Refunds issued as gift cards but won credit card dispute

HillStreetBlues

Grumpy_chap said:

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.
i Hence, "unjust enrichment" is avoided.

Last year I had an issue with Asda on my Amex card. Amex just refund me after answering a few questions. From what I understood it wasn't s Chargeback and too low amount to be a S75.
Could be possible it was just settled without either.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

As the implied terms under the contract from the CRA require the refund to made back to the original payment method if the trader issues a voucher where an alternative is due the value of that voucher really has no bearing on the amount due to the customer.

If the customer makes a claim against the credit provider that provider could ask for the vouchers as part of the settlement but from what born_again has said in the past that is very unlikely to happen.  

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

As the implied terms under the contract from the CRA require the refund to made back to the original payment method if the trader issues a voucher where an alternative is due the value of that voucher really has no bearing on the amount due to the customer.

If the customer makes a claim against the credit provider that provider could ask for the vouchers as part of the settlement but from what born_again has said in the past that is very unlikely to happen.  

Yes, I am aware the refund should be made to the original payment method but I had thought the OP accepted the gift cards in this case.

Anyway, you prompted me to read the post again:

Charlie_21 said:

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.

I think the OP is saying they received a refund (of some or all the value) as gift cards.
They rejected that and requested the refund to the original form of payment (CC).
The received a partial refund to the CC.
Eventually, the balance to make a full refund to the CC.

If that is correct, then the OP had rejected the gift cards and has no right to spend their value.
There is no harm in the retailer offering gift cards and, in some cases, that might be entirely acceptable and agreed by the consumer.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

As the implied terms under the contract from the CRA require the refund to made back to the original payment method if the trader issues a voucher where an alternative is due the value of that voucher really has no bearing on the amount due to the customer.

If the customer makes a claim against the credit provider that provider could ask for the vouchers as part of the settlement but from what born_again has said in the past that is very unlikely to happen.  

Yes, I am aware the refund should be made to the original payment method but I had thought the OP accepted the gift cards in this case.

Anyway, you prompted me to read the post again:

Charlie_21 said:

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.

I think the OP is saying they received a refund (of some or all the value) as gift cards.
They rejected that and requested the refund to the original form of payment (CC).
The received a partial refund to the CC.
Eventually, the balance to make a full refund to the CC.

If that is correct, then the OP had rejected the gift cards and has no right to spend their value.
There is no harm in the retailer offering gift cards and, in some cases, that might be entirely acceptable and agreed by the consumer.

Traders have to be careful not to breach the CPRs, I can't see a situation where a customer is entitled to a refund that isn't a voucher and wants such yet ends up with a voucher without the trader misleading them about their entitlement or just giving the voucher in the hope they'll go away.

Really bank refunds customer and takes voucher, bank sues trader gets money and returns voucher, everything is whole.

Bank is unlikely to do so and may see keeping the vouchers as easier than getting the cash, if bank doesn't want the vouchers and says to the customer you keep them I can't see any wrong doing in spending them, the retailer isn't any worse off and the bank doesn't care that they are and have given their consent.  

Obviously I would assume as part of the S75 the presence of the voucher has been declared as part of the claim.

In terms of morals, if money is the root of all evil is any of it moral  

born_again

Has to be S75.
Given that a chargeback would not cover the issue. As OP got their refund. How that is made is not something chargebacks cover.

OP could speak to CC & ask if they want the voucher. Odds on they will say no.

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Traders have to be careful not to breach the CPRs, I can't see a situation where a customer is entitled to a refund that isn't a voucher and wants such yet ends up with a voucher without the trader misleading them about their entitlement or just giving the voucher in the hope they'll go away.

I sort of can.

We have had a couple of times when items have been returned to JL as faulty and we have been offered (and accepted) gift vouchers as the refund.
It seems to be part of the way that JL manage replacements.  They refund the full value by giving you a gift voucher of the original price and then the customer goes to the shop floor and buys the replacement item, paying with the gift voucher.  In fact, we've had this happen and the replacement costs less than the original item so we have a bit left over on the gift voucher after the process of replacement has completed.

Obviously, in this case, the OP did not accept the gift voucher and insisted on the refund back to the original form of payment, hence the whole pursuit of S75.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Really bank refunds customer and takes voucher, bank sues trader gets money and returns voucher, everything is whole.

Bank is unlikely to do so and may see keeping the vouchers as easier than getting the cash, if bank doesn't want the vouchers and says to the customer you keep them I can't see any wrong doing in spending them, the retailer isn't any worse off and the bank doesn't care that they are and have given their consent.  

Obviously I would assume as part of the S75 the presence of the voucher has been declared as part of the claim.

This is the crux, here.  The OP probably could simply spend the gift vouchers and it will be fine.

The key is, though, the OP received the gift vouchers and declined them as a resolution, pursuing the refund to CC as is their right.
It is not the OP's right to have full refund to the CC in addition to gift vouchers (no mention that the retailer offered the gift vouchers as an apology over and above the value of full refund).
The gift vouchers should have been declared as part of the S75 claim.

