Credit card company refunded under s75, now the retailer is wanting me to pay them back

Jenni_D

Was it the OP or someone else who mentioned that whether they raised online a chargeback or an S75 claim they ended up at the same "dispute" form? As such a consumer could believe they were raising an S75 claim yet the bank/credit provider would handle it as they chose not as the consumer expected.

Sandtree

Jenni_D said:

Was it the OP or someone else who mentioned that whether they raised online a chargeback or an S75 claim they ended up at the same "dispute" form? As such a consumer could believe they were raising an S75 claim yet the bank/credit provider would handle it as they chose not as the consumer expected.

Someone else and the link didn’t say it was to raise a s75 (or chargeback) just to start the dispute process

Jenni_D

Sandtree said:

Jenni_D said:

Was it the OP or someone else who mentioned that whether they raised online a chargeback or an S75 claim they ended up at the same "dispute" form? As such a consumer could believe they were raising an S75 claim yet the bank/credit provider would handle it as they chose not as the consumer expected.

Someone else and the link didn’t say it was to raise a s75 (or chargeback) just to start the dispute process

As I recall (but I can't find the post) the link was on two separate pages - one for chargeback and one for S75 - but both went to the same form. If a consumer clicked the button on the S75 page then they would reasonably assume that they were raising an S75 claim. A consumer can't be expected to understand that a bank's term Dispute on the S75 page does not mean an S75 claim.

I don't see how that is so difficult to grasp.

sheramber

The OP has said that the credit card company raise a chargeback first. the form she completed did not specify whether chargeback or S75  

I had to 'raise a dispute' on my app, which I did. I looked yesterday and at no point does it clarify whether is would be raised as a chargeback or a S75, there were also no links to Ts or Cs to clarify. I did call Newday earlier and spoke to a lovely chap, who confirmed that initially they always go down the chargeback route, and only go down S75 if the changeback is objected to within the 45 days.

Pollycat

Jenni_D said:

Sandtree said:

Jenni_D said:

Was it the OP or someone else who mentioned that whether they raised online a chargeback or an S75 claim they ended up at the same "dispute" form? As such a consumer could believe they were raising an S75 claim yet the bank/credit provider would handle it as they chose not as the consumer expected.

Someone else and the link didn’t say it was to raise a s75 (or chargeback) just to start the dispute process

As I recall (but I can't find the post) the link was on two separate pages - one for chargeback and one for S75 - but both went to the same form. If a consumer clicked the button on the S75 page then they would reasonably assume that they were raising an S75 claim. A consumer can't be expected to understand that a bank's term Dispute on the S75 page does not mean an S75 claim.

I don't see how that is so difficult to grasp.

Here it is - it refers to another thread:

Sandtree said:

Its an interesting discussion on the "right" for a S75 -v- chargeback... seems I missed the fun over the weekend.

Whilst the OP says they asked them to raise a S75 claim I personally would want to kick the tyres of that a little harder on exactly what was done and how. In another case on here not that long ago the bank has a page on Chargebacks and a page on S75, both pages have the link to the same webform which is entitled "raise a dispute". The text on the form itself is mute on what type of dispute will be raised but its understandable that you could assume its one or the other depending on which page you clicked through from (I imagine there may be other routes to the form too).

The OP therefore may have thought they were requesting a S75 claim but in reality were simply raising a dispute for the card company to decide how best to approach

Jenni_D

sheramber said:

The OP has said that the credit card company raise a chargeback first. the form she completed did not specify whether chargeback or S75  

I had to 'raise a dispute' on my app, which I did. I looked yesterday and at no point does it clarify whether is would be raised as a chargeback or a S75, there were also no links to Ts or Cs to clarify. I did call Newday earlier and spoke to a lovely chap, who confirmed that initially they always go down the chargeback route, and only go down S75 if the changeback is objected to within the 45 days.

Thanks. That part of the discussion was less about the OP's specific case, rather about whether a consumer can be mislead regarding the claim process.  

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree - thanks for taking the effort to explain some of the pros and cons of chargeback -v- s75 from the point of view of a customer.  It's much more helpful than somebody repeating ad nauseum "they're exactly the same... there's no difference bewteen them... the consumer gets what they want" etc etc.  I can now see that there might be instances where a chargeback would be more advantageous to the customer.  [Edit:  The most obvious being that it also applies to debit cards and - I think - has a lower minimum value?]

I've never had to make either type of claim so I don't know, but wouldn't it make more sense (and definitely be treating their customers more fairly) if the pros and cons you describe were explained on banks' web pages or at least on whatever part of their sites that deals with disputes?  Looking at the exchange with Jenni_D above it looks as if banks' websites don't differentiate between the two types of refund and I would have thought it just might be helpful to explain the two.  It doesn't need to be complicated - or confusing - just something like:

"If you have a dispute with a retailer over eg faulty goods etc etc and want a refund, we can get your money back for you through one of two ways.  The first is a s75 claim under the CCA 1974(?).  To do this we will need to follow a fairly lengthy process and it will probably take several(?) months to return your money to you.  Once we have returned your money you legally no longer own the goods and we will instruct you what to do with them.  In many cases we will let you keep them.  If we reject your s75 claim and you disagree with our decision, you can still decide to sue us and or the retailer in court.

