Car dealer adding 3% for Credit Card use

cajef

onlyfoolsandparking wrote: »

It was a guess like my earlier guess that some people just cant deal with the simplest of tasks :beer:

Guesses don't help anyone.

Chino

Biscuit_Tin wrote: »

It seems the trader would have agreed to refund

Not necessarily.

Looking at Barclaycard's description of the chargeback process (and presumably other card issuers operate similarly), it may be that the dealer's payment processor has refunded the money automatically, without first giving the dealer the opportunity to dispute the claim. The dealer may dispute the chargeback in due course. It's difficult to understand the basis on which the OP demanded a chargeback, other than buyer's remorse:
Beginner's guide to chargebacks

Terry_Towelling

Biscuit_Tin wrote: »

Whilst I don't dispute the sentiments of your post, I'm not sure this is how chargebacks work in practise.

I thought chargebacks (as opposed to claims under S75 of a consumer credit act) were only paid when the trader's bank agrees to refund ... and that is usually only when the trader agrees. (unless the trader has gone bust, etc)

Chargebacks can be made for a variety of reasons - all of which are defined by the relevant card schemes' rules. If you can fit the criteria for a given Chargeback reason, you can do it. If you can't, you can always 'try it on' or just back off.

Whether your Chargeback succeeds has little to do with a retailer's bankers agreeing to a refund - although that is a possibility (if not exactly likely).

If we ignore technical processing errors and so-called technical Chargebacks then we are largely left with Chargebacks for consumer-protection issues. If you can satisfy the technical requirements of such a Chargeback, it will stick regardless of the desire of the retailer or its bankers (who will have to squabble over liability between themselves).

The only exception to this (again barring technical issues) is where the retailer can demonstrate that they have done everything correctly or they can provide proof that information provided by the cardholder is inaccurate/dishonest/not in accordance with the Chargeback requirements.

If that happens, the Chargeback will likely be represented to the issuer and potentially end up being redebited to the Cardholder's account. Obviously, the card issuer has the right to challenge any representment. In the old days, that could be made through a second Chargeback. Since 2005 that changed and any challenge (unless it's changed again) has to be made by presenting a documented case to Visa or MasterCard for them to arbitrate in the dispute.

One point to note about such Arbitration is that any decision will be based primarily around whether the technical requirements of the Chargeback have been met. If either party has failed to meet those requirements, they will most likely be ruled against and have to take the loss (plus some hefty fees too).

What the losing party then does with the debt is up to them but there are no further rights to charge it back and the loss has to be sucked up by the loser and/or their customer (cardholder or retailer as appropriate).

One final caveat (or two); this is just a brief, potted guide to the process as I remember it. It is not an exhaustive guide to the Chargeback process and if things have changed over the years, then I will defer to anyone with more current knowledge. Things are also slightly different if the card issuer is also the retailers processing bank (but I won't attempt to go into that here).

onlyfoolsandparking

cajef wrote: »

Guesses don't help anyone.

And with some people it doesn't help whatever you do:cool:

Biscuit_Tin

Chino wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Looking at Barclaycard's description of the chargeback process (and presumably other card issuers operate similarly), it may be that the dealer's payment processor has refunded the money automatically, without first giving the dealer the opportunity to dispute the claim. The dealer may dispute the chargeback in due course. It's difficult to understand the basis on which the OP demanded a chargeback, other than buyer's remorse:
Beginner's guide to chargebacks

Well that's now totally confused me as it seems at odds with the link I provided.

Also, I clicked onto the next page of the Barclays link
https://www.barclaycard.co.uk/business/help-and-support/online-phone-mail

where it speaks of having 14 days from the date of the chargeback for the retailer to respond , and that "Barclaycard will do everything possible to defend chargeback requests that we receive on your behalf."

:huh:

Perhaps the OP will come back one day and say on what basis they actually made the chargeback request to their card issuer?

Pemberton01

I made the chargeback request on 2 issues. Firstly, when I looked at the DVLA web site on the evening I paid my deposit there were a couple of safety recall issues on the car. I had no idea if they were major or minor and when I told the garage they showed no interest, actually saying I would need to take the car to a relevant dealership after completing the purchase. Secondly, I confirmed on here and with Trading Standards to whom I reported the matter that the garage had misled me about having to pay a 3% surcharge for credit card use compared to using my debit card and that their attempted justification of the DVLA charging everyone, not just business card users, a fee of £2.50 was a complete fabrication. I felt there was been misrepresentation in both areas which had in my mind, led to a breakdown of trust and that as such I was justified in asking for my deposit back.

chattychappy

You cannot argue misrepresentation if you knew the truth or otherwise of what was being misrepresented. From the first post, it appears you knew that the law prohibited surcharging as you raised it. In the past it was impossible to claim misrepresentation of law because it was presumed everybody knew the law, though that has changed.

For misrepresentation, you have to show that what was misrepresented induced you into the contract. Not sure that that is the case here. If you knew that surcharges were illegal, would you have gone ahead and bought the car anyway?

Also, if you signed a contract, that might well have excluded misrepresentation through an "entire agreement" or "whole agreement" clause. These clauses don't always stick - they can be unfair. But the courts recognise their value in bringing certainty into contracts.

Anyway I doubt anybody is going to argue these technicalities. But just because somebody lies doesn't mean you have a claim in misrepresentation.

Terry_Towelling

@Biscuit Tin, the first link you provided was information to help cardholders understand the Chargeback process from their side of the dispute. The other link you found is designed to help merchants understand Chargebacks from the perspective of having received one.

Don't pay any attention to the time limits quoted for merchants. 14 days is the length of time that Barclaycard allows its retailers to respond with their 'side of the story' following receipt of a Chargeback. Acquiring banks (like Barclaycard - which is also a Card Issuer) will normally have 30 days to rebut any Chargeback claim they receive from another card issuer, so they need to get a response from their merchant more quickly than that to leave them enough time to prepare a rebuttal (called a Representation or Representment).

@Pemberton01 I'm not sure I can see anything in your latest post that would enable a Chargeback (but then I have been out of the cards industry for 15 years now). The closest I can get is to think that your issuer might have tried to creatively interpret the rules for a Chargeback for 'Not as Described'. My understanding of that Chargeback was that merchandise must have been 'mailed' (this might have changed) and, upon receipt, did not match its description (as provided at the time of the sale).

I don't think outstanding safety recalls (if they are outstanding) or misleading you about the DVLA's (non-existent) surcharging policy are enough.

However, if on this occasion, your card issuing bank is also the merchant acquirer, there is scope for creativity as any Chargeback made will not pass through Visa or MasterCard and can be made solely in accordance with the customer contracts held and what the merchant/cardholder is prepared to 'stomach'.

PS something else to bear in mind; just because you've had a successful Chargeback, it doesn't mean you are out of your contract with the retailer and you could be pursued by other means.

aj23_2

He is allowed to charge a fee for a credit card so long as he charges for all payments methods, so cash, cheque, transfer, BACS, you name it. You can't just charge for some and not others, or just one. It's either all or none.

Terry_Towelling

aj23 wrote: »

He is allowed to charge a fee for a credit card so long as he charges for all payments methods, so cash, cheque, transfer, BACS, you name it. You can't just charge for some and not others, or just one. It's either all or none.

Thanks for the clarification aj23. We are pretty sure the surcharge on this occasion was linked to the CC payment option only because the original intention was to buy by debit card. It was only when the CC was mentioned that the surcharge came up.

The dealer is right about one thing, they are allowed to recover the costs of doing business (including their CC handling costs) but only by building those costs into their overall business model, not by making surcharges in this manner.