Credit cards and Chargebacks

Archived From: Finance
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
First, yes, I am a long time member, and this is a new account.

I am involved in a complicated transaction which has already proceeded to the point where it would cost more for it not to go through than for it to go through.  I'd rather not be more specific than that for fear someone involved in the transaction could read this.  One of the counterparties (who was subcontracted from the prime contractor without my knowledge) is now demanding fees for things that I think are ridiculous and that I was never informed of at the start of the transaction (which I regard as basically, illegal).  I may have no choice but to pay as the cost not to pay may be substantially higher than the cost to pay.  They want payment in the form of a credit card.

What credit card company is likely to be most sympathetic to me in the case of a chargeback?  I have pretty much every major card provider (Chase, Citi, Barclays, BoA, AMEX, Elan, US Bank, etc)

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Well that sheds new light on the matter, and was exactly what was in the back of my mind while reading through the entir... (more)

BocephusSTL (Aug. 24, 2016 @ 4:44p) |

man, your username sure applies.

it's not extortion if YOU KNOWINGLY AGREE TO THE UNSPECIFIED CHARGE UP FRONT !!!

why are ... (more)

solarUS (Aug. 24, 2016 @ 5:34p) |

dramosaurus,

Any update? How did the chargeback process go? Is it still ongoing? Or did you just pay the fee and say forg... (more)

meade18 (Oct. 11, 2016 @ 1:30p) |

First, yes, I am a long time member, and this is a new account.

I am involved in a complicated transaction which has already proceeded to the point where it would cost more for it not to go through than for it to go through.  I'd rather not be more specific than that for fear someone involved in the transaction could read this.  One of the counterparties (who was subcontracted from the prime contractor without my knowledge) is now demanding fees for things that I think are ridiculous and that I was never informed of at the start of the transaction (which I regard as basically, illegal).  I may have no choice but to pay as the cost not to pay may be substantially higher than the cost to pay.  They want payment in the form of a credit card.

What credit card company is likely to be most sympathetic to me in the case of a chargeback?  I have pretty much every major card provider (Chase, Citi, Barclays, BoA, AMEX, Elan, US Bank, etc)
Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

dramosaurus said:   One of the counterparties (who was subcontracted from the prime contractor without my knowledge) is now demanding fees for things that I think are ridiculous and that I was never informed of at the start of the transaction (which I regard as basically, illegal).  I may have no choice but to pay as the cost not to pay may be substantially higher than the cost to pay.
  You should get a lawyer at this point. For their advice and for them to write some strongly worded letters
 I'd rather not be more specific than that for fear someone involved in the transaction could read this. 
that makes it hard for us to help you

dramosaurus said:   What credit card company is likely to be most sympathetic to me in the case of a chargeback?
 


Is your plan to pay first and then chargeback right away?

ruffles, the amount in question is less than $100, not worth a lawyer. I'm not sure what you need to know. I do not believe the charge is valid, and neither charge, nor the subcontractor, was mentioned to me prior to agreeing to and paying for the contracted services. Even the name of the charge is pretty close to: "We just felt like billing you for something random because we know you have to pay it or you're screwed."

doveroftke, not immediately but close to immediately.

why would you be screwed ? why can't you just have someone else do the work?

You created an alt-ID for <$100 dispute?

Can we just stick to the question instead of going all over the place?

DTASFAB, I did. I just wanted to know which bank would give me the least hassle over this?

Ruffles, It's not that sort of contract. This isn't work on my home.

How do you imagine making a credit card payment then successfully charging it back resolves things? At best, you're where you are now. A chargeback is not a legal judgment about whether you owe the money or not.

dramosaurus said:   
Ruffles, It's not that sort of contract. This isn't work on my home.

  what work is it on?

Aye, that's fair. However, I have real doubts they would pursue this further. Are they going to Sue me someone they never had any contact with prior to demanding money over $100 for failing to pay for something that I never agreed to pay or knew I owed until they demanded payment for questionable services?

Again, can we stick to the question, which bank is likely to produce the most favorable outcome for me?

dramosaurus said:   Aye, that's fair. However, I have real doubts they would pursue this further. Are they going to Sue me someone they never had any contact with prior to demanding money over $100 for failing to pay for something that I never agreed to pay or knew I owed until they demanded payment for questionable services?

