Forstået. Men.......
- Mastercard blokerer chargebacks, da de eksplicit angiver i deres Chargeback-regler, at der ikke er ret til chargeback for gamblingbetalinger, medmindre pengene ikke dukkede op på brugerens konto eller i den digitale tegnebog. Der er ingen chargeback-kode til dette. De siger dog også, at gamblingbetalinger SKAL kodes 7995. Udstedende banker skal følge disse regler. Jeg vil blot have et svar, ja eller nej, på om de ville tillade en chargeback under disse omstændigheder, der ikke passer præcist ind i deres regelsæt. Kundeservice nægter at blive udsat for sagen, så jeg vil gerne tale med en person med mere viden eller autoritet.
- Med Visa, forudsat at du har en spilleblokering på dit kort, beskytter brugen af chargeback-koden 12.7 (unøjagtige data) kunden, da betalingen ikke ville være gennemført på grund af den blokerede MCC 7995, hvis dataene var nøjagtige. En sådan mekanisme findes ikke med Mastercard.
- Vi betaler for brugen. Forhandlerne lægger simpelthen gebyrerne oveni deres priser, uanset om de er transparente eller ej.
- Ja, det er fuldt forståeligt, at banker ikke kan blokere transaktioner, hvor MCC'en er skjult. Det betyder dog ikke, at de er forsvarsløse. Mastercard har en database kaldet MATCH (Mastercard Alert to Control High-risk Merchants), som, hvis tilbagebetalinger blev tilladt, ville være fuldt opdateret med disse 'forhandlere'. Visa har et lignende system.
- Transaktioner med koden 7995 burde selvfølgelig ikke være berettigede til chargebacks. Du har ret - det ville hurtigt overbelaste systemet. Og ja, systemet skal repareres, det er jeg 100% enig i.
- Med hensyn til forkert MCC-kodning har du igen ret. Da de er fastsat af de indløsende banker, er de et compliance-problem. Men igen, hvis man tillader chargebacks mod disse forhandlere på MC-netværket, vil de blive placeret i MATCH-databasen, og de vil blive blokeret på både indløser- og forhandlerniveau. Min bank vil ikke rejse dette som et compliance-problem og bruge voldgiftsproceduren med MC på grund af den totale blokering af chargebacks vedrørende spil. Det er det, jeg mener, der er ingen spillerum. Det er for sort-hvidt i en grå, dunkel verden.
- Jeg er delvist uenig her. Jeg ved, at det i mit tilfælde ville have hjulpet med at bryde cyklussen at få mine penge. Jeg var parat til at stoppe, og det gjorde jeg faktisk, i flere måneder, indtil jeg tabte min klage til Ombudsmanden. Så fik jeg et tilbagefald i forsøget på at få pengene tilbage, så jeg ikke blev sat ud. Det afgørende er, at samfundet begynder at behandle ALLE afhængigheder som en sygdom og behandler dem i overensstemmelse hermed. Meningerne har ikke ændret sig i dette land, og et stort flertal af mennesker tror stadig, at misbrugere vælger at være det, at de vælger at tage heroin, spille hasardspil eller se pornografi.
- Tilbageførsel er dog ikke en rettighed i henhold til britisk lov, men med FCA's ord: "Hvor der er en rimelig chance for succes, forventer vi, at banker foretager tilbageførsel på vegne af deres kunder". PSR er også af den opfattelse, at dette er tilfældet.
Undskyld hvis jeg lyder vred, men det er fordi jeg er det. Disse casinoer er svindel. De udbetaler ikke penge, de har ikke licens i Storbritannien, og de går bevidst efter folk med en afhængighed i Storbritannien. Det er det samme som at købe noget online, du tror er ægte, men når det dukker op, er det en forfalskning.
Jeg er ikke konspirationsteoretiker, og jeg tror ikke, at bankerne og kortselskaberne er involveret i det, men de er nødt til at gøre mere for at beskytte folk mod svindelnumrene. Det samme gælder for Spillekommissionen og den britiske regering.
I Storbritannien kan vi tilmelde os Gamstop, installere Gamban og blokere spilletransaktioner på vores kort. Hvis vi gør alt dette og får tilbagefald (det gør misbrugere af alle slags ofte på vej til helbredelse) og bliver snydt for vores penge, burde vi så ikke have ret til at få dem tilbage?
Understood. But.......
- Mastercard do block chargebacks as they explicitly state in their Chargeback Rules that there is no chargeback right for gambling payments unless the money failed to appear in the users account or staged digital wallet. There is no chargeback code for this. However, they also say gambling payments MUST be coded 7995. Issuing banks have to follow these rules. I simply want an answer, yes or no, that they would allow a chargeback in these circumstances that don't fit exactly in to their rule set. Customer service refuse to be drawn on the matter, so I want to speak to someone with more knowledge or authority.
- With Visa provided you have a gambling block on your card, the use of chargeback code 12.7 (innacurate data) protects the customer as if the data was accurate, the payment would not have completed due the blocked MCC 7995. No such mechanism exists with Mastercard.
- We do pay for the use. The merchants simply add the fees to their prices, transparently or not.
- Yes, it's totally understandable that banks can't block transactions where the MCC is obfuscated. However, that doesn't mean they are defenceless. Mastercard have a database called MATCH (Mastercard Alert to Control High-risk Merchants) that if chargebacks were allowed, would be fully updated with these 'merchants'. Visa have a similar system.
- Of course transactions coded 7995 should not be elgible for chargebacks. You're right - it would rapidly overwhelm the system. And yes, the system does need to be fixed, I agree 100%
- With regards to Incorrect MCC coding you are again correct. As they're set by the acquiring banks they are a compliance issue. But again, allowing chargebacks against these merchants on MC network would bring them onto the MATCH database and they would become blocked at acquirer and merchant level. My bank will not raise this as a compliance issue and use the arbitration route with MC due to the total block on gambling chargebacks. This is what I mean, there is no latitude. It's too black and white in a murky world of grey.
- I disagree partially here. I know in my case, getting my money would have helped break the cycle. I was prepared to stop, and in fact I did, for several months until I lost my complaint with the Ombudsman. Then I relapsed trying to get the money back so I wouldn't get evicted. What is crucial is that society starts to treat ALL addictions as a disease and treats them accordingly. Opinion hasn't changed in this country and a vast majority of people still think addicts choose to be so, that they elect to take heroin, gamble or watch pornography.
- Chargeback is not a right under UK law, however, in the words of the FCA "Where there is reasonable chance of success we would expect banks to undertake chargebacks on behalf of their customers". The PSR are also of the opinion that this is the case.
Sorry if I sound angry, but it's because I am. These casinos are scams. They don't payout, they aren't licensed in the UK and they deliberately target people with an addiction in the UK. It's the same as buying something online you think is genuine, but when it turns up, it's a fake.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't believe the banks and card schemes are in on it but they need to do more to protect people from the scam. The same goes for the Gambling commission and UK Governement.
In the UK we can join gamstop, install gamban and block gambling transactions on our cards. If we do all of this and relapse (addicts of all varieties often do on the road to recovery) and are scammed out of our money, shouldn't we be entitled to get it back?
Automatisk oversættelse:
as you can see here 'any further refunds' I had refunds from you, from 'nikotpf peak gear appa' after constantly emailing you and elegro. £420 16th October 2025 £50 16th November 2025 and £700 18th November 2025.
