NBCS letter on behalf of Fraser’s group

movedto03

"Ethnic Minority Helpline: (08457) 581649"

The above premium rate 084 number is likely to be at least a decade out of date. 

newgem

Sports direct, Nbcs and Michael Murray are in the press today 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/4c4d05e6cbf51255

born_again

newgem said:

Sports direct, Nbcs and Michael Murray are in the press today 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/4c4d05e6cbf51255

Consumer rights

Consumers can ask their bank to launch a chargeback to recover funds when items fail to arrive and a retailer refuses to refund, effectively forcing the payment back into the customer’s account.

Credit card users also benefit from a legal right to a refund under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

These protections are designed to ensure shoppers are not left out of pocket when retailers fail to deliver goods or resolve complaints, with banks requiring evidence of non-delivery.

Typical poor reporting by the media.

Makes no mention of the fact chargebacks have no legal standing & companies can chase for the money back via legal means...

eskbanker

born_again said:

newgem said:

Sports direct, Nbcs and Michael Murray are in the press today 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/4c4d05e6cbf51255

Consumer rights

Consumers can ask their bank to launch a chargeback to recover funds when items fail to arrive and a retailer refuses to refund, effectively forcing the payment back into the customer’s account.

Credit card users also benefit from a legal right to a refund under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

These protections are designed to ensure shoppers are not left out of pocket when retailers fail to deliver goods or resolve complaints, with banks requiring evidence of non-delivery.

Typical poor reporting by the media.

Makes no mention of the fact chargebacks have no legal standing & companies can chase for the money back via legal means...

Coverage of the full ramifications of chargeback versus s75 in many places, including this site, is far from comprehensive, but to be fair, the bolded wording above does at least suggest that one is a means of recovering funds while the other is a legal right, although as you say, there's more to it than that, especially with regards to the differing finality of the two processes.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I think the point of the article is the aggressive nature in which these situations are being chased rather than the technical issues surrounding chargebacks. 

I’m sure there is a lot of fraud for these places to deal with but if someone genuinely didn’t get their parcel they are entitled to a refund and aggressive practices are defined and prohibited under the DMCC. 

Of course I’m not passing any comment on whether these practices contravene this, rather just that this seems to be the focus of the article from what I can gather.