My wife bought a jumper for her mother for a Christmas present from Edinburgh Woollen Mill a couple of weeks before Christmas.
I tried to take it back last week and they said they couldn't accept it because they needed the same card that was used to buy it originally. I went back yesterday, with the same card, and they then said they couldn't accept it because I wasn't the cardholder. They also couldn't use my card, even though it's linked to the same joint account because it wasn't the original card.
She kept bleating on about it being fraud and a legal requirement to have the same card, which is just wrong. She also kept saying that the money goes back on the card, which it doesn't. She also didn't know why you need the same card, although didn't admit it and just kept saying it was the law for fraud reasons.
Obviously we didn't get our refund and my wife, with her card will have to go back at the weekend, with me glaring over her shoulder.
Has anyone else come across this? Can anyone explain why retailers insist on the same card?
I can see the fraud angle.
If, for example, someone stole a credit card and made a load of purchases which he then took back for a refund onto his own credit card. There would be no traceability as to how he got the money and it would then be effectively “clean”.
^^^^^^^
This
Plus different cards can charge the retailer a different % so putting it back on the same card effectively reverses the transaction at the same % rate.
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
I can also see a scenario where a credit card company is defrauded on cashback cards — spend, spend, spend on one card to get loads of cashback; get the refund on another so it costs you nothing.
Setting any legal issues aside, it seems like a perfectly fair and reasonable policy to me.
If I owned a business, I wouldn't want my staff to be spending time working out what might be a correct refund, worrying about refunding something purchased on a credit card to a debit card for instance, or giving cash back. If the card holder bought it, then the card holder can return it with the card used, though perhaps a little inconvenient it shouldn't be a big deal.
Great way to launder dirty money.
B
Originally Posted by Dave+63
https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...nsumeraffairs1
Would a credit note not have been an acceptable alternative?
Actually this insistence to the same card (which I 100% understand) has caused me, personally, to loose c. fifty quid :-(
Cancelled some car insurance with Churchill. As a consequence I was due back thirty quid. Churchill wanted to do it to the same card. I no longer had this card (expired and I no longer had this card). Churchill refused to refund to a different card. They said they would have to try to do the refund and if it failed then send me a cheque. I never got the cheque and never saw the money. btw this wasn't an isolated experience the same thing happened a few months later and this was despite me explaining over the phone to Churchill about what had happened first time.... monies still never received :-( First time was thirty quid and the second time fifteen quid... life's too short to have a shouting match with churchill I'll just never use them again. A shame really because up until them I'd always have good dealings with them.
Retailers spend so much time working out how people are trying to defraud them, and refunds are a real weak spot.
Retail staff are very poorly paid and have to have a wide range of skills, such as trying to remember why the company has its credit card refund policy.
If you imagine that glaring at the till monkey next time you're in will somehow make a beneficial contribution, then you'll be understanding the situation even less than them.
The money doesn't go back to the card, it goes to the account the card is linked to. In this case we each have our own cards (different card numbers) linked to the same account. So even if, somehow, the money went back to the account using my card details, it would end up in the same place.
I wasn't trying to put money from her credit card onto my current account, that would be fraudulent and money laundering.
We do this quite often - my wife buys something and I take it back. Most retailers either don't check the cards or understand why the card is different and allow it to go through. In this case they wouldn't move from their procedures, which was the card must be the same.
Last edited by MurrayMint; 10th January 2018 at 11:42.
They are all fair points, but the till monkey had handed over to her supervisor, who I'd firstly expect to be able to explain the procedures and secondly if she didn't know then say, "I don't know why, it's just company policy" rather than by repeating "it's the law" hope that it would placate me.
Fair enough, but quite simply, the person serving you won't have any way of knowing the cards are linked to the same account.
No, because we never shop there usually and we were a) within the 30 days and b) followed their instructions by returning with the same card.
But the retailer has no way of knowing that both cards are linked to the same account or indeed what account Any card is linked to.
The fact is that unless the original card is re credited then there’s always a potential fraud involved.
The account number is on both cards.
And besides, the till shouldn't read my card and use those details to refund the money as there is always a chance of fraud, as has been said. The till should always use the card details from the original transaction. Getting you to put the card in during the refund is just an additional check, which is why you generally don't need to put your pin in during a refund.
Exactly, I don't think I think there is any way the merchant would be able to identify they are linked to the same account. The long card number used for card transactions is unique to that particular card. The fact that the same sort code and account number show on the card is irrelevant to the retailers.
Just take her card away - saves a load of expense and you having to return stuff!.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
From memory of the card machines i have had and use we could technically refund anything to any card as long as we have sufficient funds in the account ( ours to do so ) In umpteen years of using them though its rare to do it now but paypal refunds are quite common but thats another story . The given stand point from fraud is to refund to the original card and i have fallen for that before with some taking up top 30 days for them to get off their ass and manually process it
There's a potential fraud or error involved if the retailer uses anything other than the card from the original transaction. So why do you need to enter the card at all?
For returned internet purchases the card isn't present, it just gets refunded back to the same card. Why should transactions in the store be any different?
With joint credit cards the card numbers are the same only the security code, which is only used for online purchases is different.
This appears to be acceptable to the various retailers/we've never had an issue.
One thing to remember is that if bought from a shop & not faulty the retailer is under no obligation to offer any refund.
I recently had a refund made to a completely different card to that I used for the original purchase, I just mistakenly gave them a different card and they didn't notice, refund came back fine.
