Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just a little something for consideration When a card is compromised, the replacements can be set up to automatically allow or manually re-add, old recurring transactions. The card issuer may ask you to confirm legitimate transactions which they would effectively 'migrate' to the new card Some do - some don't. Some staff on some cards seem to be entirely unaware/uncaring about this. Some card issuers expect you to sort it all out manually.   BUT if the leak is an ongoing lyca leakas it seems - as soon as you or your CC supplier give it to lyca/the leak source - compromised again     A note on security DONT use the same email or phone number for your banking as you do for sims etc. Although a bank eg santander leak would compromise this Infp seems to suggest that single/compromised multi factor authentication customers are priority targets, with more robustly secure cards being hit by 0.00 tests first Consider that the email address is one of the OTP recieving options AND one of the OTP security checks prior to sending the OTP - with the phone number being another So if they've got your card and email (same email for banking and end contact) - and you aren't forcing a phone OTP - you are compromised.  
    • Thanks for posting up the back of the NTK. The good news s that as it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act, it means that you are not liable for the charge as the keeper as I explained in a previous post.  The PC fails for two reasons. The first is that it does not specify the period of parking. All it does is list the arrival and departure times of your car. Obviously that does not include the time taken to drive to the car parking space, manoeuvre the car into the space and later drive from the space to the exit. Nor does their times include things like getting kids disabled people out of and into the car as well as things like returning the trolley whilst still being parked. All of which can add a fair bit of time to the parking period which can then be subtracted from their ANPR times and makes your actual parking time a lot shorter than 118 minutes they seem to think it is. The second reason is that they failed to ask the keeper to pay Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][e]  (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges You as keeper are now in the clear which is a good reason for you to contact Sainsbury  stating that you are being pursued as the keeper when you are not liable under the Act as well as the oher things I suggested in my previous post. If you don't get it cancelled with Sainsbury this could drag on for months with endless letters unlawfully pushing the price up to scare you into paying.  
    • Brilliant! That's great to hear and honestly pleased I'm wrong, my advice was out of concern. I checked some of your previous posts last night and you've been giving great advice to others at times. Bringing a claim can be serious (counter-claims etc) and it didn't appear you were knowledgeable based on posts so far. Far from an expert myself, just interested and will try to help. I'll sit on the sidelines, best of luck with the claim!
    • Thank you so much for the advice  I will try and up my savings to £500 for the next 6 months. Although I do still have an uphill battle, I feel more able to deal with it.  I hope my experience with the cifas marker helps someone else who finds themselves in that quite horrible situation. It is a huge weight off my shoulders getting it removed.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Bank refusing to help with PayPal fraud


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5756 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I did actually post this in another thread, but I figured it was probably lost in the flow of conversation, so I hope it's OK to put it here:

 

I've been trying to sort out a £270 purchase I made on PayPal (the item never arrived, the seller is a [EDIT]) - since I know that PayPal doesn't cover me to the full amount, I requested a chargeback from the credit card company. After about a month of hassle, they have finally sent me a letter stating that PayPal's duty was simply to process the payment and that as they have done so correctly, there are no grounds for a chargeback. I honestly don't know what to do now - I was under the strong impression that the credit card companies had to cover you against cases exactly like this, and I'm more than happy to push the issue as far as I need to, but realistically I don't know where to start. Any ideas, anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do They don't like reversing Paypal payments (PP as a client of Barclays) give them a hard time

 

Tough for them remind them of their obligations under sec 75 of the CCA & also to move funds in a fraudulent transaction is money laundering

 

& why are you not covered by PayPal???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fully covered by PayPal simply because they only provide £150 buyer protection on a lot of transactions - I know it's better than nothing, but it still would leave me out of pocket for something that I had absolutely no control over.

 

The letter sent claims that section 75 of the CCA doesn't apply. I've scanned and OCRed the letter, full text is below. I disagree with some of their points (particularly the comparison to sending a cheque - that analogy completely negates the role that PayPal play in the transaction) and I get the general impression that I'm not being given all of the information I need, but I unfortunately don't know how to go about dismantling their argument.

 

 

Dear XXXX,

 

Your Credit Card Account Number: X.

 

I write following your recent contact about the transaction of £270.00 to Paypal * XXXX.