 

 If you don't think they would pursue further if you chargeback, then you get to that same point if you don't pay them at all

I think this work is on OP's car and a mechanic is holding it. once OP pays, he gets his car and can then chargeback.

rufflesinc said:   
 If you don't think they would pursue further if you chargeback, then you get to that same point if you don't pay them at all

I think this work is on OP's car and a mechanic is holding it. once OP pays, he gets his car and can then chargeback.


I sent you a PM explaining exactly what it is. This isn't the situation but it does bring up a good analogy.

Imagine if you paid (in full) for the mechanic to work on the car and the mechanic did most of the work but then subcontracted out additional work to a 3rd party, who you didn't authorize and then the 3rd party hands you a bill and says pay me or you don't get your car back.

rufflesinc said:   
dramosaurus said:   Aye, that's fair. However, I have real doubts they would pursue this further. Are they going to Sue me someone they never had any contact with prior to demanding money over $100 for failing to pay for something that I never agreed to pay or knew I owed until they demanded payment for questionable services?

 

 If you don't think they would pursue further if you chargeback, then you get to that same point if you don't pay them at all

I think this work is on OP's car and a mechanic is holding it. once OP pays, he gets his car and can then chargeback.

  When it comes to sub-contracting our repair work usually it falls into one of two areas -- bodywork or alignments.

The answer to your (albeit bewildering) question is probably American Express. For small chargebacks, a lot of the time they don't even bother and just courtesy credit you.

PYBDB

Chargebacks are a venue for "I paid in advance with a credit card for something that didn't arrive/wasn't performed as promised".
Chargebacks are not a venue for "Settle this outstanding bill for work already performed, then have second thoughts and try to get out of it".

dramosaurus said:   Aye, that's fair. However, I have real doubts they would pursue this further. Are they going to Sue me someone they never had any contact with prior to demanding money over $100 for failing to pay for something that I never agreed to pay or knew I owed until they demanded payment for questionable services?

Again, can we stick to the question, which bank is likely to produce the most favorable outcome for me?

  I assume we are suppose to ignore you committing fraud, since you want to dispute a charge you clearly authorized, and you knew exactly what it was for prior to paying, and you did receive what you paid for?

Worst plan ever.

Resolve it with the merchant - period.

Glitch99 said:   dramosaurus said:   Aye, that's fair. However, I have real doubts they would pursue this further. Are they going to Sue me someone they never had any contact with prior to demanding money over $100 for failing to pay for something that I never agreed to pay or knew I owed until they demanded payment for questionable services?

Again, can we stick to the question, which bank is likely to produce the most favorable outcome for me?

  I assume we are suppose to ignore you committing fraud, since you want to dispute a charge you clearly authorized, and you knew exactly what it was for prior to paying, and you did receive what you paid for?


I do not regard this as fraud. I paid the party I contracted with in good faith up front. They subcontracted to a 3rd party who charged me for stuff I believe I already paid for. What I'm paying for, as far as I can tell, is (in analogy version) a letter saying I can have my car back. They refuse to tell me what I'm paying for beyond this letter.

If I had agreed to pay for this up front, and now I'm charging back, then I'd consider it fraud.

dramosaurus said:   
Glitch99 said:   
dramosaurus said:   Aye, that's fair. However, I have real doubts they would pursue this further. Are they going to Sue me someone they never had any contact with prior to demanding money over $100 for failing to pay for something that I never agreed to pay or knew I owed until they demanded payment for questionable services?

Again, can we stick to the question, which bank is likely to produce the most favorable outcome for me?

  I assume we are suppose to ignore you committing fraud, since you want to dispute a charge you clearly authorized, and you knew exactly what it was for prior to paying, and you did receive what you paid for?


I do not regard this as fraud. I paid the party I contracted with in good faith up front. They subcontracted to a 3rd party who charged me for stuff I believe I already paid for. What I'm paying for, as far as I can tell, is (in analogy version) a letter saying I can have my car back. They refuse to tell me what I'm paying for beyond this letter.

If I had agreed to pay for this up front, and now I'm charging back, then I'd consider it fraud.

  IMO if you pay them using a card you plan on charging back that's fraud.  Just don't pay the $100 and work with your contractor.  Or pay it and don't charge it back. 

Care to tell us exactly what it was for? If you paid for the entire service up front, your claim is with the party you contracted with, not the party that was sub-contracted.  Where is your property now?  The sub-contractor doesn't have the right to hold your property hostage in order to get paid.  He should have been paid by the party that hired him, which wasn't you.  If the original service provider has your property, he has no right to hold it hostage either, since you paid for the service in advance.

