La maison De Sacs

JKH1

esk thanks for your insight. I do not agree with everything that you say but thanks for your thoughts anyway

born_again

JKH1 said:

eskbanker  Exactly. I thought I had a watertight case The main reason was that I had paid but not received the goods but as they wanted evidence I sent them the email string between me & the supplier. I thought that it would support my application if I gave them all the information I had.  I am in the process of changing banks. For the sake of £34 it is their loss but I fail to see why no authority will take any action. It is too easy to rob people of their money. banks could easily stop it

Banks are not there to police retailers. It is something I hear on a regular basis. I understand why people ask, but there are other parties who have the power to deal with these companies.
Visa/Mastercard will do this. If a retailer has too many chargebacks then they can lose the right to take their cards. Also their merchant bank will not be happy with the amount of work this causes. (hence why they may use a 3rd party money mover, but they will soon get fed up of them)
As eskbanker said, and I had previous said. This is a simple goods not received chargeback and there is no reason Nationwide should not have taken it forward. Yes there is a risk that it could have been rejected, but odd's on it would not have been given the amount.
Given how busy many dispute teams are at the moment it would have been a simple write off, due to the amount of work and costs of that.

JKH1

born_again I understand but it would be very simple for banks to stop payments in this day and age to known accounts that are fraudulent. I am sure that they already do this in certain circumstances. Clearly neither you or eskbanker work for Nationwide so cannot really pass comment on why they have refused the chargeback application. I expect that the covid situation has something to do with it ie lack of staff, people working from home & work load. At the end of the day your opinions do not matter to me & using emmotive language like 'petulant' only serves to get peoples backs up. This was a simple case of not receiving goods. I am still pursuing the case but thanks for your views anyhow 

born_again

The fact people are working from home has no effect on any ability to action chargebacks. We do it.. Yes we are super busy. But in order to assist the work load, we have increased the write off limit.
As I said banks do not police retailers. It is not in their remit. Security systems do stop fraudulent payments. But it will surprise you to know that the vast majority (over 90%) of them are to well known retailers who sell high value goods. Not companies such as the one you used.
As a aside on that, how would you have felt if the bank had declined that transaction? Given that you did not know what would have happened going forward.
There are also limits on the number of transactions that can be declined for security checks (and what you are suggesting is just that) FCA set these limits. 
I hope that you have complained as Nationwide's handling of this is inexcusable given they have to work to the Visa regulations. If you have I would fully expect their complaints team to just refund the £34, might even get a bit more for the inconvenience & stress it has caused😉 . As the cost of it going to FOS are many times more than that. 

Not sure who used "Petulant" but your actions are not in that class.
I wish you well.

eskbanker

born_again said:

Not sure who used "Petulant" but your actions are not in that class.

That was me, but only specifically in response to OP's risible comments about taking their banking business elsewhere, "they're history", "their loss", etc - I wonder if they see the irony in accusing me of using emotive language when describing a non-delivery as a 'fraudulent' company operating a 'scam' and people being 'robbed', leading to the shouty exhortation "DO NOT USE 'LA MAISON DE SACS'"!