Amazon made a mistake (was: Screwed by amazon!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
Joined
14 Dec 2005
Posts
5,006
I’m guessing (as in I have no idea) that if you make enough fuss they’d be able to refund straight away

it’s not really a refund is it....more like returning your money that’s been taken for no reason
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Posts
26,249
Location
Essex
@Janesy B - I can't wait then until all threads are one sided because no other opinion or discussion is valid.

@JeffBezos - Come on refund the OP - your company has clearly screwed this poor individual!

OP has been refunded and they've taken the payment yet again leaving the OP unable to cover the their direct debits to clear their CC so will now possible accrue extra interest charges through no fault of their own. Seems unfair and a bit rubbish that amazon can take payment instantly but has to wait a week for the money to come back.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Jul 2005
Posts
17,615
Location
Bristol
I can't wait then until all threads are one sided because no other opinion or discussion is valid.
There is discussion and there is victim blaming without knowing all the facts. You are doing the latter and not the former. You really should grow up and it's not a good look on the forum to have someone in a position of power siding with the "lol op is an idiot" brigade.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,796
CHAPS is typically ~3 hours or at worst next day, but won't be done due to cost (~£30 iirc)

For a normal refund sure, when they've cocked up and double charged him £600? They should absolutely take the hit to sort out their **** up.

If they don't want to lose out on £30, then improve the returns process so you don't keep taking peoples money for no reason.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2005
Posts
5,996
Location
Essex
Seems unfair and a bit rubbish that amazon can take payment instantly but has to wait a week for the money to come back.

There are some assumptions below, I don't actually have an idea how Amazon's internal finance function works.

1) payments aren't necessarily taken instantly.
2) just because a payment has left an account it doesn't mean it's cleared through into the other account, particularly business accounts.
3) businesses the size of Amazon don't normally have an insignificant amount of transactions going through their bank each day,
4) ensuring payment has been received before refunding doesn't take an insignificant amount of time to verify when there are thousands of receipts/payments per day.
5) businesses making thousands of payments per day aren't necessarily able to amend payment runs without a labour intensive process, not necessarily a problem unless your business is predicated on a low margin and high volume model.
6) BACS are generally a preferred method of processing payments as it allows batch processing, allowing a payment to be added to the next run and processed in the cycle. As previously pointed out, this takes c.3 days (one day for request, one day for bank processing, one day for actual transfer).

Should the refund be done quicker? Maybe. Is it actually practical to do it quicker? Maybe not.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Posts
15,910
Location
N. Ireland
I can't wait then until all threads are one sided because no other opinion or discussion is valid.
in this instance no opinion is really needed though is it? op didn't ask how to better manage his finances he asked for advice on sorting the situation now. so the posts admonishing him for poor financial sense are irrelevant and borderline trolling. maybe, just maybe, you should be cleaning the thread of the superflous posts that are aimed at insulting the op rather than adding to them?
@JeffBezos - Come on refund the OP - your company has clearly screwed this poor individual!
bit childish, no?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
I'm sure it can, but there must be a reason why it isn't.


Not sure why Faster Payments aren't used by businesses, as that would be at worst next day (only reason I can think of is it's irreversible)
CHAPS is typically ~3 hours or at worst next day, but won't be done due to cost (~£30 iirc)
Which generally leaves BACS at 3 days

Right, you know the answer...so why ask me that question? at worst bacs is 3 days. At worst. Not exactly up to 7 days, is it? and it can be done faster than that if Amazon want to...and they should 'want' to because it's their cockup.

@Janesy B - I can't wait then until all threads are one sided because no other opinion or discussion is valid.

@JeffBezos - Come on refund the OP - your company has clearly screwed this poor individual!

And still with the self-righteous attitude. Amazing.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2004
Posts
7,883
Location
Buckinghamshire
I don't believe you're being deliberately dense here, rather I believe you've misunderstood the situation.

  1. OP Bought a phone
  2. OP Returned the phone
  3. Amazon processed refund
  4. OP receives refund
  5. ???
  6. Amazon claim not to have received the returned phone
  7. Amazon re-process the original payment
  8. OP now can't cover his DD

I've neither misunderstood the situation nor being dense.

