Chargeback when an online retailer refuses to cover return costs of faulty items

Cat08

powerful_Rogue said:

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Reviews are poor, domain registered only 3 months ago.

I can't imagine the site will be around past Christmas.

I would try and get them to increase the 15% refund and accept it. Depsite what it says on the site, this won't be a UK company and you'll have zero joy regarding any legal action.

Yes absolutely, it seems to be a potential scam which is why I'm trying to make a chargeback claim. 

I would say less a scam as such, more just the cheap rubbish that comes out of China, sometimes it is the same stuff, other times it is very carefully photographed to look far better than it is. 

Cat08 said:
 Since they purport to be based in the uk and market to uk sellers they must abide by uk consumer law.

They do not "purport to be based in the UK", their terms and conditions and refund policy clearly state that they are not based in the UK. UK Consumer Rights law applies to businesses legally based in the UK, just because they sell to the UK market does not mean the CRA applies.

Cat08 said:
I have an email trail proving they are refusing to pay for return postage, which they must in the case of faulty goods. 

I would argue that it is not a case of the goods being faulty, but of you not being happy with the quality, that is different. 

Cat08 said:
Yet Lloyds are still saying I must return the item before they initiate chargeback. They are effectively colluding with the seller in my view. 

That might be your view, but the rules for Chargeback are very prescriptive, laid out by the card network. What potentially complicates things even more is that from the look of the website there is an intermediary card processor so that might further preclude the possibility of a successful chargeback. 

I think you will have to chalk this one up to experience, I cannot see Lloyds changing their mind and retuning the item to China will cost more than it is worth. 

The jacket is completely different to the one shown and described on their website, although they have now removed it from the site. My understanding is that CRA 2015 applies to any seller marketing specifically to uk customers, irrespective of where they are based. I should not have to pay to return it. I think providing a uk address would make many people reasonably think they had a uk base. When I first contacted them asking for a refund they asked for more money to send me another item instead. I have used chargeback with Lloyds successfully in the past and not had to return goods. 

You keep repeating that, however even if it did apply, how are you going to enforce it against a company based in China?

That's a question for trading standards I think. 

Cat08

powerful_Rogue said:

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Reviews are poor, domain registered only 3 months ago.

I can't imagine the site will be around past Christmas.

I would try and get them to increase the 15% refund and accept it. Depsite what it says on the site, this won't be a UK company and you'll have zero joy regarding any legal action.

Yes absolutely, it seems to be a potential scam which is why I'm trying to make a chargeback claim. 

I would say less a scam as such, more just the cheap rubbish that comes out of China, sometimes it is the same stuff, other times it is very carefully photographed to look far better than it is. 

Cat08 said:
 Since they purport to be based in the uk and market to uk sellers they must abide by uk consumer law.

They do not "purport to be based in the UK", their terms and conditions and refund policy clearly state that they are not based in the UK. UK Consumer Rights law applies to businesses legally based in the UK, just because they sell to the UK market does not mean the CRA applies.

Cat08 said:
I have an email trail proving they are refusing to pay for return postage, which they must in the case of faulty goods. 

I would argue that it is not a case of the goods being faulty, but of you not being happy with the quality, that is different. 

Cat08 said:
Yet Lloyds are still saying I must return the item before they initiate chargeback. They are effectively colluding with the seller in my view. 

That might be your view, but the rules for Chargeback are very prescriptive, laid out by the card network. What potentially complicates things even more is that from the look of the website there is an intermediary card processor so that might further preclude the possibility of a successful chargeback. 

I think you will have to chalk this one up to experience, I cannot see Lloyds changing their mind and retuning the item to China will cost more than it is worth. 

The jacket is completely different to the one shown and described on their website, although they have now removed it from the site. My understanding is that CRA 2015 applies to any seller marketing specifically to uk customers, irrespective of where they are based. I should not have to pay to return it. I think providing a uk address would make many people reasonably think they had a uk base. When I first contacted them asking for a refund they asked for more money to send me another item instead. I have used chargeback with Lloyds successfully in the past and not had to return goods. 

You keep repeating that, however even if it did apply, how are you going to enforce it against a company based in China?

That's a question for trading standards I think. 

Cat08

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Reviews are poor, domain registered only 3 months ago.

I can't imagine the site will be around past Christmas.

I would try and get them to increase the 15% refund and accept it. Depsite what it says on the site, this won't be a UK company and you'll have zero joy regarding any legal action.

Yes absolutely, it seems to be a potential scam which is why I'm trying to make a chargeback claim. 

I would say less a scam as such, more just the cheap rubbish that comes out of China, sometimes it is the same stuff, other times it is very carefully photographed to look far better than it is. 

Cat08 said:
 Since they purport to be based in the uk and market to uk sellers they must abide by uk consumer law.

