Customer has opened a credit card chargeback but I have proof of shipment & delivery.

[missing-pieces-china]

I need some advice. I have never encountered this issue before. This customer bought 2 items from me on separate days in September. There were plenty of messages back & forth between us on Ebay as she wanted a few items.  Anyway, on one of the transactions she has filed a chargeback. We sent the item via C & S & have checked the tracking details on Australia Post which says that the item has been delivered. As we used C & S we did not receive a lodgement receipt but the item was scanned at the Australia Post counter. We will be responding to the Paypal claim with the tracking details & C & S summary. Is this enough? It clearly shows her address. Does this type of issue attract a defect? Thanks in advance for any advice. It is greatly appreciated. 🙂

[2011.narelle]

Hi,i haven't had this myself so i looked up some board info on chargeback.

-Log into PayPal account & doublecheck in resolution centre to see if you have notification of a chargeback.

-There should further instructions on what information to provide

-If you used a post method which gives seller protection upload that info into the PayPal dispute console.probably tracking numbers etc.

-PayPal will go back to the bank & deny the chargeback

If you posted to the address on the payment info & used tracking,then you should be covered,is how it seems to me.The info in your post looks like you have done everything right & should be covered against the chargeback.

Others will have better info,I'm just answering what i found on the boards since i have no experience in this.

[justkidzbiz]

Has the buyer opened a Paypal Dispute for Item Not Received or has she lodged a CC Chargeback. These are 2 completely separate things.

If she has opened a dispute with Paypal, you will most likely win as the online tracking shows as delivered, you don't need proof of posting.

If she is doing a credit card Chargeback this is done through her bank and has nothing to do with Paypal. I would assume the same criteria applies, you can prove the item was delivered so should win.

[missing-pieces-china]

Thanks for the replies so far. It is a credit card chargeback not a Paypal dispute. Though Paypal are the ones involved because they paid via Paypal using their credit card. The information provided as the reason for the chargeback was Unauthorised Use Of Credit Card. This transaction is the second completed transaction with the customer within a few days. The item has been delivered to the same address for both transactions.

I imagine perhaps that they might have had their credit card lost, stolen or skimmed perhaps & they are just doing chargebacks for everything. I have no idea. I have never dealt with one before nor have I ever charged anything back. I am hoping the tracking details are sufficient for Paypal to pass onto the bank??

[clarry100]

We lost one of these cases a while back because we primarily use large letter. The PayPal csr at the time told me that had were used a trackable means of postage were would be covered. Fortunately it was only a $5.50 loss.
So going by that you should be OK having used C&S lodged over the counter.

[5kazam]

Do any of the messages between you and the buyer refer to the item the charge back is about?  If so that would be additional proof that she did want that particular thing - and should make it harder to claim unauthorised use.  

[putney32]

---

@5kazam wrote:

Do any of the messages between you and the buyer refer to the item the charge back is about?  If so that would be additional proof that she did want that particular thing - and should make it harder to claim unauthorised use.  

---

the problem is most ''unauthorised use'' these days is OVERDRAWN c cards and it is actually th Bank who is claiming unauthorised use not the actual buyer.

[5kazam]

I get what you're saying.    However, one thing I don't understand.  You claim that (mostly) it is because a CC is overdrawn.  But it is the eBay member, not the bank, who instigates a charge back.

IMO if  the bank are claiming 'unauthorised use', then it  should be pursuing the CC holder for the funds to bring the account into line - not taking money from someone who has legitimately sold an item.

And I bet the bank doesn't insist the buyer return the item.  It's almost like an extension of  Bay/PP policies - they get the money, buyer keeps the now unpaid for item, seller loses both.

If I was in OP's position, the first thing I would be attempting to find out is WHY THE CHARGEBACK(?)   Is a reason given to a seller when they are first advised of a chargeack?

[jensmanchester-australia]

kazam - there is no reason given as to why a chargeback has been instigated.

Putney is correct - a lot of chargebacks are due to overdrawn credit cards and the chargeback is instigated by the bank and not the customer.

They know that credit card payments through Paypal can often be the easiest ones to get their money back from as often sellers are not covered under the Seller Protection policy. The banks couldn't care less about anyone - all they want is their money back and they don't care how they get it.

[clarry100]

It seems to me its a gross mis-use of the term "unauthorised use" by the big banks.

In my case I tried to find out too what this actually meant but PayPal said that was all the info they had from the bank. As I understand it's normally the bank who opens these and rarely the card holder. They often don't even know it has happened. In both of our cases the buyers said they knew nothing of it. One repaid us in full (incl the $15 PayPal fee) by bank deposit. The other we never heard from again after that. So it was clear both these cases were instigated by the bank not the card holder.

Neither the banks nor PayPal are going to lose out in such cases so the easiest pickings are the vendors who are on the losing end of it all.

Along with the recent class action cases for fees that have been very public, there might be room for another such case on these chargebacks. Seems they are yet another avenue of unfair revenue raising by the big banks. At the expense of vendors in this case.

And its about **bleep** time they were pulled into line over it.

"Maurice Blackburn we fight for fair"