Chase UK discussion

uk1

RG2015 said:

uk1 said:

RG2015 said:

uk1 said:

No problem, I’ll explain.

US corporations with a light UK presence struggle to understand UK consumer protection and chargebacks are not regulated they are discretional. 

JP Morgan have operated in the UK for over two centuries.

How many UK consumers have had Morgan accounts and cards. Amex are also American and are amongst the most cooperative to customers with respect to chargebacks and section 75.

 I am merely wondering about a situation with having a bank account without an associated credit  card and therefore without offering section 75 protection whether a lack of decent chargeback confidence might be a concern worth thinking about when using the chargecard instead of a UK credit card for some purchase. That is all,

I have no problem if you do not have this concern.

Thanks. 

I understand your comment viz a viz Amex. Chase UK customer services may indeed struggle to match Amex.

That said, many traditional UK banks may also be less "cooperative" regarding s75 and chargeback. 

Correct and ones’ only source of judgement is a long-term track record and reputation and/or personal experience.  I have seen different banks deal differently with identical disputes. Chase has yet to earn Amex like stripes. . I have no problem with using my charge card for Ocado or Waitrose or Amazon etc … but wonder about a holiday dispute or electricals etc 

It seems to me therefore that without either section 75 or an associated credit card then perhaps we need to think a little more about whether some purchases should for the time being not be made with the Chase debit card.

I have no problem if others don’t recognise the consideration .. but thanks. 

Daliah

uk1 said:

It seems to me therefore that without either section 75 or an associated credit card then perhaps we need to think a little more about whether some purchases should for the time being not be made with the Chase debit card.

This is the case with all UK debit cards, nothing specific to Chase UK.

If you want S75 protection, you just pay some or all of the particular purchase with a credit card.

uk1

Daliah said:

uk1 said:

It seems to me therefore that without either section 75 or an associated credit card then perhaps we need to think a little more about whether some purchases should for the time being not be made with the Chase debit card.

This is the case with all UK debit cards, nothing specific to Chase UK.

If you want S75 protection, you just pay some or all of the particular purchase with a credit card.

You are simply  both repeating what I have said and seem to be either disagreeing or not understanding. One last go. It isn’t a consistency. 

Section 75 doesn’t apply to debit cards. Tick. 

Chargebacks DO apply to debit cards. Tick.

Chargebacks are discretional. Tick.

Chargebacks are not regulated by the FCA. Tick

Chargebacks are only a protection for debit cards with banks that one can have confidence in their handling of chargebacks. Tick.

With Chase …… no one yet knows. Tick.

Seeking reassurance by asking Chase whether they intend to be good to customers in the future seems a bit daft to me. 

That is all I was suggesting worthy of some consideration before we “know”. 

Sorry I raised the thought for others to discuss and be thoughtful of and I know I can avoid this by using a credit card … 

Daliah

I am not sure whether and why you appear to be questioning whether the FCA/PRA should have given JP Morgan a UK banking licence, and why we should be worrying whether they intend to be good to customers in the future.. I for one don't worry. Like with any other bank, if something goes wrong, I will talk to them, and follow the complaints process if necessary. The End.

masonic

uk1 said:

Seeking reassurance by asking Chase whether they intend to be good to customers in the future seems a bit daft to me.

On the contrary, getting clarification in writing regarding how something works in advance is one of the most sensible things you can do. It entitles you to redress if things don't work out in the way you've been told in writing.

uk1 said:

Chargebacks are only a protection for debit cards with banks that one can have confidence in their handling of chargebacks. Tick.

I don't think this is correct. Individual banks are the gatekeepers of the scheme, but they do not make the rules, and are not the final judge of whether a claim is upheld. They can make it a hassle for you, but cannot reasonably stand in the way of putting a genuine claim before Mastercard.

uk1 said:

Chargebacks are not regulated by the FCA. Tick

The Financial Ombudsman Service can make legally binding decisions in cases where a bank has acted improperly regarding a chargeback claim. The bank's conduct relating to chargebacks certainly is subject to all of its regulatory obligations by the FCA, such as treating customers fairly.

