S75 rejected after falling victim to scam website

Toffee11 · 28 June 2021 at 7:07AM

Dear Forum
I was scammed by Treadmillsdirect website which looked genuine to me. I spent £512.99 on their website which looked genuine to me I even had an online chat with someone I thought was a customer services rep. I received an order confirmation but no delivery came. I chased the order but received no reply. I contacted the helpline which did not work. I reported the fraud to Santander and was sent a chargeback form. I completed it but it was rejected. I then sent a s75 letter based on the Which template. This was rejected on basis the transaction on my account was in the name of Rapyd. Debtor Creditor Supply chain was broken they say.

When I entered the transaction I had not knowingly made a contract with anyone other than Treadmills Direct.
Looking up comments on Trustpilot the warnings from other consumers only started on the day of my transaction which explain why I was not forewarned.
As a victim of online fraud, am I not protected by using my credit card?
Is it common for scammers to use different names on the face of their website to the name on the transaction and so therefore most victims of this type of fraud are left unprotected?
Another person on Trustpilot says their bank refunded their claim. Can I use that to say I have been treated unfairly?

They have passed my claim to their Mastercard charge back dept, which makes no sense as they have already rejected a chargeback.

I am writing a letter of complaint to Santander does anyone have examples of similar cases where claims have been refunded?
Many thanks everyone.

[Deleted User] · 28 June 2021 at 7:27AM

That certainly is a wonderfully shonky-looking site, full of Google-translated copy. I particularly like the bit about the companies they work with. "We name these leading companies that turn to it when they need weird projects completed on time."

Anyway - the chargeback should go through ok. Odd that they would have rejected it the first time, unless you were beyond the time limit.

pbartlett · 28 June 2021 at 7:28AM

What an awful experience. I am surprised though that the chargeback was rejected, since non-receipt of goods is a valid reason to get one.

You are doing the right thing in complaining to Santander credit card dept. Keep it simple - don't go into lots of details - you ordered this online and did not get it.

If Santander find against you (or if they just don't reply) then you can escalate to the FOS.

Regarding the debtor-creditor link. This sounds wrong to me as presumably you just ordered on their website and cannot as a consumer be expected to know who the payment processor is. However, there are some much more knowledgeable people on this board than m who will be happy to help you.

Toffee11 · 28 June 2021 at 8:16AM

Deleted_User said:

That certainly is a wonderfully shonky-looking site, full of Google-translated copy. I particularly like the bit about the companies they work with. "We name these leading companies that turn to it when they need weird projects completed on time."

Anyway - the chargeback should go through ok. Odd that they would have rejected it the first time, unless you were beyond the time limit.

Hi Thanks. The chargeback was a couple of weeks after the transaction so well within the period. I'll try again. Sadly I'm not an IT buff so I did not spot the text. It was a Google lead from shopping search too. Its a learning curve for sure. Best Wishes. T

Sandtree · 28 June 2021 at 9:27AM

Toffee11 said:

This was rejected on basis the transaction on my account was in the name of Rapyd. Debtor Creditor Supply chain was broken they say.

Do you actually know the details of the legal entity you transacted with? The website is silent on this matter and treadmillsdirect.uk is a domain name not a legal entity. Plenty of companies have websites that have a materially different name to the legal entity that contracts.

How does the transaction show on your card statement in terms of the name of the merchant?

Its_not_paranoia · 28 June 2021 at 9:39AM

Agree that you should be able to get this back through chargeback. Keep on complaining and escalating at Santander, and either end up with it approved, with a deadlock letter or keep on at them until you can go to the FOS.

The FOS would be highly likely to direct them to approve the chargeback (and give you a little sweetener for having to chase them) as the goods haven't been received.

Rapyd appears to be a third party payment processor, rather than the retailer. It's a grey area in S75 whether a 3rd party processor breaks the link, when the payment processor is unknown to the customer. Either way, you shouldn't need to worry about S75 and instead push for it as a chargeback, and take that to the FOS if necessary.

eskbanker · 28 June 2021 at 9:45AM

I'd reiterate the advice in an earlier post about keeping it simple, i.e. just stick to the facts about paying for something and not receiving it. All the emotive stuff about being a 'victim' and alleging 'fraud' or a 'scam' adds nothing to the process of securing a chargeback refund from your card provider....

born_again · 28 June 2021 at 11:43AM

Not fraud, as that is when a unknown 3rd party uses your card. Not when you enter your details.
There is only one chance to make a chargeback, so you can not go back and ask for them to do it again.
S75 they must use a 3rd party payment co.

What reason was the chargeback rejected on?

Looking at the site... Mobile phone number that quotes +44 why, if they are a UK company not need to add +44.
74

>>> Treadmills Direct has evolved from a single man working in an old cattle shed full of exercise equipment to a team of 40 workers, in two warehouses over 70,000 sq. M. Ft. We are now one of the leading UK companies in the fitness industry and offer new equipment related to major products to customers in the UK.<<<
Yet does not have a office?

Sandtree · 28 June 2021 at 11:59AM

Its_not_paranoia said:

Rapyd appears to be a third party payment processor, rather than the retailer. It's a grey area in S75 whether a 3rd party processor breaks the link, when the payment processor is unknown to the customer. Either way, you shouldn't need to worry about S75 and instead push for it as a chargeback, and take that to the FOS if necessary.

However the website states that it uses Worldpay, though for me going through their site there was actually no way to pay.

The FOS at the moment seem to be ruling the likes of iZettle don't break the supply chain its only services like PayPal when you log in to make the payment that do.

Would still be good to know what's showing on the card statement as if it is an intermediary processor you'd expect it to have both the processors and sellers name there.

eskbanker · 28 June 2021 at 12:07PM

born_again said:

Not fraud, as that is when a unknown 3rd party uses your card. Not when you enter your details.

Fraud takes many forms - you're highlighting one but there are plenty of others to choose from, one of which could indeed be scammers setting up a fake online shopfront with the sole intention of obtaining money by deception!

My point was that OP should stick to facts though, rather than supposition about the details of what actually may or may not have happened, so whether or not it's actually fraud is neither here nor there - it's just 'goods not received' as far as the chargeback claim is concerned....