Is this a new type of Fraud?

Jonesy53

born_again said:

So the debit on your card says "TRANSFER SERVICE"?
Not a company name?
If you use Paypal to make a payment, then they are a transfer service. As such they are not responsible for delivery of the item. 

While you may not have known a company uses such a company, the fact they have means S75 is out as no debtor creditor link.

You card co need to use the non receipt dispute, to see if they will either accept of reject the claim but I have to warn that the transfer co can reject as they have done as asked and moved the money from you to the retailer.
PayPal are good with these now, they refund and then chase the company for the funds. But I guess we are looking at a Chinese co that has taken the funds.
Which is why I asked what your statement said.

The statement did say the name of the Transfer Service - I'm just trying to keep it a bit more generic.
The refund over £100 seems to be a waste of time, as using a Transfer Service provider means that everyone washes their hands of the problem and there is no guarantee.

born_again

Forget that you have a "Guarantee" for payments of over £100. There is no such thing on a credit card. Only S75 which covers Breech of contract & misrepresentation.
Given the payment was to a 3rd party money movement company. Then there is neither as they did what was asked and moved the money.
Being generic, does not help, as I may have had dealing with the company and know how they act.

Hence why CC needs to pursue the non receipt chargeback and see what happens. Other than that there is no other option.

Migster

What I'm not clear on is whether the OP somehow entered their card details into the transfer service site without realising or if the merchant used their website to capture the card details and then re-entered these into the transfer service site. If the latter then wouldn't this be a straightforward unauthorised transaction that could be charged back? 

FinanceFerret

Take it as a lesson that when something, especially electronic goods, is £160 at the lowest on every reputable site, then some fly by night website offers it for £100 plus shipping (from China?) via some sketchy transfer service, it's probably not genuine - or were you just hoping customs wouldn't charge the tax?.  Either way, not good.  Your credit card company aren't liable as the payment you made was to a transfer service and the funds seem to have been transferred, there's no direct relationship between the card company and the phone. You may be able to get a goodwill payment from the transfer service but don't hold your breath and take it as a lesson learnt.

born_again

Migster said:

What I'm not clear on is whether the OP somehow entered their card details into the transfer service site without realising or if the merchant used their website to capture the card details and then re-entered these into the transfer service site. If the latter then wouldn't this be a straightforward unauthorised transaction that could be charged back? 

There is no such thing as a "Unauthorised" Chargeback
Visa even got rid on Unrecognised as they were rejected so often. And abused by people who "Forgot" they had made a transaction.

Migster

born_again said:
There is no such thing as a "Unauthorised" Chargeback

Visa even got rid on Unrecognised as they were rejected so often. And abused by people who "Forgot" they had made a transaction.

In fairness, I said unauthorised transaction, not chargeback.

If I see a transaction appear on my account that I haven't made, is referring to it as "unauthorised " not acceptable? What is the correct terminology? 

born_again

If you have not made it then it is "Fraud".
But in the OP's case the retailer appears to use a 3rd party money movement co like Paypal. So in that case it is a known transaction.
If treated as fraud. The co could reject with customers details and then customer would be redebited.

[Deleted User]

Perhaps I'm missing something but why would it be chargeback for non-receipt of goods?
It would appear that the money transfer transaction wasn't authorised. 

It sounds like the fake tablet company just used the card details on another website - therefore I'm struggling to see why the OP would be expected to make contact as they never ordered anything or had any prior contact with the 'money' website.

born_again

dahj said:

Perhaps I'm missing something but why would it be chargeback for non-receipt of goods?
It would appear that the money transfer transaction wasn't authorised. 

It sounds like the fake tablet company just used the card details on another website - therefore I'm struggling to see why the OP would be expected to make contact as they never ordered anything or had any prior contact with the 'money' website.

Think of it using a retailer that uses paypal to take the payment. That is what has happened.

OP ordered something that has not turned up. Ergo Non-Receipt
The fact the debit is showing as a money movement co is in some ways a red herring as OP knows they spent that amount. So in many ways how it shows on a statement is not the issue. There are many companies debit under different names. 
As I said previously. The only problem with a MM co is that all they are tasked with is moving the money. As such they have done what was asked, so could reject the chargeback.
A example is this is scenario is often used by sites that sell fake goods. The debit shows the MM co they use and not the expected retailer name, not that it would ever be the name the customer expected anyway. The vast majority that a non receipt are actioned on are paid out.
Paypal are good, they allow the chargeback and chase the retailer for the money.

As I said before there is no "Not authorised or Unauthorised" right to claim funds back. That has to be fraud, and when it is known that the person has purchased something. Then it can not be fraud, in the eyes of the banks.