Suggest you review the following guide:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/

uk1

masonic said:

uk1 said:

Seeking reassurance by asking Chase whether they intend to be good to customers in the future seems a bit daft to me.

On the contrary, getting clarification in writing regarding how something works in advance is one of the most sensible things you can do. It entitles you to redress if things don't work out in the way you've been told in writing.

uk1 said:

Chargebacks are only a protection for debit cards with banks that one can have confidence in their handling of chargebacks. Tick.

I don't think this is correct. Individual banks are the gatekeepers of the scheme, but they do not make the rules, and are not the final judge of whether a claim is upheld. They can make it a hassle for you, but cannot reasonably stand in the way of putting a genuine claim before Mastercard.

uk1 said:

Chargebacks are not regulated by the FCA. Tick

The Financial Ombudsman Service can make legally binding decisions in cases where a bank has acted improperly regarding a chargeback claim. The bank's conduct relating to chargebacks certainly is subject to all of its regulatory obligations by the FCA, such as treating customers fairly.

Suggest you review the following guide:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/

1. Please suggest the wording of a question I could ask today that will provide reassurance about Chase’s future handling of any future chargeback request.

2. On the rest of your comments I believe you are simply incorrect because this is what the FCA has said to me.  

There are no “rules” made for banks with respect to chargebacks.  Individual banks DO make up their own rules. They are purely discretional. Your link says you can appeal to the FCA.  That’s correct.  But it doesn’t say that whilst the FCA can make binding adjudications with respect to Section 75 they can only criticise banks about any failure with respect to the chargebacks. I know because this is what a senior FCA told me and wrote to me. If what you say were true, then Section 75 would seem to be rendered unnecessary, 

If you believe that the FCA makes chargeback rules and can compel banks to comply with a chargeback adjudication then I’d be most interested to see your sources outside of Moneysavingexpet and I’d ge happy to take it up with them. 

masonic

uk1 said:

1. Please suggest the wording of a question I could ask today that will provide reassurance about Chase’s future handling of any future chargeback request.

These are your concerns and you are best placed to voice them in a manner that will give you the reassurance you seek.

uk1 said:

2. On the rest of your comments I believe you are simply incorrect because this is what the FCA has said to me.  

There are no “rules” made for banks with respect to chargebacks.  Individual banks DO make up their own rules. They are purely discretional. Your link says you can appeal to the FCA.  That’s correct.  But it doesn’t say that whilst the FCA can make binding adjudications with respect to Section 75 they can only criticise banks about any failure with respect to the chargebacks. I know because this is what a senior FCA told me and wrote to me. If what you say were true, then Section 75 would seem to be rendered unnecessary, 

If you believe that the FCA makes chargeback rules and can compel banks to comply with a chargeback adjudication then I’d be most interested to see your sources outside of Moneysavingexpet and I’d ge happy to take it up with them. 

You fundamentally misunderstand what the FCA is and what it does. The FCA is not customer facing and it does not get involved in individual complaints. It is outcomes focused, not rules focused, that is, it is happy if consumers have a fair outcome when they exercise their regulatory rights, such as following a complaints process and escalating to the FOS if necessary. It acts through the regulations and principles it lays down and the banks must follow. It establishes an independent dispute resolution service that all consumers can access if banks do not meet their obligations.

If someone senior at the FCA has told you that complaints about chargebacks cannot be adjudicated for fairness by the Financial Ombudsman Service, then you've either misunderstood what they actually said, or they are wrong.

Here's one example of a legally binding Ombudsman decision against another firm relating to a chargeback that was unreasonably refused. The firm had to refund the transaction in question at their own cost. https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN1284583.pdf Even though this was for a credit card transaction, it was made clear that there was an obligation on Tesco to process using the chargeback scheme regardless of whether s75 applied and could have been used instead.