It would be odd if the OP actually wanted to spend the gift vouchers given the terrible customer service they experienced and their wholesale dissatisfaction with the retailer.

The thing is, I think we should be trying to answer the question as to whether, legally, the OP should attempt to spend the gift vouchers in addition to having received a full refund by S75?
That would seem to me to be a clear "no".

The alternative of "could probably spend the gift vouchers (as well as having had the full S75 refund) will likely be fine" might well reflect practical reality, but does not seem aligned with the strict legal position.
At what point would the "unjust enrichment" become dishonesty?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

At what point would the "unjust enrichment" become dishonesty?

At a glance unjust enrichment requires that the enrichment causes a loss to the claimant.

born_again

Grumpy_chap said:

This is the crux, here.  The OP probably could simply spend the gift vouchers and it will be fine.

The key is, though, the OP received the gift vouchers and declined them as a resolution, pursuing the refund to CC as is their right.
It is not the OP's right to have full refund to the CC in addition to gift vouchers (no mention that the retailer offered the gift vouchers as an apology over and above the value of full refund).
The gift vouchers should have been declared as part of the S75 claim.

It would be odd if the OP actually wanted to spend the gift vouchers given the terrible customer service they experienced and their wholesale dissatisfaction with the retailer.

The thing is, I think we should be trying to answer the question as to whether, legally, the OP should attempt to spend the gift vouchers in addition to having received a full refund by S75?
That would seem to me to be a clear "no".

The alternative of "could probably spend the gift vouchers (as well as having had the full S75 refund) will likely be fine" might well reflect practical reality, but does not seem aligned with the strict legal position.
At what point would the "unjust enrichment" become dishonesty?

That would have been the whole point of the OP's claim. That the contract had been breeched by the way it was refunded.
If it was not then the OP has basically lied in their S75 claim.

A_Geordie

Was reading this thread with interest and thought I would share some of my thoughts. 

1. I am inclined to agree with @Grumpy_chap that the spending of the vouchers would enable to supplier to sue the OP for unjust enrichment, having now been paid in full (or the difference) by their CC company.

2. The vouchers do not belong to the CC company simply because they paid out to the OP, they are still the property of the supplier. S75 allows the CC company to be indemnified against any costs or expenses that it pays out to the consumer, but it doesn't give them the unilateral right to take property (money or otherwise) belonging the supplier without their consent. In doing so, the CC company would more than likely likely be committing trespass to goods.

3. I also disagree with @Grumpy_chap that the vouchers should have been declared and @born_again with the suggestion that the OP had 'lied' in the s75 claim. The vouchers are irrelevant and have no bearing to the s75 claim because the OP wanted a refund back to the original payment method. The fact the OP is in possession of the vouchers without their consent merely makes the OP an involuntary bailee, but I don't think they need to declared to the CC company since the vouchers were rejected - that then becomes a matter between the OP and the supplier and whether they should be returned. It has nothing to do with the CC company which is concerned with the refund back to the original method in breach of the OP's statutory rights. If however, the OP accepted the vouchers and then proceeded to claim from the CC company then I would agree that would be a deceitful claim.

born_again

A_Geordie said:

Was reading this thread with interest and thought I would share some of my thoughts. 

1. I am inclined to agree with @Grumpy_chap that the spending of the vouchers would enable to supplier to sue the OP for unjust enrichment, having now been paid in full (or the difference) by their CC company.

2. The vouchers do not belong to the CC company simply because they paid out to the OP, they are still the property of the supplier. S75 allows the CC company to be indemnified against any costs or expenses that it pays out to the consumer, but it doesn't give them the unilateral right to take property (money or otherwise) belonging the supplier without their consent. In doing so, the CC company would more than likely likely be committing trespass to goods.

3. I also disagree with @Grumpy_chap that the vouchers should have been declared and @born_again with the suggestion that the OP had 'lied' in the s75 claim. The vouchers are irrelevant and have no bearing to the s75 claim because the OP wanted a refund back to the original payment method. The fact the OP is in possession of the vouchers without their consent merely makes the OP an involuntary bailee, but I don't think they need to declared to the CC company since the vouchers were rejected - that then becomes a matter between the OP and the supplier and whether they should be returned. It has nothing to do with the CC company which is concerned with the refund back to the original method in breach of the OP's statutory rights. If however, the OP accepted the vouchers and then proceeded to claim from the CC company then I would agree that would be a deceitful claim.

If OP had declared they had not been refunded, that would be a lie, as the vouchers = a refund.

The only basis I can see for a S75 refund is that OP has not been refunded back to the method they paid by. So again if they did not mention they had vouchers they have lied. But then CC would throw the claim out.

As the OP has now received a refund from the CC. The CC are entitled to the vouchers (OP not entitled to betterment) What the CC do & they could take this up with retailer is up to them to send them back for retailer to refund CC. More likely they would just be destroyed.

As a S75 retailer will not be aware that OP has been refunded, which is why vouchers are still active.

Only other thing that could make sense, is if this was a small claim (Can't see any amounts mentioned) & CC have simply just decided to write the amount off.

Maybe MSE would like to run this as one of their moral issues 🤷‍♀️