Wrong info from bank about chargeback?

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Well that 's fairly comprehensive, thank you. So it is not a requirement of the MasterCard rules to have an independent report but it is an option.

It is slightly curious to have this option in the Chargeback rule because it is always going to be an option to do this whether it is written in the rule or not.

To my mind it means the card issuer could include an independent report if one is available - although that would not often be the case if the cardholder had already chosen to return the goods requesting a refund. I note the irony here as OP's issuer asked why the goods hadn't already been returned and then started insisting on an independent report (which would have been impossible had they been returned).

The conundrum now is to understand what it actually means to state a piece of documentation is optional. OP's Issuer has chosen this to mean that they have the option to insist on it being provided. What that means is that the Chargeback could have been done all along without a report but the issuer has adopted an internal policy of insisting on one - either that, or they've not properly understood the Chargeback rule.

What do others think?

Its optional at first chargeback state but the manual states it "may" be required at the arbitration chargeback stage:

For disputes involving Good or Services were Not as Described or Defective: When not
provided with the first chargeback, documentation from an expert or professional that supports the cardholder’s dispute about the level of quality or misrepresentation may be required when the
validity of the dispute is challenged by the merchant. Other documentation necessary to support
the validity of the dispute may include, but is not limited to, the original receipt, invoice, work
order, brochure, contract, or appraisal.

To not include it at this stage means the claim really isn't substantiated, we really just have a story and two sides saying the opposite of one another.

However I maintain that if goods arrived damaged a report isn't required at any stage, as the customer is simply saying the goods are broken. Whoever writes a report cant conclude who broke the goods or when it happened, so its pointless.

Whereas they could conclude manufacturing faults as such.

I agree that the request for a report at the initial stage would be an internal process.

Terry_Towelling

Interesting, although I note the wording says an independent report may be required and that is only mentioned in disputes over 'quality or misrepresentation'. These two words are closely linked (in my book) and are quite different to a dispute of physical damage. 'Quality' is slightly less tangible than damage. For example, receiving a wrist watch that looks perfect but consistently loses time is a quality issue; receiving one that has a cracked glass but keeps perfect time is a damage issue.

In OP's case, the retailer cannot dispute the Chargeback because they have refused to accept the return of the goods and therefore have no grounds to say the cardholder is wrong.

The Chargeback should have been done - just my thoughts.

eco_warrior

FOS would definitely overturn a chargeback refused on the basis of no report in my opinion. Have known it to happen.

dekaspace

To update on this, I complained back in June and got this response

As advised previously, We do require an independent report to confirm all the items you received on separate occasions are faulty or inherently faulty, this can be obtained from anywhere that sells or services computer equipment.

Your dispute's are with the companies that you advise sold you faulty items but are not willing to refund or send replacements, on this basis we have offered to assist you and help you recover the monies but we required this information, a Chargeback is not guaranteed to be successful or is it mandatory for the bank to issue a Chargeback without the information required when there is little or no prospect of success.

I also must point out that we only have 120 days from the date of the transaction took place - we are now out of time to raise the Chargeback's in question.


I will add that at this point i emailed them back and asked why the original person on phone had told me I DIDN'T require a independant report and they never responded so 10 days ago I emailed again and got a call today just saying complaint has been logged, but again telling me I should of just got an independant report! And either way they can't get money back as over 120 days have passed!

Terry_Towelling

You need to keep your complaint going all the way.

It is not a mandated part of the first Chargeback documentation to have a report on the items. If the first Chargeback is disputed by the merchant, you may need to provide a report at that stage for issues surrounding quality and misrepresentation.

In this case, the merchant is not able to dispute the validity of a First Chargeback because they have refused to accept the goods back and cannot therefore say anything about them. Furthermore the dispute is about damage and not connected to quality or misrepresentation.

I concede there is another piece of documentation at the Arbitration Chargeback stage that may be provided - an 'appraisal'. It doesn't say what an appraisal must contain nor who must write it, though.

dekaspace

They didn't even go to the merchant, I forgot to add they told me the reason for the report is due to the amount of money involved, and that my photos of the tablet don't show cracks (they were VERY visible) and since I couldn't show an image on the screen (just light) it didn't prove it couldn't boot! Well if it fails to boot how can I show an image?!

Lanzarote1938

Who did you buy the items from? Was it a UK company?


Just so I know to avoid them.

Terry_Towelling

dekaspace wrote: »

They didn't even go to the merchant, I forgot to add they told me the reason for the report is due to the amount of money involved, and that my photos of the tablet don't show cracks (they were VERY visible) and since I couldn't show an image on the screen (just light) it didn't prove it couldn't boot! Well if it fails to boot how can I show an image?!

Unless they are also the Merchant Acquirer, they shouldn't ever go directly to the merchant. In theory they could but it is generally frowned upon in the cards business to approach someone else's merchant (at least it used to be). If an approach is desired (that isn't a Chargeback) it should be made as a 'goodfaith' attempt via the merchant's acquirer bank.

In any event, they should have raised a Chargeback. Yes, I know there are those who say the Chargeback process is not a cardholder 'right' but Visa/MasterCard would not look favourably on any issuer who (as a matter of policy) refused to do a Chargeback when one was available. These two payment schemes make much of the customer protection afforded by their rules and regulations and deem these to be a useful way to incentivise consumers to use plastic rather than cash.

Your issuer is guilty of pre-empting the situation by believing that a Chargeback without a report would be validly represented. They have overlooked the fact (as already mentioned) that the Chargeback's validity could not be disputed by the merchant because they had refused to accept the goods back and so couldn't comment on any claims about defects with them.