You can sue in small claims for specific performance. It's not only about recovering money.

My guess is this is for some sort of tailoring of a bridezilla costume, maybe for a wedding, maybe for Halloween... maybe for both.

Don't forget that a Chargeback does not stop the vendor from suing you. In fact the chargeback provides a level of proof.

However, this is odd, that a sub can charge you, you have no contract with them, it's with the primary. If the sub does 'under the table work' that you pay for, then you have a liability issue with the sub if they are hurt.

Okay, fine...

I contracted with a company to ship something to me via air freight and paid them in full in advance. They subcontracted to another company which is demanding money to issue me a document saying that I'm authorized to pick up the package from the airport. They have declined to tell me what the charge is fir beyond literally emailing me this document.

The original company warned me that their could be "destination" and "handling" charges, but when asked specifically, they couldn't name any. They have stated that the subcontractor is their "agent." If this company is their agent they should have been aware of their charges and told me.

The original company has no incentive to do anything about this. The second company has all the leverage, if I do not pay them promptly (before the end of the week) I will incur unspecified storage charges.

How many times do you need to be told that, regardless of the fact you think you're right & the charge is unjustified, that paying with a CC then doing a chargeback is not the proper way to resolve it? You are still committing fraud.

Here, since you like analogies: would you be allowed to pay with counterfeit bills? No? You'd still go to jail? Even if you are right and the merchant is wrong? It's like that.

AlwaysWrite said:   How many times do you need to be told that, regardless of the fact you think you're right & the charge is unjustified, that paying with a CC then doing a chargeback is not the proper way to resolve it? You are still committing fraud.

Here, since you like analogies: would you be allowed to pay with counterfeit bills? No? You'd still go to jail? Even if you are right and the merchant is wrong? It's like that.


If you pay counterfeit bills for a legitimate service it is fraud. If instead you bought drugs with counterfeit bills it wouldn't be fraud because you can't legally sell drugs and hence can't legally incur a debt for it.

dramosaurus said:   The original company warned me that their could be "destination" and "handling" charges...
 

So they told you there could be some additional charges, and there were.  What exactly is your beef? 

dramosaurus said:   
AlwaysWrite said:   How many times do you need to be told that, regardless of the fact you think you're right & the charge is unjustified, that paying with a CC then doing a chargeback is not the proper way to resolve it? You are still committing fraud.

Here, since you like analogies: would you be allowed to pay with counterfeit bills? No? You'd still go to jail? Even if you are right and the merchant is wrong? It's like that.


If you pay counterfeit bills for a legitimate service it is fraud. If instead you bought drugs with counterfeit bills it wouldn't be fraud because you can't legally sell drugs and hence can't legally incur a debt for it.

Worst legal advice ever given on FW, and that is really saying something.

I encourage you to go try out your theory. Good luck to you, obviously you don't want anyone's help.

dramosaurus said:   
Glitch99 said:   
dramosaurus said:   Aye, that's fair. However, I have real doubts they would pursue this further. Are they going to Sue me someone they never had any contact with prior to demanding money over $100 for failing to pay for something that I never agreed to pay or knew I owed until they demanded payment for questionable services?

Again, can we stick to the question, which bank is likely to produce the most favorable outcome for me?

  I assume we are suppose to ignore you committing fraud, since you want to dispute a charge you clearly authorized, and you knew exactly what it was for prior to paying, and you did receive what you paid for?


I do not regard this as fraud. I paid the party I contracted with in good faith up front. They subcontracted to a 3rd party who charged me for stuff I believe I already paid for. What I'm paying for, as far as I can tell, is (in analogy version) a letter saying I can have my car back. They refuse to tell me what I'm paying for beyond this letter.

If I had agreed to pay for this up front, and now I'm charging back, then I'd consider it fraud.

  What do you mean they refuse to tell you what else you are paying for?   They've told you what you are paying for.  You are then going to pay it, and receive exactly what you were told you would receive.  Any chargeback would be fraudulent.

If you have an issue with the situation, you take it up with the party you made the purchase from.  You can even file a chargeback for that purchase, as you haven't received what you purchased - except you were in fact told upfront there would be an additional destination/handling charge due on delivery.

Just pay the charge, get your item, and be done with it.  ANYTHING else is just going to open cans of worms that are going to cost you much, much more.

dramosaurus said:   
The original company warned me that their could be "destination" and "handling" charges, but when asked specifically, they couldn't name any. 

