Won chargeback but now being threatened with court

Hannahc1990x

It was with Revolut. 

The sofa was £400. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Hannahc1990x said:

It was with Revolut. 

The sofa was £400. 

Hello OP

Sorry to hear, I would write back to the company and state that as they ignored your request to provide a remedy for the sofa not conforming to the contract they have not mitigated their losses and the court is unlikely to award costs.

Inform them had they collected the sofa when you informed then of a fault they would have suffered the cost of collection, received their 13.1% eBay fees back and you would have been refunded meaning their loss of profit occurred either way so their actual loss is relatively small and as a result it would be unwise of them to suffer the costs of small claims over such a small amount. 

I would also point out if they do issue small claims proceedings you will apply to the court for it to be heard locally to you and again remind them their failure to mitigate losses will affect their ability to claim costs such as travel. 

I'd call their bluff and see what happens.  

Hannahc1990x

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hannahc1990x said:

It was with Revolut. 

The sofa was £400. 

Hello OP

Sorry to hear, I would write back to the company and state that as they ignored your request to provide a remedy for the sofa not conforming to the contract they have not mitigated their losses and the court is unlikely to award costs.

Inform them had they collected the sofa when you informed then of a fault they would have suffered the cost of collection, received their 13.1% eBay fees back and you would have been refunded meaning their loss of profit occurred either way so their actual loss is relatively small and as a result it would be unwise of them to suffer the costs of small claims over such a small amount. 

I would also point out if they do issue small claims proceedings you will apply to the court for it to be heard locally to you and again remind them their failure to mitigate losses will affect their ability to claim costs such as travel. 

I'd call their bluff and see what happens.  

Thank you very much for this. That’s a big help. 

Manxman_in_exile

Hannahc1990x said:

They’ve had 45 days to respond to the charge back. They did not. The bank I used for charge back has now actually closed completely, not through my choice mind. 

Why would I keep a sofa for months that I couldn’t sit on? 

Can I ask, after you were awarded the chargeback and the trader failed to challenge it, did your bank not give you any clear instructions about what to do with the sofa?

After you were refunded and the trader failed to challenge it, I think ownership of the sofa reverted to the trader and you should have made arrangements with them for them to collect it.

You couldn't just bin it as it didn't belong to you.  But if your bank didn't explain this to you, you may not have realised.

Unfortunately one of the (many?) drawbacks of the chargeback procedure is that it has no foundation in law and there is nothing legally to prevent traders suing customers if they feel they have been treated unfairly in the process.

That's why I think consumers are better off pursuing a s75 claim (if applicable) rather than a chargeback, even though a s75 claim may require more evidence and take longer.

[Edit:  Cross-posted.  Go with the lunatics suggestion - they're better at constructing good arguments than I am!  You've got nothing to lose by calling the seller's bluff]

Hannahc1990x

Manxman_in_exile said:

Hannahc1990x said:

They’ve had 45 days to respond to the charge back. They did not. The bank I used for charge back has now actually closed completely, not through my choice mind. 

Why would I keep a sofa for months that I couldn’t sit on? 

Can I ask, after you were awarded the chargeback and the trader failed to challenge it, did your bank not give you any clear instructions about what to do with the sofa?

After you were refunded and the trader failed to challenge it, I think ownership of the sofa reverted to the trader and you should have made arrangements with them for them to collect it.

You couldn't just bin it as it didn't belong to you.  But if your bank didn't explain this to you, you may not have realised.

Unfortunately one of the (many?) drawbacks of the chargeback procedure is that it has no foundation in law and there is nothing legally to prevent traders suing customers if they feel they have been treated unfairly in the process.

That's why I think consumers are better off pursuing a s75 claim (if applicable) rather than a chargeback, even though a s75 claim may require more evidence and take longer.

The bank didn’t say anything. EBay have been no help to me either. I understand where you’re coming from but why was it perfectly acceptable for them to not fix their issue to start with? I gave them ample opportunity. I rang them and was told to !!!!!! off and we’ll happily accept a ccj if we have to. They didn’t care. But now I’ve won the charge back they do care. So it’s all good and well saying I’m in the wrong, but aren’t they for basically being rogue traders to start with? If I hadn’t won my charge back I’d still be fighting them for my money when they sold me a defective item. Why can’t I sue them for them not acting fairly? 

Aylesbury_Duck

They may not have dealt with your problem correctly, but that doesn't mean you can dispose of their property without their permission.  Two wrongs, etc.


You can sue them if you wish.  What would you be claiming for, though?

Hannahc1990x

Aylesbury_Duck said:

They may not have dealt with your problem correctly, but that doesn't mean you can dispose of their property without their permission.  Two wrongs, etc.


You can sue them if you wish.  What would you be claiming for, though?

I’m not planning on suing them, it was more just a figure or speech in that they have caused all the issues really. If they’d dealt with it properly to start with then this would have all been avoided. 

Manxman_in_exile

Hannah  -  they did do wrong, yes, but that was corrected when you got paid the chargeback.  The sofa then belonged to the trader and should have been returned to them.  Or at least you should have made arrangements for them to collect it at their cost.  By not doing so you have technically done wrong.  But if your bank didn't explain that to you, you wouldn't know.

I'm not arguing with you or telling you off - I'm telling you what I think your legal position is.
 
Do as @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head suggests...

Hannahc1990x

Manxman_in_exile said:

Hannah  -  they did do wrong, yes, but that was corrected when you got paid the chargeback.  The sofa then belonged to the trader and should have been returned to them.  Or at least you should have made arrangements for them to collect it at their cost.  By not doing so you have technically done wrong.  But if your bank didn't explain that to you, you wouldn't know.

I'm not arguing with you or telling you off - I'm telling you what I think your legal position is.
 
Do as @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head suggests...

I have emailed the seller following what @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head suggested. 

I will just wait and see at this point. 

The bank, Revolut is rather incompetent so I wouldn’t expect much help from them. 

Alderbank

Manxman_in_exile said:

After you were refunded and the trader failed to challenge it, I think ownership of the sofa reverted to the trader and you should have made arrangements with them for them to collect it.

I don't see that. I think chargeback is just about payment.

1. The sale is completed, the OP has paid for the sofa and title has been transferred from the shop to OP.
2. Later, the merchant bank comes to the shop's premises, opens the till, takes that sum out and gives it to the OP. The bank doesn't even want to see the sofa.
3. The position now is that the shop has supplied the goods but has not received the payment agreed by contract. They can sue the OP for that payment which was agreed but has not been made.