wafflezoo
vor 7 Monaten
Yo man, I’m just about to start working on Santeda. I’ve pretty much won every single dispute I’ve ever made against these companies. Is there anywhere I can contact u?
vor 7 Monaten
You have to pick one and commit to it. It is fine to go gambling and explain that these companies have not supplied any goods but the basis has to be incorrect MCC if you mention gambling.
My advice and I have been through it a fair amount - Any Mastercard especially these non high street banks do not mention gambling, FOS supports the banks on Mastercard, banks state Mastercard excludes gambling transactions (which is incorrect) so the only reason to do gambling on Mastercard is if your job requires no CIFAS otherwise I would recommend goods not received.
VISA is different but trust me I am someone that has gone both routes and if I didn’t work in finance I would have continued on goods not received even with VISA as they raise with limited questions asked. I only went 12.7 invalid data after numerous goods because when I called up they started asking me fraud questions, I have won chargebacks a while back under 12.7 but now I have a huge complaint to get the last 10 over the line with no guarantees they will raise (FOS does support visa 12.7 gambling and in general such as crypto scams).
If FOS have rejected then you have limited options, if you have more to do go goods not received, get your evidence sorted and FOS should support it if banks decline
Verfasst
AntwortenBewerten3
vor 7 Monaten
Anyone have a contact detail for TRNDBE?
vor 7 Monaten
If they are linked to Trendbeam try this one - no response though.
vor 7 Monaten
Also if anyone does chargeback against Trndbm, Trendbeam Trende. Be aware they used a company called Glmspt (glamspot) to try and take money out of my account during the 45 day period, I assume to falsely claim I authorised/received goods etc, luckily I don’t use my Chase account so no money in it, this has enabled me to link them and Chase are now aware that if any false invoices arrive they can challenge them. But just bear in mind this if you chargeback I would change the bank card so they cannot do this to anyone
Verfasst
vor 7 Monaten
You know how this goes. I’ve been reading those FOS decisions and found it odd how those complainants ticked the services not received box even while admitting they’d already spent time gambling on the site. From the bank’s angle, that means the service was delivered, so the claim falls apart before it starts. Especially when using Mastercard.
It looks as though many people lose simply because their case is framed badly. Everyone along the payment chain in these cases are seasoned professionals, so we have to match their level of precision and strategy, play by their rules to beat them at their own game. After all, life’s just one big game.
vor 7 Monaten
Agreed, even with VISA it is difficult to mention gambling and if you do you need multiple parts of evidence it’s not something I would recommend if you only have a few but there are reasons why it is the best way if your circumstances mean you can only chargeback under incorrect MCC. I do think though these merchants are making it harder nowadays for goods not received as I had some with limited information such as W-W Bicester, data and Fint. I mean what exactly are you meant to do with them haha.
I may be incorrect but there isn’t a single FOS case where they back gambling chargebacks on Mastercard, if you search deeper for issues like crypto and investment scams there may be one or two you can reference. VISA on the other hand has x3 gambling ones FOS have backed and many other crypto scams linked to 7995, bank handling and 12.7 not being used when it should be.
There is so much good
information on here from accounts that have left and a few of us you have had success and been through it a few times so why people go against it then complain FOS/banks won’t assist us beyond me.
vor 7 Monaten
Some FOS cases to assist others: I have sent these to Barclays and managed to get them to reopen a complaint since had £50 compensation, raise a new complaint and hopefully get disputes to raise under 12.7. If anyone one wants the full email trail, with all my attachments and a Visa email specifying what merchants should be doing for gambling please let me know. I will share this with anyone, I have no interest in hiding anything or charging people. I cannot put it on here as it is 2000 words and 45 attachments.
They key point if complaining is asking the bank why they will not raise, this does not change if you go goods or gambling. Use the FOS database of decisions to assist, you even if FOS rejected the decision (see the one below) they will still use wording that can assist.
