Claiming a Refund of Payment Following Cancellation of PCN By Landowner's Agent

patient_dream

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

wheeles said:

Half_way said:

A chargeback is something that should only be done as a last resort - however the OP could eb at this stage already.

One thing that must be done before initiating a chargeback is to inform the other party that this will be happening, and give them a few days ( ie 5/a working week) to respond and refund

Likewise with the card company it may be necessary to  explain things should they get confused .

Odds on the person at the card company will think this is a fine so it might be best not to even mention it as a parking ticket/charge / notice, just a service charge

That's exactly my thinking.  I have already sent a letter/emails setting a deadline.  That deadline has not yet passed.  If the chargeback is unsuccessful, or results in additional elevated demands, then I would consider legal action the following step.

Debit cards allow 160 days and credit cards much longer.

That is wrong. As I mentioned earlier the Chargeback time limit is 120 days, not 160 days.

That applies to both debit and credit cards.

Credit card refunds can also be 'refunded' through Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, and as you say, the time limit for that is much longer - six years - but that's not relevant here.

Yes typo on that ...... and secttion 75 is the only way on credir cards, the OP should know that

As said the OP should start the chargeback (section 75 if a credit card) .. first thing tomorrow or the time limit on debit cards. 
And, there is no obligation to advise the PPC of their intentions. to chargeback, just do it. 

No. Sorry. Still wrong.

Section 75 is not the only way on credit cards.
As discussed on this thread, Chargeback is perfectly possible on a Credit Card.

And your implication - by stating "section 75 if a credit card" - is also wrong because there is a minimum value of £100 for a Section 75 claim. The OP's mother spent £61.50 on her credit card.

Not my implication, you mentioned section 75   All section 75 does is make the credit card provider jointly responsible, anything under is still applicable as a chaegeback. I am a credit card merchant Keith

KeithP

patient_dream said:

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

wheeles said:

Half_way said:

A chargeback is something that should only be done as a last resort - however the OP could eb at this stage already.

One thing that must be done before initiating a chargeback is to inform the other party that this will be happening, and give them a few days ( ie 5/a working week) to respond and refund

Likewise with the card company it may be necessary to  explain things should they get confused .

Odds on the person at the card company will think this is a fine so it might be best not to even mention it as a parking ticket/charge / notice, just a service charge

That's exactly my thinking.  I have already sent a letter/emails setting a deadline.  That deadline has not yet passed.  If the chargeback is unsuccessful, or results in additional elevated demands, then I would consider legal action the following step.

Debit cards allow 160 days and credit cards much longer.

That is wrong. As I mentioned earlier the Chargeback time limit is 120 days, not 160 days.

That applies to both debit and credit cards.

Credit card refunds can also be 'refunded' through Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, and as you say, the time limit for that is much longer - six years - but that's not relevant here.

Yes typo on that ...... and secttion 75 is the only way on credir cards, the OP should know that

As said the OP should start the chargeback (section 75 if a credit card) .. first thing tomorrow or the time limit on debit cards. 
And, there is no obligation to advise the PPC of their intentions. to chargeback, just do it. 

No. Sorry. Still wrong.

Section 75 is not the only way on credit cards.
As discussed on this thread, Chargeback is perfectly possible on a Credit Card.

And your implication - by stating "section 75 if a credit card" - is also wrong because there is a minimum value of £100 for a Section 75 claim. The OP's mother spent £61.50 on her credit card.

Not my implication, you mentioned section 75 

Yes I did.
I wrote...

Credit card refunds can also be 'refunded' through Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, and as you say, the time limit for that is much longer - six years - but that's not relevant here.

Please read again the last five words there.

Please stop posting misleading information. It helps no-one.

patient_dream

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

wheeles said:

Half_way said:

A chargeback is something that should only be done as a last resort - however the OP could eb at this stage already.

One thing that must be done before initiating a chargeback is to inform the other party that this will be happening, and give them a few days ( ie 5/a working week) to respond and refund

Likewise with the card company it may be necessary to  explain things should they get confused .

Odds on the person at the card company will think this is a fine so it might be best not to even mention it as a parking ticket/charge / notice, just a service charge

That's exactly my thinking.  I have already sent a letter/emails setting a deadline.  That deadline has not yet passed.  If the chargeback is unsuccessful, or results in additional elevated demands, then I would consider legal action the following step.

Debit cards allow 160 days and credit cards much longer.

That is wrong. As I mentioned earlier the Chargeback time limit is 120 days, not 160 days.

That applies to both debit and credit cards.

Credit card refunds can also be 'refunded' through Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, and as you say, the time limit for that is much longer - six years - but that's not relevant here.

Yes typo on that ...... and secttion 75 is the only way on credir cards, the OP should know that

As said the OP should start the chargeback (section 75 if a credit card) .. first thing tomorrow or the time limit on debit cards. 
And, there is no obligation to advise the PPC of their intentions. to chargeback, just do it. 

No. Sorry. Still wrong.

Section 75 is not the only way on credit cards.
As discussed on this thread, Chargeback is perfectly possible on a Credit Card.