They do not "purport to be based in the UK", their terms and conditions and refund policy clearly state that they are not based in the UK. UK Consumer Rights law applies to businesses legally based in the UK, just because they sell to the UK market does not mean the CRA applies.

Cat08 said:
I have an email trail proving they are refusing to pay for return postage, which they must in the case of faulty goods. 

I would argue that it is not a case of the goods being faulty, but of you not being happy with the quality, that is different. 

Cat08 said:
Yet Lloyds are still saying I must return the item before they initiate chargeback. They are effectively colluding with the seller in my view. 

That might be your view, but the rules for Chargeback are very prescriptive, laid out by the card network. What potentially complicates things even more is that from the look of the website there is an intermediary card processor so that might further preclude the possibility of a successful chargeback. 

I think you will have to chalk this one up to experience, I cannot see Lloyds changing their mind and retuning the item to China will cost more than it is worth. 

The jacket is completely different to the one shown and described on their website, although they have now removed it from the site. My understanding is that CRA 2015 applies to any seller marketing specifically to uk customers, irrespective of where they are based. I should not have to pay to return it. I think providing a uk address would make many people reasonably think they had a uk base. When I first contacted them asking for a refund they asked for more money to send me another item instead. I have used chargeback with Lloyds successfully in the past and not had to return goods. 

Your understanding is wrong.

Well if you can point me to where that's made clear, I would appreciate it. 

Isthisforreal99

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Reviews are poor, domain registered only 3 months ago.

I can't imagine the site will be around past Christmas.

I would try and get them to increase the 15% refund and accept it. Depsite what it says on the site, this won't be a UK company and you'll have zero joy regarding any legal action.

Yes absolutely, it seems to be a potential scam which is why I'm trying to make a chargeback claim. 

I would say less a scam as such, more just the cheap rubbish that comes out of China, sometimes it is the same stuff, other times it is very carefully photographed to look far better than it is. 

Cat08 said:
 Since they purport to be based in the uk and market to uk sellers they must abide by uk consumer law.

They do not "purport to be based in the UK", their terms and conditions and refund policy clearly state that they are not based in the UK. UK Consumer Rights law applies to businesses legally based in the UK, just because they sell to the UK market does not mean the CRA applies.

Cat08 said:
I have an email trail proving they are refusing to pay for return postage, which they must in the case of faulty goods. 

I would argue that it is not a case of the goods being faulty, but of you not being happy with the quality, that is different. 

Cat08 said:
Yet Lloyds are still saying I must return the item before they initiate chargeback. They are effectively colluding with the seller in my view. 

That might be your view, but the rules for Chargeback are very prescriptive, laid out by the card network. What potentially complicates things even more is that from the look of the website there is an intermediary card processor so that might further preclude the possibility of a successful chargeback. 

I think you will have to chalk this one up to experience, I cannot see Lloyds changing their mind and retuning the item to China will cost more than it is worth. 

The jacket is completely different to the one shown and described on their website, although they have now removed it from the site. My understanding is that CRA 2015 applies to any seller marketing specifically to uk customers, irrespective of where they are based. I should not have to pay to return it. I think providing a uk address would make many people reasonably think they had a uk base. When I first contacted them asking for a refund they asked for more money to send me another item instead. I have used chargeback with Lloyds successfully in the past and not had to return goods. 

You keep repeating that, however even if it did apply, how are you going to enforce it against a company based in China?

That's a question for trading standards I think. 

Trading standards won't deal with you.

If you are going to keep repeating your (incorrect) statement that CRA does apply in the face of everyone that says it doesn't then well good luck to you.

The lesson here is don't order cheap junk from China.

Cat08

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Reviews are poor, domain registered only 3 months ago.

I can't imagine the site will be around past Christmas.

I would try and get them to increase the 15% refund and accept it. Depsite what it says on the site, this won't be a UK company and you'll have zero joy regarding any legal action.

Yes absolutely, it seems to be a potential scam which is why I'm trying to make a chargeback claim. 

I would say less a scam as such, more just the cheap rubbish that comes out of China, sometimes it is the same stuff, other times it is very carefully photographed to look far better than it is. 

Cat08 said:
 Since they purport to be based in the uk and market to uk sellers they must abide by uk consumer law.

They do not "purport to be based in the UK", their terms and conditions and refund policy clearly state that they are not based in the UK. UK Consumer Rights law applies to businesses legally based in the UK, just because they sell to the UK market does not mean the CRA applies.

Cat08 said:
I have an email trail proving they are refusing to pay for return postage, which they must in the case of faulty goods. 

I would argue that it is not a case of the goods being faulty, but of you not being happy with the quality, that is different. 

Cat08 said:
Yet Lloyds are still saying I must return the item before they initiate chargeback. They are effectively colluding with the seller in my view. 