The second way is what we call a 'chargeback'.  This process is much quicker than s75 but is also subject to a shorter deadline for you to make a claim.  If we return your money under a chargeback you should be aware that a retailer could still challenge it and, if we agree with their challenge, we may reverse the refund.  After a successful chargeback you will no longer own the goods and will need to liaise with the retailer to return them to him.

You should be aware that in the case of a s75 refund, once we have refunded the money that is the end of the matter and you will keep the money.  With a chargeback there is always small possiblity that if the retailer disagrees with our decision, they will sue you in court or refuse to deal with you in future.  If that happens we will not give you any help at all, as (1) despite all our advertising guff, we don't care about our customers and (2) chargebacks don't cost us anything - which is our priority - even if they leave you open to being sued after being refunded.

Because of the shorter deadline involved, we will always try to use a chargeback first rather than a s75 unless you ask us to do otherwise.  If a chargeback fails for some reason, we will automatically process a s75 claim on your behalf if that would succeed.  If you are entitled to a refund, our aim is to help you get one."

I'm sure a bank could draft that better than I could and I don't see why a bank wouldn't* want their customers to be better informed about their rights - it simply needs to be clear and transparent.  And so long as the customer is always kept fully informed about what's happening, people like me can't really complain that the customer isn't being treated fairly.

And to reiterate something I posted earlier, I'm not arguing that banks should just pay all s75 claims without investigating their merits.  If a claim has no merit, the bank should not pay it.  What I'm complaining about is a customer thinking they are asking for a s75 cliam - which if successful would be the end of the matter - but the bank instead processing a chargeback and the customer potentially being sued - or perhaps more importantly - being boycotted by the retailer.  I don't see the problem in fully informing the customer - unless there is something the bank wants kept hidden from them.

I also think it a problem that the OP says his bank never gave any instructions about him having to arrange the return of the sofa to the retailer.

Thanks for pointing out the correct regulatory body.  I was having a Jethro Tull  senior moment... 


*Actually I can think of lots of reasons but probably best not to go there.

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:
What I'm complaining about is a customer thinking they are asking for a s75 cliam - which if successful would be the end of the matter - but the bank instead processing a chargeback and the customer potentially being sued - or perhaps more importantly - being boycotted by the retailer.  I don't see the problem in fully informing the customer - unless there is something the bank wants kept hidden from them.

I also think it a problem that the OP says his bank never gave any instructions about him having to arrange the return of the sofa to the retailer.

Whilst its true that if successful its the end of it to get a successful outcome is much harder and will often require the submission of independent expert reports etc - we get a fair few threads on here about who do you contact to get an expert report on XXX. Whilst its also an entitlement under the CRA (which is why banks ask for it) the reality is most retailers will waive that and commission their own inspection of the item.

Its ultimately not the banks place to tell them to arrange return of the sofa or car or bottle of wine or Amazon Prime subscription or whatever it is the Chargeback has been made about. That is a matter between the original contracting parties and clearly if you've bought a service rather than product its rather difficult to "arrange its return"... do you lend Netflix 10 of your DVDs for a bit to compensate for the 10 films you watched on the service before doing a chargeback because you argue you were mislead about the breadth of material available?

As previously said, most chargebacks go through without consequence. Some companies may block you as a future customer but if you are having to resort to a chargeback to get what you feel you are owed back why would you want to be a customer again? Chargebacks, by their nature, are typically lower average value and a corporation isnt going to spend £1,500 on lawyers and barristers trying to recover a £75 chargeback... small businesses tend to be more personality lead and as such may follow the "principle of the matter" rather than if it makes commercial sense - similar to the poster the other day who spent £35 in court fees trying to get £40 back and found they'd issued against the wrong counterparty 

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:
What I'm complaining about is a customer thinking they are asking for a s75 cliam - which if successful would be the end of the matter - but the bank instead processing a chargeback and the customer potentially being sued - or perhaps more importantly - being boycotted by the retailer.  I don't see the problem in fully informing the customer - unless there is something the bank wants kept hidden from them.

I also think it a problem that the OP says his bank never gave any instructions about him having to arrange the return of the sofa to the retailer.

...
Its ultimately not the banks place to tell them to arrange return of the sofa or car or bottle of wine or Amazon Prime subscription or whatever it is the Chargeback has been made about. That is a matter between the original contracting parties ...