(DRN - 4470571) , I found the wording that I specified generally on the first email (attached), it is not for the bank to make a decision whether chargeback rules are fair or the merits of cardholder/merchant disputes.
FOS cases that are relevant
• DRN 4443965 – The rules explain disputes can be initiated under that condition if the authorisation request contained an incorrect MCC. Subject to certification that, and an explanation of why, the authorisation request would have been declined if valid data had been provided. There is nothing in the rules restricting such a claim being raised against a merchant providing gambling services. To defend such a claim, the acquirer would need to show why the dispute was invalid - such as showing the authorisation didn’t contain invalid data.
• DRN 4400536 - The visa chargeback rules / specifically dispute condition "12.7 invalid data" - allow for chargebacks in relation to transactions where authorisation has been obtained using invalid or incorrect data. In cases where an unlicensed gambling business has taken payment using the incorrect MCC on a visa credit or debit card that has the gambling MCC block applied to it - this code applies for the chargeback.
DRN-3077317 - although not directly linked to my circumstances please see screenshot that if items are miscoded then Visa and FOS would expect a chargeback, no exclusions for Gambling this should be coded 7995 but has not been - Lloyds not raising made them liable circa £20k
DRN-4516953 - Focuses on scam casinos so non licensed, same as mine - Revolut liable circa £170,000.
vor 7 Monaten
Have replied but user review
vor 7 Monaten
Yes this site does that a lot. It feels like they try to censor important information lol... but I guess it's just normal protocol.
vor 7 Monaten
Yes I was concerned too as there was a lot of transactions across 3 banks I used and the amount. I emailed in the Sunday and they replied either Thursday or Friday I can’t remember. (It was last week though) and the money was in the account later that day for most of the transactions and the next day for the rest.
I just said I would like a refund as I havnt had anything from them and sent the first 6 and the last 4 numbers of the cards I had used. I didn’t provide anything else and it all came back and has now paid off debt so very grateful. Be patient they will email
vor 7 Monaten
I've got a few with creative digital on mastercard. I sent them an email a couple months back but I'm not sure if I had the correct details so didn't push it through the bank yet. You got any info on these lot any chance?
vor 7 Monaten
No - but they refunded directly after Barclays charge backed and didn’t respond to the Chase one so I won that. If you get them raised I think you will be ok, I had an incorrect email for
them so used that as evidence.
On Barclays statement they had the
same business number as
Swipez.eu so maybe give them an email or just go bank.
vor 7 Monaten
Thanks. yeah, Swipez makes sense. I actually got a refund from them a couple of months ago related to case E0000480. Also, I noticed Creative Digital showing up on my statements for the same gambling site, so I’m guessing they’re all tied to the same payment processor.
vor 7 Monaten
I’ve seen a lot of people on this forum run into issues with payment processors because the transaction amounts don’t match up. One thing to keep in mind when contacting the processor always list the disputed amounts in their local currency. If you only use your bank’s currency, they might say it doesn’t match their records and tell you to go back through your bank, which wastes energy. I actually include both currencies GBP and EUR just to be safe. Makes everything clearer and avoids confusion.
Verfasst
vor 7 Monaten
I think so, it is interesting as some of these sites once the banks raise them refund directly and you tend to find them linked to each other somehow.
vor 7 Monaten
You say this like it’s obvious but banks ask questions, how are we supposed to explain how we found these companies and goods they’re supposedly selling and what goods we were expecting when most are just scrambled names like ‘Trndbm’, don’t have their own websites and yield no Google search results?
Verfasst
vor 7 Monaten
Creative Digital is showing a currency exchange from £££ into $$$. Was this the same for you? Interestingly, if swipez are definitely the payment processor they must be distributing this fraudulent money globally as E0000480 was exchanged to €€€.
vor 7 Monaten
Especially when the merchant name is just Santeda… there’s no site for santeda
Einen Beitrag hinzufügen
