Wrong info from bank about chargeback?
Comments
-
Bank has rejected claim stating they need independant report for mastercard rules!
Despite my out of date Chargeback knowledge, I'd be inclined to say that is highly unlikely to be in the MasterCard rules - someone shout if it is!
On the subject of returning the goods, I think the MasterCard rules say you must have 'tendered' return of the goods (which you have, and the retailer has refused that request).
It's a bit odd for your Issuer to ask why you've not already returned the goods. If you had done this before contacting them, how would you then be able to obtain an independent report which they now seem to be insisting is part of the Chargeback rule?
Frankly, I think your Issuer is talking tosh but that doesn't necessarily get you nearer to a solution. Keep pressing, that's all you can do and, if possible, in future use a credit card. The Chargeback rules are the same but you might have the added advantage of S75 protection (which might also cover the cost of an independent report - where needed) and, your own money stays in your current account whilst the dispute 'rages'.0 -
Follow their complaints procedure - you'll probably find that it's corrected at that stage.
I agree with this.
Reports are used to substantiate faults and their causes.
Who needs an expert to verify damage? It either is or isn’t. Sounds like the issuer don’t like your story or are just completely wrong.
Complaint then FOS0 -
Hi I wrote a complaint and the day after the 120 days ran out I got a message stating again it was Mastercard rules, and 120 days have passed so nothing can be done.0
-
Ask the card company to provide you with the text from the specific MasterCard rule that says an independent report is required. Don't take 'no' for an answer and, if they say they are not allowed to show you the rule text, ask them to show you the rule that says this too!
Looks like you're on the way to an FOS referral.0 -
Hi I wrote a complaint and the day after the 120 days ran out I got a message stating again it was Mastercard rules, and 120 days have passed so nothing can be done.
The way I read your initial post was that the faulty goods had only recently arrived. How many days after they arrived did you tell your bank?
It's probably worth raising a further complaint and if they don't offer to refund you the money then ask for a dead lock letter to go to the ombudsman without having to wait further.0 -
I don't have the exact timeframes but the seller didn't send for 2 weeks, at which point I asked to cancel and they refused, it then took another month to arrive, I spent about 3 weeks chasing up the issue going through the sites dispute process, bearing in mind the bank did ask if I went through the site first even at first I forgot to mention I rang and was refused to even open a dispute with bank stating as the company had its own dispute process and company had rejected then the bank could do nothing which held it up, then a further 4 weeks or so with bank disputes team, then a further few for the complaint response. So the 120 days has recently passed.0
-
You need to check more rigorously into the timescales because you can probably have 120 days from the date the good arrived to raised a 'Defective Merchandise' Chargeback. If you are still in time on this basis, you might still get somewhere.
If not, you will probably need to escalate the complaint to FOS (if you've had the final response) because it seems (from what you are saying) that you received faulty goods, offered to return them and have had nothing in the form of redress from the retailer. You reported all of this to your card issuer, who, on the face of it, has a Chargeback right but flatly refused to do it because they claim MasterCard rules require independent reports for claims of damage.
I would be reasonably confident that MasterCard rules say nothing about independent reports (they never used to, but things do change) and that your Issuer could have made a fairly 'cast-iron' Chargeback for you.
The only issue might be that FOS says it is not unreasonable for your issuer to require an independent report before they agree to make a Chargeback. So you need to 'head this off at the pass' by saying up-front that you believe it is not a requirement of the Chargeback and that you have been misled by the issuer who claims it is a requirement of the MasterCard rules and not connected with any internal policy.
It should all then 'come out in the wash'. If it is a requirement, the issuer will probably have to evidence this; if it isn't a requirement, they'll hopefully 'cave' and you'll get paid back.
No guarantees, mind you.0 -
From the MasterCard manual:
Goods or Services Were Either Not as Described or Defective
Chargeback Condition. The cardholder contacted the issuer claiming all of the following:
• The cardholder engaged in the transaction
• The cardholder contacted the merchant, or attempted to contact the merchant, to resolve the
dispute. Merchant contact is optional when the cardholder is a corporate entity with a contractual
relationship with the merchant and the transaction is for an amount in excess of what is specified
in the contract. In such event the chargeback may be only for the amount of the excessive charge.
• The merchant refused to adjust the price, repair or replace the goods or other things of value, or
issue a credit
• For disputes involving goods: The cardholder returned the goods or informed the merchant the
goods were available for pickup
And one of the following:
• When delivered from the merchant, the goods arrived broken or could not be used for the
intended purpose.
• Goods and services did not conform to their description. Examples include, but are not limited to:
– The cardholder claims that the quality or workmanship of the product is not as described.
– The cardholder claims that the specified color, size, or quantity is not as described.
• The merchant did not honor the terms and conditions of the contract with the cardholder
including, but not limited to, 100 percent money back guarantee, written promises, or return
policy.
Time Frame. One of the following:
• 120 days from when the services ceased with a maximum of 540 calendar days from thetransaction settlement date for issues of interruption of ongoing services
• Between 15 and 120 calendar dates from the transaction settlement date
• Between 15 and 120 calendar dates from the delivery/cancellation date of the goods or services.
Supporting Documents. Cardholder email, letter, message or completed Dispute Resolution Form—
Cardholder Dispute Chargeback (Form 1221) describing the cardholder’s complaint in sufficient detail
to enable all parties to understand the dispute.
When the cardholder is a corporate entity with a contractual relationship with the merchant and the
transaction is for an amount in excess of what is specified in the contract, the contract must be
provided when the merchant wasn’t contacted in an effort to resolve the dispute.
Optionally, documentation from an expert or professional that supports the cardholder’s dispute about
the level of quality or misrepresentation.
Optionally, documentation that supports the cardholder’s dispute including, but not limited to, the
original receipt, invoice, work order, brochure, contract, or appraisal.
0 -
Well that 's fairly comprehensive, thank you. So it is not a requirement of the MasterCard rules to have an independent report but it is an option.
It is slightly curious to have this option in the Chargeback rule because it is always going to be an option to do this whether it is written in the rule or not.
To my mind it means the card issuer could include an independent report if one is available - although that would not often be the case if the cardholder had already chosen to return the goods requesting a refund. I note the irony here as OP's issuer asked why the goods hadn't already been returned and then started insisting on an independent report (which would have been impossible had they been returned).
The conundrum now is to understand what it actually means to state a piece of documentation is optional. OP's Issuer has chosen this to mean that they have the option to insist on it being provided. What that means is that the Chargeback could have been done all along without a report but the issuer has adopted an internal policy of insisting on one - either that, or they've not properly understood the Chargeback rule.
What do others think?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards