Refund refused....

Jaysaab

My daughter bought three (3) items online from Zara using a Visa debit card.
The online invoice showed the three(3) items and the money was debited from her bank account.
The box arrived undamaged and unopened.
When she opened it there was two(2) items and a £30 top was missing, there was no packing slip.
She has complained to Zara and they have told her that the box contained the three(3) items.
This was done in an online chat and the 'thorough' investigation took them all of the(10) minutes checking there online records.
I have suggested she files a chargeback claim with her bank, is this the right course of action or are we wasting our time as it's there word against ours???
Thanks

Aylesbury_Duck

No harm in trying, but it will probably be challenged and reversed.

born_again

Danger here is that a chargeback will only look at delivery. So Zara can simply reject on the basis it was delivered.
It will only be a partial chargeback, so you will need proof of item cost.

But nothing lost in trying.

Although fully expect a rejection 👍

Jaysaab

Thanks, as I feared tbh.
Think she will try to video opening any packages from now on.

Okell

Your daughter could first try going back to Zara and telling them that even if they did send off 3 items only 2 arrived, and that under s28 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 they (Zara) remained responsible for the missing item until it was delivered into the "physical possession" of the consumer.

As the missing item was never delivered to your daughter, Zara owes her a replacement or refund.

Ectophile

born_again said:

Danger here is that a chargeback will only look at delivery. So Zara can simply reject on the basis it was delivered.
It will only be a partial chargeback, so you will need proof of item cost.

But nothing lost in trying.

Although fully expect a rejection 👍

There is nothing in the Visa chargeback rules that says that if something was delivered, the chargeback will automatically fail.

born_again

Ectophile said:

born_again said:

Danger here is that a chargeback will only look at delivery. So Zara can simply reject on the basis it was delivered.
It will only be a partial chargeback, so you will need proof of item cost.

But nothing lost in trying.

Although fully expect a rejection 👍

There is nothing in the Visa chargeback rules that says that if something was delivered, the chargeback will automatically fail.

If retailer provides evidence of delivery. That is them contesting the non delivery of item. Which as far as Visa goes is a valid reason to reject, As retailer has provided proof of delivery.

If one party can prove delivery, then they win.

Ectophile

born_again said:

Ectophile said:

born_again said:

Danger here is that a chargeback will only look at delivery. So Zara can simply reject on the basis it was delivered.
It will only be a partial chargeback, so you will need proof of item cost.

But nothing lost in trying.

Although fully expect a rejection 👍

There is nothing in the Visa chargeback rules that says that if something was delivered, the chargeback will automatically fail.

If retailer provides evidence of delivery. That is them contesting the non delivery of item. Which as far as Visa goes is a valid reason to reject, As retailer has provided proof of delivery.

If one party can prove delivery, then they win.

So contest it on another basis.  "Not as described", for example.

born_again

Ectophile said:

born_again said:

Ectophile said:

born_again said:

Danger here is that a chargeback will only look at delivery. So Zara can simply reject on the basis it was delivered.
It will only be a partial chargeback, so you will need proof of item cost.

But nothing lost in trying.

Although fully expect a rejection 👍

There is nothing in the Visa chargeback rules that says that if something was delivered, the chargeback will automatically fail.

If retailer provides evidence of delivery. That is them contesting the non delivery of item. Which as far as Visa goes is a valid reason to reject, As retailer has provided proof of delivery.

If one party can prove delivery, then they win.

So contest it on another basis.  "Not as described", for example.

You can only try a chargeback once.

In this case non receipt is the only option. 

In reality customer does not get to choose reason. Staff who work these have to work to card regulations & options avaiable. Pick wrong one & you give the retailer a easy out on a technicality.

Yes non receipt in these cases is unfair, as the item has not been received, but the way the regs work is proof of a  delivery trumps everything else. 
To be fair to retailers. I have never seen a case when rejected that has not related to person claiming otherwise.

eskbanker

born_again said:

Ectophile said:

born_again said:

Ectophile said:

born_again said:

Danger here is that a chargeback will only look at delivery. So Zara can simply reject on the basis it was delivered.
It will only be a partial chargeback, so you will need proof of item cost.

But nothing lost in trying.

Although fully expect a rejection 👍

There is nothing in the Visa chargeback rules that says that if something was delivered, the chargeback will automatically fail.

If retailer provides evidence of delivery. That is them contesting the non delivery of item. Which as far as Visa goes is a valid reason to reject, As retailer has provided proof of delivery.

If one party can prove delivery, then they win.

So contest it on another basis.  "Not as described", for example.

You can only try a chargeback once.

In this case non receipt is the only option. 

In reality customer does not get to choose reason. Staff who work these have to work to card regulations & options avaiable. Pick wrong one & you give the retailer a easy out on a technicality.

Yes non receipt in these cases is unfair, as the item has not been received, but the way the regs work is proof of a  delivery trumps everything else. 
To be fair to retailers. I have never seen a case when rejected that has not related to person claiming otherwise.

There's no evidence that a chargeback has already been attempted yet here, but if I'd initiated a chargeback claim with a bank and they unilaterally chose to use a reason code that they'd know would be doomed to fail (in the scenario of partial receipt), rather than one which might succeed, then I'd be lodging a complaint with the bank and escalating to FOS, with a fairly high degree of confidence of getting that £30 back!

born_again

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

Ectophile said:

born_again said:

Ectophile said:

born_again said:

Danger here is that a chargeback will only look at delivery. So Zara can simply reject on the basis it was delivered.
It will only be a partial chargeback, so you will need proof of item cost.

But nothing lost in trying.

Although fully expect a rejection 👍

There is nothing in the Visa chargeback rules that says that if something was delivered, the chargeback will automatically fail.

If retailer provides evidence of delivery. That is them contesting the non delivery of item. Which as far as Visa goes is a valid reason to reject, As retailer has provided proof of delivery.

If one party can prove delivery, then they win.

So contest it on another basis.  "Not as described", for example.

You can only try a chargeback once.

In this case non receipt is the only option. 

In reality customer does not get to choose reason. Staff who work these have to work to card regulations & options avaiable. Pick wrong one & you give the retailer a easy out on a technicality.

Yes non receipt in these cases is unfair, as the item has not been received, but the way the regs work is proof of a  delivery trumps everything else. 
To be fair to retailers. I have never seen a case when rejected that has not related to person claiming otherwise.

There's no evidence that a chargeback has already been attempted yet here, but if I'd initiated a chargeback claim with a bank and they unilaterally chose to use a reason code that they'd know would be doomed to fail (in the scenario of partial receipt), rather than one which might succeed, then I'd be lodging a complaint with the bank and escalating to FOS, with a fairly high degree of confidence of getting that £30 back!

Just covering bases of the process.

Whoever chose the wrong code would get a slap for getting it wrong & there should be no need to FOS.