Section 75 - Barclaycard

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

steve_hemp said:

Hi guys, I was wondering if anybody has had any luck with claiming a Section 75 refund from Barclaycard as so far I have had no luck! I purchased an electric scooter over a year ago online using my barclaycard.  The scooter that was delivered was a completely different model to that advertised with many of the advertised features missing (eg no rear brake light).  I had no luck with the retailer they (just insisted that they were cosmetic changes) and refused a refund.  The retailer did not send an order confirmation or any paperwork such as an invoice with the goods.  Barclaycard have been given all the information including photos of all the differences but have refused the section75 because I cannot give them an invoice!  This has been going for over a year now and I have referred it to the ombudsman but they have a huge backlog so might not be dealing with the case for several months.
Can Barclaycard legitimately refuse a Section75 due to lack of an invoice?

In that case a chargeback should have been actioned for "Not as Described" As you had the proof. Unless you were out of time (120 days from goods arriving) before contacting Barclaycard.

As above, we don't know it isn't a chargeback.  In the other thread the OP thought he was wrestling with a s75 claim until somebody pointed out it must have been a chargeback and not s75.

Serious question, if the photos and other info supplied by the OP would be enough to support a chargeback with Barclaycard, is there any reason why those same photos and that same info wouldn't support a s75 claim as well?  (Which is really what the OP is asking).

Lets spin the question.... if someone was asking you to give £300 of Bob's money to Bill how much evidence would you want in comparison to if Bill was asking you to give them £300 of your own money because of something Bob has done?

Level of proof required for S75 claims is generally significantly higher and the bank will often ask for the things the retailer would be entitled to (eg independent expert report). The two chargebacks I have done with Barclays they asked for no proof at all, for one of the two AmEx cases they just asked me to forward 1 email (the other they said they'd reimburse as gesture of goodwill as was under £20 so not worth their effort)

As has been pointed out on the other thread, that adds to the above, S75 is "the end of it" so the bank wants to make sure its right (plus its its own money) whereas the merchant has other avenues open to resolve the matter following a chargeback so banks can be more liberal (and if you look at many small business forums they advise company owners to not waste time engaging in chargeback arguments because banks are too customer leaning and instead let the money go and deal with the debt recovery against the customer instead)

Thank you.  I see all of those points as reinforcing my argument in the other thread.

1.  S75 claims and chargebacks are different things.  They might both result in the customer being refunded, but each process arrives at that conclusion via different routes and may require different levels of evidence.  It's also the case that there may be significantly different consequences for the customer depending on which route is taken.  No arguments there.

2.  The main issue I have on the other thread is touched upon with your words"... S75 is "the end of it" so the bank wants to make sure its right (plus its its own money) whereas the merchant has other avenues open to resolve the matter following a chargeback so banks can be more liberal (and if you look at many small business forums they advise company owners to not waste time engaging in chargeback arguments because banks are too customer leaning and instead let the money go and deal with the debt recovery against the customer instead)".

What you've said there is precisely one of the things I was trying to get at on the other thread, but you've expressed it more clearly than I did.  Yes - banks are more careful when giving away their own money under s75 than when giving away a third party's money under a chargeback.  That means that banks can more easily afford - both literally and metaphorically - to be more generous and more "customer leaning" with a chargeback than they can with s75.  If even small business forums are advising retailers that it's a waste of time to challenge chargebacks (because banks favour the customer) when they could deal with it more effectively simply by suing the consumer, it demonstrates what to me is the major flaw with a chargeback -v- a s75 claim.  And that is whereas a successful s75 claim is "the end of it", a successful(?) chargeback could end up with the customer being sued!  (And I take it from your post that they are even more* likely to be sued than I thought was the case if that is what small business forums are advising).