Here is a second example where compensation was awarded for Nationwide initially messing a customer around with respect to a not as described chargeback, although in the end the merchant agreed to refund and the chargeback was dropped: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN2027950.pdf 

You make the comment about s75 being unnecessary if what I say is true, but this is not the case. With chargeback you are still at the mercy of the rules of the card network (e.g. Mastercard), so a claim could be processed by your bank and refused by them. S75 gives you a statutory right to hold the card provider jointly liable, which is not at the discretion of Visa, Mastercard, Amex et al. You'll see in some of the Ombudsman decisions that for chargeback claims, the Ombudsman must not only determine whether such a claim could have been made, but also if it should have been successful. This is subject to the scheme rules rather than consumer credit legislation. Section 75, also allows you to bring your claim to the county court should other routes prove unsuccessful, which would be much more challenging with chargeback - the bar would be set quite a bit higher than a complaint passed to the FOS.

uk1

Your adjudication was about a chargeback that had already been successfully made and then about the second part of that chargeback not being properly honoured.  The adjudication seems therefore to be primarily about the banks unfairness and inconsistency in it’s decision making rather than purely a chargeback issue.  So from that viewpoint they had a hook other than chargeback to hang their decision on.

I have had the reverse decision.  

A bank has refused my request for a chargeback. I appealed to the FCA.  An adjudicator after a very long delay found wholly favour.   I pointed out that the chargeback wasn’t obligatory and requested a Section 75 adjudication instead.  The adjudicator refused because as she had stated that she had decided totally in my favour and I had won and her decision was binding on the bank and that I’d receive my chargeback.   The bank rejected her adjudication and appealed. The senior reviewing adjudicator decided that the earlier adjudicator had made the wrong decision for the reason I had foreseen and warned her of explained to her and he decided that she had exceeded her authority and now Section 75 time limits were now expired due to the FCA delays and they were now powerless and my only recourse was legal. 

masonic

uk1 said:

Your adjudication was about a chargeback that had already been successfully made and then about the second part of that chargeback not being properly honoured.  The adjudication seems therefore to be primarily about the banks unfairness and inconsistency in it’s decision making rather than purely a chargeback issue.  So from that viewpoint they had a hook other than chargeback to hang their decision on.

I have had the reverse decision.  

A bank has refused my request for a chargeback. I appealed to the FCA.  An adjudicator after a very long delay found wholly favour.   I pointed out that the chargeback wasn’t obligatory and requested a Section 75 adjudication instead.  The adjudicator refused because as she had stated that I she had decided and I had won and that I’d receive my chargeback.   The bank rejected her adjudication and appealed. The senior reviewing adjudicator decided that the earlier adjudicator had made the wrong decision for the reason I explained and that she had exceeded her authority and now Section 75 time limits were now expired due to the FCA delays and they were now powerless and my only recourse was legal. 

It was two separate chargebacks as the transactions were separate. The fact one succeeded was used as evidence that the second would have, making it easy to decide, but the precedent is set. There are almost 800 upheld complaints relating to chargebacks on the FOS database, and that will be the tip of the iceberg as decisions that aren't disputed by either party are not published.

Firstly, it wasn't the FCA. Secondly, could you provide the DRN for your complaint? As you took it to a final decision it will be published. If it went down as you have stated, then clearly you have been treated unfairly as the outcome should depend on eligibility at the time you requested. I don't know when you made your FOS complaint, so perhaps the timescale for following up has now passed, but I really think you should consider making a complaint against the FOS to the Independent Assessor, because if what you have said is true, it is a clear case of a wrong decision and you should be eligible for redress from the FOS for their error. The FOS does sometimes make some shocking decisions, others have found this too, so it is never a slam dunk (even with S75 as you have found). However, such situations are generally very rare.

Sorry to drag the thread off-topic

uk1

To be completely honest I think the effort has exceeded the usefulness. 

None of us want this trauma .  My general point was that it seems to me that a credit card might be more prudent for potentially problematic beefy purchases rather than relying on a possible chargeback from Chase at the moment.  that was my only pondering.   I think this exchange at least shows it might be worth considering. Let’s leave it at that.