For the sake of clarity:
  1. OP has £750 in the bank for example, and has £160 worth of direct debits coming in
  2. OP buys phone for £600, leaving him £10 short to pay direct debit
  3. Result is - £600 phone should not have been bought
Whilst the numbers are examples, they must be representative of situation because the lack of £600 is causing him to be unable to pay his future debt.


What has happened:
  1. £750
  2. £150 -£600 for the phone
  3. £750 +£600 refund for phone
  4. £150 -£600 for the phone due to Amazon's mistake
  5. -£10 -£160 DDs
Same result, i.e. the phone purchase was not sensible in the first place.

Yes, it's Amazon's mistake. In fact, the argument isn't why someone would leave their bank account so close to the red - the argument is why would you be looking at £600 phones that would put your account so close to the red.

You might see it as mean, I see it as telling someone direct that they're better off reviewing their attitude towards money. Anything can happen in life, you only have to read the experiences of people that before March 2020 had comfortable jobs only to find themselves looking into financial ruin as their industry has been hit so hard.
This is why it makes sense to have easy access saving that cover you for multiple months of unemployment/other form of financial turmoil.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Posts
15,910
Location
N. Ireland
Yes, Amazon are at fault but that's not the issue.
it is, it's the only issue. you and others are trying to make more issues unnecessarily in order to climb on a high horse and berate the op
It's relevant because based on the information he provided, it's clear he's not very sensible when he comes to his finances.
no it's not clear at all.....you've a small snapshot of the op's current financial situation. you know absolutely nothing about his overal sense when it comes to financial matters.
It's really quite simple.

The £600 has caused him to not have enough money to cover his financial commitments - this scenario would have been exactly the same had he not returned the phone. I.e. he couldn't afford a £600 and to fulfil his upcoming debt. The reason why he returned it doesn't alter the fact he didn't have the money for the phone and to cover his future commitments.

Again, Amazon have made a mistake but there's another issue which is the phone wasn't affordable in the 1st place.
again, you've no idea what is or isn't affordable for the op - neither do i - and it's far from simple. there are a plethora or perfectly legitimate reasons why the op could have initially afforded the phone but subsequently cannot afford to have amazon re bill him now.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,796
For the sake of clarity:
  1. OP has £750 in the bank for example, and has £160 worth of direct debits coming in
  2. OP buys phone for £600, leaving him £10 short to pay direct debit
  3. Result is - £600 phone should not have been bought
Whilst the numbers are examples, they must be representative of situation because the lack of £600 is causing him to be unable to pay his future debt.

For the sake of argument:

1. OP has £1500 in the bank, £500 worth of direct debits coming in
2. OP buys phone for £600, leaving him comfortable with his £500 DD
3. OP returns the phone because he's found it for sale for £500, gets refund of £600 and spends £500 on the alternative. He's still comfortable for his impending £500 DD.
4. OP is recharged by Amazon for £600 and now he's down £1100 for the phone and £100 short on his direct debit.

The point people are making is that we don't know what he did with that £600 refund - it's entirely reasonable to think he still spent that money on an alternative phone. Alternatively he might not have done and he might have been short from Day 1 as you're assuming. None of us know because he hasn't told us - maybe his local loan shark has come knocking, maybe he bought another phone, maybe he had a problem with his car and had to spend £600 on it, maybe he's just bad at planning.

It's also none of our business and not relevant to what he asked for help with.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2004
Posts
7,883
Location
Buckinghamshire
it is, it's the only issue. you and others are trying to make more issues unnecessarily in order to climb on a high horse and berate the op

no it's not clear at all.....you've a small snapshot of the op's current financial situation. you know absolutely nothing about his overal sense when it comes to financial matters.

again, you've no idea what is or isn't affordable for the op - neither do i - and it's far from simple. there are a plethora or perfectly legitimate reasons why the op could have initially afforded the phone but subsequently cannot afford to have amazon re bill him now.

So giving sound financial advise is being on a high horse now? Hardly.

Well it's not true that I know absolutely nothing, is it? The OP has given enough details to easily come to the conclusion that buying a £600 luxury item isn't a smart move when you can barely cover your future debt, especially when you don't have easy access savings to save your bacon. So lets say his financial situation is better, then why post this melodramatic thread? Refund will be sorted out in a few days.

