Jump to content

Chargeback dispute with merchant - advice please


Jules-and-Boo

Recommended Posts

hi


I challenged a service using the banks chargeback process which gives the merchant the opportunity to challenge my claim. My claim ws upheld and I received my money back.


I am now getting calls from the merchant requesting I settle the amount.


Are they able to pursue this, even though I've already successfully challenged it through the chargeback scheme?


it's all a bit too stressful


thanks

JB

The below is advice to merchants, so unless you've got a refund from both the merchant and the scheme ( a double refund) - I'd just quote the below.


https://www.opayo.co.uk/blog/uncertain-times-chargebacks


"The final decision in favour of one party or the other, which is made by the card scheme rather than the issuer, cannot be challenged further, other than through the process of bringing the matter before a court."

It?ll cost the merchant to take you to court, Covid is delaying court schedules/processes significantly, let them waste their time and money bringing you to court.

You?ll produce the evidence of the card issuer backing you up and the magistrate will think the merchant is just a chancer and wasting court time.

I would wager.

> General ED issues / gossip


??


> You?ll produce the evidence of

> the card issuer backing you up


What might that prove?


In any case, do card issuers willingly release their documents?


> and the magistrate will think


It would be a County Court matter.


What is the loss that the merchant would be seeking to recover?

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thanks JohnL

>

> oh, so they can go to court. In which case, what

> is the point of a chargeback? Unless the court

> would hold any value in it?



The point is you were able to recover your money without taking them to court, and putting the ball in their court to deal with. Given it costs ?70+ to make a claim in the courts, it?s unlikely they will bother especially given that the card scheme has already found in your favour.

?45.


Spoke to a legal colleague who said they can go through courts (as Ian said) so I?ve just paid it as really can?t deal with the stress and if they win I?d have to pay their fees too.


Also given there is an element of ambiguity

Well, it shouldn?t be Sue but it?s hard to take abusive phone calls while home schooling and also working.

I don?t think I?m wrong but have to balance the energy and effort and time it would take to dispute it against what else I could be doing.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Discussions

    • in reply to my own "Where did you get this from?" response to your post at https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/353788-is-rachel-reeves-becoming-the-new-liz-truss/?do=findComment&comment=1688310, in which you again spoke of the government's "doubling the national debt". You seem not to understand the meaning of "national debt".  Have you perhaps been relying on someone else's usage? I'm sorry to hear of Starmer's decimation.
    • PetitionCall a General Election I would like there to be another General Election. I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election. Sign this petition 2,500,822 signatures 2,501,025 signatures
    • Keys now back with rightful owner.
    • in response to   On 19/11/2024 at 08:36, Moovart said: I know nothing about farming so can't really comment but when I read things like this interesting thread from Guy Shrubsole I am increasingly cynical about those making the loudest noise.  And yes it is a genuine link.   I've just had a look at the page source.  It contains a link to a Twitter page that's been automatically embedded in Moovart's post but seems not now operative. So I've dug out the url to have another try, this time without embedding:  https://x.com/guyshrubsole/status/1858490339356533018 .  Seems ok.   in reply to my own "Where did you get this from?" response to your post at https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/353788-is-rachel-reeves-becoming-the-new-liz-truss/?do=findComment&comment=1688310, in which you again spoke of the government's "doubling the national debt". You seem not to understand the meaning of "national debt".  Might you have been copying someone else's usage? I'm sorry to hear of Starmer's decimation. ================ And the para below was originally a totally new separate post but has also been merged.  Good night forum. The above merging of my posts in response to Sue and to Jazzer have been done by the forum system, so there's no point in my trying again to separate them.  I've already tried editing out the merging and reposting the one to jazzer, but ended up with the same forced merge.  Apologies. Latest edit.  The moral seems to be: don't try making two consecutive posts or they'll be liable to merging.  I've now been able to post a freestanding reply to jazzer's post now that there's an intervening post.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...