Nike - don't know what to do next

voluted

Okell said:

Ergates said:

holly_smith123 said:

Thanks so much for replying, I will do exactly as you have said. 

Do you think I would be ok paying Klarna to clear the balance so it’s not affecting my credit score? 

... The one concern would be that refunds are given back to the original payment method, so if this was Klarna, the payment would be made back to Klarna.  Ive never used Klarna - do you have an account with them or something?  They must have a process in place for refunds - check the T&Cs to see how you'd go about getting the refund back from them.

I think that's a really interesting question.

AIUI the law says that refunds must be paid using the same method as the original purchase, unless the consumer agrees otherwise.

To my mind that means that cash = cash, debit card = debit card, credit card = credit card, cheque = cheque and bank transfer = bank transfer.

But does the "same method" extend to meaning the same intermediary?  So if the consumer pays Klarna, and Klarna pays the trader, does that mean that any refund must come to the consumer via Klarna, or can the consumer demand that the trader refunds the consumer direct?

(As I said on the thread about M&S, I don't really understand how PayPal and Klarna work.  To me they both just seem to introduce unnecessary complications to the consumer trader payment transaction)

Klarna are no different to a credit card in this regard so the refund would go back to Klarna.

Edit: Also worth mentioning that Klarna's 0% deals are funded by the retailers (who will pay a percentage of the sale to Klarna) so if they don't refund to the original payment method in order to close everything down properly, they're going to be out of pocket.

Okell

voluted said:

Okell said:

Ergates said:

holly_smith123 said:

Thanks so much for replying, I will do exactly as you have said. 

Do you think I would be ok paying Klarna to clear the balance so it’s not affecting my credit score? 

... The one concern would be that refunds are given back to the original payment method, so if this was Klarna, the payment would be made back to Klarna.  Ive never used Klarna - do you have an account with them or something?  They must have a process in place for refunds - check the T&Cs to see how you'd go about getting the refund back from them.

I think that's a really interesting question.

AIUI the law says that refunds must be paid using the same method as the original purchase, unless the consumer agrees otherwise.

To my mind that means that cash = cash, debit card = debit card, credit card = credit card, cheque = cheque and bank transfer = bank transfer.

But does the "same method" extend to meaning the same intermediary?  So if the consumer pays Klarna, and Klarna pays the trader, does that mean that any refund must come to the consumer via Klarna, or can the consumer demand that the trader refunds the consumer direct?

(As I said on the thread about M&S, I don't really understand how PayPal and Klarna work.  To me they both just seem to introduce unnecessary complications to the consumer trader payment transaction)

Klarna are no different to a credit card in this regard so the refund would go back to Klarna.

OK.

So the OP is saying that Klarna are charging her late payment fees.

Presumably she needs to pay off her Klarna account and then Klarna will refund her account when Nike (eventually) pay a refund to Klarna?  

(So as a general question, you say Klarna are no different from a credit card in this respect.  Does that extend as far as a s75 claim?  Can you make a s75 claim against them?  Or does Klarna break the debtor-creditor-supplier chain?

Is PayPal the same?)

voluted

Okell said:

voluted said:

Okell said:

Ergates said:

holly_smith123 said:

Thanks so much for replying, I will do exactly as you have said. 

Do you think I would be ok paying Klarna to clear the balance so it’s not affecting my credit score? 

... The one concern would be that refunds are given back to the original payment method, so if this was Klarna, the payment would be made back to Klarna.  Ive never used Klarna - do you have an account with them or something?  They must have a process in place for refunds - check the T&Cs to see how you'd go about getting the refund back from them.

I think that's a really interesting question.

AIUI the law says that refunds must be paid using the same method as the original purchase, unless the consumer agrees otherwise.

To my mind that means that cash = cash, debit card = debit card, credit card = credit card, cheque = cheque and bank transfer = bank transfer.

But does the "same method" extend to meaning the same intermediary?  So if the consumer pays Klarna, and Klarna pays the trader, does that mean that any refund must come to the consumer via Klarna, or can the consumer demand that the trader refunds the consumer direct?

(As I said on the thread about M&S, I don't really understand how PayPal and Klarna work.  To me they both just seem to introduce unnecessary complications to the consumer trader payment transaction)

Klarna are no different to a credit card in this regard so the refund would go back to Klarna.

OK.

So the OP is saying that Klarna are charging her late payment fees.

Presumably she needs to pay off her Klarna account and then Klarna will refund her account when Nike (eventually) pay a refund to Klarna?  

(So as a general question, you say Klarna are no different from a credit card in this respect.  Does that extend as far as a s75 claim?  Can you make a s75 claim against them?  Or does Klarna break the debtor-creditor-supplier chain?

Is PayPal the same?)