I would say it shocks me that people are so quick to absolve people of their responsibilities, but in reality, I'm not really surprised. It seems it's the done thing these days to be irresponsible financially by buying cars on finance, mortgaging yourself up to the eyeballs and buying the latest gadgets that are all just about affordable until the bubble bursts.

For the sake of argument:

1. OP has £1500 in the bank, £500 worth of direct debits coming in
2. OP buys phone for £600, leaving him comfortable with his £500 DD
3. OP returns the phone because he's found it for sale for £500, gets refund of £600 and spends £500 on the alternative. He's still comfortable for his impending £500 DD.
4. OP is recharged by Amazon for £600 and now he's down £1100 for the phone and £100 short on his direct debit.

The point people are making is that we don't know what he did with that £600 refund - it's entirely reasonable to think he still spent that money on an alternative phone. Alternatively he might not have done and he might have been short from Day 1 as you're assuming. None of us know because he hasn't told us - maybe his local loan shark has come knocking, maybe he bought another phone, maybe he had a problem with his car and had to spend £600 on it, maybe he's just bad at planning.

It's also none of our business and not relevant to what he asked for help with.

I would still argue that's a dangerous situation to put yourself in.
£500 is nothing considering the average rent or mortgage payment will either be majority of that or more.

He doesn't need help - it's quite clear he just wanted to have a pop at Amazon. The solution is pretty clear - get more money, either from a friend/family member or speak to the bank.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
25 Mar 2015
Posts
567
I've neither misunderstood the situation nor being dense.

For the sake of clarity:
  1. OP has £750 in the bank for example, and has £160 worth of direct debits coming in
  2. OP buys phone for £600, leaving him £10 short to pay direct debit
  3. Result is - £600 phone should not have been bought
Whilst the numbers are examples, they must be representative of situation because the lack of £600 is causing him to be unable to pay his future debt.


What has happened:
  1. £750
  2. £150 -£600 for the phone
  3. £750 +£600 refund for phone
  4. £150 -£600 for the phone due to Amazon's mistake
  5. -£10 -£160 DDs
Same result, i.e. the phone purchase was not sensible in the first place.

Yes, it's Amazon's mistake. In fact, the argument isn't why someone would leave their bank account so close to the red - the argument is why would you be looking at £600 phones that would put your account so close to the red.

You might see it as mean, I see it as telling someone direct that they're better off reviewing their attitude towards money. Anything can happen in life, you only have to read the experiences of people that before March 2020 had comfortable jobs only to find themselves looking into financial ruin as their industry has been hit so hard.
This is why it makes sense to have easy access saving that cover you for multiple months of unemployment/other form of financial turmoil.
Wrong reply...
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,796
I would still argue that's a dangerous situation to put yourself in.
£500 is nothing considering the average rent or mortgage payment will either be majority of that or more.

He doesn't need help - it's quite clear he just wanted to have a pop at Amazon. The solution is pretty clear - get more money, either from a friend/family member or speak to the bank.

You could argue that but it's still distinctly different scenario to your assertions that he could never have afforded the phone in the first place and 'didn't have the money'. There are a number of entirely plausible scenarios where he could have afforded the phone and had the money but being unexpectedly double charged for it has caused a short term cashflow issue.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Feb 2004
Posts
1,612
That money that amazon took from me, was well and truly budgeted, to pay for my bills due out today and because of their mistake, I don't have enough funds to clear my payments. How is this my fault and a reflection of my inability to manage my finances, please enlighten me?.

If the money was already well-and-truly budgeted for, how could you spare it for a £600 phone purchase just days (weeks at most) before? Surely it was already "spoken for" when you ordered the phone?


Because from the information you provided, it seems as though you bought a £600 phone when you knew you could not afford it?

As many have pointed out, if you had intended to keep the phone, you would still be short this money and unable to cover your upcoming bills.

If that is indeed the case, then the implication is you ordered a phone knowing you could not pay for it, then returned it later when reality dawned, thus wasting time and money for Amazon and the reseller in question.