What I still don't understand is why banks simply aren't more open with their customers about s75 claims and chargebacks.  If a customer tells their bank that they want to do a s75 claim, why doesn't the bank just tell them they are doing a chargeback instead because it saves the bank money, but explain that with a chargeback the customer might end up getting sued whereas, if the bank did the s75 that the customer had asked for, they couldn't get sued?  Oh hang on - maybe the answer lies in the question - it's cheaper for the bank but they don't want the customer to know that!


*Because chargebacks seem to be "easier" to put through than s75 claims and there seems to be a greater possibility that unwarranted chargebacks may be ok'd by banks as it is perceived that chargebacks are more customer leaning, there are going to be more aggrieved traders out there who want to sue someone.

macman

Manxman_in_exile said:

macman said:

Do you not have proof of payment from your credit card statement that the payment was made to the supplying company? That would normally be sufficient to prove the purchase.

I don't think Barclaycard are necessarily denying the purchase.  They might want to see an invoice* or an order or some other paperwork so they can compare what the OP ordered against what was delivered to him.  But it seems the OP has no proof at all of what he ordered or what he thought he was buying.  (Unless the retailer has already acknowledged the discrepancy but I'm unclear about what the OP is saying about that.).

I suspect that there may be some confusion if Barclaycard have simply said "You must produce an invoice or we won't refund you" without explaining why they need it.  It might be that whatever evidence requirements they want to fulfill could be satisfied by something other than an invoice if they explained to the OP why they need it.  (Of course they may have explained to the OP but the OP hasn't told us)


*its_coming_Rome said earler that there are quite a few FOS decisions where s75 claims have not been accepted because of lack of an invoice. 

People often use the word 'invoice' or 'receipt' when they simply mean 'proof of purchase', although a card provider should know better. If the card statement shows the correct amount, date and merchant name that the OP is claiming against, one would hope that would be sufficient. if however the supplier name is 'ABC scooters' and the merchant name is totally different, as is sometimes the case, then I can see why they have asked for a formal invoice. OP?

Jenni_D

For an S75 claim I can't see why  a credit provider would require proof or purchase - they'd easily be able to see the transaction in their client's account. I guess what they're really looking for is proof of what was purchased (vs what was received) ... their client's account transaction history probably won't show that.

Manxman_in_exile

macman said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

macman said:

Do you not have proof of payment from your credit card statement that the payment was made to the supplying company? That would normally be sufficient to prove the purchase.

I don't think Barclaycard are necessarily denying the purchase.  They might want to see an invoice* or an order or some other paperwork so they can compare what the OP ordered against what was delivered to him.  But it seems the OP has no proof at all of what he ordered or what he thought he was buying.  (Unless the retailer has already acknowledged the discrepancy but I'm unclear about what the OP is saying about that.).

I suspect that there may be some confusion if Barclaycard have simply said "You must produce an invoice or we won't refund you" without explaining why they need it.  It might be that whatever evidence requirements they want to fulfill could be satisfied by something other than an invoice if they explained to the OP why they need it.  (Of course they may have explained to the OP but the OP hasn't told us)


*its_coming_Rome said earler that there are quite a few FOS decisions where s75 claims have not been accepted because of lack of an invoice. 

People often use the word 'invoice' or 'receipt' when they simply mean 'proof of purchase', although a card provider should know better. If the card statement shows the correct amount, date and merchant name that the OP is claiming against, one would hope that would be sufficient. if however the supplier name is 'ABC scooters' and the merchant name is totally different, as is sometimes the case, then I can see why they have asked for a formal invoice. OP?

Presumably it's not because the bank wants proof of purchase, but because they want to see some evidence that what was ordered is not what was delivered.  (See earlier discussion in the thread and Jenni_D's comment after yours).

I say "presumably" because we don't know why the bank wants an "invoice" - all we know is that the OP says he's been told by the bank that they won't refund without one - but we also know that OPs sometimes get the wrong end of the stick...

It might be that some empty-headed bank employee is mindlessly and endlessly repeating the holy mantra "... won't refund without invoice... won't refund without invoice... won't refund without invoice..." without understanding why they are saying that, or it might be that the bank holds its customers in such disdain that that they simply can't see why they should waste their time being helpful to their customer and explaining exactly why they can't process the claim without an invoice.