BNPL isn't regulated under the Consumer Credit Act so if she paid this way, no.

born_again

Okell said:

voluted said:

Okell said:

Ergates said:

holly_smith123 said:

Thanks so much for replying, I will do exactly as you have said. 

Do you think I would be ok paying Klarna to clear the balance so it’s not affecting my credit score? 

... The one concern would be that refunds are given back to the original payment method, so if this was Klarna, the payment would be made back to Klarna.  Ive never used Klarna - do you have an account with them or something?  They must have a process in place for refunds - check the T&Cs to see how you'd go about getting the refund back from them.

I think that's a really interesting question.

AIUI the law says that refunds must be paid using the same method as the original purchase, unless the consumer agrees otherwise.

To my mind that means that cash = cash, debit card = debit card, credit card = credit card, cheque = cheque and bank transfer = bank transfer.

But does the "same method" extend to meaning the same intermediary?  So if the consumer pays Klarna, and Klarna pays the trader, does that mean that any refund must come to the consumer via Klarna, or can the consumer demand that the trader refunds the consumer direct?

(As I said on the thread about M&S, I don't really understand how PayPal and Klarna work.  To me they both just seem to introduce unnecessary complications to the consumer trader payment transaction)

Klarna are no different to a credit card in this regard so the refund would go back to Klarna.

OK.

So the OP is saying that Klarna are charging her late payment fees.

Presumably she needs to pay off her Klarna account and then Klarna will refund her account when Nike (eventually) pay a refund to Klarna?  

(So as a general question, you say Klarna are no different from a credit card in this respect.  Does that extend as far as a s75 claim?  Can you make a s75 claim against them?  Or does Klarna break the debtor-creditor-supplier chain?

Is PayPal the same?)

Simple terms.
Think of PayPal as paying via your debit card from your bank, as they are just a payment processer.
Klarna is simply taking out finance.

No S75 against either when using them.

voluted

born_again said:

Okell said:

voluted said:

Okell said:

Ergates said:

holly_smith123 said:

Thanks so much for replying, I will do exactly as you have said. 

Do you think I would be ok paying Klarna to clear the balance so it’s not affecting my credit score? 

... The one concern would be that refunds are given back to the original payment method, so if this was Klarna, the payment would be made back to Klarna.  Ive never used Klarna - do you have an account with them or something?  They must have a process in place for refunds - check the T&Cs to see how you'd go about getting the refund back from them.

I think that's a really interesting question.

AIUI the law says that refunds must be paid using the same method as the original purchase, unless the consumer agrees otherwise.

To my mind that means that cash = cash, debit card = debit card, credit card = credit card, cheque = cheque and bank transfer = bank transfer.

But does the "same method" extend to meaning the same intermediary?  So if the consumer pays Klarna, and Klarna pays the trader, does that mean that any refund must come to the consumer via Klarna, or can the consumer demand that the trader refunds the consumer direct?

(As I said on the thread about M&S, I don't really understand how PayPal and Klarna work.  To me they both just seem to introduce unnecessary complications to the consumer trader payment transaction)

Klarna are no different to a credit card in this regard so the refund would go back to Klarna.

OK.

So the OP is saying that Klarna are charging her late payment fees.

Presumably she needs to pay off her Klarna account and then Klarna will refund her account when Nike (eventually) pay a refund to Klarna?  

(So as a general question, you say Klarna are no different from a credit card in this respect.  Does that extend as far as a s75 claim?  Can you make a s75 claim against them?  Or does Klarna break the debtor-creditor-supplier chain?

Is PayPal the same?)

Simple terms.
Think of PayPal as paying via your debit card from your bank, as they are just a payment processer.
Klarna is simply taking out finance.

No S75 against either when using them.

PayPal offer Pay in 3/PayPal Credit so they're not just a payment processor.

Alderbank

Klarna also offer choice of pay in 3 (not regulated) or Klarna card which is regulated (uses Visa).

Which did you use, OP?

Grumpy_chap

Okell said:

AIUI the law says that refunds must be paid using the same method as the original purchase, unless the consumer agrees otherwise.

To my mind that means that cash = cash, debit card = debit card, credit card = credit card, cheque = cheque and bank transfer = bank transfer.

But does the "same method" extend to meaning the same intermediary?  So if the consumer pays Klarna, and Klarna pays the trader, does that mean that any refund must come to the consumer via Klarna, or can the consumer demand that the trader refunds the consumer direct?

As I understand it, the willingness of retailers in general to agree a refund via a different channel from the original purchase is extremely low.  Retailers tend to quote AML regulations as the reason this must be so.  It seems plausible that would be the case.  It is possible that consumer law permits the customer to agree a different form of refund and AML rules effectively cut that off.

voluted

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

AIUI the law says that refunds must be paid using the same method as the original purchase, unless the consumer agrees otherwise.

