Refunds issued as gift cards but won credit card dispute

Charlie_21

Hi,

I have looked for a similar post but have been unable to find one.  I had returned some items to a company and they had issued gift cards as refunds.  After months of back and forth, terrible customer service and endless repetition on my part I was able to obtain a partial refund back to my credit card but they refused the rest.  I have disputed these with my credit company and have been issued a refund and advised my case was closed.

I have checked recently and all of the gift cards are still active.  What do I do with these?  Do I need to alert anyone that these are still active?

I'm not sure whether to ignore them completely or if I need to let the retailer know.

Aylesbury_Duck

Have you been "made good"?  It's not particularly clear from your description.  If you have, then you need to return the vouchers to the retailer, or at least let them know you have them and that they're available for collection.

elsien

So did you do a chargeback or a section 75 challenge with your credit card? Because if it was a charge back, the company can dispute the outcome. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If this was S75 I’d say technically the vouchers belong to the bank (doubtful they’ll want them)

If a chargeback then they should go back to the retailer. 

Charlie_21

I don't know if it's a chargeback or S75 challenge, but my credit card company has refunded me and said my case is closed.

I'll contact the retailer re these vouchers. Thanks all!

Grumpy_chap

Charlie_21 said:

I don't know if it's a chargeback or S75 challenge, but my credit card company has refunded me and said my case is closed.

I'll contact the retailer re these vouchers. Thanks all!

The timescale and amount of challenge from the CC will indicate whether the refund was processed as chargeback of S75.

Either way, you have received a full refund to the CC.
Therefore, keeping (and spending) the gift cards would be unjust enrichment.  If neither the CC nor the retailer take the gift cards back, the correct thing to do would be to destroy them.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

Charlie_21 said:

I don't know if it's a chargeback or S75 challenge, but my credit card company has refunded me and said my case is closed.

I'll contact the retailer re these vouchers. Thanks all!

The timescale and amount of challenge from the CC will indicate whether the refund was processed as chargeback of S75.

Either way, you have received a full refund to the CC.
Therefore, keeping (and spending) the gift cards would be unjust enrichment.  If neither the CC nor the retailer take the gift cards back, the correct thing to do would be to destroy them.

You mean the moral thing in your view  

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

You mean the moral thing in your view  

It is the moral thing in my view, yes
Hopefully, the majority view also.

BUT "unjust enrichment" is also a legal terminology. Simply receiving two refunds (or more than 100% refund) would be "unjust enrichment" so it is the correct legal thing not to benefit from "unjust enrichment".
That would not be the case if the retailer (or via S75, the CC) refunded the 100% of the original value and, in addition, communicated that the value of the gift cards was intended for the OP by way of an apology for the service / goods not meeting the supplier's usual exemplary standards.  So far as is apparent from the thread, that is not the case here.

Others have far better knowledge of the chargeback / S75 process than I do, but I am led to believe that a CC would typically enquire as to whether the claim is for the full original value or only partial value.

HillStreetBlues

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

You mean the moral thing in your view  

It is the moral thing in my view, yes
Hopefully, the majority view also.

BUT "unjust enrichment" is also a legal terminology. Simply receiving two refunds (or more than 100% refund) would be "unjust enrichment" so it is the correct legal thing not to benefit from "unjust enrichment".
That would not be the case if the retailer (or via S75, the CC) refunded the 100% of the original value and, in addition, communicated that the value of the gift cards was intended for the OP by way of an apology for the service / goods not meeting the supplier's usual exemplary standards.  So far as is apparent from the thread, that is not the case here.

Others have far better knowledge of the chargeback / S75 process than I do, but I am led to believe that a CC would typically enquire as to whether the claim is for the full original value or only partial value.

If it was a S75 then the credit card company pays. By cutting up the gift cards then the retailer would be better off as won't have paid a refund. This would reward the retailer for not giving the refund when due. Why should the retailer profit from a shoddy service.
 

ThumbRemote

Whatever you do in the end, I'd keep hold of them for a couple of months, just to ensure there's no nasty surprises sprung on you by the bank / retailer. 

Grumpy_chap

HillStreetBlues said:

If it was a S75 then the credit card company pays. By cutting up the gift cards then the retailer would be better off as won't have paid a refund. This would reward the retailer for not giving the refund when due. Why should the retailer profit from a shoddy service.
 

I agree that the retailer should also not profit.

However, it is my understanding that CCs are very thorough when processing S75 settlements and, rather like an insurance claim, the CC will ask about any other policy that covers the loss or any other (partial) refund received such that the greater than the original cost cannot be recovered by the individual making the claim.
That is entirely reasonable and how everything really works.

EDIT to add:
In fact, the limit of the claim under S75 so that the consumer does not achieve "unjust enrichment" is in the S75 legislation:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75
"If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor."

The CC is only liable to the same extent as the supplier.
If the supplier has made a partial refund, then the supplier is only liable for the remaining amount of the original value above that partial refund.
Hence, the CC cannot be liable for the full original value but only the amount above that which has been partially refunded.
Hence, "unjust enrichment" is avoided.