Credit card refuses to refund because of doing what was asked

Bikerbloke

OK so the title is a bit spurious so let me explain and see if anyone can guide me

I ordered some products from a Chinese company which promptly stopped working 10 days later. I contacted the company asking for a full refund as their website states, try risk free for 30 days.
Should be easy enough to get this sorted out, but it wasn't. They bombarded me with emails on how to fix the product and replace parts which I flatly refused and again asked politely for a returns label. This emailing went back and forth for over a week before they finally agreed to send me a prepaid returns label, and under NO circumstances should I return the products without the prepaid returns label.

It's been 43 days and still no label, and the company have stopped contacting me

Now here is the issue

I paid £474 on my Santander credit card, I contacted Santander who sent me forms to fill out which were filled and sent back the same day. 2 weeks later they send me more forms to fill out as they didn't see any proof of returns.
I filled the forms out again and explained that the products have NOT been returned as the company has told me to NOT return them without the prepaid returns label.

Nice and simple so should be a quick refund

NO!!!

Santander have closed the case because I have NOT sent proof of the products being returned (this again? seriously?)
I've just spent 1 hour on the phone to the credit card complaints team who are still asking me for proof of return, even though they have the emails printed out in front of them and can clearly see I was told to NOT send the products back without the prepaid returns label.

I don't even have an address to send it back in the first place.

Are all credit card companies this backwards or just Santander??
I regret the day I opened my account with Santander and will be changing banks asap

any help is greatly appreciated  

Voyager2002

Bikerbloke said:

Are all credit card companies this backwards or just Santander??
I regret the day I opened my account with Santander and will be changing banks asap

any help is greatly appreciated  

Santander have a well-deserved reputation for being particularly obtuse. In this case I think they are using the regulations for a Chargeback claim.

American Express are famous for the high quality of their customer service and the professionalism of their staff.

DullGreyGuy

Bikerbloke said:

OK so the title is a bit spurious so let me explain and see if anyone can guide me

I ordered some products from a Chinese company which promptly stopped working 10 days later. I contacted the company asking for a full refund as their website states, try risk free for 30 days.
Should be easy enough to get this sorted out, but it wasn't. They bombarded me with emails on how to fix the product and replace parts which I flatly refused and again asked politely for a returns label. This emailing went back and forth for over a week before they finally agreed to send me a prepaid returns label, and under NO circumstances should I return the products without the prepaid returns label.

It's been 43 days and still no label, and the company have stopped contacting me

Now here is the issue

I paid £474 on my Santander credit card, I contacted Santander who sent me forms to fill out which were filled and sent back the same day. 2 weeks later they send me more forms to fill out as they didn't see any proof of returns.
I filled the forms out again and explained that the products have NOT been returned as the company has told me to NOT return them without the prepaid returns label.

Nice and simple so should be a quick refund

NO!!!

Santander have closed the case because I have NOT sent proof of the products being returned (this again? seriously?)
I've just spent 1 hour on the phone to the credit card complaints team who are still asking me for proof of return, even though they have the emails printed out in front of them and can clearly see I was told to NOT send the products back without the prepaid returns label.

I don't even have an address to send it back in the first place.

Are all credit card companies this backwards or just Santander??
I regret the day I opened my account with Santander and will be changing banks asap

any help is greatly appreciated  

Given the price and the fact you paid for it by credit card there are two paths that can be taken on a dispute - Chargeback governed by the rules of the card network (Visa, Mastercard etc) or a S75 claim. 

Card issuers instigating a chargeback have rules to follow, chargeback isn't supposed to be a final legal resolution (though often is) and isn't requiring banks to have the skills of a court judge. Generally for faulty goods the rules require the product to have been returned. Because of the rules there are various ways that chargebacks can be blocked. 

Given you have paid by credit card then you can make a complaint to Santander that whilst a chargeback may be blocked they should therefore be considering this under a S75 claim as you are blocked from being able to return the goods by virtue of having no return address for the merchant... though would double check that there is no returns or registered address for the organisation on their website. 

eskbanker

Bikerbloke said:

I ordered some products from a Chinese company which promptly stopped working 10 days later.

[...]

I paid £474 on my Santander credit card

As above, section 75 may be more productive than chargeback, but it only applies to items valued at over £100 each, so much will depend on how many products came to the total of £474.  Since a s75 claim would need to be settled by the card company themselves (as opposed to passing the charge on to the merchant), you'd probably be expected to provide evidence of the alleged breach of contract, in terms of exactly how the products aren't working, which, depending on what they actually are, may entail an independent report....

born_again

Bikerbloke said:

OK so the title is a bit spurious so let me explain and see if anyone can guide me

I ordered some products from a Chinese company which promptly stopped working 10 days later. I contacted the company asking for a full refund as their website states, try risk free for 30 days.
Should be easy enough to get this sorted out, but it wasn't. They bombarded me with emails on how to fix the product and replace parts which I flatly refused and again asked politely for a returns label. This emailing went back and forth for over a week before they finally agreed to send me a prepaid returns label, and under NO circumstances should I return the products without the prepaid returns label.

It's been 43 days and still no label, and the company have stopped contacting me

Now here is the issue

I paid £474 on my Santander credit card, I contacted Santander who sent me forms to fill out which were filled and sent back the same day. 2 weeks later they send me more forms to fill out as they didn't see any proof of returns.
I filled the forms out again and explained that the products have NOT been returned as the company has told me to NOT return them without the prepaid returns label.

Nice and simple so should be a quick refund

NO!!!

Santander have closed the case because I have NOT sent proof of the products being returned (this again? seriously?)
I've just spent 1 hour on the phone to the credit card complaints team who are still asking me for proof of return, even though they have the emails printed out in front of them and can clearly see I was told to NOT send the products back without the prepaid returns label.

