Financial Ombudsman win, but who owns the goods, merchant or bank?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Spride said:

I think you will find the original contract was breached as soon as the merchant refused to honour the right to a refund on faulty goods!

I agree the contract was breached, just noting you can't charge storage unless part of the original terms  

electriccactus

Spride said:

Jenni_D said:

You say you did a chargeback and the bank repaid you the money.(As I understand things, your bank recovered the funds from the seller's merchant bank and repaid them to you).

You also say (imply?) that the bank "snatched" the money back from your account - on what basis? Was it on the basis that the original seller challenged the chargeback? If yes then I'm not really sure what the bank did wrong, nor why FOS reached the decision they did. 🤷‍♀️

Hi Jenni,
I could write a book on this, in simple terms, the merchant was in breach of the consumer rights act and supply of goods act, supplying goods not of merchantable quality, refusing refund or even repair (an option they were offered but also rejected) , bank sided with me then returned the money to the merchant on highly spurious grounds (basically lies that were disproved when FOS got involved), only about a third of cases are upheld by the FOS, on this occasion they were correct.

Sadly on reading reviews this company does exactly the same thing over and over, and despite contacting trading standards in the area they seem to have no interest in addressing it, so the garage will continue robbing people.

Can we see the FOS decision?

It seems very odd that the bank would return the money to the seller. The bank doesn't have a horse in this race, so to speak. The money they're refunding you comes directly from the seller, not themselves, so there has to be a pretty good reason why they'd pull it back. Especially if it leaves them exposed to footing the bill themselves.