Although why a bank would want to keep their customers in the dark and treat them like mushrooms rather than human beings I can't imagine.  I mean, it's not as if the banks have ever treated their customers badly by selling them worthless PPI policies and creaming off unfair commissions from selling other worthless financial products, is it?

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said:

What you've said there is precisely one of the things I was trying to get at on the other thread, but you've expressed it more clearly than I did.  Yes - banks are more careful when giving away their own money under s75 than when giving away a third party's money under a chargeback.  That means that banks can more easily afford - both literally and metaphorically - to be more generous and more "customer leaning" with a chargeback than they can with s75.  If even small business forums are advising retailers that it's a waste of time to challenge chargebacks (because banks favour the customer) when they could deal with it more effectively simply by suing the consumer, it demonstrates what to me is the major flaw with a chargeback -v- a s75 claim.  And that is whereas a successful s75 claim is "the end of it", a successful(?) chargeback could end up with the customer being sued!  (And I take it from your post that they are even more* likely to be sued than I thought was the case if that is what small business forums are advising).

What I still don't understand is why banks simply aren't more open with their customers about s75 claims and chargebacks.  If a customer tells their bank that they want to do a s75 claim, why doesn't the bank just tell them they are doing a chargeback instead because it saves the bank money, but explain that with a chargeback the customer might end up getting sued whereas, if the bank did the s75 that the customer had asked for, they couldn't get sued?  Oh hang on - maybe the answer lies in the question - it's cheaper for the bank but they don't want the customer to know that!


*Because chargebacks seem to be "easier" to put through than s75 claims and there seems to be a greater possibility that unwarranted chargebacks may be ok'd by banks as it is perceived that chargebacks are more customer leaning, there are going to be more aggrieved traders out there who want to sue someone.

Chargebacks have criteria (set by Visa/Mastercard) that has to be met or they will be rejected out of hand. So there is no "Customer Leaning" when doing them. If we process a chargeback that we should not have been done. Then as the person doing it, we get in trouble, as failures cost the bank money. Too many and Visa/Mastercard can sanction the bank.

If trader fails to contest and then wants to take customer to court. The fact they failed to contest could be used as an argument by the customer. On the basis that non contesting was them admitting fault/guilt. 

As I said before banks should be open & upfront how they are dealing with it. Again we would get slapped down for failure in not advising customers on this. As they tend to end up as complaints & customer relations are not happy to have to deal with something that should have been done at the start.

But as many of these are now done online & not via actually talking to people it is easy (read lazy) by the person responding tthe the "Dispute" to forget that while they know what they are doing, that the customer has no idea.

There is no need for bank to say "It saves the bank money". All the customer needs to know (from experience) is the quickest & easiest for them.

So end of the day. It is down to the banks to be open & upfront with customers exactly what they are doing to help the customers with their problem.👍

Jenni_D

born_again said:

So end of the day. It is down to the banks to be open & upfront with customers exactly what they are doing to help the customers with their problem.👍

That is something I think we can all agree on.  

Manxman_in_exile

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

What you've said there is precisely one of the things I was trying to get at on the other thread, but you've expressed it more clearly than I did.  Yes - banks are more careful when giving away their own money under s75 than when giving away a third party's money under a chargeback.  That means that banks can more easily afford - both literally and metaphorically - to be more generous and more "customer leaning" with a chargeback than they can with s75.  If even small business forums are advising retailers that it's a waste of time to challenge chargebacks (because banks favour the customer) when they could deal with it more effectively simply by suing the consumer, it demonstrates what to me is the major flaw with a chargeback -v- a s75 claim.  And that is whereas a successful s75 claim is "the end of it", a successful(?) chargeback could end up with the customer being sued!  (And I take it from your post that they are even more* likely to be sued than I thought was the case if that is what small business forums are advising).

