Charged £300 due to 'system error'. How long is reasonable to wait?

arthurfowler

born_again said:

DiddyDavies said:

born_again said:

There is no chargeback for "unauthorised transaction"

What about these?

Barclaycard:

V83 Fraud – ‘card absent’ environment – the cardholder denies participating in or authorising the transaction that was undertaken in a ‘card absent’ environment.

Mastercard:

 Reason Code 4837 UK—No Cardholder Authorisation

V83 is based on Fraud. Not "unauthorised transaction"
4837 is where the retailer has not gone for Authorisation.

But feel free to go to your card provider and say I want a "unauthorised transaction chargeback" and see what they say.
I know the answer the customer will get from me. 

May seem pedantic, and just a play words. But asking the wrong thing can mean front line will just say no.

Shame the OP stopped the fraud case as that would have seen the refund the same day as reporting and the bank claiming the money back from Samsung.
But I get why they did, as it was not really fraud in the true sense, that banks deal with fraud (unknown 3rd party using the card).
Just a shame the retailer is dragging their feet on refunding. Perhaps chase them up asking why it is taking so long and that it is now costing you interest & will they pay that?

@jon81uk This covers your question as well.

Yeah I am annoyed with myself for cancelling the fraud case, but as you say, it's not technically fraud, and did think Samsung would refund me within a day or two. 

jon81uk

born_again said:

DiddyDavies said:

born_again said:

There is no chargeback for "unauthorised transaction"

What about these?

Barclaycard:

V83 Fraud – ‘card absent’ environment – the cardholder denies participating in or authorising the transaction that was undertaken in a ‘card absent’ environment.

Mastercard:

 Reason Code 4837 UK—No Cardholder Authorisation

Shame the OP stopped the fraud case as that would have seen the refund the same day as reporting and the bank claiming the money back from Samsung.
But I get why they did, as it was not really fraud in the true sense, that banks deal with fraud (unknown 3rd party using the card).
Just a shame the retailer is dragging their feet on refunding. Perhaps chase them up asking why it is taking so long and that it is now costing you interest & will they pay that?

@jon81uk This covers your question as well.

So yes as you say they would have been better off leaving it as unauthorised use of the card and letting the bank deal with it. By calling up and telling the bank to stop the OP made things worse for themselves.

DiddyDavies

born_again said:

V83 is based on Fraud. Not "unauthorised transaction"
4837 is where the retailer has not gone for Authorisation.

If that is the case, why do both reason codes clearly state:

the cardholder denies participating in or authorising the transaction

&

No Cardholder Authorisation

And I don't see that this could be any clearer:

Proper Use of Intra-European Message Reason Code 4837
This message reason code applies only to Non–PIN-based transactions.
The issuer is informed of a cardholder dispute such as the cardholder states that he or she has neither participated in nor authorized a transaction. The issuer receives a cardholder dispute letter, stating that the cardholder has neither participated in nor authorized a transaction. Issuers may charge back:

arthurfowler

I have been told to wait another 48 hours for an update. If after that, it's not actioned I will try calling my card provider and see what they say and if they can help. 

Seems maybe there is a loophole somewhere if there is no protection against this kind of thing happening. 

born_again

DiddyDavies said:

born_again said:

V83 is based on Fraud. Not "unauthorised transaction"
4837 is where the retailer has not gone for Authorisation.

If that is the case, why do both reason codes clearly state:

the cardholder denies participating in or authorising the transaction

&

No Cardholder Authorisation

And I don't see that this could be any clearer:

Proper Use of Intra-European Message Reason Code 4837
This message reason code applies only to Non–PIN-based transactions.
The issuer is informed of a cardholder dispute such as the cardholder states that he or she has neither participated in nor authorized a transaction. The issuer receives a cardholder dispute letter, stating that the cardholder has neither participated in nor authorized a transaction. Issuers may charge back:

As I said. Ask your card provider for a "Unauthorised Chargeback" neither Visa or Mastercard have one.
It's just a play on words.
I get what you are getting at.

DiddyDavies

born_again said:

As I said. Ask your card provider for a "Unauthorised Chargeback" neither Visa or Mastercard have one.
It's just a play on words.
I get what you are getting at.

So you keep saying (but failing to provide anything to back up what you are saying).
What is ambiguous or a "play on words" about the following statement?

The issuer receives a cardholder dispute letter, stating that the cardholder has neither participated in nor authorized a transaction. Issuers may charge back:

It's there is black and white on the Mastercard website. If the cardholder reports an unauthorised transaction, a chargeback can be issued and I've already shown that there are reason codes for chargebacks for unauthorised transactions.

Fine, you don't agree so why not prove me wrong instead of simply stating that I'm wrong?

Were_Doomed

born_again said:

DiddyDavies said:

born_again said:

V83 is based on Fraud. Not "unauthorised transaction"
4837 is where the retailer has not gone for Authorisation.

If that is the case, why do both reason codes clearly state:

the cardholder denies participating in or authorising the transaction

&

No Cardholder Authorisation

And I don't see that this could be any clearer:

Proper Use of Intra-European Message Reason Code 4837
This message reason code applies only to Non–PIN-based transactions.
The issuer is informed of a cardholder dispute such as the cardholder states that he or she has neither participated in nor authorized a transaction. The issuer receives a cardholder dispute letter, stating that the cardholder has neither participated in nor authorized a transaction. Issuers may charge back:

As I said. Ask your card provider for a "Unauthorised Chargeback" neither Visa or Mastercard have one.
It's just a play on words.
I get what you are getting at.

But you wouldn't ask for that - you'd ask for a chargeback for an unauthorised transaction. (Others can use a play on words too)  

Edit: or is that what you were getting at? (The lack of smileys/emoticons makes the written word harder to gauge as to mood and intention).  

Supersonos

arthurfowler said:

Supersonos said:

I would say 28 days is a reasonable amount of time to wait.  For companies as large as Samsung I can imagine it can take a long time for this sort of stuff to work through the system.

I would argue that's not reasonable. 

Well it's not me you're going to have to argue with, it's Samsung.  How's that going, by the way?

born_again

DiddyDavies said:

Fine, you don't agree so why not prove me wrong instead of simply stating that I'm wrong?

Think what you like.

I only do this for a living.