 

I feel it is important to explain that the Ombudsman has recently been looking at issues around section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Paypal-type transactions - specifically whether or not section 75 applies. The conclusion reached was that transactions involving an 'electronic money institution', i.e. Paypal, is a four-party transaction, involving the cardholder (debtor), the card issuer (creditor), the electronic money institution (supplier of remittance), who then forwards the funds to the supplier of goods (supplier/seller). Consequently there is no debtor-creditor-supplier relationship between the Bank and the supplier of the goods.

 

For section 75 to apply the law says there has to be a "debtor-creditor-supplier" agreement involving an actual or contemplated pre-existing 'arrangement' between the creditor and the supplier. Our relationship is with Paypal, who fulfilled their obligations by forwarding the funds to the supplier/seller of the goods. We do not have a relationship with the supplier/seller of the goods.

 

To further clarify this, the Ombudsman explained "...the cardholder is in the same position as he would have been if he had used his credit card to pay money into his current bank account and had then written a cheque to the seller."

 

As we are unable to help you any more, I can only suggest that you continue to pursue the matter via Paypal and Buyer Protection or seek independent advice.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Steve Morris

Manager, CCA Claims

Dispute Processing

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll certainly request the details from PayPal again - when I tried to do so before they informed me that they couldn't provide them to me directly, only to the police. I have not yet reported it to the police, as I was hoping that it would just be sorted through the banks and PayPal, and because I had previously been informed that it was a civil, not criminal, matter. If that is not the case, however, I'll certainly do so.

 

In terms of taking further action against the bank (it's Lloyds TSB, not Barclays, by the way) or PayPal, I don't know what grounds I could do so on. That was really the crux of my original question - obviously I'll push it first to them, and secondly through the courts, but I don't know what grounds I can do so on when they claim that the CCA doesn't apply - I know from experience that big companies often do everything they can to avoid fulfiling their legal obligations, and that they often give in when presented with the facts and shown that the customer is willing to take it as far as necessary, but I can't seem to find any reference points as to what the facts actually are here, other than the (presumably biased) interpretation they gave me.

 

I really do appreciate your taking the time to help me here, I'm so glad that there's at least somewhere to discuss matters like this. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked at the financial ombudsman's website, and it does appear that the letter from Lloyds TSB could be accurate - they seem to have decided that section 75 doesn't apply if PayPal is involved. Frankly I find that unbelievable - not only am I left with no recourse, I can't even lodge a complaint because the very people I'm meant to complain to are the ones who say I have no rights! On principal, apart from anything else, it is just completely unacceptable.

 

The only thing I have not yet had a chance to check is the regulations that the FSA place on PayPal in situations like this - since the ombudsman has decided the banks are not liable, I guess there is still some hope that the liability has simply been transferred to PayPal.

 

Has paypoo reimbursed you the £150 they claim you are covered for?

 

They are a nightmare to deal with.

Not yet. Not only that, they are now claiming that they'll only cover me for £100 since the seller was registered from the US but with a UK address. The fact that this was at no point mentioned, and that the eBay auction did clearly state £150 coverage, means that I will at least have some grounds to complain about that, but it's just another hassle.

 

How can stealing money from someone be a civil matter? theft is theft however it is wrapped up.

Quite correct, now that I look at it more closely - that'll teach me to believe what I'm told! I'll certainly take it to the police, but I still must assume that the chances of them actually recovering my money are slim, are they not? I know it's only £120 (assuming PayPal fulfil their obligations) but it's still enough to irritate me, not to mention the principal of the thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm absolutely fed up seeing companies erroneously hide behind the DPA to avoid giving details of thieves to their victims

 

The DPA was never intended to allow those guilty of a criminal offence to be anonymous & they should know that

Link to post
Share on other sites

as for the ombudsman they are a joke & their decisions are more & more frequently ignored, or even critized, by the courts

That's interesting - I don't suppose you happen to have any examples? I googled it a bit but couldn't seem to find anything relevant. Citing a few situations in which the ombudsman has been ignored or overruled would certainly help to give me a better position against Lloyds TSB's claims they made in the letter they sent me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get as much back from Paypal as you can. I have had dealings with them recently ( private seller/ not a [EDIT]) and it seems to me that they have far too many powers to move peoples money around without any notification and/or authority.

 

There a few dedicated websites, detailing Paypal problems, who may be able to assist.

 

UK Auction Help may be of use.

 

Good Luck Moonbuggy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...