What I still don't understand is why banks simply aren't more open with their customers about s75 claims and chargebacks.  If a customer tells their bank that they want to do a s75 claim, why doesn't the bank just tell them they are doing a chargeback instead because it saves the bank money, but explain that with a chargeback the customer might end up getting sued whereas, if the bank did the s75 that the customer had asked for, they couldn't get sued?  Oh hang on - maybe the answer lies in the question - it's cheaper for the bank but they don't want the customer to know that!


*Because chargebacks seem to be "easier" to put through than s75 claims and there seems to be a greater possibility that unwarranted chargebacks may be ok'd by banks as it is perceived that chargebacks are more customer leaning, there are going to be more aggrieved traders out there who want to sue someone.

Chargebacks have criteria (set by Visa/Mastercard) that has to be met or they will be rejected out of hand. So there is no "Customer Leaning" when doing them. If we process a chargeback that we should not have been done. Then as the person doing it, we get in trouble, as failures cost the bank money. Too many and Visa/Mastercard can sanction the bank.
...

I think you might be reading something into my post that isn't there?  What I was trying to point out is that the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the first two paragraphs of Sandtree's post that I quoted is that (a) it's a lower bar that a chargeback has to cross to be successful than a s75 claim (because with a chargeback the bank is not giving away their own money) and (b) therefore it's more likely that more "questionable" chargebacks will be processed than "questionable" s75 claims.  This, combined with the fact that with a chargeback the bank is refunding money from the retailer - not themselves - inevitably means that there will be more aggrieved retailers under chargeback than under s75.  It makes sense to me that customers should be made aware of this from the outset.  Don't you agree?  It seems so obvious to me that I'm beginning to think I'm not explaining it properly.

The "customer leaning" bit is a straight quote from Sandtree where they are saying that it seems to be accepted within the small business community that banks are "customer leaning" when it comes to chargebacks, and some business forums advise their members not to waste time challenging chargebacks and simply pursue their recovery via alternative means - ie treat the consumer as still owing a debt with the possibility of suing them.

If a bank (or whatever institution) wrongly refunds a customer with a questionable chargeback but the retailer (for whatever reason) does not challenge it or complain about it, why would Visa/Mastercard sanction the bank?  How would they know at all that there might be an issue?  Or are you saying that Visa/Mastercard impose strict quotas on banks regarding the number of chargebacks they can award, irrespective of their merits?

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

What you've said there is precisely one of the things I was trying to get at on the other thread, but you've expressed it more clearly than I did.  Yes - banks are more careful when giving away their own money under s75 than when giving away a third party's money under a chargeback.  That means that banks can more easily afford - both literally and metaphorically - to be more generous and more "customer leaning" with a chargeback than they can with s75.  If even small business forums are advising retailers that it's a waste of time to challenge chargebacks (because banks favour the customer) when they could deal with it more effectively simply by suing the consumer, it demonstrates what to me is the major flaw with a chargeback -v- a s75 claim.  And that is whereas a successful s75 claim is "the end of it", a successful(?) chargeback could end up with the customer being sued!  (And I take it from your post that they are even more* likely to be sued than I thought was the case if that is what small business forums are advising).

What I still don't understand is why banks simply aren't more open with their customers about s75 claims and chargebacks.  If a customer tells their bank that they want to do a s75 claim, why doesn't the bank just tell them they are doing a chargeback instead because it saves the bank money, but explain that with a chargeback the customer might end up getting sued whereas, if the bank did the s75 that the customer had asked for, they couldn't get sued?  Oh hang on - maybe the answer lies in the question - it's cheaper for the bank but they don't want the customer to know that!


*Because chargebacks seem to be "easier" to put through than s75 claims and there seems to be a greater possibility that unwarranted chargebacks may be ok'd by banks as it is perceived that chargebacks are more customer leaning, there are going to be more aggrieved traders out there who want to sue someone.

...

If trader fails to contest and then wants to take customer to court. The fact they failed to contest could be used as an argument by the customer. On the basis that non contesting was them admitting fault/guilt. 
...