I also have a joint credit card (wife is an additional), I have often used my card for a refund on purchases she made using hers, I did once point it out and they refused, I think they couldn't understand two cards but one account. Now I just pop the card in the machine and keep my mouth shut.
This leads me to believe it's retailer 'policy' or law rather than technical limitations.
That’s obviously not true in all cases; perhaps different companies work differently.
My wife’s credit card is linked to my account yet has a totally different number. It makes it easy to see who has spent what on the bill!
Many years ago, when I worked at a well known retail bank, they realised they'd been hammered on this, to the point where the amount of 'points' they owed, had they been cashed in on, the bank would've been in severe trouble.
Unless, of course, they have a published returns policy, which many larger retailers do.
As far as "original card" is concerned, what would a retailer do if you purchased an item with a card which expired (or was cancelled) in the period between the purchase and the return?
This was my situation. My wife's card happen to be unreadable by their device, so the operator took it out, tried to clean it and noticed that it wasn't my card.
Had the card been read in the first place, as has been mentioned above, they wouldn't have noticed.
I spoke to the bank last night and they said the retailer was being particularly nit-picky and could have issued the refund if they wanted onto my card, assuming the supervisor was trained to do so and had the correct privileges.
Happened to me... see previous post. If the card expires normally the car number will stay the same so not a problem. However if the card is 100% changed (due to being lost or if there was a security issue and the provider changed it) then that creates BIG issues... BTDT.
I understand why a refund has to go back to the same card. I cannot see why you have to present the card. Online retailers never see the card and make refunds without any hassle...why cannot high street shops set themselves up to do the same?
Apologies, could well be the case.
It's been correct on the 3 we've had in the past.
Probably because there are very different terms imposed by the credit card companies on CNP (Card Not Present) transactions and on those when a card is present. This will include the fees paid, checking of the VVC2 code (the 3 digits at the end of the signature strip) and, especially, where liability lies for fraudulent activities.
I've done a bit more digging on this, including speaking to someone from the industry.
It seems that older tills need the card inserted into the machine in order to issue the refund because they don't keep a record of the original card that was used. The checking to make sure it's the same card is either manual (hence can be missed now we shouldn't let go of our card) or automatic (in which case the operator can claim, "computer says no").
Newer software stores the encrypted card details, or a token representing them. In this case the original card is not required when the refund takes place, although some retailers still enforce the "need same card" policy (this is what I don't understand). Online purchases will always have needed the card details to be stored, to be able to issue the refund without the card being present.
Using a different card could be evidence of money laundering or there could be a valid reason - card lost, replaced, broken, husband doing refund on wife's behalf using joint account, etc. It is up to the retailer to have a policy in this case. Some will educate and trust the operator (or more likely, a manager) and allow them to override the same card restriction. Others will simply say no, probably as a blanket rule to reduce the chance of fraud as much as possible.
I think that's the long and the short of it. Of course, also, retailers are in the business of selling stuff, not refunding stuff, so of course flexibility and making it easy is not going to be in their interests.
Last edited by Roberto; 10th January 2018 at 16:22. Reason: I cat'n spel
Seems reasonable in OPs case. Unless faulty, no requirement to refund at all.
That's all true of course, but there is such a thing as good customer service. Buying clothes for a relative at Christmas is hardly uncommon, but we won't ever buy from them again at Christmas or any other time. We will also tell everyone we know that their refund policy, despite being displayed as 30 days, might not actually allow you to get a refund.
There’s nothing wrong with their customer service and they haven’t tried to stop you from getting a refund. Just because you chose not to adhere to their policies regarding refunds and expect them to bend over backwards for you doesn’t make them a bad retailer in my opinion!
I think I’d prefer to buy from them than sell to you TBH.
My thanks to PhilipK and the OP (MurrayMint) for their informative replies and research about my query.
Their refund policy is clearly stated return with 30 days.
I returned well within the 30 days. All the tags were intact, the goods had only been out of the bag for 30 seconds., They refused to refund me saying I needed the same card, which wasn't mentioned anywhere. I returned with the same card, still within 30 days, plus another card linked to the same account and they refused to refund me again. Even if the cardholder was there they would still have refused because the card couldn't be read by their machine.
Their refund policy said nothing about the same card and nothing about their machines being able to read the card.
It's not like there aren't plenty of other places to buy cheap polyester jumpers these days. Even their name is misleading - Edinburgh Woollen Mill.
Whenever I return something the retailer always asks ‘have you got the card you paid with?’ so it’s hardly an unexpected or unusual policy.
It's not, no, but my usual answer is, no I haven't, my wife bought it on her card but here is mine, and the response is generally, oh ok then I'll use that.
Had this issue recently with a Curve card, refund applied to card, two months later, no refund.
after lots of grief Curve finally refunded the £29 as goodwill.
Refund mysteriously appeared after 90 days as Curve hold all refunds for 90 days, but no one at Curve knew this!
It's due to money laundering, and it's not the retailer its the card service suppliers.
I have it every now and again where we refund a different card and it gets stopped, they cross check the transactions and if they dont match they flag up. I did it on one of my cards by mistake (paid with one & refunded to another), it caused an unholy stink.
I even had an issue where I refunded a guy on to his new version of his card that went out of date, still got stopped!
Agreed. Money laundering
Previously I’ve stated that I lost my card and this is a replacement which has been accepted as s satisfactory explanation
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote