Barclaycard not refunding thomas cook payment

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

I previously suggested a reason why it may be possible to knock back a S75 claim where ATOL protection (or other Bond arrangements) apply, and that is a customer claiming breach of contract is required to mitigate their losses when making such a claim. A Bond payment is one way in which the customer can mitigate their losses and so the card issuer should be within their rights to refuse the claim..

I agree with this but as yet our legal team don’t :cool:

born_again

eco_warrior wrote: »

Our legal and Section 75 teams are currently debating this one. Legal say we cannot knock back customers who would rather come to us than ATOL.

They might come up with an answer to it at some point but not as yet. However less than 10 customers have insisted from 8000.

So a legal team have not sussed that these customers could end up with 2 refunds..... :rotfl:

Would be interesting to get FOS opinion on this, given that their is already a refund process via retailer ins (for want of a better description).

eco_warrior

born_again wrote: »

So a legal team have not sussed that these customers could end up with 2 refunds..... :rotfl:

Would be interesting to get FOS opinion on this, given that their is already a refund process via retailer ins (for want of a better description).

We couldn’t get FOS to commit, so ahead of you on that one.

And yes, the dual claiming is one of the main issues. If we seek evidence that there is no ATOL claim (or will be) then I don’t see how this can be achieved. The customer would be as well just claiming. I’ve suggested this is a clear route to fraudulent claims....

I have to think this stance will change. Lawyers and section 75 don’t seem to go well, least in my experience

Terry_Towelling

eco_warrior wrote: »

We couldn’t get FOS to commit, so ahead of you on that one.

And yes, the dual claiming is one of the main issues. If we seek evidence that there is no ATOL claim (or will be) then I don’t see how this can be achieved. The customer would be as well just claiming. I’ve suggested this is a clear route to fraudulent claims....

I have to think this stance will change. Lawyers and section 75 don’t seem to go well, least in my experience

Not that it necessarily stops fraudulent claims but when paying out under S75, does your bank (and that of @born again) get cardholders to sign a legal document (known as a Letter of Assignment) that assigns all rights over that debt to your card issuing bank? That document should also highlight exactly what it would mean should the cardholder attempt to exercise any further rights over that debt (which is no longer theirs) such as submit a claim to a Bonding Authority.

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Not that it necessarily stops fraudulent claims but when paying out under S75, does your bank (and that of @born again) get cardholders to sign a legal document (known as a Letter of Assignment) that assigns all rights over that debt to your card issuing bank? That document should also highlight exactly what it would mean should the cardholder attempt to exercise any further rights over that debt (which is no longer theirs) such as submit a claim to a Bonding Authority.

Customers sign a settlement document but I’m not sure this is mentioned, it may well be.

Unsure that would even stop someone tbh.

The noise we are getting from customers insisting on s75 seems to be based on timeframes, they feel that it’s quicker to claim via us, although it’s not based on anything other than what they think/hope.

Happy to update this thread if/when the stance changes.

born_again

eco_warrior wrote: »

The noise we are getting from customers insisting on s75 seems to be based on timeframes, they feel that it’s quicker to claim via us, although it’s not based on anything other than what they think/hope.

Happy to update this thread if/when the stance changes.

I know that feeling. Trying to explain that you can do a chargeback now and refund the customer the money now, but that retailer could reject in 45 days.
Or if they want to go down the S75 route then it can take up to 6 months to sort, due to the number of outstanding cases.
Yet they still say S75...

My feeling is that people do not fully understand the various options to claim money back. Due to in some part to sites (such as this, not the forum where there is plenty of good advice from people in the know. Even though we are risking a lot by doing this...) where they promote S75 over the other options as it is a Legal right.

eco_warrior

born_again wrote: »

I know that feeling. Trying to explain that you can do a chargeback now and refund the customer the money now, but that retailer could reject in 45 days.
Or if they want to go down the S75 route then it can take up to 6 months to sort, due to the number of outstanding cases.
Yet they still say S75...

My feeling is that people do not fully understand the various options to claim money back. Due to in some part to sites (such as this, not the forum where there is plenty of good advice from people in the know. Even though we are risking a lot by doing this...) where they promote S75 over the other options as it is a Legal right.

We had one customer state a section 75 only takes 5 mins

Terry_Towelling

born_again wrote: »

I know that feeling. Trying to explain that you can do a chargeback now and refund the customer the money now, but that retailer could reject in 45 days.
Or if they want to go down the S75 route then it can take up to 6 months to sort, due to the number of outstanding cases.
Yet they still say S75...

My feeling is that people do not fully understand the various options to claim money back. Due to in some part to sites (such as this, not the forum where there is plenty of good advice from people in the know. Even though we are risking a lot by doing this...) where they promote S75 over the other options as it is a Legal right.

Why not take the case for review under S75 and raise a Chargeback but don't credit the account up-front. If the Chargeback works, you can give them a more definite picture within 45 days and credit them then. In most cases you will know whether the Chargeback is going to stick anyway. If it doesn't stick, you just carry on with the S75 assessment. If that is not agreed, just tell the customer. If it is agreed, you will be writing it off anyway if the Chargeback has failed.

Going down the S75 route when there is a Chargeback right could leave you out of time if you're not careful and doing things in tandem. In any event, it's got nothing to do with the customer how you choose to cover any losses. If you have the evidence for a Chargeback, just do it. What you tell the customer about their claim is that you're looking into it and will update them asap. What do you have to lose?

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Why not take the case for review under S75 and raise a Chargeback but don't credit the account up-front. If the Chargeback works, you can give them a more definite picture within 45 days and credit them then. In most cases you will know whether the Chargeback is going to stick anyway. If it doesn't stick, you just carry on with the S75 assessment. If that is not agreed, just tell the customer. If it is agreed, you will be writing it off anyway if the Chargeback has failed.

Going down the S75 route when there is a Chargeback right could leave you out of time if you're not careful and doing things in tandem. In any event, it's got nothing to do with the customer how you choose to cover any losses. If you have the evidence for a Chargeback, just do it. What you tell the customer about their claim is that you're looking into it and will update them asap. What do you have to lose?

We need to get permission to share customer data with the merchant bank and merchant so we can’t process chargebacks on the fly, so to speak.

Other banks may differ

Terry_Towelling

eco_warrior wrote: »

We need to get permission to share customer data with the merchant bank and merchant so we can’t process chargebacks on the fly, so to speak.

Other banks may differ

Understood, but easily resolved. You obviously need to get the customer to sign something up-front for a S75 claim; that could easily include the permission you require to pass information.

On the subject of passing customer information, the retailer will (in most instances) already know the information you are passing. Granted, the Acquirer may not know it all, and your legal bods may think that is an issue. So, does this then mean that you won't process any Chargebacks (that require supporting documentation) without express written consent from the customer?

If a customer wrote to you with all the information you needed to make a Chargeback, would you routinely write back to them to get consent to proceed with said Chargeback?

I am assuming this issue only presents itself when raising customer-driven Chargebacks. Presumably, if you were raising a 'contravention' Chargeback to help recover a bad debt where the customer has 'done a runner', you would not need any express consent (because you'd certainly not get it).

Just interested to know how things work in your bank - that's all.