I don't care whether the customer could use the retailer's failure to consent as a successful defence in court or not.  What concerns me is that the customer is left vulnerable to being sued by the retailer at all!  Who wants to have to put up with the hassle and stress of threats of being sued (whether followed up or not) Letters Before Action (whether followed up or not) and a potential court claim (whether won or lost.)  Who needs it when it could be avoided?  And as it's not clear to me what the legal basis of a chargeback is as between the customer and the retailer, I'm not convinced that the retailer's failure to contest a chargeback would be a defence available to the customer anyway.

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

What you've said there is precisely one of the things I was trying to get at on the other thread, but you've expressed it more clearly than I did.  Yes - banks are more careful when giving away their own money under s75 than when giving away a third party's money under a chargeback.  That means that banks can more easily afford - both literally and metaphorically - to be more generous and more "customer leaning" with a chargeback than they can with s75.  If even small business forums are advising retailers that it's a waste of time to challenge chargebacks (because banks favour the customer) when they could deal with it more effectively simply by suing the consumer, it demonstrates what to me is the major flaw with a chargeback -v- a s75 claim.  And that is whereas a successful s75 claim is "the end of it", a successful(?) chargeback could end up with the customer being sued!  (And I take it from your post that they are even more* likely to be sued than I thought was the case if that is what small business forums are advising).

What I still don't understand is why banks simply aren't more open with their customers about s75 claims and chargebacks.  If a customer tells their bank that they want to do a s75 claim, why doesn't the bank just tell them they are doing a chargeback instead because it saves the bank money, but explain that with a chargeback the customer might end up getting sued whereas, if the bank did the s75 that the customer had asked for, they couldn't get sued?  Oh hang on - maybe the answer lies in the question - it's cheaper for the bank but they don't want the customer to know that!


*Because chargebacks seem to be "easier" to put through than s75 claims and there seems to be a greater possibility that unwarranted chargebacks may be ok'd by banks as it is perceived that chargebacks are more customer leaning, there are going to be more aggrieved traders out there who want to sue someone.

...
As I said before banks should be open & upfront how they are dealing with it. Again we would get slapped down for failure in not advising customers on this. As they tend to end up as complaints & customer relations are not happy to have to deal with something that should have been done at the start.

...

There is no need for bank to say "It saves the bank money". All the customer needs to know (from experience) is the quickest & easiest for them.
...

Sorry, but I think you contradict yourself there.  You can't on the one hand say that banks should be "open and upfront"  with customers about how they are dealing with a refund, and then on the other hand use the old "need to know" argument.  Either you are open and upfront or you aren't.  And why not explain to the customer the difference between making a refund from the retailer's money and from the bank's money?  Are the banks afraid that customers might draw unfriendly conclusions from that information?

What is the problem with just telling the customer "We've decided to treat your claim as a chargeback rather than under s75.  Hopefully it won't make any difference to you, but you ought to know that with a chargeback it's always possible that the retailer may either sue you to recover the money we've refunded, or boycott your future custom.  That wouldn't happen if we'd processed a s75 claim as you asked, but - you know - it saves us money to process a chargeback rather than a s75".  Is that not what the customer needs to be told?

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

What you've said there is precisely one of the things I was trying to get at on the other thread, but you've expressed it more clearly than I did.  Yes - banks are more careful when giving away their own money under s75 than when giving away a third party's money under a chargeback.  That means that banks can more easily afford - both literally and metaphorically - to be more generous and more "customer leaning" with a chargeback than they can with s75.  If even small business forums are advising retailers that it's a waste of time to challenge chargebacks (because banks favour the customer) when they could deal with it more effectively simply by suing the consumer, it demonstrates what to me is the major flaw with a chargeback -v- a s75 claim.  And that is whereas a successful s75 claim is "the end of it", a successful(?) chargeback could end up with the customer being sued!  (And I take it from your post that they are even more* likely to be sued than I thought was the case if that is what small business forums are advising).