Perhaps this could be considered karma for such an occurrence?
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Posts
15,910
Location
N. Ireland
So giving sound financial advise is being on a high horse now? Hardly.
what 'sound financial advice' have you given the op? other than saying he shouldn't be buying a 600 quid phone he can't afford?
Well it's not true that I know absolutely nothing, is it?
yes it is. you know absolutely nothing about the op's overall financial nouse - which is what i posted. unless of course you have more info about the op we don't know about? you have a small snapshot of their current financial situation but have decided they are financially insecure. you could be right, you possibly are. but you don't have enough information to make that call.
would say it shocks me that people are so quick to absolve people of their responsibilities, but in reality, I'm not really surprised.
who's is absolving anyone of their responsibilites? stop jumping to conclusions.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2004
Posts
7,883
Location
Buckinghamshire
My point here is amazon have taken my money and they have apologised, that they should not have taken the money, as they received the phone I returned to them within the time limit of returning it. They have then told me that it will be upto 5 to 7 days, before the money hits my bank account. That money that amazon took from me, was well and truly budgeted, to pay for my bills due out today and because of their mistake, I don't have enough funds to clear my payments. How is this my fault and a reflection of my inability to manage my finances, please enlighten me?.

It's a reflection on your inability to manage your finances because you're pretty much living hand to mouth if you're letting your bank account balance get to that level.
A family earning a monthly income of X and spending X each month is technically "affordable", until something unexpected comes along that either increases outgoings or reduces income.

This isn't me being on a high horse either, I'm speaking from experience. I once had a letter from Lloyds saying I had gone into my overdraft, which turns out, was due to £300 being taken fraudulently from my account. This was 10 years ago when banks would charge you for unarranged overdrafts which they overturned after seeing I wouldn't have gone into the red if the money hadn't been fraudulently taken. I still look back at those times and think how ridiculous my relationship with money was, anything could have happened and I would have been up **** creek without a paddle with no savings.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
25 Mar 2015
Posts
567
If the money was already well-and-truly budgeted for, how could you spare it for a £600 phone purchase just days (weeks at most) before? Surely it was already "spoken for" when you ordered the phone?


Because from the information you provided, it seems as though you bought a £600 phone when you knew you could not afford it?

As many have pointed out, if you had intended to keep the phone, you would still be short this money and unable to cover your upcoming bills.

If that is indeed the case, then the implication is you ordered a phone knowing you could not pay for it, then returned it later when reality dawned, thus wasting time and money for Amazon and the reseller in question.

Perhaps this could be considered karma for such an occurrence?
Sigh.. OK, I bought a phone from them, found one cheaper elsewhere and exercised my statutory rights and returned it to amazon within the return period. Amazon then refunded me my money.
Yesterday for whatever reason, amazon then took the money again from my account and got in touch with them and they apologised that they shouldn't have and refund would be in 5 to 7 working days.

This is not about savings, as I budget my money very well and I have other bills to pay more than just the £600 they have taken out from my account,but my point here is that their mistake has now cost me as I should not have to use my savings to pay for the mess they have created!
 
Associate
OP
Joined
25 Mar 2015
Posts
567
It's a reflection on your inability to manage your finances because you're pretty much living hand to mouth if you're letting your bank account balance get to that level.
A family earning a monthly income of X and spending X each month is technically "affordable", until something unexpected comes along that either increases outgoings or reduces income.

This isn't me being on a high horse either, I'm speaking from experience. I once had a letter from Lloyds saying I had gone into my overdraft, which turns out, was due to £300 being taken fraudulently from my account. This was 10 years ago when banks would charge you for unarranged overdrafts which they overturned after seeing I wouldn't have gone into the red if the money hadn't been fraudulently taken. I still look back at those times and think how ridiculous my relationship with money was, anything could have happened and I would have been up **** creek without a paddle with no savings.
It's a reflection on your inability to manage your finances because you're pretty much living hand to mouth if you're letting your bank account balance get to that level.
A family earning a monthly income of X and spending X each month is technically "affordable", until something unexpected comes along that either increases outgoings or reduces income

I seriously don't understand some of these comments. How does amazon double charging me, reflect on my inability to manage my finances?. Had they not wrongly touched my money, I wouldn't be in this situation!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom