Chargeback Reversal

eskbanker

monkeyt said:

jonesMUFCforever said:

Life Goes On - why S75?
The insurer is claiming damage to the car so this is a dispute -IMO S75 does not come into it.
The OP should continue with his complaint and if necessary go to the ombudsman. It would cost £550 to go to a full decision with the ombudsman or it will cost them £556 to settle without prejudice. So they will settle in the end as it will cost them either way - unless of course the hire company come up with proof of the damage to the car. 

I´d like to follow up and fully understand what is said here... If it's going to cost them 550£ as a minimum (and even more if they lose, as I assume the costs will be the same plus the amount they have to give me back) that it would be in their interests to just settle it outright before it even gets to the FOS. I just want to be sure that you mean that if it goes to FOS then they incur fees whatever the end decision, is it a fixed 550, is that for legal fees or what? 
Cheers all!! 

Personally I wouldn't try to play the FOS case fee card - the fact that there is a case fee for cases accepted for investigation doesn't mean that it's as simple as using the £550 figure to try to negotiate with institutions or they'd always have to roll over for disputes below that number, and they clearly don't.

There are certainly some posters on here who assert that it's productive to go down the mildly threatening route ("if you don't pay my claim I'll take you to FOS and it'll cost you £550") but in the context of the fully-loaded costs of running customer service teams, that figure isn't as intimidating as many suppose it to be....

monkeyt

After reading some comments about extras being charged by hire car companies, I thought I´d dig out my original Budget paperwork from when I booked the car. I´ve just found the original which I had to take to pick up the car, it confirms that I had the "Premium Paket" (fully inclusive no excess insurance). It also confirms I paid in full with Cardelmar. Interestingly, it does go on to confirm that there are a few items that are "not included and can be charged locally", these are the following and copied directly from the contract which has a Budget Logo at the top:

-------------
Winter chains for tires: 32.31 CHF per rental.
Fuel: Take the vehicle with full and return with full..
Pick-up or return outside office hours: There may be extra fees for collection and/or drop off outside the office's normal opening hours. The fees come to 53.85 CHF
Additional driver: 18.09 CHF per day, Invoicing Maximum 180.94 CHF rental days.
Additional personal accident insurance (PAI), covering the assistance, repatriation and medical expenses of the transported persons.: 6.95 CHF per day. 

--------------

1) I did not require winter chains, it was May.
2) I returned the car with a full tank of fuel.
3) I did not go outside of office hours.
4) I had no additional driver, I was travelling alone.
5) I did not want PAI but even if I did that would have only been 6.95 x 7, 48.65CHF 40£+/-), if they were charging me that then I wouldn´t be so annoyed.

I just can´t see how they have ever come up with such a massive number of 556£ (670CHF) - Aqua clearly agreed with me initially which is why they refunded the money to my account, it´s totally not acceptable for them to reverse this on me, they´ve been given all this evidence when I initially made the claim.

Rhubarb_Shed

Have you tried to view your invoice on Budget's UK website?

I've just looked at mine from July last year, car booked through BA and hired in Italy.  It is under 'Manage Booking' then 'Retrieve your rental invoice'. 

monkeyt

Rhubarb_Shed said:

Have you tried to view your invoice on Budget's UK website?

I've just looked at mine from July last year, car booked through BA and hired in Italy.  It is under 'Manage Booking' then 'Retrieve your rental invoice'. 

Thanks for that. Just tried it and it comes with a message that there´s nothing found. Was worth a shot, cheers!

born_again

monkeyt said:

jonesMUFCforever said:

Life Goes On - why S75?
The insurer is claiming damage to the car so this is a dispute -IMO S75 does not come into it.
The OP should continue with his complaint and if necessary go to the ombudsman. It would cost £550 to go to a full decision with the ombudsman or it will cost them £556 to settle without prejudice. So they will settle in the end as it will cost them either way - unless of course the hire company come up with proof of the damage to the car. 

I´d like to follow up and fully understand what is said here... If it's going to cost them 550£ as a minimum (and even more if they lose, as I assume the costs will be the same plus the amount they have to give me back) that it would be in their interests to just settle it outright before it even gets to the FOS. I just want to be sure that you mean that if it goes to FOS then they incur fees whatever the end decision, is it a fixed 550, is that for legal fees or what? 
Cheers all!! 