What I still don't understand is why banks simply aren't more open with their customers about s75 claims and chargebacks.  If a customer tells their bank that they want to do a s75 claim, why doesn't the bank just tell them they are doing a chargeback instead because it saves the bank money, but explain that with a chargeback the customer might end up getting sued whereas, if the bank did the s75 that the customer had asked for, they couldn't get sued?  Oh hang on - maybe the answer lies in the question - it's cheaper for the bank but they don't want the customer to know that!


*Because chargebacks seem to be "easier" to put through than s75 claims and there seems to be a greater possibility that unwarranted chargebacks may be ok'd by banks as it is perceived that chargebacks are more customer leaning, there are going to be more aggrieved traders out there who want to sue someone.

...
But as many of these are now done online & not via actually talking to people it is easy (read lazy) by the person responding tthe the "Dispute" to forget that while they know what they are doing, that the customer has no idea.
...

I'm sure that is correct and I agree with you 100%.  The answer is banks training their staff better

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

What you've said there is precisely one of the things I was trying to get at on the other thread, but you've expressed it more clearly than I did.  Yes - banks are more careful when giving away their own money under s75 than when giving away a third party's money under a chargeback.  That means that banks can more easily afford - both literally and metaphorically - to be more generous and more "customer leaning" with a chargeback than they can with s75.  If even small business forums are advising retailers that it's a waste of time to challenge chargebacks (because banks favour the customer) when they could deal with it more effectively simply by suing the consumer, it demonstrates what to me is the major flaw with a chargeback -v- a s75 claim.  And that is whereas a successful s75 claim is "the end of it", a successful(?) chargeback could end up with the customer being sued!  (And I take it from your post that they are even more* likely to be sued than I thought was the case if that is what small business forums are advising).

What I still don't understand is why banks simply aren't more open with their customers about s75 claims and chargebacks.  If a customer tells their bank that they want to do a s75 claim, why doesn't the bank just tell them they are doing a chargeback instead because it saves the bank money, but explain that with a chargeback the customer might end up getting sued whereas, if the bank did the s75 that the customer had asked for, they couldn't get sued?  Oh hang on - maybe the answer lies in the question - it's cheaper for the bank but they don't want the customer to know that!


*Because chargebacks seem to be "easier" to put through than s75 claims and there seems to be a greater possibility that unwarranted chargebacks may be ok'd by banks as it is perceived that chargebacks are more customer leaning, there are going to be more aggrieved traders out there who want to sue someone.

...
So end of the day. It is down to the banks to be open & upfront with customers exactly what they are doing to help the customers with their problem.👍

 Agreed again - 100%

And sorry - I'm not getting at you personally over this!  It's just that one of the things that really gets me angry is those "business to consumer" transactions where the business party is in a dominant and particularly privileged position vis a vis the consumer because they know strategic information that the consumer doesn't, and there's absolutely no valid reason why the information can't be shared between them.  I see no reason at all why the banks shouldn't tell customers that a successful chargeback could - just could - end up with them being sued.

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

steve_hemp said:

Hi guys, I was wondering if anybody has had any luck with claiming a Section 75 refund from Barclaycard as so far I have had no luck! I purchased an electric scooter over a year ago online using my barclaycard.  The scooter that was delivered was a completely different model to that advertised with many of the advertised features missing (eg no rear brake light).  I had no luck with the retailer they (just insisted that they were cosmetic changes) and refused a refund.  The retailer did not send an order confirmation or any paperwork such as an invoice with the goods.  Barclaycard have been given all the information including photos of all the differences but have refused the section75 because I cannot give them an invoice!  This has been going for over a year now and I have referred it to the ombudsman but they have a huge backlog so might not be dealing with the case for several months.
Can Barclaycard legitimately refuse a Section75 due to lack of an invoice?

In that case a chargeback should have been actioned for "Not as Described" As you had the proof. Unless you were out of time (120 days from goods arriving) before contacting Barclaycard.

