Well, it should read “are not” - that’s the typo, or rather an accidental omission.
From what I’ve read (here), it looks like Curve “Purchase Protection” is nothing more than a policy of theirs to process refunds before the chargeback is concluded (at least for purchases over £30). Several banks (I know of Nationwide, and I also read about Starling doing this). Could also be an effort to reduce the amount of chargebacks Curve receives from underlying card issuers.
Regardless of their motives, they seem to be very good at
mis-selling exaggerating what they offer their customers.
They do exaggerate a lot in places, but in this situation they want to publicize that you shouldn’t go to your underlying card issuer, which I think is fair for them to do. On an additional note, while other banks have their policies, I’ve never seen anyone say exactly what will happen depending on the disputed amount. I appreciate the transparency and I also appreciate the policy itself which seems to be way more consumer friendly than other fintechs, especially when compared to the disaster that is Revolut
That’s because some other banks don’t impose a limit.
I’m absolutely fine with them wanting to handle disputes, but at least say it as it as it is. It’s a policy to refund transactions until disputes are resolved, not some fancy “purchase protection”.
Could it even be cheaper than the Mastercard scheme?!
Well, underneath it still uses the MasterCard chargeback scheme, at least when the transaction amount exceeds £30.
Strictly talking about fintechs, which is what I was comparing to, I still don’t know of anyone else who has as good policy and who is transparent about it.
Them not even bothering with MasterCard if it’s below £30 makes perfect sense as banks who charge for opening chargebacks charge between 25 and 30 so that’s probably how much MasterCard charges and even winning the chargeback won’t get that cost back
So could they make money on chargebacks under £30? Maybe on average rather than for every single transaction.
I don’t think they would be making any money on it, I don’t see how. What they’re doing is instead of opening a chargeback with MasterCard and paying the the £25 to £30 it costs to do so, they take that money and refund it directly to the costumer. It’s the same cost for Curve and a lot less hassle and time wasted
If they get a claim for £5 and just refund it instead of going to Mastercard, aren’t they up by about £20-25?
This is what I was wondering.
Sure, in that sense they’re saving that money versus opening a chargeback. Sorry that I misunderstood your point
Not at all! I think it may explain why everyone is suddenly queueing up to offer their own scheme. Good for the consumer, probably
The merchant pays the chargeback fee (£15i think ) regardless if they successfully dispute or not.
The merchant ALSO pays. The merchant is charged £15 or multiples of £15 supposedly to alleviate the costs issuer banks have to support with chargebacks.
The internet is filled with chargeback info and overviews from the merchant’s side, unfortunately I couldn’t find anywhere a piece talking about the costs for the consumer bank, if you have any source on that I would genuinely like to review it.
Bunq, which charges 25€ to raise a chargeback has told me that’s the exact amount MasterCard charges them when they open a dispute, and that’s after they receive the 15€ reimbursement from the merchant. Deutsche Bank which charges 30€ to open a chargeback has told me, my account manager did, that that’s about the cost they are charged by Visa and BBVA Consumer Finance, which charges 25€ has told me the same, that they charge little in fees for their cards overall while giving cashback, so they need to charge for the chargebacks as they cannot pull money from elsewhere to cover it
MasterCard chargeback guide is over 400 pages , I feel bad for whoever deals with chargebacks , different procedures for different types of merchants types of transactions it’s a huge complicated mess
Was it gambling , cannabis, missed your check in at a hotel?? who knew car washes get different treatment from MasterCard?
I found this , (could be wrong section)
• First chargeback: The issuer is credited 15 EUR and the acquirer is debited 15 EUR.
• Second presentment: The acquirer is credited 30 EUR (15 EUR net) and the issuer is debited
30 EUR (15 EUR net).
• Arbitration chargeback: The issuer is credited 45 EUR (30 EUR net) and the acquirer is
debited 45 EUR (30 EUR net).
Here’s the full guide
Edit; couldn’t find visa chargeback fees Pdf
But they also have weird rules , apparently you can’t to a chargeback for this
Anti-virus software that is sold using inaccurate online advertisements or malicious software downloads to the Cardholder’s personal computer or other electronic device
I had already read parts of it, but that’s the chargeback guide from the merchant’s perspective and the fees paid by the merchants, the 15 or multiples of 15 are supposed to be a “reimbursement” to the customers bank from the costs incurred with the chargeback process, which supposedly are charged by MasterCard to the costumer’s bank.
In fact, if you search for MasterCard’s new “DAF” it seems to introduce new fees to be paid by merchants as well as aggravate existing ones with the argument that the banks were still being left way out of pocket with the fees MasterCard charges for arbitration.
I can’t find any info on how much exactly MasterCard is charging to the banks, except for the 25 to 30 number I had quoted by the sources I mention on my last post. Something that’s known is that if a chargeback goes all the way through and the merchant loses, the merchant has to pay about 400 dollars or currency equivalent on top of the amount being charged back to cover all the fees MasterCard charged to the costumer’s bank during the process.
It would seem 25€/£ is the cost incurred by the customer bank for opening a dispute, after being refunded the 15€/£ by the merchant and the 400€/£ is the cost of requesting MasterCard’s arbitration and whomever loses the arbitration ends up assuming that cost, either the customer bank who already had to pay it to MasterCard or the Acquirer bank/merchant has to reimburse the customer’s bank for that amount
There is no mention of the 25€ to open a chargeback anywhere in the pdf so most probably not correct or it would say it somewhere
But those arbitration fees are sky high
That pdf is for merchants. Do you know of any publicly available pdf that has all the fees banks pay to MasterCard for issuing cards, processing payments, etc? It’s there that those charges will be mentioned
When a bank says I need to pay the x for an ATM withdrawal, let’s suppose, they don’t tell me exact how much their cost is for that ATM withdrawal. In the same way when they say merchants have to pay or rather “reimburse” x, it’s normal they they won’t say how much the original cost was but it’s still there nonetheless.
When banks from different countries charge pretty much the same to raise a chargeback or in the case of Curve reimburse you without opening one for that amount, and they all give the same explanation, it’s reasonable to believe it
That’s not a typo. That’s a Grammatical error.
I didn’t refer to it as a typo but I knew exactly what the OP meant.
BTW I don’t think “Grammatical” requires a capital letter…