Won chargeback but now being threatened with court

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP just to add, if you buy anything on eBay and have a problem within 30 days of the actual delivery date (or last ETA if an actual date isn't recorded) it's best to open a return and for items not as described the seller will have to arrange the return at their cost or eBay will force the refund (I see you said "about a month" so appreciate you may have been outside the time for eBay cover)  

Also the seller needs to send you a formal notice before action, typically this is suggested as a letter, I'm not sure if an email or eBay message is considered sufficient as a letter is deemed to be delivered a day or two after posting but I don't think the same applies to emails (although happy to be corrected). 

If you do get such a letter you have the choice of fighting their claim through the process if they file it or offering them something (maybe £100 will make them go away). 

If they start small claims without sending such a notice this again may affect any awarding of costs.

With the amount being so small and the seller not behaving correctly in the first instance IMO they'd be unwise to actually take this to small claims but the problem with small businesses is they can take these things personally and unwisely spend time on what is basically principle. 

Keep us updated or if you need more advice down the road post back on this thread  

Hannahc1990x

Alderbank said:

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.

Ok so what about this side as well. 

Say they take me to court and they win. Then I’m in the same original position of no money and technically no goods as the goods were defective and not fit For purpose. So it’s consistently a lose lose situation for me. 

Hannahc1990x

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP just to add, if you buy anything on eBay and have a problem within 30 days of the actual delivery date (or last ETA if an actual date isn't recorded) it's best to open a return and for items not as described the seller will have to arrange the return at their cost or eBay will force the refund (I see you said "about a month" so appreciate you may have been outside the time for eBay cover)  

Also the seller needs to send you a formal notice before action, typically this is suggested as a letter, I'm not sure if an email or eBay message is considered sufficient as a letter is deemed to be delivered a day or two after posting but I don't think the same applies to emails (although happy to be corrected). 

If you do get such a letter you have the choice of fighting their claim through the process if they file it or offering them something (maybe £100 will make them go away). 

If they start small claims without sending such a notice this again may affect any awarding of costs.

With the amount being so small and the seller not behaving correctly in the first instance IMO they'd be unwise to actually take this to small claims but the problem with small businesses is they can take these things personally and unwisely spend time on what is basically principle. 

Keep us updated or if you need more advice down the road post back on this thread  

Thank you for the advice again. 

I was just outside the 30 days with eBay. 

Looking at the way they email and their no care attitude I don’t think they’d be clever enough to do any kind of pre action work as they are suppose to so hopefully that’s in my defence too. 

I think it is just a waiting game but will update you if I hear anything. Thank you. 

Manxman_in_exile

Interesting point.

Presumably even if the OP had managed to get the sofa back to the trader (who would not have wanted it back) the trader could still sue for the price?  Would they need to return the sofa to the OP?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

Interesting point.

Presumably even if the OP had managed to get the sofa back to the trader (who would not have wanted it back) the trader could still sue for the price?  Would they need to return the sofa to the OP?

The OP has the right to reject as the trader failed to provide a remedy  

Aylesbury_Duck

Hannahc1990x said:

Alderbank said:

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.

Ok so what about this side as well. 

Say they take me to court and they win. Then I’m in the same original position of no money and technically no goods as the goods were defective and not fit For purpose. So it’s consistently a lose lose situation for me. 

But it was you who voluntarily threw away the goods.  You "lost" at the time you made that decision.  Had you kept the sofa after chargeback and they sent you a letter before court action, you could have simply replied along the lines of "OK, please come and collect your sofa" and their case would fall apart.  That's why I said you'd shot yourself in the foot by throwing it away.

Hopefully, your letter will call their bluff and that'll be the end of it, but I'm afraid you've brought more uncertainty onto yourself by disposing of the sofa.

Undervalued

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...

Maybe but it is not the bank's job to give legal advice. 

The bank is obliged to operate within the law, to abide by banking regulations and the terms of their agreement with the customer.

If the customer requests and has a right to a chargeback, under the terms of their account. it is the banks job to implement it. It is not their role to make a judgement on the wisdom of the customer's decision.

Manxman_in_exile

Undervalued said:

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...

Maybe but it is not the bank's job to give legal advice. 

The bank is obliged to operate within the law, to abide by banking regulations and the terms of their agreement with the customer.

If the customer requests and has a right to a chargeback, under the terms of their account. it is the banks job to implement it. It is not their role to make a judgement on the wisdom of the customer's decision.

Sorry, but where have I suggested that the bank should have made a judgment on the wisdom of the customer's decision?

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

Undervalued said:

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...

Maybe but it is not the bank's job to give legal advice. 

The bank is obliged to operate within the law, to abide by banking regulations and the terms of their agreement with the customer.

If the customer requests and has a right to a chargeback, under the terms of their account. it is the banks job to implement it. It is not their role to make a judgement on the wisdom of the customer's decision.

Sorry, but where have I suggested that the bank should have made a judgment on the wisdom of the customer's decision?

I didn't say you had.

I was elaborating on my initial point that it wasn't the bank's job to give legal advice. This point was made in response to you saying "....But if your bank didn't explain that to you, you wouldn't know."

Manxman_in_exile

We can agree to differ then.

As the chargeback process is the card providers' own creation and is run according to their rules then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to explain to their customers how it works.  In particular that if they are successful in a chargeback award then they should make every effort to return the goods to the trader - not just bin them.  That might not be obvious to legally naive bank customers...