FOS fee is fixed ( and no it can be passed to you if you lose). There is no legal side to it. FOS look at the evidence from the bank & you. Then make a decision. Remember if the bank has done anything wrong procedural wise. Its a shoe in win.

Streaky_Bacon

monkeyt said:

I just can´t see how they have ever come up with such a massive number of 556£ (670CHF) - Aqua clearly agreed with me initially which is why they refunded the money to my account, it´s totally not acceptable for them to reverse this on me, they´ve been given all this evidence when I initially made the claim.

I wouldn't spend too much time trying to figure this out, because frankly you can't until you are provided with the reasoning for the charge and chargeback reversal, just escalate the chargeback to the FOS and start the s75 claim.

If the merchant has provided a strong case and evidence for a reversal, then in may have been OK for Aqua to reverse it, but if that has happened then Aqua should have provided you with the reasons and the evidence.

Just proceed with the FOS and the s75 claim, and then sit back and wait to see whether Aqua have an answer.

monkeyt

Thanks to everyone for contributing. I´m clearer now and feel a bit more at ease, time will tell and I hope they give me my money back. 

monkeyt

AQUA have now sent me a final reply. After a few letters saying "we´re sorry we are taking longer than expected to resolve this" they have sent final clarification that they are not going to give me my money back because they say "the merchant argued the chargeback".

To be frank, I do not understand - I thought in an S75 the credit card company has an equal liability with the customer... If this is the case why are Aqua card not equally liable in this dispute?
Secondly, why are Aqua even bothered about it, surely it is no skin off their nose if they charge it back to the Merchant, the Merchant loses, not Aqua?

One other thing is that Aqua say they sent me a letter in August 2019 stating that the Merchant had argued the chargeback but I did not ever receive anything from Aqua until well after my initial complaint which was January 9th 2020.

I´m not sure what to do now, I guess I need to take the complaint to the FOS but I want to be 100% sure I put forward the case in the best way to gain a positive response. 

eskbanker

monkeyt said:

AQUA have now sent me a final reply. After a few letters saying "we´re sorry we are taking longer than expected to resolve this" they have sent final clarification that they are not going to give me my money back because they say "the merchant argued the chargeback".

To be frank, I do not understand - I thought in an S75 the credit card company has an equal liability with the customer... If this is the case why are Aqua card not equally liable in this dispute?

As evidenced by Aqua's responses, they processed it as a chargeback, rather than a section 75 claim - they are different processes, as explained at https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/visa-mastercard-chargeback/.  Section 75 claims are unlikely to succeed where there's a fourth party involved, as well as the debtor (you), creditor (Aqua) and supplier (Budget), so that's unlikely to be an option for you if you paid and contracted with Cardelmar.

monkeyt said:

Secondly, why are Aqua even bothered about it, surely it is no skin off their nose if they charge it back to the Merchant, the Merchant loses, not Aqua?

That's the point though, under chargeback the merchant loses unless they dispute it, as they have here.  You should push Aqua for details of why the merchant challenged the chargeback, as there apparently hasn't been any explanation for the charge provided to you by either party....

born_again

monkeyt said:

AQUA have now sent me a final reply. After a few letters saying "we´re sorry we are taking longer than expected to resolve this" they have sent final clarification that they are not going to give me my money back because they say "the merchant argued the chargeback".

To be frank, I do not understand - I thought in an S75 the credit card company has an equal liability with the customer... If this is the case why are Aqua card not equally liable in this dispute?
Secondly, why are Aqua even bothered about it, surely it is no skin off their nose if they charge it back to the Merchant, the Merchant loses, not Aqua?

One other thing is that Aqua say they sent me a letter in August 2019 stating that the Merchant had argued the chargeback but I did not ever receive anything from Aqua until well after my initial complaint which was January 9th 2020.

I´m not sure what to do now, I guess I need to take the complaint to the FOS but I want to be 100% sure I put forward the case in the best way to gain a positive response. 

Chargeback & S75 are totally different.

Chargeback relies on card provider (Visa, Mastercard & Amex) regulations.
S75 is a legal right. On breech of contract or Misrepresentation.
If the Hire co have argued under their T/C that it was a legitimate charge then there is no breech of contract or Misrepresentation, as far as Aqua go.

If you go to FOS then Aqua will provide all the info they received. All you need to do is state your case.

I will say car hire is a nightmare to do anything on as they have pretty much everything covered in their T/C that you have to sign.