  
This is your problem. You asked for the amount. They didn't tell you how much it would be. And you still decided to do business with them. That's on you. Sorry. Pay for the "document" and consider it a lesson learned. 

 

dramosaurus said:   
AlwaysWrite said:   How many times do you need to be told that, regardless of the fact you think you're right & the charge is unjustified, that paying with a CC then doing a chargeback is not the proper way to resolve it? You are still committing fraud.

Here, since you like analogies: would you be allowed to pay with counterfeit bills? No? You'd still go to jail? Even if you are right and the merchant is wrong? It's like that.


If you pay counterfeit bills for a legitimate service it is fraud. If instead you bought drugs with counterfeit bills it wouldn't be fraud because you can't legally sell drugs and hence can't legally incur a debt for it.

  So just pay for your item with counterfeit bills.  You clearly do not consider it a legit debt you are paying, and paying it with bogus bills is no different than paying it with a bogus credit card authorization.

Glitch99 said:   
  What do you mean they refuse to tell you what else you are paying for?   They've told you what you are paying for.  You are then going to pay it, and receive exactly what you were told you would receive.  Any chargeback would be fraudulent.

If you have an issue with the situation, you take it up with the party you made the purchase from.  You can even file a chargeback for that purchase, as you haven't received what you purchased - except you were in fact told upfront there would be an additional destination/handling charge due on delivery.

Just pay the charge, get your item, and be done with it.  ANYTHING else is just going to open cans of worms that are going to cost you much, much more.


So if they wanted to charge me $1000 or $10,000 I should just say: "Okay, no problem?" They deliberately waited to tell me the charge until they had it in their possession and then literally said we are charging you to email you a document that allows you to retrieve your property at your expense. Claiming this is a service to me is ludicrous, it is merely an attempt to extort me to get my property.

You are claiming it would be fraudulent. It absolutely wouldn't. I world dispute the transaction and explain exactly what I just said and say I believe this is extortion and they made me pay under duress (true). How is filling a dispute based on your opinion backed up by an accurate retelling of the facts fraudulent?

As for the previous person. Yes it was a bad analogy because possession of counterfeit currency is illegal in and of itself and screwing a drug dealer is probably a bad idea, but I guarantee you no judge would enforce a contact (whether verbal or written -- ie I'll sell you these drugs for $1000. Okay, you've got a deal") that is fundamentally illegal in nature. If you're a hit man, you don't get to sue a client for failing to pay his or her bill.

dramosaurus said:   
Glitch99 said:   
  What do you mean they refuse to tell you what else you are paying for?   They've told you what you are paying for.  You are then going to pay it, and receive exactly what you were told you would receive.  Any chargeback would be fraudulent.

If you have an issue with the situation, you take it up with the party you made the purchase from.  You can even file a chargeback for that purchase, as you haven't received what you purchased - except you were in fact told upfront there would be an additional destination/handling charge due on delivery.

Just pay the charge, get your item, and be done with it.  ANYTHING else is just going to open cans of worms that are going to cost you much, much more.


So if they wanted to charge me $1000 or $10,000 I should just say: "Okay, no problem?" They deliberately waited to tell me the charge until they had it in their possession and then literally said we are charging you to email you a document that allows you to retrieve your property at your expense. Claiming this is a service to me is ludicrous, it is merely an attempt to extort me to get my property.

You are claiming it would be fraudulent. It absolutely wouldn't. I world dispute the transaction and explain exactly what I just said and say I believe this is extortion and they made me pay under duress (true). How is filling a dispute based on your opinion backed up by an accurate retelling of the facts fraudulent?

As for the previous person. Yes it was a bad analogy because possession of counterfeit currency is illegal in and of itself and screwing a drug dealer is probably a bad idea, but I guarantee you no judge would enforce a contact (whether verbal or written -- ie I'll sell you these drugs for $1000. Okay, you've got a deal") that is fundamentally illegal in nature. If you're a hit man, you don't get to sue a client for failing to pay his or her bill.

You don't know what this delivery company actually did in order for them to be in control of your property and to be able to give you the paper that allows you to pick it up. For all we know, they are the importer at this airport and it cost them $80 to receive this package and they are charging you $100 for the delivery charge. For you to say that they are not providing a service without actually knowing what they do is ludicrous. 

The judge will ask you 'why didn't you just refuse the shipment' and get your money back.

