Laura Ashely Mastercard Section 75?

born_again

eco_warrior wrote: »

Isn’t your bank processing chargebacks?

Yes, but on future dated travel. We are awaiting a decision to see if they can be done straight away. (It will come)
Even knowing that they will not get the flights, does not mean you can do future dated ones straight away. Or you are giving them a chance to reject on a technicality.

Terry_Towelling

born_again wrote: »

Yes, but on future dated travel. We are awaiting a decision to see if they can be done straight away. (It will come)
Even knowing that they will not get the flights, does not mean you can do future dated ones straight away. Or you are giving them a chance to reject on a technicality.

Have the rules changed then? They used to carry clauses that said where the merchant had ceased trading and there was evidence that future services would not be supplied, Chargebacks need not wait until the fulfilment date had passed. In fact, the time limits had to be started from the date of liquidation or the date the cardholder became aware the service would not be provided. Leaving it until a year later would mean you were out of time.

I am surprised that issuing banks have not contacted Thomas Cook's acquirer to iron this aspect out independently of the Visa/MasterCard rules. We used to build relationships with other banks dispute departments so that we could handle things like this more cost-effectively.

I know there will be people bleating about anti-competitive behaviour if banks talk to each other, but this has nothing to do with competition - it's about saving cost and serving customers properly.

eco_warrior

born_again wrote: »

Yes, but on future dated travel. We are awaiting a decision to see if they can be done straight away. (It will come)
Even knowing that they will not get the flights, does not mean you can do future dated ones straight away. Or you are giving them a chance to reject on a technicality.

Surely having evidence the merchant has ceased trading allows all disputes (against Thomas Cook at least) to be processed?

We started processing last Monday once the negative response letter was issued by the CAA. Not quite up to full speed yet but should be this week.

Bella79

Thank you all

So we need to call LA back and ask for a chargeback?

bris

Bella79 wrote: »

Thank you all

So we need to call LA back and ask for a chargeback?

Chargeback won't work because all the bank accounts will be frozen now.


You will also struggle to get them to cover all the tickets. They will likely only pay out for the card holders as they will rightly assume you all paid for your own flights one way or the other, I.E by you paying for the accommodation. By doing that you paid for your own ticket, getting paid twice isn't going to happen.


The accommodation is still in play so I can't see you winning this one, it will get messy.

bris

18cc wrote: »

Ah OK so the bank takes the hit - thanks.

No it doesn't, that's wrong, the bank only takes a hit for genuine fraud cases.


Banks can only claw back from the merchants bank if there are funds available to get.

eco_warrior

bris wrote: »

No it doesn't, that's wrong, the bank only takes a hit for genuine fraud cases.

Banks can only claw back from the merchants bank if there are funds available to get.

Im afraid you are incorrect Bris. It happens every day in the world of chargebacks.

Terry_Towelling

bris wrote: »

No it doesn't, that's wrong, the bank only takes a hit for genuine fraud cases.

Banks can only claw back from the merchants bank if there are funds available to get.

On behalf of all those who have worked in Chargebacks (and those that still do), let's try and get things straight. The cardholder contacts their card issuer with a dispute. If there is a Chargeback right (which there will be for almost all TC disputes) the issuer sends the debt back to the retailer's acquirer and credits the cardholder's account.

The retailer's acquirer then has a loss to deal with. If they can recover it from the retailer's bank account, they will do so in accordance with their contract with that retailer. If the retailer is insolvent, the acquirer will either have to absorb the loss or wait in line for a pay-out from the liquidator.

born_again

bris wrote: »

Chargeback won't work because all the bank accounts will be frozen now.

If you are going to post something. At least make it right.

The fact that they are no longer trading makes no difference to a customer getting a refund.

bris wrote: »

No it doesn't, that's wrong, the bank only takes a hit for genuine fraud cases.

Oh dear another error.
Bank claims money back from retailer in fraud cases...

18cc

So I think my question has been answered - if the retailer is solvent then obviously they take the hit on a chargeback, if the retailer is insolvent as in the case of Thomas Cook then the bank takes the hit