And your implication - by stating "section 75 if a credit card" - is also wrong because there is a minimum value of £100 for a Section 75 claim. The OP's mother spent £61.50 on her credit card.

Not my implication, you mentioned section 75 

Yes I did.
I wrote...

Credit card refunds can also be 'refunded' through Section 75 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, and as you say, the time limit for that is much longer - six years - but that's not relevant here.

Please read again the last five words there.

Please stop posting misleading information. It helps no-one.

As a credit card merchant there is nothing misleading. I guess you are not a credit card merchant and as such, you do not know or understand the rules that apply.
A customer or payee can request a chargeback for any amount and then it is up to the receiver of the money to  prove otherwise.  
A chargeback query will replace the money into the account pending the outcome. I know, it's happened to me and Keith, all banks work the same

Your version really does not help anyone .... people can request a chargeback under £100 
All section 75 does is hold the credit card jointly responsible and you must know that. If someone wants to do a chargeback of £5, they can

KeithP

So when you wrote...
"secttion 75 is the only way on credir cards"
you didn't mean that at all?

And in the very same post you wrote...
"the OP should start the chargeback (section 75 if a credit card)"
I guess you didn't mean that either?

patient_dream

KeithP said:

So when you wrote...
"secttion 75 is the only way on credir cards"
you didn't mean that at all?

And in the very same post you wrote...
"the OP should start the chargeback (section 75 if a credit card)"
I guess you didn't mean that either?

Oh dear, nit picking again, you are good at telling people about court claims but misleading people on their legal rights regarding chargebacks is not the right thing to do is it ?
ANYONE, including you can start a chargeback for any amount.
The OP paid £61.50 which they can chargeback for the reasons said a few posts back.

Section 75 really does not enter in this.  

OP, you can start a chargeback and you should, much easier than going to court

Jenni_D

You're both agreeing that the OP's Mum should initiate a chargeback claim - no dispute there. (BTW @KeithP did not mislead anyone re. chargeback in any way whatsoever).

The point of dissention is the mention of S75 ... the way you @patient_dream described it in your earlier posts was incorrect and misleading, and that is what @KeithP was picking up on. What he said was 100% correct; what you said was misleading as in this case the OP's Mum has no S75 option at all and so wasn't of any use.

Just because you're a credit card merchant (whatever that is supposed to mean ... you buy credit cards? You sell them?) doesn't mean your knowledge of S75 is correct.  

patient_dream

Jenni_D said:

You're both agreeing that the OP's Mum should initiate a chargeback claim - no dispute there. (BTW @KeithP did not mislead anyone re. chargeback in any way whatsoever).

The point of dissention is the mention of S75 ... the way you @patient_dream described it in your earlier posts was incorrect and misleading, and that is what @KeithP was picking up on. What he said was 100% correct; what you said was misleading as in this case the OP's Mum has no S75 option at all and so wasn't of any use.

Just because you're a credit card merchant (whatever that is supposed to mean ... you buy credit cards? You sell them?) doesn't mean your knowledge of S75 is correct.  

Jenni, I have already said it was typo .... we all do it but frankly this is nothing to throw a wobbly about 

For your interest, a credit merchant means I accept credit/debit card payments and I am fully aware of Section 75 and the time limit on a debit card.  

What is much more important here is that the OP goes to their bank or credit card provider to get their money back

More interesting, nobody has picked up the amount of £61.50.  The amount should be £60 and it sounds like an admin fee to cover the cost of the transaction.
It is now against the law for any business in the UK to off-set processing fees through check-out surcharges.

A typo Jenni ?   that simple

Jenni_D

You're right about the £61.50 - that does seem an odd amount. That said, I'm not sure a payment processing fee per se is unlawful - as long as it was a contractual obligation - what is unlawful is to charge different amounts for different payment methods.

PS - it may have been a typo (160 vs 120 days*) but you did it in separate posts, 17 January at 7:02PM and 23 January at 7:43PM, so it was a repeated typo (which was first corrected in a post on the 17th). That's why it was picked up on.  

* Although different schemes may have different time limits - I recall reading of one provider only allowing 90 days, and another allowing 150 days - but the standard is usually 120 days.

patient_dream

Jenni_D said:

You're right about the £61.50 - that does seem an odd amount. That said, I'm not sure a payment processing fee per se is unlawful - as long as it was a contractual obligation - what is unlawful is to charge different amounts for different payment methods.

Before it was banned in January 2018, UK companies were able to pass on credit card processing fees to their customers. It is now against the law for any business in the UK to off-set processing fees through check-out surcharges.

The reason Amazon said they would refuse VISA payments is because they could not add the fees they were being charged by VISA to UK customer payments. It's the law and you cannot agree to a contract that breaks the law
Amazon will win and get their charges reduced

Jenni_D

Looking at the Regulations and the Guidance Notes I can see that you are right - payment surcharges are banned for consumer transactions using usual payment methods available to a consumer. (If the payment was made using a commercial card - e.g. I have a company credit card - then the surcharge would be allowed but must a) be advised within the contract and b) not be more than the actual cost).