Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'chargebacks'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location

Found 4 results

  1. A subject that we receive a huge number of enquiries about concerns a credit card (or debit card) 'chargeback' and whether bailiff enforcement may recommence. A year ago I started a thread on this subject which has received 6,000 views and given the new legislation (that came into effect on 6th April) it would be wise to update the information with a new thread. Again, from the enquiries that we receive, a lot of people are encouraged to make a 'chargeback' request following information on various websites. The following is taken from one particular FMoTL website: As can be seen the debtor is specifically told that when completing the 'chargeback' form they must NEVER mention the word 'bailiff' on the form and instead, should state the following: "The merchant forced me to make over my card details by placing me under undue pressure exerted upon me to coerce me to perform an act that I ordinarily would not perform and this constitutes a misrepresentation to obtain a money transfer. I asked the merchant to refund the money who refused to do so and is in breach of contract and remains indebted to me". Debtors are also informed that: "It strengthens your application considerably if you support it with a sworn statement proving the card transaction was made under duress. This increases the chances of getting a rapid charge back to a near certainty" It would seem that debtors are being informed that if the credit card company reverse the payment that bailiffs cannot enforce the debt given that 'apparently' the 'enforcement power has ceased' and that there is "nothing in the regulations that provides for bailiffs to revive it". The supposed case law being paragraph 58 of Schedule of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and paragraph 31 of the Guidance in the Taking Control of Goods, National Standards 2014. So....is the above advice correct? NO...it is not.
  2. I am writing this thread as a warning to others because the enquiry below is identical to two others that I have received in the past 2 weeks!!! This morning I have spoken at length with a debtor who received a visit from a bailiff early this morning regarding a PCN issued by a London borough. Police had to be called and her car has since been *removed to the vehicle pound. She is utterly distraught. This visit came as a surprise because the debtor (wrongly) believed 'internet advice' that *the debt cannot now be enforced by a bailiff following her 'credit card chargeback' that she applied for in September last year. The brief background is that the debtor had received a PCN and had appealed to the local authority. She is adamant that she had not received a response to the appeal (unfortunately, she failed to keep a copy of the appeal which was sent by letter instead of by email). The local authority registered the debt at TEC and a warrant was issued. She did receive an initial letter from the bailiff but did not address the letter and neither did she call the council. The bailiff visited her property in August and clamped her vehicle and charged a fee of just under £500 which included one "attending to remove" fee. She visited a website which she thought *at the time was run by solicitors and believing their "advice" that she had been "defrauded" she used the "template" to apply for a 'chargeback' against her credit card provider.* She did not find the process of the 'chargeback' simple and only eventually received a refund from her credit card *shortly before Christmas. She received a letter from the bailiff company a few weeks ago to request payment. She admits that she ignored the letter because of the 'advice' from the website in question which included their claims that" "There is no warrant, you paid it" and that: " The bailiff cannot sue you for the PCN element of the transaction because he has been caught cheating with his fees" At the time of the visit in August the debt had been £497. Today the debt is £722 to include a removal fee of £225. Given her history of a 'chargeback' against her credit card, the bailiffs gave her 2 hours to pay by cash. She could not raise the money and her car was therefore removed. Storage fees of £40 per day are now being applied and she has been told *that her car will be sold after a period of 5 working days. I will be posting more after reviewing the documents.
  3. In early February I contacted capital one, regarding faulty goods. The purchase was via Paypal in July 2012, & went faulty in Late January 2013. I phoned the online retailer, who accepted that the product was temperamental & prone to failure, yet didn't really want to help!! I was fobbed off several times, before approaching Paypal. They stated that due to the time elapsed, (45 day policy) they couldn't help. I then called Capital One, (foreign callcentre) who ASSURED me that if I sent the goods back to the merchant via tracked courier, they would reverse the transaction "within 14 days". So I booked YODEL, & sent the item back. Within a couple of days, a printer I had purchased in January 2012 then developed a fault, so I broadly followed the same process, the retailer wasn't particularly helpful, so I called Capital One and again was assured that my funds would be recovered. (One point worth noting, I expressly stated to Capital One customer service that the printer was JUST out of warranty, by around 4 days. "Not a problem, send it back & WE WILL recover your money" was the response). Now, several months, many MANY phonecalls from me, many broken promises of "someone will call you back" & 3 or 4 letters from them of "a specialised case worker will be back in touch within 35 days" & I've had enough. I put in a high-level complaint at Capital One Today, a lady who has said "we attempted chargebacks in BOTH instances, & each has been refused/countered by the retailer - So we've been phoning them, trying to persuade them to 'play ball', but we MAY need to get a 'final response' letter out to you". So after 3 1/2 months of delay, it now looks likely that Capital One are going to laugh off both these claims, leaving me without the faulty goods, & the money I was PROMISED would be returned - In both instances they are several hundred pounds' worth. I now need to start thinking about next steps, ie the Ombudsman, I understand I would need that final response letter first, can anybody advise on the best course of action - I've never had to use the ombudsman service, I do have notes of dates/times of phonecalls, names of who I spoke to, etc. Any help or advice from anybody who has had experience of this, or knows the ropes - I feel pretty aggrieved by Capital One, & want to get it sorted finally.
  4. The above are a sample of typical news bulletins from a well known legitimate international premium rate number supplier. So leaving aside what the above comments are referring to it's a complete myth to say the Networks will lose out if the victims of the theft of stolen phones do not hand over the money for those obviously criminally generated bills. and remember the UK Networks are part of multi-national groups. T-Mobile UK deals with 'T-Mobile SA' and Vodafone UK deals with 'Vodafone Spain' and o2 UK will deal with 'o2 Spain' etc etc
×
×
  • Create New...