I don't even have an address to send it back in the first place.

Are all credit card companies this backwards or just Santander??
I regret the day I opened my account with Santander and will be changing banks asap

any help is greatly appreciated  

Card requlations (Visa or Mastercard) require either proof of return or retailer refusing to allow return. TBH, quite why after a month, they will not take that as proof is strange.

Without knowing the actual item costs not including P&P it's hard to say if S75 would be a option. But bet if it fell within S75 scope, that they would action a chargeback.

Bikerbloke

The items were £25, £70 and £379. The company also said they don't refund any extras that are purchased which is hilarious as the extras ARE required to let the product work. 
Looking at the Facebook group for this company, I'm not the only one having the same issues unfortunately. 

DullGreyGuy

Bikerbloke said:

The items were £25, £70 and £379. The company also said they don't refund any extras that are purchased which is hilarious as the extras ARE required to let the product work. 
Looking at the Facebook group for this company, I'm not the only one having the same issues unfortunately. 

So the £379 would be covered by the S75 process, the other two items wouldn't - assuming they are shown as separate items and prices on the invoice rather than a package deal. 

WillPS

DullGreyGuy said:

Bikerbloke said:

The items were £25, £70 and £379. The company also said they don't refund any extras that are purchased which is hilarious as the extras ARE required to let the product work. 
Looking at the Facebook group for this company, I'm not the only one having the same issues unfortunately. 

So the £379 would be covered by the S75 process, the other two items wouldn't - assuming they are shown as separate items and prices on the invoice rather than a package deal. 

Depends how essential those items are to the £379 item's functionality, and how useful or not they otherwise are, surely?

If the answers 'essential' and 'not at all' then I would say the OP has a reasonable case to have them added to the S75 claim for the £379 item as an additional expense/consequential loss.

(It'll probably help that Santander can possibly charge these lines back.)

DullGreyGuy

WillPS said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Bikerbloke said:

The items were £25, £70 and £379. The company also said they don't refund any extras that are purchased which is hilarious as the extras ARE required to let the product work. 
Looking at the Facebook group for this company, I'm not the only one having the same issues unfortunately. 

So the £379 would be covered by the S75 process, the other two items wouldn't - assuming they are shown as separate items and prices on the invoice rather than a package deal. 

Depends how essential those items are to the £379 item's functionality, and how useful or not they otherwise are, surely?

If the answers 'essential' and 'not at all' then I would say the OP has a reasonable case to have them added to the S75 claim for the £379 item as an additional expense/consequential loss.

(It'll probably help that Santander can possibly charge these lines back.)

It would be a fight at least...

iPhones these days dont come with a charger, in principle because most people have at least one USB charger at home and so dont need one each and every time they buy a phone. So if the OP's purchase was a phone + charger is the charger "essential" to work the phone? What if they did what I did recently which is by a 35w charger because it'll charge my phone and laptop quicker than the 20w charger I already had? Does the fact I;ve gone beyond the minimum requirement (5w) still make it "essential"?

There aren't obvious search terms to look for cases on the Ombudman website to see how they consider these cases. What I have seen a few times is people who'd split things up across multiple transactions to try and get building work etc under the £30k amounts and there the FOS has opined on if the breakup was real separate works or artificial construct.  There is one case where someone bought two similar things for a total of £120 but the invoice didnt give a breakdown but the ombudsman decided it was separate items and they were probably similar value so no valid claim. 

Having previously pushed our local resident expert on here its clear there are elements of winging it and its very subjective to the person reviewing the case (discussing suit -v- suit + extra trousers -v- jacket + trousers and the different ways a receipt could present it)

Grumpy_chap

Bikerbloke said:

I ordered some products from a Chinese company 

DullGreyGuy said:

So the £379 would be covered by the S75 process, the other two items wouldn't - assuming they are shown as separate items and prices on the invoice rather than a package deal. 

AIUI, S75 only holds the CC to the same standard as the retailer.
Is the purchase under UK law, or under Chinese law?
Have any rules be breached under the respective law / contract that applies?

WillPS

DullGreyGuy said:

WillPS said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Bikerbloke said:

The items were £25, £70 and £379. The company also said they don't refund any extras that are purchased which is hilarious as the extras ARE required to let the product work. 
Looking at the Facebook group for this company, I'm not the only one having the same issues unfortunately. 

So the £379 would be covered by the S75 process, the other two items wouldn't - assuming they are shown as separate items and prices on the invoice rather than a package deal. 

Depends how essential those items are to the £379 item's functionality, and how useful or not they otherwise are, surely?

If the answers 'essential' and 'not at all' then I would say the OP has a reasonable case to have them added to the S75 claim for the £379 item as an additional expense/consequential loss.

(It'll probably help that Santander can possibly charge these lines back.)

It would be a fight at least...

iPhones these days dont come with a charger, in principle because most people have at least one USB charger at home and so dont need one each and every time they buy a phone. So if the OP's purchase was a phone + charger is the charger "essential" to work the phone? What if they did what I did recently which is by a 35w charger because it'll charge my phone and laptop quicker than the 20w charger I already had? Does the fact I;ve gone beyond the minimum requirement (5w) still make it "essential"?

I would argue 'no', because the U in USB means that a USB charger is useful for other purposes, even if just as a spare for another device. However if the £379 device was an electric scooter, the £70 was for a battery proprietary to that scooter and the £25 was for a proprietary charger then in that situation it'd be very valid to count the functional but useless proprietary parts as 'additional expense' related to the S75 claim.

Really depends what these mystery items are...

Like I say you're likely pushing against an open door in this instance because Santander can at least attempt to chargeback the whole lot (unusually for consequential loss type claim elements!).