Refund refused....

eskbanker

born_again said:

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.

Yes, I should have said escalating to FOS if necessary, but the point was really that if the choice of reason codes is entirely within the control of the bank, then the bank should be held financially liable to the customer for a clear error - hopefully they'd accept that without needing to get FOS involved.

born_again

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

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.

Yes, I should have said escalating to FOS if necessary, but the point was really that if the choice of reason codes is entirely within the control of the bank, then the bank should be held financially liable to the customer for a clear error - hopefully they'd accept that without needing to get FOS involved.

If we make a error in the reason code, then Yes we will refund. In most cases customer would never be aware.
But is very rare, due to the impact on staff member.

This is why we get so much training.
Several weeks in classroom & then sat next to a normal rep who has to sign them off (usually 2 weeks) & then their manager double checks before they are let lose on their own. 
Even then there is always a point of referral if they are not sure. Even as a experienced rep, we often refer if it is something out of the normal easy chargebacks.

eskbanker

born_again said:

eskbanker said:

born_again said:

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.

Yes, I should have said escalating to FOS if necessary, but the point was really that if the choice of reason codes is entirely within the control of the bank, then the bank should be held financially liable to the customer for a clear error - hopefully they'd accept that without needing to get FOS involved.

If we make a error in the reason code, then Yes we will refund. In most cases customer would never be aware.
But is very rare, due to the impact on staff member.

This is why we get so much training.
Several weeks in classroom & then sat next to a normal rep who has to sign them off (usually 2 weeks) & then their manager double checks before they are let lose on their own. 
Even then there is always a point of referral if they are not sure. Even as a experienced rep, we often refer if it is something out of the normal easy chargebacks.

Yes, I'm not asserting that mistakes are frequent, but am simply picking up on the fact that OP has received two items out of three and your immediate reaction suggested that it would probably be processed as a non-receipt claim that would easily be defeated by the merchant:

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 👍

whereas it was subsequently clarified that claiming 'not as described' would have at least some chance of success.

born_again

eskbanker 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 👍

whereas it was subsequently clarified that claiming 'not as described' would have at least some chance of success.

Let their bank make the decision then.