Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Andy111

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Then what's to stop them referring to an original booking to debit a second time (as in this case) after already having accepted the cancellation due to the refund and using that booking to dispute (assuming they have) the charge back?. Surely after the refund on the original booking that contract & agreement is ended and can't be used to debit a second time can it?.
  2. having spoke to my mum over the weekend she said that the original transaction (despite having gone via booking.com) was marked as the hotel (website name at least) as was the original refund. Now here is the thing, the hotel by refunding the money in the first place I would feel would have accepted the cancellation request as was made. is the contract then deemed cancelled and ended by default?. - As otherwise what's to stop any company from refunding a cancelled booking or service, refunding the monies and then re-taking the monies again and referring to the original booking to claim the monies again despite having already accepted cancellation as they refunded?. Visa appears to be referring to the original booking to justify reversing the charge back in absence of any breach of contract or unavailable evidence from my mum which doesn't exist. Which totally ignores that a refund was given and seemingly no explanation or evidence from the hotel as to why they are doing a second debit and possible appeal of the charge back.
  3. I'm going to have to ask my mum to look into this aspect. I'd assume the transaction should say booking.com seeing as it was booked through them and payment went to them. Well, unless the transaction also stated the hotel by their website (as the email from the bank mentions the hotel by its direct website than name), if so its a bit of a long winded entry on the system I'd have thought and are not such transaction entry names kept short?.
  4. I've asked my mum to phone booking.com to ask if they are aware of the charge back from the hotel after they cancelled it. But would the contract not be with booking.com than the original hotel?. And no, the rebooked hotel was not the same or part of a chain.
  5. That does sound a reasonable guess on the face of it. But the received email appears somewhat unclear in just what its saying and offering in way of any form of explanation. It refers to "time constraints" & "retailer" which I assume should be booking.com & not the hotel itself?. Nowhere in the email does it directly say or suggest the charge back was appealed as such except for saying it would only be upheld if its shown the retailer is in breach of contract and as this could not be shown they reversed the charge back. But surely the "contract" was the original booking with booking.com which by nature of them reversing the payment would be considered ended. If the hotel did not agree with the cancellation surely that's a matter between the hotel & booking.com?. So what possible options might my mum have seeing as booking.com considered the booking I contract cancelled yet the hotel seemingly not?.
  6. OK, a little more clarity on the situation having spoken to my mum this morning. She cancelled the original booking (due to wrong dates) with booking.com and as said the money went from pending back into available funds. Then at some point late October her account was debited again for what I assume was the original amount. She disputed this with the bank as she had cancelled and already received the refund to back this up. the bank did a charge back. Then having heard nothing they reversed the payment yesterday and she received the email I posted above. There was a part of the email off the bank\visa I retracted which mentions the hotel directly that she booked via booking.com. Yet as she never made the booking direct with the hotel, so this seems a little odd. Now, I might be wrong, but surely if it was accepted the original booking was cancelled as the money was refunded, well in order to retake the funds wouldn't another booking have to have been made with the same hotel which it wasn't?.
  7. I'd have thought pretty much the same. Having spoke to my mum last night she did say that she contacted booking.com and that they said they would cancel the booking, with not having heard back from them she, as said, seen the money for the original booking going from pending back into her bank account and only now has it been took again. What's confused things further is the email she received that she forwarded on to me which I can post here: " About your dispute We have no direct contact with individual retailers, although in some instances, investigations may be made through Visa International, but we are subject to their rules of enquiry and strict time constraints. We do sympathise with your predicament but it is with regret that we are not able to offer any assistance on this occasion. A transaction undertaken using a debit card is a guaranteed form of payment and the only line of enquiry available is if the retailer is in clear breach of their contract. In this instance there is no documentary evidence to support your claim and as such, we have no recourse to the retailer. Although we are unable to process a claim for you through Visa dispute resolution, it does not necessarily follow that you do not have a case. If you pursue the matter through your local Trading Standards Authority or Citizens Advice Bureau they may be able to advise you further. What will happen next Any temporary refund(s) that was made to your account pending investigation will be reversed and reflected on your next statement. We are very sorry that we can’t continue your dispute but we trust the information supplied clarifies the Bank’s position. Yours sincerely Fraud & Chargeback Operations" The above suggests she made a charge back which she said she never and the payment looks like it was reversed by booking.com at the time.
  8. I'm asking about this for my mum. They booked a break through booking.com for this last October, only they got the dates wrong and tried to cancel and re-book. The rebooking was made and payment for that taken. Only when trying to cancel the original booking it was suggested (assumingly by booking.com) they cancel via the hotel directly yet the number provided was a fax machine number and no alternative number was provided. My mum called booking.com who said they would try to call and cancel for her. She heard nothing back but the money for the original booking went from pending back into the account so she assumed they cancelled as the money went back into her bank account. Only today that money for the original booking has gone back out of her bank again leaving her with nothing at all in the bank. She has a email off the bank\visa which isn't clear and suggests that they have reversed the payment as the cancellation can't be verified or something. Can anyone please offer any advice for her as the bank & visa look to be wiping their hands of the situation despite that they are the ones who have sent the cancellation payment back and offered an unclear reasoning for this. In the first instance I've suggested she contact booking.com as they took the original booking and assumingly payment. Yet my mum said the email off the bank\visa indicated the payment & dispute is with the hotel booked?.
