Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • 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
      • 160 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

Capital One denying chargeback


UKDomains
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1387 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

My wife is attempting to do a chargeback on a purchase that was fraudulent.

She bought cricket tickets for her Dad, who lives in South Africa for his birthday.

Date of transaction was 17th June 2019.

Date of cricket match was 4th of February. 
 

After chasing the company for many months, the e-tickets were emailed to us, which we forwarded on to her Dad.

He printed the tickets and arrived at the cricket match to be told the tickets were fake.

 

All of a sudden numerous reviews started popping up on the internet from other people saying they had been given fake tickets.

Company has now disappeared.

 

My wife reported the chargeback request on day 118, they got back to her on day 119 with a web form, which was emailed on the same day back to Capital One.

What do we do now as this is their response:

 

Thank you for your letter in regards to the transaction to INSTATICKET SA (the 'Merchant') for £244.87.

 

We are sorry to hear about the problems you have encountered with the Merchant. We have considered two ways in which we may have been able to help you recover the sums paid by you to the Merchant:

 

1. Chargeback; and

2. A claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('the Act').

 

1.Chargeback

 

We have certain rights to claim a refund of a disputed transaction from a merchant's bank on a customer's behalf; this is known as a chargeback. However, there are certain restrictions and timeframe limitations set out by Mastercard as to whether we can claim a refund. Unfortunately, we are unable to pursue a chargeback on your behalf on this occasion because more than 120 days have elapsed since the date of the event for which the tickets were purchased.

 

We have also considered whether you may have a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the 'Act').

2. Section 75 of the Act ('Section 75') Section 75 can offer protection to consumers who use a credit card to purchase goods or services in part or full.

 

However, in order for a claim to be considered, the following conditions must all be satisfied.

1. The claim must be made within the time limits set out in the Limitation Act 1980 – these time limits are different to those that apply to chargebacks and is usually 6 years;

 

2. Section 75 must be 'engaged' – This means that the relevant transaction must satisfy the criteria set out in the Act,

including:

- There must be a direct 3-way agreement between the debtor (you), the creditor (Capital One) and the supplier who provided the goods or services that are being complained about; and - The price of the goods or services purchased must be at least £100 but not exceed £30,000; and

 

3. There must be a proven claim against the supplier

– This means that there must be a proven claim for misrepresentation or breach of contract against the supplier.

A customer will not be entitled to a refund under Section 75 of the Act unless all of the above conditions are satisfied.

 

Summary of investigation - The transaction was for 4 tickets to an event at a total cost of £244.87, making each ticket's cost under £100.

 

It is therefore considered that you do not have a claim under Section 75 of the Act and, as such, Capital One is not jointly liable for any misrepresentation or breach of contract by the Merchant. This is because the value of the goods or services is not within the monetary requirements set by the Act.

 

Unfortunately, we cannot assist you with your claim on this occasion as we are unable to recover the disputed amount via chargeback or consider a claim under Section 75 of the Act. I'm sorry this may not be the response you were hoping for.

 

If you have any further questions relating to your dispute, please give us a call on 0333 000 0205 Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.

 

Kind regards,

 

Darren Carlile

Head of Customer Operations

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds extraordinary – and I wonder if there is really any basis for this.

I can imagine that the entire payment went through as a single transaction with a single transaction number.

I would suggest sending an SAR to get all of this information and at the same time – but in a completely different letter in a different envelope tell them that you are making a formal complaint and that you want it escalated to the FOS.

Send the SAR straightaway. Contact them and begin the formal complaint immediately. Read our customer services guide if you do anything on the telephone. But also in terms of making sure that they have your complaint down the way that you want it, make sure you get the person on the phone to repeat exactly what they are writing down. Don't stand for any deviation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bankfodder,

 

Yes, correct. Purchase went through as one payment, one order number with tickets x 4 in order, subtotal and payment amount all in one order.

 

I had been nagging my wife for months to sort it out, eventually she raised a dispute through their secure msg system. please verify my dates are correct:

 

Date of match: 4th Feb 2020

Date chargeback request done through secure message on capital one: 1st June 2020

This equals 118 days?

 

2nd June advised to complete form and email back - Day 119.

Form completed and sent back with copies of numerous emails sent to company on 2nd June.

 

I'm going to do an online complaint now.

 

In their email they state:

 

Unfortunately, we are unable to pursue a chargeback on your behalf on this occasion because more than 120 days have elapsed since the date of the event for which the tickets were purchased.

 

Does this mean THEY cant do it because it has taken them 8 days to look at it, pushing it over 120 days? Or are they implying we took longer than 120 days to report it, which we didn't. I consider the secure message on day 118 as my wife notifying them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 120 days under chargeback runs from why YOU realise it is appropriate to your situation. not 120 from the transaction date!!

 

the correct total time from date of transaction is 540 days ....so Cap1 are wRONG.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re section 75 ....if you bought four items that together cost more than £100, but each cost less than £100, Section 75 would not apply and the card company wouldn't usually be liable....stick to the chargeback.

 

 

3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—

(a)under a non-commercial agreement, F1. . .

(b)so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding [F2£100] or more than [F3£30,000] [F4, or]

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, UKDomains said:

Does this mean THEY cant do it because it has taken them 8 days to look at it, pushing it over 120 days? Or are they implying we took longer than 120 days to report it, which we didn't. I consider the secure message on day 118 as my wife notifying them.

 

120 days is not from transaction date.

its from when she realised chargeback was applicable to the transaction...think of it like a PPI reclaim..she did not realise she could use chargeback..

 

she has 540 days to raise the complaint from the transaction date  cap1 are WRONG.. nothing new there.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

How long do I have to make a chargeback claim?

You should make a claim as soon as you identify the problem or are concerned about a transaction, as your card issuer usually needs to start the chargeback process within 120 days from when you made the transaction or when you were due to receive the goods or services.

 

In your case  .. 4th of February. 

 

https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/area-of-expertise/cards/chargeback-and-section-75

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...