That might be your view, but the rules for Chargeback are very prescriptive, laid out by the card network. What potentially complicates things even more is that from the look of the website there is an intermediary card processor so that might further preclude the possibility of a successful chargeback. 

I think you will have to chalk this one up to experience, I cannot see Lloyds changing their mind and retuning the item to China will cost more than it is worth. 

The jacket is completely different to the one shown and described on their website, although they have now removed it from the site. My understanding is that CRA 2015 applies to any seller marketing specifically to uk customers, irrespective of where they are based. I should not have to pay to return it. I think providing a uk address would make many people reasonably think they had a uk base. When I first contacted them asking for a refund they asked for more money to send me another item instead. I have used chargeback with Lloyds successfully in the past and not had to return goods. 

Your understanding is wrong.

Rome I Regulation provides that a contract with a consumer habitually living in the UK will be governed by UK law. Even if the consumer and trader do choose another country's law to govern their contract, the Rome I Regulation provides that where the trader pursues or directs its activities to the UK and the consumer is habitually resident in the UK, any UK protections that parties cannot contract out of under UK law (such as the key protections covered by this Act) will still apply.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Am I missing it or are we 4 pages in without anyone asking the OP if...

OP any chance the coat was over £100 and you paid on a credit card? 

Isthisforreal99

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Reviews are poor, domain registered only 3 months ago.

I can't imagine the site will be around past Christmas.

I would try and get them to increase the 15% refund and accept it. Depsite what it says on the site, this won't be a UK company and you'll have zero joy regarding any legal action.

Yes absolutely, it seems to be a potential scam which is why I'm trying to make a chargeback claim. 

I would say less a scam as such, more just the cheap rubbish that comes out of China, sometimes it is the same stuff, other times it is very carefully photographed to look far better than it is. 

Cat08 said:
 Since they purport to be based in the uk and market to uk sellers they must abide by uk consumer law.

They do not "purport to be based in the UK", their terms and conditions and refund policy clearly state that they are not based in the UK. UK Consumer Rights law applies to businesses legally based in the UK, just because they sell to the UK market does not mean the CRA applies.

Cat08 said:
I have an email trail proving they are refusing to pay for return postage, which they must in the case of faulty goods. 

I would argue that it is not a case of the goods being faulty, but of you not being happy with the quality, that is different. 

Cat08 said:
Yet Lloyds are still saying I must return the item before they initiate chargeback. They are effectively colluding with the seller in my view. 

That might be your view, but the rules for Chargeback are very prescriptive, laid out by the card network. What potentially complicates things even more is that from the look of the website there is an intermediary card processor so that might further preclude the possibility of a successful chargeback. 

I think you will have to chalk this one up to experience, I cannot see Lloyds changing their mind and retuning the item to China will cost more than it is worth. 

The jacket is completely different to the one shown and described on their website, although they have now removed it from the site. My understanding is that CRA 2015 applies to any seller marketing specifically to uk customers, irrespective of where they are based. I should not have to pay to return it. I think providing a uk address would make many people reasonably think they had a uk base. When I first contacted them asking for a refund they asked for more money to send me another item instead. I have used chargeback with Lloyds successfully in the past and not had to return goods. 

Your understanding is wrong.

Rome I Regulation provides that a contract with a consumer habitually living in the UK will be governed by UK law. Even if the consumer and trader do choose another country's law to govern their contract, the Rome I Regulation provides that where the trader pursues or directs its activities to the UK and the consumer is habitually resident in the UK, any UK protections that parties cannot contract out of under UK law (such as the key protections covered by this Act) will still apply.

Straight from AI I bet.

Quote that to the Chinese company, I'm sure they will cave.

Cat08

Isthisforreal99 said:

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Reviews are poor, domain registered only 3 months ago.

I can't imagine the site will be around past Christmas.

I would try and get them to increase the 15% refund and accept it. Depsite what it says on the site, this won't be a UK company and you'll have zero joy regarding any legal action.

Yes absolutely, it seems to be a potential scam which is why I'm trying to make a chargeback claim. 

I would say less a scam as such, more just the cheap rubbish that comes out of China, sometimes it is the same stuff, other times it is very carefully photographed to look far better than it is. 

Cat08 said:
 Since they purport to be based in the uk and market to uk sellers they must abide by uk consumer law.

They do not "purport to be based in the UK", their terms and conditions and refund policy clearly state that they are not based in the UK. UK Consumer Rights law applies to businesses legally based in the UK, just because they sell to the UK market does not mean the CRA applies.

Cat08 said:
I have an email trail proving they are refusing to pay for return postage, which they must in the case of faulty goods. 

I would argue that it is not a case of the goods being faulty, but of you not being happy with the quality, that is different. 