  9. As I recall at the time, we used the debit card only to subscribe to Xbox live, though could be wrong. I know since bought no paid games as such were directly bought from the card via the Xbox itself. I guess I'll have to find the original t&c's on the Xbox to see exactly what it says we signed up for and agreed to.
  10. Thanks for the reply dx100uk, trying not to split hairs, surely I can verbally withdraw consent for any such usage of a debit card at any point which I thought I did when requesting the replacement?. The bank has indicated the only reason the transactions were authorised despite being a replaced card was because as you say a continuous payment arrangement. surely this would only apply to individual products or services (games & services like Xbox live) that required an initial payment to receive such services in the first place. In the case of a free to download & play game can the same agreement really be valid as a user would never have made a pre agreement under the same continuous payment terms?.
  11. Hi, the bank is TSB and they are being of little use in clarifying if these payments should have gone through or not seeing at the card was replaced and them not being continuous payments and simply referring me to Microsoft to dispute and request a refund.
  12. Sorry if this is in the wrong section as not sure where exactly its best suited. We got the bank statement the other day & noticed 23 separate Xbox in game credit debits for Fortnite for £7.99 each over a 4 week period. daughter insists she didn't order anything. most will say "of course she would and just denying it etc" I'm not going to say I believe her even though I'm assuming using real cash to buy in game credit comes with a clear notification that your using real money (and stating the amount each time) to buy such in game credit. I still need to check the Xbox security settings to see if as I think I did, I did set a security pin for purchases a few things are puzzling me on a legal footing and that mainly what I want to ask about. As the bank statement indicates the card in question is an old card I had replaced and cancelled a while ago, about the time these transactions started. When I ordered the new replacement I asked for the previous card to be cancelled. 2 weeks later I had to report the replacement card stolen\lost abroad and ordering another again asking for that card to be cancelled to prevent unauthorized use and money being taken from the bank account. I've already contacted the bank to enquire how and why they have allowed payments from an old debit card I had replaced and cancelled?. They suggest that the card was never cancelled when the replacement was ordered and that the old card would remain valid until the expire date in a couple of years time!!!. I asked them how on earth this can be the case as the replacement card has a completely different number and ordering the replacement should trigger (as per my request) cancellation and usage of said card. The bank is suggesting otherwise as because the card was valid when setting up Xbox live that the card can always be used even if replaced regardless of reason it was replaced or if we cancelled the card. They justified this action by saying the payments are continuous payments (similar to direct debit) and that's why they went through and referred me to Microsoft. I pushed the issue and said they are not continuous payments but single individual 1 off payments that by nature (in game credit) and the number of payments (23 x £7.99) they could never claim them to have been continuous payments as a pre existing agreement for such payments for the game in question would have to exist and have existed when the card was valid which it doesn't. these payments should not have been made because they are neither continuous payments and come from an old debit card that was replaced and cancelled. The bank sort of agreed that these payments maybe are not continuous payments yet are now unsure where I stand. I have been referred to there disputes department. Feeling I'm going to get the same run around on the rights over taking payments from an old replaced card that was supposed to be cancelled, I'm wanting to know what members think on a legal footing?. As its like the bank saying I can use the same old & replaced debit card details to order items online because its still in date even if replaced & cancelled which I find highly unlikely!.
  13. Once again thanks Andyorch, your breakdown makes their letter and claim rather laughable the way you put it to basics. Though they are fully aware of the court order re payments as it was all mentioned and brought to their attention the last time (when they first bought the debt) they tried to suggest a payment plan needed to be negotiated as there wasn't 1 in place. It was pointed out payments are subject to and set via the courts & order. I guess this latest round of futile action is as a result of not taking up their early discount offer and the realisation of how long it would otherwise take to clear things at the current rate.
  14. Ah, I get you Andyorch, so replying as you say aught to be the end of it unless they start refusing payment. Just funny timing after there early settlement offer expired from a few months ago. Still, its a debt they bought that by the court order would take a considerable number of years to settle, think decades than years. So plenty of fun to come over the years and no doubt will be sold on a number of times again.
  15. Thanks Andyorch will do first thing tomorrow, though difficult to know how to deal with this issue without knowing the nature of the what the "issue" is that they felt is worthy to cancel it. I made a payment a week ago at the post office without issue (though late but brings things up to date. I could try another payment this week to see if that gets accepted?. If it does then they are still accepting payment of sorts whilst I enquire on the issue. But out of interest can they legally just cancel the repayment plan without applying to the courts?.
  • Create New...