S75 rejected after falling victim to scam website

Sandtree

but the .uk version is still up (ie without the .co)

Toffee11

born_again said:

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? 

Hello, I was given this response...your dispute does not meet the criteria needed for us to ask for a refund from the retailer. No further details. I've been suffering insomnia hence the attempt to buy a treadmill to help myself feel better. I thought the London address was an office. I guess websites like that rely on people being tired. I'll complete the forms they have sent and follow the advice on this forum. 

Shakin_Steve

74 Kensington Park Road is the return address....it's just a (very big) house.

Sandtree

Toffee11 said:
your dispute does not meet the criteria needed for us to ask for a refund from the retailer 

An educated guess is therefore was that it hasnt been delayed enough for them to consider it lost/no intent to supply

born_again

Toffee11 said:

born_again said:

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? 

Hello, I was given this response...your dispute does not meet the criteria needed for us to ask for a refund from the retailer. No further details. I've been suffering insomnia hence the attempt to buy a treadmill to help myself feel better. I thought the London address was an office. I guess websites like that rely on people being tired. I'll complete the forms they have sent and follow the advice on this forum. 

Do not get it. I take it you waited 15 days from the date of your debit on the statement. If so you have a valid chargeback for non receipt. 
So thankfully they had not started one. So the option is still there.

Go back ( I would ring up) and simply say.  "I have not received goods from this (debit name) purchase" I have tried to resolve & they are not assisting. Please start a Non receipt chargeback. If they say no, then you need to raise a complaint.

This is as straightforward case as there is.

born_again

eskbanker said:

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....

Fraud as far as card usage is as I said. Where a unknown 3rd party has used your card. (this is the banks stance)
We hear it's fraud all the time with these types of transactions. This is a simple dispute. I can't see why it has not been taken forward. But we are not party to just what was said or on the form sent in.
As you say keep it to the simple facts.
Goods ordered, not arrived. Anything else is only going to confuse the issue.

Sandtree

born_again said:
Fraud as far as card usage is as I said. Where a unknown 3rd party has used your card. (this is the banks stance)

We hear it's fraud all the time with these types of transactions. This is a simple dispute. 

When a customer gets a new credit card, runs it up to the limit and never makes a single payment towards it... you don't count that as fraud? On our side of the Financial Service's world we'd be classifying it as fraud and loading it to CIFAS as no intent to pay.

If the vendor never had any intention to send the goods then its fraud... same when "your bank" calls you and says to move the money into a "safe account" as some hackers are trying to withdraw your money. You may put them under a different classification and not bother the counter fraud team about it but that doesn't stop it being fraud.

As someone working in a call centre its clearly impossible to know if it really is fraud or if the goods are being shipped but just taking longer and so a dispute. It probably makes no difference in the process and so not worth being drawn into the debate with the customer.

Toffee11

Sandtree said:

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.

Hi, It says on the statement  PURCHASE DOMESTIC London Rapyd . The S75 departent list it as (under company name) Rapyd and (location is) London on their response to my claim. 

born_again

Sandtree said:

born_again said:
Fraud as far as card usage is as I said. Where a unknown 3rd party has used your card. (this is the banks stance)

We hear it's fraud all the time with these types of transactions. This is a simple dispute. 

When a customer gets a new credit card, runs it up to the limit and never makes a single payment towards it... you don't count that as fraud? On our side of the Financial Service's world we'd be classifying it as fraud and loading it to CIFAS as no intent to pay.

If the vendor never had any intention to send the goods then its fraud... same when "your bank" calls you and says to move the money into a "safe account" as some hackers are trying to withdraw your money. You may put them under a different classification and not bother the counter fraud team about it but that doesn't stop it being fraud.

As someone working in a call centre its clearly impossible to know if it really is fraud or if the goods are being shipped but just taking longer and so a dispute. It probably makes no difference in the process and so not worth being drawn into the debate with the customer.

I'm talking about straight forward "Card Fraud" like the OP's case. People call and say it's fraud. Well as far as card fraud goes it is not, as the OP had entered their details. 
It is a dispute where the card holder is involved.


It makes a massive difference to the process how it is treated.
Yes you can argue it's a fraud company, but that is not how the card providers view it. If it was reported as fraud, the retailer simply provides the OP's details and case is lost. Dispute as non receipt & they have to prove delivery to win.

Gets quite pedantic at times, with the play on words 
👍