Bank chargeback against Alibaba

Jas8

born_again said:

Jas8 said:

Alderbank said:

You don't give any dates.

When did all this happen - last week or last year?

Many legal rights are time bound. A time line would be really helpful for us, as would the T&Cs of your contract of sale for the engine including the name of the entity your contract is with and the agreed legal jurisdiction of the contract.

Edited to Add:

Is the jurisdiction Singapore? Alibaba seems to choose Singapore law quite a lot for dealing with members from overseas.

If so, the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act is very similar to European consumer rights law.
https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/lemon-law-claims-defective-items-singapore/

Engine was bought in June 2025, delivered in August 2025 end of the week - Found out damaged that week and reported it to seller been back and forward with seller. REASON why I did chargeback is despite alibaba stating one thing, despite seller saying one thing they both have acted unethically, and refusing to either bare costs or give refund. Alibaba change there mind up, I get reasons such as:

1) we can’t determine if damage was caused by you, however proven by seller chat they taken responsibility, they even said we found defects before shipping,

2) refuse to comment on the refund if seller doesn’t provide label,

3) state that they can’t pressure seller to refund or accept return item 

4) despite advertising Easy Return - which states return to local warehouse they are denying it stating not possible despite previously stating it was.

I get why you took this route. Sadly that is not a basis for a chargeback.

Chargebacks are a very blunt way of gettings funds back. Which can lead to a world of pain. 

Who is the debit on the HSBC account to?
Where does seller say any returns have to go to?

The basis was goods were found not as described aka Damaged, engine has spun rod bearing and damaged camshaft which is major issue, seller is brushing it off as minor damage and saying find cheap labour and repair. There are several pipes broken, modules missing etc. they do not want to take the return regardless as they have been trying to pressure me to take 1000usd and spare parts… 

Aylesbury_Duck

Given the behaviour of the seller that you describe, I think it certain you won't see that courier fee or the engine again.

In your situation I think you'll have to hope that somehow HSBC help you, or accept the money has gone.  

Edited to add:  You're in a "stick or twist" situation, so you'll have to decide whether to accept the $1000 to limit your losses, or hold out for the full £4000 but risk getting none of it 

born_again

Jas8 said:

born_again said:

Jas8 said:

Alderbank said:

You don't give any dates.

When did all this happen - last week or last year?

Many legal rights are time bound. A time line would be really helpful for us, as would the T&Cs of your contract of sale for the engine including the name of the entity your contract is with and the agreed legal jurisdiction of the contract.

Edited to Add:

Is the jurisdiction Singapore? Alibaba seems to choose Singapore law quite a lot for dealing with members from overseas.

If so, the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act is very similar to European consumer rights law.
https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/lemon-law-claims-defective-items-singapore/

Engine was bought in June 2025, delivered in August 2025 end of the week - Found out damaged that week and reported it to seller been back and forward with seller. REASON why I did chargeback is despite alibaba stating one thing, despite seller saying one thing they both have acted unethically, and refusing to either bare costs or give refund. Alibaba change there mind up, I get reasons such as:

1) we can’t determine if damage was caused by you, however proven by seller chat they taken responsibility, they even said we found defects before shipping,

2) refuse to comment on the refund if seller doesn’t provide label,

3) state that they can’t pressure seller to refund or accept return item 

4) despite advertising Easy Return - which states return to local warehouse they are denying it stating not possible despite previously stating it was.

I get why you took this route. Sadly that is not a basis for a chargeback.

Chargebacks are a very blunt way of gettings funds back. Which can lead to a world of pain. 

Who is the debit on the HSBC account to?
Where does seller say any returns have to go to?

The basis was goods were found not as described aka Damaged, engine has spun rod bearing and damaged camshaft which is major issue, seller is brushing it off as minor damage and saying find cheap labour and repair. There are several pipes broken, modules missing etc. they do not want to take the return regardless as they have been trying to pressure me to take 1000usd and spare parts… 

While I get your feelings. As well as HSBC willing to take it on, there is never a 100% guarantee of winning. As payment went to Alibaba, then as they did not supply the item, merely moved the funds to retailer. They have a simply out on that grounds (PayPal used to do this years ago) As well as the previous reason.