Cat08 said:
Yet Lloyds are still saying I must return the item before they initiate chargeback. They are effectively colluding with the seller in my view. 

That might be your view, but the rules for Chargeback are very prescriptive, laid out by the card network. What potentially complicates things even more is that from the look of the website there is an intermediary card processor so that might further preclude the possibility of a successful chargeback. 

I think you will have to chalk this one up to experience, I cannot see Lloyds changing their mind and retuning the item to China will cost more than it is worth. 

The jacket is completely different to the one shown and described on their website, although they have now removed it from the site. My understanding is that CRA 2015 applies to any seller marketing specifically to uk customers, irrespective of where they are based. I should not have to pay to return it. I think providing a uk address would make many people reasonably think they had a uk base. When I first contacted them asking for a refund they asked for more money to send me another item instead. I have used chargeback with Lloyds successfully in the past and not had to return goods. 

You keep repeating that, however even if it did apply, how are you going to enforce it against a company based in China?

That's a question for trading standards I think. 

Trading standards won't deal with you.

If you are going to keep repeating your (incorrect) statement that CRA does apply in the face of everyone that says it doesn't then well good luck to you.

The lesson here is don't order cheap junk from China.

I did not buy 'cheap junk'. The item was expensive. CRA does apply, it is just very difficult to enforce, hence I asked my bank for chargeback. 

Cat08

Isthisforreal99 said:

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Cat08 said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Reviews are poor, domain registered only 3 months ago.

I can't imagine the site will be around past Christmas.

I would try and get them to increase the 15% refund and accept it. Depsite what it says on the site, this won't be a UK company and you'll have zero joy regarding any legal action.

Yes absolutely, it seems to be a potential scam which is why I'm trying to make a chargeback claim. 

I would say less a scam as such, more just the cheap rubbish that comes out of China, sometimes it is the same stuff, other times it is very carefully photographed to look far better than it is. 

Cat08 said:
 Since they purport to be based in the uk and market to uk sellers they must abide by uk consumer law.

They do not "purport to be based in the UK", their terms and conditions and refund policy clearly state that they are not based in the UK. UK Consumer Rights law applies to businesses legally based in the UK, just because they sell to the UK market does not mean the CRA applies.

Cat08 said:
I have an email trail proving they are refusing to pay for return postage, which they must in the case of faulty goods. 

I would argue that it is not a case of the goods being faulty, but of you not being happy with the quality, that is different. 

Cat08 said:
Yet Lloyds are still saying I must return the item before they initiate chargeback. They are effectively colluding with the seller in my view. 

That might be your view, but the rules for Chargeback are very prescriptive, laid out by the card network. What potentially complicates things even more is that from the look of the website there is an intermediary card processor so that might further preclude the possibility of a successful chargeback. 

I think you will have to chalk this one up to experience, I cannot see Lloyds changing their mind and retuning the item to China will cost more than it is worth. 

The jacket is completely different to the one shown and described on their website, although they have now removed it from the site. My understanding is that CRA 2015 applies to any seller marketing specifically to uk customers, irrespective of where they are based. I should not have to pay to return it. I think providing a uk address would make many people reasonably think they had a uk base. When I first contacted them asking for a refund they asked for more money to send me another item instead. I have used chargeback with Lloyds successfully in the past and not had to return goods. 

Your understanding is wrong.

Rome I Regulation provides that a contract with a consumer habitually living in the UK will be governed by UK law. Even if the consumer and trader do choose another country's law to govern their contract, the Rome I Regulation provides that where the trader pursues or directs its activities to the UK and the consumer is habitually resident in the UK, any UK protections that parties cannot contract out of under UK law (such as the key protections covered by this Act) will still apply.

Straight from AI I bet.

Quote that to the Chinese company, I'm sure they will cave.

No, not from AI, from the CRA 2015 itself, but thanks for your vote of confidence. I know the company will not comply, it's why I asked for chargeback in the first place. 

eskbanker

Cat08 said:

Isthisforreal99 said:

Cat08 said:

Rome I Regulation provides that a contract with a consumer habitually living in the UK will be governed by UK law. Even if the consumer and trader do choose another country's law to govern their contract, the Rome I Regulation provides that where the trader pursues or directs its activities to the UK and the consumer is habitually resident in the UK, any UK protections that parties cannot contract out of under UK law (such as the key protections covered by this Act) will still apply.

Straight from AI I bet.

Quote that to the Chinese company, I'm sure they will cave.

No, not from AI, from the CRA 2015 itself, but thanks for your vote of confidence. I know the company will not comply, it's why I asked for chargeback in the first place. 

Please highlight exactly where that wording appears within CRA 2015 itself.

Edit: found it, actually within explanatory notes:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/2/7

However, the same issue ultimately arises, if a company isn't bound by Rome I either....