HELP: Capital One Potentially Reversing Refund After Kickstarter Scam - Botnono Project

eskbanker

Okell said:

Can someone explain to me what the basis of @dataworf's claim is?

I know he's mentioned the CRA a couple of times but obviously his situation isn't a type of contract covered by the CRA.

Is he arguing that Kickstarter fraudulently misrepresented this "investment opportunity"?

This relates to the 'less is more' point I was making earlier about not being able to see the wood for the trees, i.e. if there is the kernel of an argument in there somewhere, it's largely buried in the noise!

Having said that, my summary understanding is that they expected Kickstarter to actively monitor the project, and to flag concerns to investors and/or intervene, and/or offer refunds, but there is also the parallel debate about Capital One's role in proceedings, i.e. an expectation that they should own the issue.

Grumpy_chap

eskbanker said:

This relates to the 'less is more' point I was making earlier about not being able to see the wood for the trees, i.e. if there is the kernel of an argument in there somewhere, it's largely buried in the noise!

Having said that, my summary understanding is that they expected Kickstarter to actively monitor the project, and to flag concerns to investors and/or intervene, and/or offer refunds, but there is also the parallel debate about Capital One's role in proceedings, i.e. an expectation that they should own the issue.

I have been throughout this thread rather confused as to why Capital One should own this issue.

The OP sought out and made an investment via a platform which allows individuals to "invest" in a business / project start-up with the promise that if the project is successful then the investors get the return of a lower cost item than the general public will who are buying later at far reduced risk as to whether the product will be received.

This is not, so far as I am aware, like the cold call offers of whatever type that are received via the unsolicited phone call, whether offering "investment" in art or gold that does not exist or the more specific scam calls about IT security or dishonesty at the local bank branch.

Essentially, this spend via the platform the OP has chosen is one that the individual has to find rather than the scam finding the individual.

eskbanker

Grumpy_chap said:

I have been throughout this thread rather confused as to why Capital One should own this issue.

Agreed, it doesn't seem a particularly credible claim - technically there weren't goods received, but it seems unlikely that this investment contract would be structured around delivery of goods, so it doesn't surprise me that Kickstarter challenged the chargeback.

dataworf said:

I followed the advice and filed a chargeback with my bank, Capital One UK, for "goods not received." To my relief, they issued a provisional refund straight away.

Now for the kicker. Months later, I get an email from Capital One. Kickstarter has challenged the chargeback.

Their entire argument? A copy-paste of their Terms of Service: "We're just a platform, we don't guarantee projects, no refunds."

Unfortunately, as I understand it, chargeback is a one-off exercise, so if a claim for 'goods not received' is disputed then there isn't any option of trying again with a better reason code....

Grumpy_chap

eskbanker said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I have been throughout this thread rather confused as to why Capital One should own this issue.

Agreed, it doesn't seem a particularly credible claim - 

Oooh - hang on - I just remembered.

Where I make a decision and take some action, if it all goes wrong it must be someone else's fault and someone else should give me com-pehn-say-shun.
Where I make a decision and take some action, if it just goes to plan, then that is what should have happened.
Where I make a decision and take some action, and it turns out better than expected, that is all my win to keep.