Have you costed up someone fixing it or fancy a shot yourself.

£700+ & parts. Is a tempting offer, against a possible rejection & nothing 🤷‍♀️

At least in this case, there is less chance of winning & then being taken to court for the £4K. Given the location of the companies.

ThumbRemote

 I would have thought that in this case there are two separate contracts.
1. The purchase contract which the OP made with the retailer. Had the retailer been UK based it would be covered by the Consumer Rights Act.
2. The contract between the OP and AliBaba. The OP has used their platform based on claims they made, which have turned out to be false. The OP is thus out of pocket. This contract is probably not covered by the consumer rights act*, but as a simple breach of contract wouldn't the OP be entitled to claim their losses. 

* Personally I feel this sort of contract ought to be considered as two consumer rights cases, a goods contract with the seller and a services contract with the platform. However I'm not aware of any case law for this. 

Okell

ThumbRemote said:

... * Personally I feel this sort of contract ought to be considered as two consumer rights cases, a goods contract with the seller and a services contract with the platform. However I'm not aware of any case law for this. 

There's already a sort of precedent for this with s75 of the Consumer Credit Act making the provider of finance or credit jointly liable with the supplier for breaches of contract.

Wouldn't it be interesting if online marketplaces and marketing platforms were made jointly liable with their third party sellers for breach of contract

MyRealNameToo

Okell said:

ThumbRemote said:

... * Personally I feel this sort of contract ought to be considered as two consumer rights cases, a goods contract with the seller and a services contract with the platform. However I'm not aware of any case law for this. 

There's already a sort of precedent for this with s75 of the Consumer Credit Act making the provider of finance or credit jointly liable with the supplier for breaches of contract.

Wouldn't it be interesting if online marketplaces and marketing platforms were made jointly liable with their third party sellers for breach of contract

And the law has made market places liable for VAT collection for overseas sellers 

In principle parliamentarians could, how market places would react is another matter. You could see market places ceasing to have a UK presence making enforcement much more difficult. I've no idea the revenue split for eBay between high volume sellers who'd they'd be willing to vet and the highly voluminous small scale and occasional sellers where vetting and taking on liability for them may not be economical. 

S75 is probably a bad example however as it originates from another time and is arguably very out of place now that debt has flipped between proportion paid on tied finance which used to be the overwhelming majority when S75 was created and now where most credit for in store purchases are credit cards with the card issuer having little/no say on if JL, Currys or random market stall can accept payments by card or not. 

Okell

Do credit card issuers have little or no say in which traders can accept their cards?

It might be that they choose not to for commercial reasons, but don't they have the final say as to what suppliers can accept them?

PHK

Okell said:

Do credit card issuers have little or no say in which traders can accept their cards?

It might be that they choose not to for commercial reasons, but don't they have the final say as to what suppliers can accept them?

When a merchant signs up to a card scheme through a merchant acquirer  (an intermediary between the retailer and the card scheme) they are required to accept any card with that logo. 

The card issuer is a bank/building society/EMI etc that signs up to a card scheme and then issues cards. It has no control over where the card is used as that is up to the card scheme. They can control some types of transactions, such as no gambling. 

While some firms such as Barclays or Lloyds might be an intermediary and a card issuer, regulations mean those are kept separate. 

The intermediary could decide to not offer an account for a particular merchant, but the merchant will just go elsewhere. And of course there are plenty of processors such as Square or Sum up that the merchant can resort to. 

Alderbank

All of this ^^.

It's in everyone's commercial interest for as many retailers as possible to be signed up and taking cards.

Merchant banks take the long view. They keep merchants under review, if they have to pay out more than they would like in s75 claims they increase that merchant's transaction fees.

All things being equal the lower your s75 claims, the lower your transaction fees.