To my mind that means that cash = cash, debit card = debit card, credit card = credit card, cheque = cheque and bank transfer = bank transfer.

But does the "same method" extend to meaning the same intermediary?  So if the consumer pays Klarna, and Klarna pays the trader, does that mean that any refund must come to the consumer via Klarna, or can the consumer demand that the trader refunds the consumer direct?

As I understand it, the willingness of retailers in general to agree a refund via a different channel from the original purchase is extremely low.  Retailers tend to quote AML regulations as the reason this must be so.  It seems plausible that would be the case.  It is possible that consumer law permits the customer to agree a different form of refund and AML rules effectively cut that off.

Retailers are not beholden to AML laws. I would assume they're using this as an excuse to quickly shut down any request to refund to another form of payment. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-who-needs-to-register details who is covered by the regulations (essentially anyone likely to be handling large sums of cash.)

The real reason (I suspect) is simply because payment methods like debit and credit cards come with fees that would stand if the customer is refunded by, say, cash. It also potentially leaves them open to fraudulent INR chargeback claims. It's a lot easier to say "we can't because it's illegal" vs "we won't because it'll cost us money."

Edit: I suppose it also avoids having to deal with people who may use this as a loophole to get a fee-free cash advance off their credit card.

Ergates

voluted said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

AIUI the law says that refunds must be paid using the same method as the original purchase, unless the consumer agrees otherwise.

To my mind that means that cash = cash, debit card = debit card, credit card = credit card, cheque = cheque and bank transfer = bank transfer.

But does the "same method" extend to meaning the same intermediary?  So if the consumer pays Klarna, and Klarna pays the trader, does that mean that any refund must come to the consumer via Klarna, or can the consumer demand that the trader refunds the consumer direct?

As I understand it, the willingness of retailers in general to agree a refund via a different channel from the original purchase is extremely low.  Retailers tend to quote AML regulations as the reason this must be so.  It seems plausible that would be the case.  It is possible that consumer law permits the customer to agree a different form of refund and AML rules effectively cut that off.

Retailers are not beholden to AML laws. I would assume they're using this as an excuse to quickly shut down any request to refund to another form of payment. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-who-needs-to-register details who is covered by the regulations (essentially anyone likely to be handling large sums of cash.)

The real reason (I suspect) is simply because payment methods like debit and credit cards come with fees that would stand if the customer is refunded by, say, cash. It also potentially leaves them open to fraudulent INR chargeback claims. It's a lot easier to say "we can't because it's illegal" vs "we won't because it'll cost us money."

Edit: I suppose it also avoids having to deal with people who may use this as a loophole to get a fee-free cash advance off their credit card.

I would guess that the simple reason is it prevents issues with fraud - if you pay back to a different account/source the risk exists that you pay back the wrong person (either accidentally, or someone deliberately gives you wrong information to steal the money)

voluted

Ergates said:

voluted said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Okell said:

AIUI the law says that refunds must be paid using the same method as the original purchase, unless the consumer agrees otherwise.

To my mind that means that cash = cash, debit card = debit card, credit card = credit card, cheque = cheque and bank transfer = bank transfer.

But does the "same method" extend to meaning the same intermediary?  So if the consumer pays Klarna, and Klarna pays the trader, does that mean that any refund must come to the consumer via Klarna, or can the consumer demand that the trader refunds the consumer direct?

As I understand it, the willingness of retailers in general to agree a refund via a different channel from the original purchase is extremely low.  Retailers tend to quote AML regulations as the reason this must be so.  It seems plausible that would be the case.  It is possible that consumer law permits the customer to agree a different form of refund and AML rules effectively cut that off.

Retailers are not beholden to AML laws. I would assume they're using this as an excuse to quickly shut down any request to refund to another form of payment. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-who-needs-to-register details who is covered by the regulations (essentially anyone likely to be handling large sums of cash.)

The real reason (I suspect) is simply because payment methods like debit and credit cards come with fees that would stand if the customer is refunded by, say, cash. It also potentially leaves them open to fraudulent INR chargeback claims. It's a lot easier to say "we can't because it's illegal" vs "we won't because it'll cost us money."

Edit: I suppose it also avoids having to deal with people who may use this as a loophole to get a fee-free cash advance off their credit card.

I would guess that the simple reason is it prevents issues with fraud - if you pay back to a different account/source the risk exists that you pay back the wrong person (either accidentally, or someone deliberately gives you wrong information to steal the money)

IIRC retailers are protected from fraud claims when Chip and PIN is used, although I do wonder if contractually they are required to refund to the original payment card by their merchant provider to stop this fraud from being borne by the scheme provider or banks.