Carphone Warehouse took payment, now holding as they think it’s fraudulent

pmduk

Jon_01 wrote: »

The op said that the CPW fraud team wouldn't accept her husbands passport and driving, which implies it's an address issue.

I'll hazard an educated guess that the delivery address differed slightly, either from the registered address for the card or that of the electoral register.

grumbler

pmduk wrote: »

But this was an online order which carries a higher risk of fraud

What sort of fraud?


It's not a contract.
The customer who paid for the phone visited a brunch with the card and two proofs of ID.
Even if the delivery address is different, it's not a fraud and all what CPW need (if they aren't idiots) is a confirmation of the address.

Most companies don't mind delivering to ANY address.

pmduk

The fraud that the card has been stolen. Items not delivered to the card owner.

If the retailer can't prove they've taken all necessary steps they foot the loss.

Anyhow, we're going in circles. For whatever reason, CPW didn't want to continue with this transaction, that is their right - sometimes their obligation.

grumbler

pmduk wrote: »

The fraud that the card has been stolen.

Card stolen together with the photo ID and the face?

Items not delivered to the card owner.

What's wrong with this if the card owner wants this and confirms this?

If it's their policy not to deliver to a different address, just cancel the order and return the money to the card !!!!!!. Even if it was stolen (they already know it wasn't).

For whatever reason, CPW didn't want to continue with this transaction, that is their right - sometimes their obligation.

Right to hold the money until the customer comes to a branch regardless of how far this branch is from the customer? I don't think so.And certainly, it's not an obligation.

d123

pmduk wrote: »

The fraud that the card has been stolen. Items not delivered to the card owner.

If the retailer can't prove they've taken all necessary steps they foot the loss.

Anyhow, we're going in circles. For whatever reason, CPW didn't want to continue with this transaction, that is their right - sometimes their obligation.

What right or law allows a retailer to refuse a transaction and keep the payment?

techquest

d123 wrote: »

What right or law allows a retailer to refuse a transaction and keep the payment?

None I believe.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 gives credit card users protection in the event they suffer from a breach of contract or misrepresentation when buying goods.

It removes the risk that people could be put into debt for goods or services that weren't received at all, were faulty, or were otherwise not as described.

In these circumstances, the law holds the credit card company jointly liable with the retailer, meaning you can claim a refund from your card provider if you're unable to get it from the retailer.

It would seem that one way or another CW have to refund the money and quit stalling for time, whatever excuse they are using. They have failed to deliver the goods and on the contract made between themselves and the buyer and they are using poor excuses as far as I can see. As are the bank or cc company by not doing what they should be doing, protecting their customer!

Do we know if Jessie83 has got this solved yet?

d123

techquest wrote: »

None I believe.

That’s my belief as well, that’s why I asked @pmduk to expand on why they believe that.

techquest wrote: »

It would seem that one way or another CW have to refund the money and quit stalling for time, whatever excuse they are using. They have failed to deliver the goods and on the contract made between themselves and the buyer and they are using poor excuses as far as I can see. As are the bank or cc company by not doing what they should be doing, protecting their customer!

Do we know if Jessie83 has got this solved yet?

Hopefully they will come back and let us know what happened after they went to the bank for help.

pmduk

If the retailer is considered by the bank bot to have taken sufficient care over the transaction then they foot the loss. Not the bank.

grumbler

What loss? Nothing was dispatched yet. Consider the real situation, not some imaginable one.

d123

pmduk wrote: »

If the retailer is considered by the bank bot to have taken sufficient care over the transaction then they foot the loss. Not the bank.

You’re just making things up which have no bearing on the case in discussion.

There is no loss as the retailer has not dispatched any item, they have refused to process the order (their right) but have also refused to refund the order (definitely not their right).