Skrill state to get the bank to reverse the transaction) would I still have an axe to grind with Clydesdale given they refuse to help?

marky9074

I didn't read that post correctly the first time! So section 75 protection does exist when paying via an eMoney service. Good news. I will ring Clydesdale tomorrow morning, but any further quality ammo like this would be much appreciated.

boo_star

You might want to Google those cases, I don't think any actually apply to intermediaries.
The Lloyds one is referring to S75 covering foreign transactions and the Bank of Scotland one I'm unsure of, I can't see the full judgement, only that it relates to second hand cars.

unholyangel

boo_star wrote: »

You might want to Google those cases, I don't think any actually apply to intermediaries.
The Lloyds one is referring to S75 covering foreign transactions and the Bank of Scotland one I'm unsure of, I can't see the full judgement, only that it relates to second hand cars.

The lloyds one also relates to four party agreements versus three party agreements and whether the four party agreement is subject to section 75 or not as some banks (named in the case as appellants) were using that as a reason to refuse section 75 claims.

This bit here (from the bailii link on the webpage I linked) explains it:

The first is the development of what may be called the "four-party" structure. This developed out of the use by card issuers of what are called "merchant acquirers" to recruit new suppliers willing to accept the issuer's card. In the classic four-party structure there is interposed between the card issuer and the supplier the merchant acquirer acting as an independent party. There is an agreement between the merchant acquirer and the supplier, under which the supplier undertakes to honour the card and the merchant acquirer undertakes to pay the supplier, and an agreement between the merchant acquirer and the card issuer, under which the merchant acquirer agrees to pay the supplier and the card issuer undertakes to reimburse the merchant acquirer. There is, however, no direct contractual link between the card issuer and the supplier.

marky9074

Just reading that link again, and the part where it states:

'BUT The Financial Ombudsman Service position is that section 75 protection does not apply where PayPal or any eMoney service becomes involved in the credit card transaction'

So am I flogging a dead horse here? Would this still be their position, even though there is evidence to the contrary? I haven't called them yet. I'm still trying to put together an angle of attack. Presumably I try and get a chargeback first (stating the message from Skrill and the associated reference number), then if they cannot/will not do it pursue the section 75 approach, stating if necessary the precedents set in the named cases.

unholyangel

That may at one point have been their stance but doesn't appear to be any longer.

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.

From this page: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/goods-and-services-bought-with-credit.html

It appears wealdroam also posted that information in his first reply.

Again as I've been saying, it all depends on the way the transaction was set up but a fourth party being involved doesnt necessarily break the required chain. As with paypal, where they act like a merchant acquirer (rather than being the recipient of the money themselves) then it doesnt break the chain.

marky9074

OK, todays battle. Got through to a nonchalant advisor who point blank stated they could not issue a refund (even though I gave them the reference from Skrill). I did not back down this time, and stated I wanted to make a claim under section 75 and quoted the merchant acquirer and that it did not break the chain.

I was passed through to disputes where the guy there was slightly more willing to help, but said with that reference it was meaningless, and he could not process a chargeback on that (and implied maybe Skrill was just fobbing off). He started the story of the chain etc, and not being able to claim under section 75, but before I hit back, he did state that if I could get it in writing that Skrill accept to pay the refund that they could go for the chargeback option.

Given that it might be prudent to get something from Skrill (one way or another) in writing, I mailed them back.

marky9074

And the reply, contradicting their previous email:

Thank you for contacting the Skrill Help Team.

Our obligation under the current agreement is limited to providing you with an electronic money account and the related payment services.

In this sense, the transaction has been executed correctly and Skrill is not liable for the quality or delivery of the items you have purchased from a third party.

We are taking reasonable measures to prevent similar situations going forward, however, this transfer cannot be reversed.

For more information, please refer to our Terms and Conditions.

DoaM

If Skrill had already forwarded the amount to the SE account then they'd be out of pocket by agreeing to the refund. I really can't see them agreeing to do this. As such chargeback is unlikely to succeed.

Your only chance is to pursue the S75 and keep on at the CC company (through their complaints procedure) until you get a deadlock letter, whereupon you can raise a FOS complaint/claim. As the CC company have to pay for FOS to investigate anyway then given the value of your claim they may decide to cut their losses and credit you back.

marky9074

I was just looking at the sample templates for requesting a deadlock letter. I don't think I will get any further with the telephone conversations, so was going to just put everything in writing and state that if I do not hear from them within 14 days that they are in agreement that it is a deadlock, and will refer it to FOS.