Payment dispute: The buyer did not recognise the transaction

[game-boyy]

I have just had £44.99 go on hold due to a payment dispute with the reason:

"The buyer did not recognise the transaction"

Item was sold on the 15th of october, it was sent with tracking so I have proof of delivery to the buyers address

it says I have until the 4th of December to provide evidence challeging the dispute

But, what would count as evidence here? Anyone else delt with this?

I messaged the buyer about it with no response so far, they have 0 feedback & nothing left for anyone else either

any help from anyone on this would be great, thanks

[papso22]

As you have tracking showing delivery to the address ebay gave you, you have seller protection against this particular dispute.

You need to enter that information into the case.

[game-boyy]

ok, thanks, I'll give it a try

[papso22]

Put 'payment dispute' into the help search box.  It will tell you what you need to know.

[the_book_seekers]

I was reading the below article on the BBC news site today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vjk3ezyjeo 

I'm not suggesting you're being scammed, but the article talks about fraud using chargeback is rising and is known as 'friendly fraud' - I can see nothing friendly about it. 

Does your tracking include a photograph of the delivery or GPS? Anything bolster the fact that the item has been delivered. 

[keagnes2012]

Possibly a scam.

[papso22]

If it was a scam there is a better way to go about it.

[the_book_seekers]

Indeed. If found out over and above the threat of criminal prosecution, the bank or credit card provider will close the account. Good luck with trying to get another company to take you on. 

[jbrusby]

I had a similar thing come up last year, received that message about a successful delivery from 2 months earlier. The person had requested a chargeback through their card provider under the excuse they didn't recognise the transaction. Ebay asked me to submit a defence and evidence, which I did - evidence being order details, tracking info and photos if available, and evidence showing the buyer paid with their own name and address to prove it wasn't a suspicious transaction. But the case was still resolved in favour of the buyer. Suspect eBay didn't want the hassle or legal expense of having to battle the card provider so rolled over. 

[papso22]

Assuming you met all the requirements,  what reason did ebay give you for not giving you seller protection as per their published guidance?

The basic requirement is online evidence of delivery to the address the buyer gave at checkout,  something that should be easy for them to check.  

[game-boyy]

Looking online it seems most of these cases result in a refund to the buyer despite people having tracking showing proof of delivery etc, so I am not holding out much hope with this, what do I do? Report it as fraud? Will that get me anywhere? Everytime something goes wrong on here it seems to result in the seller losing out, ebay should be covering for stuff like this

[j.c.m.retail]

Had this the other week. I say the other week, the dispute was started in September but only just got resolved. Same reason and they had the item delivered a week prior to payment dispute being opened..

No message to us, no case opened, just straight to a chargeback 🙄

Luckily was sent Tracked 24, so I uploaded proof of delivery, a screenshot of the delivery photo and GPS delivered location and then  a screenshot of the house on street view that matched the bricks in the delivery photo.

As I say, took their payment provider months to look at but sided with us in the end.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@game-boyy wrote:

Looking online it seems most of these cases result in a refund to the buyer despite people having tracking showing proof of delivery etc, so I am not holding out much hope with this, what do I do? 

---

You just need to provide the tracking number you have to the dispute; eBay's requirements for defending such a dispute can be found here.  

I don't remember seeing a single post on these boards where a seller met those requirements and was still held responsible for funding the refund.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@the_book_seekers wrote:

I was reading the below article on the BBC news site today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vjk3ezyjeo 

---

All businesses that take card payments remotely should employ 3D Secure 2 measures via their merchant account. 3DSv2 means only the cardholder could have authorised the transaction by providing something only they would know or possess such a PIN sent via SMS, a password they set up, a biometric check such as a face ID or fingerprint scan etc. If a cardholder discloses a password or PIN to another party they (rightly) lose any protection they had. Provided there is a 3DSv2 pass recorded against the transaction the merchant is not held liable by their payment gateway nor their merchant account provider should a customer open a dispute for "transaction not authorised" or "transaction not recognised" reasons.

eBay should have 3DSv2 enabled in their Adyen integration. As eBay sellers have absolutely no control over whether eBay employs a 3DSv2 check or not it is wholly unfair eBay passes responsibility for defending such chargeback claims on to sellers. eBay should be able to provide the 3DSv2 pass on to Adyen or their merchant provider which would successfully defend such a case automatically - there should be no reason to get the seller involved at all.

Also from that article:

"The restaurant owner said it often happened after taking credit card payments over the phone." 

That business is frankly setting themselves up to fail. They're clearly entering card details into a physical payment terminal as a "cardholder not present" transaction. Payment gateways and merchant account providers offer no protection at all for such transactions; a business should not even be processing card payments that way where consumers are concerned.