As above, we don't know it isn't a chargeback.  In the other thread the OP thought he was wrestling with a s75 claim until somebody pointed out it must have been a chargeback and not s75.

Serious question, if the photos and other info supplied by the OP would be enough to support a chargeback with Barclaycard, is there any reason why those same photos and that same info wouldn't support a s75 claim as well?  (Which is really what the OP is asking).

Lets spin the question.... if someone was asking you to give £300 of Bob's money to Bill how much evidence would you want in comparison to if Bill was asking you to give them £300 of your own money because of something Bob has done?

Level of proof required for S75 claims is generally significantly higher and the bank will often ask for the things the retailer would be entitled to (eg independent expert report). The two chargebacks I have done with Barclays they asked for no proof at all, for one of the two AmEx cases they just asked me to forward 1 email (the other they said they'd reimburse as gesture of goodwill as was under £20 so not worth their effort)

As has been pointed out on the other thread, that adds to the above, S75 is "the end of it" so the bank wants to make sure its right (plus its its own money) whereas the merchant has other avenues open to resolve the matter following a chargeback so banks can be more liberal (and if you look at many small business forums they advise company owners to not waste time engaging in chargeback arguments because banks are too customer leaning and instead let the money go and deal with the debt recovery against the customer instead)

Thank you.  I see all of those points as reinforcing my argument in the other thread.

1.  S75 claims and chargebacks are different things.  They might both result in the customer being refunded, but each process arrives at that conclusion via different routes and may require different levels of evidence.  It's also the case that there may be significantly different consequences for the customer depending on which route is taken.  No arguments there.

2.  The main issue I have on the other thread is touched upon with your words"... S75 is "the end of it" so the bank wants to make sure its right (plus its its own money) whereas the merchant has other avenues open to resolve the matter following a chargeback so banks can be more liberal (and if you look at many small business forums they advise company owners to not waste time engaging in chargeback arguments because banks are too customer leaning and instead let the money go and deal with the debt recovery against the customer instead)".

What you've said there is precisely one of the things I was trying to get at on the other thread, but you've expressed it more clearly than I did.  Yes - banks are more careful when giving away their own money under s75 than when giving away a third party's money under a chargeback.  That means that banks can more easily afford - both literally and metaphorically - to be more generous and more "customer leaning" with a chargeback than they can with s75.  If even small business forums are advising retailers that it's a waste of time to challenge chargebacks (because banks favour the customer) when they could deal with it more effectively simply by suing the consumer, it demonstrates what to me is the major flaw with a chargeback -v- a s75 claim.  And that is whereas a successful s75 claim is "the end of it", a successful(?) chargeback could end up with the customer being sued!  (And I take it from your post that they are even more* likely to be sued than I thought was the case if that is what small business forums are advising).

What I still don't understand is why banks simply aren't more open with their customers about s75 claims and chargebacks.  If a customer tells their bank that they want to do a s75 claim, why doesn't the bank just tell them they are doing a chargeback instead because it saves the bank money, but explain that with a chargeback the customer might end up getting sued whereas, if the bank did the s75 that the customer had asked for, they couldn't get sued?  Oh hang on - maybe the answer lies in the question - it's cheaper for the bank but they don't want the customer to know that!


*Because chargebacks seem to be "easier" to put through than s75 claims and there seems to be a greater possibility that unwarranted chargebacks may be ok'd by banks as it is perceived that chargebacks are more customer leaning, there are going to be more aggrieved traders out there who want to sue someone.

Its not just chargebacks are "easier" but they have tighter time limits hence there is an argument that you do a chargeback first because it will be out of time by the time a S75 claim has been considered and rejected.

Banks should be open with their customers but lets be honest... 99% of customers just want their money back and the vast majority of chargebacks it is the end of the matter, particularly for in person goods purchases where the vendor would have no way of tracing the customer to sue them even if they wanted to. They dont want to spend 30 minutes on the phone being told the legal basis and differentials between the two approaches and even if they did the chargeback putting the money back almost instantly almost certainly would be the winning argument. 