Of course it's the bank's place to tell the customer!  If the customer wanted and asked for a s75 refund but the bank treated it as a chargeback they must tell the customer the consequences of that.  And the two most significant consequences of that are (1) that the customer no longer owns the goods, and (2) if they don't arrange their return to the seller the seller may sue them.  If the text messages from the bank in this thread are anything to go by, the consumer would have no idea that he needed to return the sofa to the seller.  The OP in this thread has even confirmed that the bank never told him to do so.  How can a consumer be expected to know that it's now become a "matter between the original contracting parties" if the bank doesn't tell him?  Even if you try to argue that it's obvious that the consumer "should know", why doesn't the bank just tell them to make sure they are being fair to them?  What does it cost the bank simply to give their customer information? 

As regards the provision of services and netflix subscriptions you're simply evading the issue and making up reasons for not giving the customer information they should be given.  ie they no longer "own" whatever was the subject of the chargeback and they need to discuss what to do with the retailer.

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:
What I'm complaining about is a customer thinking they are asking for a s75 cliam - which if successful would be the end of the matter - but the bank instead processing a chargeback and the customer potentially being sued - or perhaps more importantly - being boycotted by the retailer.  I don't see the problem in fully informing the customer - unless there is something the bank wants kept hidden from them.

I also think it a problem that the OP says his bank never gave any instructions about him having to arrange the return of the sofa to the retailer.

...

As previously said, most chargebacks go through without consequence. Some companies may block you as a future customer but if you are having to resort to a chargeback to get what you feel you are owed back why would you want to be a customer again? Chargebacks, by their nature, are typically lower average value and a corporation isnt going to spend £1,500 on lawyers and barristers trying to recover a £75 chargeback... small businesses tend to be more personality lead and as such may follow the "principle of the matter" rather than if it makes commercial sense - similar to the poster the other day who spent £35 in court fees trying to get £40 back and found they'd issued against the wrong counterparty 

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that point.  But I wouldn't necessarily agree with it either, because it isn't black or white.

I'm sure the OP in this thread never wants to deal with the retailer ever again, and probably regrets ever having been in contact with them in the first place.  But that might not always be the case.  There may be examples where, eg because of location, a consumer has no real choice about where they purchase goods or services from.  I don't know - perhaps a rural location, an OP who doesn't drive and only one provider of a taxi service.  I think I've read of examples here where chargebacks have been awarded against a budget airline and the airline has refused to accept further bookings from that consumer because their "account is showing a debt" and they want it paid before allowing further bookings.  I don't know but I understand from several threads on here that if a customer were to have a chargeback awarded against Amazon, then that customer could happily expect never to have any future dealings with Amazon ever again...

I'm grateful to you for your earlier post pointing out that a chargeback can have advantages for a customer as opposed to a s75 claim, but it's also clear that in some respects a chargeback is not as helpful to a customer as a s75 claim.

Going back to my original question (I think) on this thread, if a customer approaches their bank to make a s75 claim but the bank unilaterally decides to do a chargeback instead, why doesn't the bank simply explain to the customer what they are doing, what the pros and cons of the two different approaches are, and - most importantly - that if the chargeback goes ahead without the retailer challenging it, then the customer might still end up being sued by the retailer?  (Oh - and, of course, a gentle reminder that the goods no longer belong to them).  It's not as if it's a state secret or somebody's going to die because the customer's been told something they really ought to know - is it?

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:
Of course it's the bank's place to tell the customer!  If the customer wanted and asked for a s75 refund but the bank treated it as a chargeback they must tell the customer the consequences of that.  And the two most significant consequences of that are (1) that the customer no longer owns the goods, and (2) if they don't arrange their return to the seller the seller may sue them.

It clearly isnt the banks job to "tell them to return the goods", which is what I was quoting, that is a decision for the merchant. It may well be the job of the bank to warn the customer that the merchant may approach them 1) Ownership is a complex legal matter... the chargeback doesnt invalidate the contract of sale, banks dont have that power, but it does mean that the goods havent been paid for 2) Even if they do return the goods the seller may still choose to sue them... the seller may allege there was no fault with the goods but it was user damage. That can happen even without a chargeback but the difference is its the consumer having to sue the merchant to get their money back.

Going back to my original question (I think) on this thread, if a customer approaches their bank to make a s75 claim but the bank unilaterally decides to do a chargeback instead, why doesn't the bank simply explain to the customer what they are doing, what the pros and cons of the two different approaches are, and - most importantly - that if the chargeback goes ahead without the retailer challenging it, then the customer might still end up being sued by the retailer?  (Oh - and, of course, a gentle reminder that the goods no longer belong to them).  It's not as if it's a state secret or somebody's going to die because the customer's been told something they really ought to know - is it?

To first of all try and keep it relevant to this thread... the OP has since clarified his claim was raised via their banking app where the payment to the merchant was put into "dispute" and as such they technically didnt explicitly raise a S75 or Chargeback and so in this instance the bank didnt go against the customer's instruction. For a more theoretical view it may be worth spending a little time searching https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions-case-studies/ombudsman-decisions which will, when you find a case or two, will see how the ombudsman views it when a customer asks for a S75 claim but a successful chargeback is made instead... unfortunately searches are likely to turn up many more cases of where chargeback and S75 are both unsuccessful