Opened credit card dispute long before 120 days, kept getting requests for more info, now denied.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Have a look on your bank’s/card provider’s website for their official complaints procedure and follow that if you don’t get any joy on the phone OP.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81993625#Comment_81993625

Real person. AI can not fill in forms.

Wonder if replies are falling foul of security system on file type/size & getting deleted.

If returning simply due to change of mind, then there is no chargeback.

Okell

@dekaspace1

As others have said, s75 will only apply in respect of individual items each costing over £100. The total cost of each order is irrelevant. If you have a legal claim against the supplier, s75 makes your credit card provider jointly and severally liable along with the supplier.

A chargeback is more limited in scope as to what you can claim, for but there is no mimimum limit. (Except the MSE guide on chargeback says claims against Mastercard must have a minimum spend of £10}.

For each item you have returned you need to identify the reason for the return. For example:

(1) faulty, damaged or misdescribed goods, or goods not of satisfactory quality, or

(2) change of mind or cancellation of order under the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2031, or

(3) change of mind return under the seller's own returns policy.

s75 should cover returns under all 3 headings above if each individual item is over £100, but chargeback will only cover claims under heading (1).

The dates that are relevant are:

(a) dates goods ordered

(b) dates goods received

© dates goods sent back

(d) dates returned goods received by the seller

Do you have proof of returning all the goods?

Grumpy_chap

(1) faulty, damaged or misdescribed goods, or goods not of satisfactory quality, or

(2) change of mind or cancellation of order under the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2031, or

(3) change of mind return under the seller's own returns policy.

s75 should cover returns under all 3 headings above if each individual item is over £100, but chargeback will only cover claims under heading (1).

In this case, if the items were returned under (2) and eventually the retailer sent a

confirmation email they were processing the item and will get a refund when it is finished

but that refund never actually processed, then does that mean that chargeback would be available for breach of consumer rights / failure to process the refund in an efficient and timely manner?

Okell

@Grumpy_chap - I don't know.

AIUI chargeback requires some sort of breach of contract, but not all breaches of contract necessarily lead to a chargeback.

I don't know if confirming a refund that you never pay would be sufficient

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81994807#Comment_81994807

Thanks, and nor do I.

I just thought it seems possible.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81994933#Comment_81994933

Non receipt of refund chargeback requires. Date of refund, Amount of refund & last 4 of card number. Basically a till receipt giving the info, but retailer noting it in a email is enough.

This is a technical chargeback based on a system failure. Not a retailer simply not refunding.

Sadly many people think that a retailer not refunding them opens up this chargeback. Without the proof it's a no go.

Only option is via court.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81995536#Comment_81995536

Is there a missing "not"?

retailer noting it in a email is enough.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81995536#Comment_81995536

What would be the test for an email from the retailer to qualify, i.e. do they need to state that they have issued the refund, or simply that they will?

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81995545#Comment_81995545

No, Will is not enough. It has to be "We Have"