The burden of proof is certainly lower in chargebacks than S75 and certain small business feel they are biased against the vendor - that obviously doesnt necessarily mean that it is true... I have to say in my personal cases no proof was requested but they were a few years ago and we are generally taking sub £50 transactions. 

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said

And sorry - I'm not getting at you personally over this!  It's just that one of the things that really gets me angry is those "business to consumer" transactions where the business party is in a dominant and particularly privileged position vis a vis the consumer because they know strategic information that the consumer doesn't, and there's absolutely no valid reason why the information can't be shared between them.  I see no reason at all why the banks shouldn't tell customers that a successful chargeback could - just could - end up with them being sued.

I know you are not being personal 👍

I've said that previously that we have to advise a customer that is the company does not contest then the company can take legal action is they feel they have a case.

As I said before banks should be open & upfront how they are dealing with it.
&
All the customer needs to know (from experience) is the quickest & easiest for them.

Is not a contradiction. 1st is a statement on what banks should be doing. 2nd is from personal experience of what customers say when you are talking to them. Many are simply not interested in how get their money back, they just want it back there & then.

Banks will only get sanctioned on rejected chargebacks. Where card regulations have not been followed.

eg. Doing a non receipt chargeback when it is known that the customer has cancelled the order & the company has acknowledged it. 

sparklep0ny

Manxman_in_exile said:

macman said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

macman said:

Do you not have proof of payment from your credit card statement that the payment was made to the supplying company? That would normally be sufficient to prove the purchase.

I don't think Barclaycard are necessarily denying the purchase.  They might want to see an invoice* or an order or some other paperwork so they can compare what the OP ordered against what was delivered to him.  But it seems the OP has no proof at all of what he ordered or what he thought he was buying.  (Unless the retailer has already acknowledged the discrepancy but I'm unclear about what the OP is saying about that.).

I suspect that there may be some confusion if Barclaycard have simply said "You must produce an invoice or we won't refund you" without explaining why they need it.  It might be that whatever evidence requirements they want to fulfill could be satisfied by something other than an invoice if they explained to the OP why they need it.  (Of course they may have explained to the OP but the OP hasn't told us)


*its_coming_Rome said earler that there are quite a few FOS decisions where s75 claims have not been accepted because of lack of an invoice. 

People often use the word 'invoice' or 'receipt' when they simply mean 'proof of purchase', although a card provider should know better. If the card statement shows the correct amount, date and merchant name that the OP is claiming against, one would hope that would be sufficient. if however the supplier name is 'ABC scooters' and the merchant name is totally different, as is sometimes the case, then I can see why they have asked for a formal invoice. OP?

Presumably it's not because the bank wants proof of purchase, but because they want to see some evidence that what was ordered is not what was delivered.  (See earlier discussion in the thread and Jenni_D's comment after yours).

I say "presumably" because we don't know why the bank wants an "invoice" - all we know is that the OP says he's been told by the bank that they won't refund without one - but we also know that OPs sometimes get the wrong end of the stick...

It might be that some empty-headed bank employee is mindlessly and endlessly repeating the holy mantra "... won't refund without invoice... won't refund without invoice... won't refund without invoice..." without understanding why they are saying that, or it might be that the bank holds its customers in such disdain that that they simply can't see why they should waste their time being helpful to their customer and explaining exactly why they can't process the claim without an invoice.

Although why a bank would want to keep their customers in the dark and treat them like mushrooms rather than human beings I can't imagine.  I mean, it's not as if the banks have ever treated their customers badly by selling them worthless PPI policies and creaming off unfair commissions from selling other worthless financial products, is it?

It is for precisely this reason and I'd respectfully request that instead of presuming, you, and certain other posters view the FOS decisions  page and do some searches and read their decisions.

There might be a few less arguments if you/they did.