Good luck OP, I can tell that you have fixed opinion and you were hoping we would agree with you.

forbin4040 said:   I can tell that you have fixed opinion and you were hoping we would agree with you.
  Not to defend OP's thinking or his actions, he wasn't hoping FW would collectively agree with him.  This happens on FW a lot.  Somebody asks a question, FW demands more information, then flames the thread starter.

He wanted to know which credit card issuer would be most likely to back him up, and he was told Amex.  The rest of the conversation is tangential.  The original question, and the purpose of the thread, has been satisfied.

Meade, the "delivery company" booked a ride in the hold of an airliner, and I presume they were paid for their services. If the airliner or airport were charging them a fee that they were simply passing on to me, I could accept that, but by their own admission the fee is explicitly to cover the cost of producing a form email that allows me to retrieve my package.

As for refusing delivery, you've got to be kidding. I've invested hundreds of dollars in the item and hundreds in shipping that I wouldn't get back, and I'd probably be charged hundreds more if I refused as it wouldn't be returned to the shipper, the airline would charge me to dispose of this.

I see this, literally as no different from if you shipped a car in a sea container, and a dock worker walked over and said, you have a really pretty car over there, it'd be a real shame of something happened to it. If you give me $500, I'll make sure it gets extra special treatment, otherwise you're taking a big risk.

DTASFAB said:   
forbin4040 said:   I can tell that you have fixed opinion and you were hoping we would agree with you.
  Not to defend OP's thinking or his actions, he wasn't hoping FW would collectively agree with him.  This happens on FW a lot.  Somebody asks a question, FW demands more information, then flames the thread starter.

He wanted to know which credit card issuer would be most likely to back him up, and he was told Amex.  The rest of the conversation is tangential.  The original question, and the purpose of the thread, has been satisfied.

You are 100% correct...BUT
The OP shouldn't be to surprised by the turn this thread took. It's pretty rare that you have the opportunity to consider what card to charge something to because you are absolutely sure you will be doing a chargeback on it. That was a huge red flag for most people on this board because we know what chargebacks are for. If the OP had come on here and said he had work done by a mechanic and the guy seemed shady the last time he spoke on the phone with him and he wanted to pay with a chargeback friendly card just in case the work was not done properly, I don't think most people would have come down on him so hard. But knowing that a chargeback is forthcoming and not being willing to pay for a service you got just because you didn't get the price upfront and are unhappy with the final price is going to rub FWers the wrong way. Sure it's tangential, but it's a legitimate tangent when you're talking about fraud.

Chargeback the original transaction for the amount of this fee you claim you weren't told about but admit you were told about, get your courtesy credit from your issuer, and go on with life making all the other customers of your issuer needing to pay a little more because you don't want to pay a fee that you knew you could be charged.

I agree that placing a transaction you know you're going to chargeback is fraud.

This story just keeps getting better and better.

dramosaurus said:   Meade, the "delivery company" booked a ride in the hold of an airliner, and I presume they were paid for their services. If the airliner or airport were charging them a fee that they were simply passing on to me, I could accept that, but by their own admission the fee is explicitly to cover the cost of producing a form email that allows me to retrieve my package.

As for refusing delivery, you've got to be kidding. I've invested hundreds of dollars in the item and hundreds in shipping that I wouldn't get back, and I'd probably be charged hundreds more if I refused as it wouldn't be returned to the shipper, the airline would charge me to dispose of this.

I see this, literally as no different from if you shipped a car in a sea container, and a dock worker walked over and said, you have a really pretty car over there, it'd be a real shame of something happened to it. If you give me $500, I'll make sure it gets extra special treatment, otherwise you're taking a big risk.

It really seems like your beef is with the shipping company then. If you are 100% sure that the subcontractor is ripping you off and not actually providing any service for that $100, I would consider what Glitch99 said. Do the chargeback on the shipping company. I am still of the opinion that the company holding your item ransom has shelled out something in order for being able to do that. It may seem shady, and I do get that you feel like you are being extorted or being taken advantage of, but unless you know for sure they are pulling the mobbed up dockworker extortion, I assume there is something legitimate about this delivery fee considering you were told originally that there would be some sort of delivery fee.

gergles said:    making all the other customers of your issuer needing to pay a little more
How are other Amex users paying more for anything because of a fraudulent chargeback?  Maybe Amex stock drops because they became slightly less profitable by 0.0000000001% but that doesn't affect card holders, at least not directly.

Skipping 44 Messages...
dramosaurus,

Any update? How did the chargeback process go? Is it still ongoing? Or did you just pay the fee and say forget it?



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017