Payment Dispute under Managed Payments

BelMalinois

A buyer has opened a dispute with their payment provider and it shows "The buyer did not recognise the transaction". They opened it only two days after ordering and before delivery. It was a £90 order and the tracking shows it was delivered the day after the dispute was opened (Royal Mail Tracked48). 

I was given two options, refund or dispute with the tracking number that had already been entered, so I chose the latter and it now shows as "We're preparing to send your dispute rebuttal to the buyer's payment institution. No action is needed from you at this time. We'll contact you if we need anything else."

The tracking number doesn't show the buyer's address although the Royal Mail DO matches their home town on the tracking page. No GPS data shows which it does sometimes. There is now no option to add any further evidence to the case but I can't remember if there was to begin with. I can still print out a copy of the mailing label which would show the buyer's details with the tracking number.

Does anyone know if this is sufficient to win this dispute as I know it's the buyer's card company that makes the decision? I know under paypal it would have been enough but they used managed payments.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/selling-policies/payment-dispute-seller-protections?id=5293

When a buyer opens a payment dispute because they didn't receive the item or they don't recognize the transaction, sellers will be asked to provide:

Evidence of successful delivery to the address provided by the buyer at checkout, or

Proof that the buyer collected the item
If eBay determines that the item was successfully delivered or collected:

We will not seek reimbursement from the seller for the disputed amount, even if the payment institution decides that the buyer is owed a refund; and

We will waive or refund the seller's dispute fee

Your tracking with Royal Mail should be sufficient for this, perhaps worth a call to eBay to clarify, I've had one which was closed pretty quickly after uploading the tracking (2D barcode ref from Royal Mail)  to the Payment Dispute Case and the case showed it was specifically covered by seller protection. 

BelMalinois

Thanks for reply. I went to ring them but just checked the case before doing so and it showed:

Amount you owe:

Nothing. You're covered by our seller protection

The buyer has received a refund. Since you're covered by Seller Protection, you don't have to pay anything back.

A lot easier than I thought it would be.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

BelMalinois said:

Thanks for reply. I went to ring them but just checked the case before doing so and it showed:

Amount you owe:

Nothing. You're covered by our seller protection

The buyer has received a refund. Since you're covered by Seller Protection, you don't have to pay anything back.

A lot easier than I thought it would be.

Nice result, thank you for posting back to let us know, it's always good to hear the outcome of these things  

GadgetGuru

Ive never understood this scenario.

The buyer opens a dispute with his/her CC company to say it was an unrecognized transaction. 
The tracking information shows it was delivered. 
So the buyer gets to keep the item, AND get their money back via the CC claim too??
How does that make sense??

TripleH

I had a PayPal case where buyer queried payment made through PayPal.

I sent the tracking details and a copy of the email from PayPal when I received payment. I heard nothing more on the case.

It is unfair in that an innocent seller could loose out because someone's account gets hacked, but the ethos seems to be the companies can take the hit forgetting that not everyone is a big company or dan afford to take a hit.

soolin

IftiBashir said:

Ive never understood this scenario.

The buyer opens a dispute with his/her CC company to say it was an unrecognized transaction. 
The tracking information shows it was delivered. 
So the buyer gets to keep the item, AND get their money back via the CC claim too??
How does that make sense??

Only if the credit card company believes there was fraud involved. If they have doubts about the buyers story they can ask buyer for additional information, and if they can prove the buyer was negligent they can refuse. Realistically though it is cheaper for credit card company to just settle, but perhaps watch the person more carefully, a scammer wouldn’t get away with this more than once. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

IftiBashir said:

Ive never understood this scenario.

The buyer opens a dispute with his/her CC company to say it was an unrecognized transaction. 
The tracking information shows it was delivered. 
So the buyer gets to keep the item, AND get their money back via the CC claim too??
How does that make sense??

As Soolin mentions it may come down to cost as to how far the bank or retailer will defend the claim.

Not all claims will be dishonest, some may not recognise the transaction or have for example their partner's card attached to the account and use this in error. 

I have been told by a couple of buyers over the years their card was used fraudulently and the bank had recalled all payments they'd made recently, how true that is I don't know. 

As far as I know eBay and Paypal aren't obligated to offer seller protection, the could just leave the seller with the bill, the chargeback fee they apply (£14 for Paypal or £16.40 for eBay) is a fraction of the charge from the bank so to some extent the big companies are offering something, out of competitiveness rather than kindness, but still something none-the-less.