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

[Mekrel]

that's another big ole grasp right there.....it may well be true but without proof you're grasping to defend your position....i've already mentioned you don't need to defend it, you're entitled to it. i could 'grasp' myself and suggest the reason you're continuing to defend it is because you realise you're wrong. but that would be me grasping and making assumptions without all the necessary info

You can keep calling it grasping, but a lot of what the OP is posting makes absolutely zero sense and that's even if you exclude the whole phone issue.

For example (and I'll actually quote the OP here):

• "That is my issue as I have direct debits coming out and that £600 they took is gonna make me short." <-- this confirms that direct debits are >= £600
• "Now I have 2 direct debits for my credit card companies going out tonight" <-- they're credit card payments, meaning there's interest to pay for being short and potential implications for credit file
• "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!" <-- Confirms he has savings, but out of some weird principle, decides he shouldn't use them to ensure his credit card payments actually go through. I.e. purposely choosing not to mitigate additional cost and risk to his credit file/score

I don't think anyone can be blamed for thinking the OP isn't the sharpest tool in the shed by coming to the conclusion that's the best course of action.

 

[Diddums]

You can keep calling it grasping, but a lot of what the OP is posting makes absolutely zero sense and that's even if you exclude the whole phone issue.

For example (and I'll actually quote the OP here):

• "That is my issue as I have direct debits coming out and that £600 they took is gonna make me short." <-- this confirms that direct debits are >= £600
• "Now I have 2 direct debits for my credit card companies going out tonight" <-- they're credit card payments, meaning there's interest to pay for being short and potential implications for credit file
• "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!" <-- Confirms he has savings, but out of some weird principle, decides he shouldn't use them to ensure his credit card payments actually go through. I.e. purposely choosing not to mitigate additional cost and risk to his credit file/score

I don't think anyone can be blamed for thinking the OP isn't the sharpest tool in the shed by coming to that as the best conclusion of action.

You seem rather passionate about the OP's credit file. Can you help me with my tax returns please?

 

[Hedge]

It's crazy how much people get on their high horse about the OPs finances.

If I had 600 quid disposable left a week before my next bills were due I would treat myself to something. If an unplanned payment disappeared from my bank in that time I would also be a bit miffed.

You don't need to have £1200 in your bank to cover £600 disposable. Where do you draw the line? Before any of us purchase anything do we need to make sure we have double the funds available incase they charge us twice?

I'll get a 30k loan out for a 15k car just so I'm not short if they make an admin error.

 

[Thekwango]

You can keep calling it grasping, but a lot of what the OP is posting makes absolutely zero sense and that's even if you exclude the whole phone issue.

For example (and I'll actually quote the OP here):

• "That is my issue as I have direct debits coming out and that £600 they took is gonna make me short." <-- this confirms that direct debits are >= £600
• "Now I have 2 direct debits for my credit card companies going out tonight" <-- they're credit card payments, meaning there's interest to pay for being short and potential implications for credit file
• "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!" <-- Confirms he has savings, but out of some weird principle, decides he shouldn't use them to ensure his credit card payments actually go through. I.e. purposely choosing not to mitigate additional cost and risk to his credit file/score

I don't think anyone can be blamed for thinking the OP isn't the sharpest tool in the shed by coming to the conclusion that's the best course of action.

And that’s what it all boils down to. You and a couple of others came in, read the op and decided they were an idiot worthy of scorn. You’ll likely disagree but that is what you’ve done. and now you’re twisting and grasping to make the situation fit or it justify your stance. So yea, you got on a high horse for no reason other than your own assumptions and your reading of the op as you wanted to in order to justify that. maybe the op is a bit of a dunder head, maybe not. I don’t know but either way it’s irrelevant to what they asked.

 

[builder22]

Lol @ thinking the OP is the one who’s ‘triggered’

 

[MadMan-JaMeS]

The trouble with this thread is the fact that pretty much every poster on here is financially well off and with lots of disposable income, Or atleast thats how they all go on. Like they have never had a mistake happen to them.
I also guess a lot of people are still furloughed and have nothing better to do than argue about a random guys finances online.

 

[james.miller]

It's crazy how much people get on their high horse about the OPs finances.

If I had 600 quid disposable left a week before my next bills were due I would treat myself to something. If an unplanned payment disappeared from my bank in that time I would also be a bit miffed.

You don't need to have £1200 in your bank to cover £600 disposable. Where do you draw the line? Before any of us purchase anything do we need to make sure we have double the funds available incase they charge us twice?

I'll get a 30k loan out for a 15k car just so I'm not short if they make an admin error.

Madness isn't it...

 

[OldKitMan]

It's a good job the OP checked his balance - if he hadn't checked it for a few days his DD's could have been denied by the bank, do they have to pay them and let you go into an unauthorised overdraft?

I'm sure a few of my DD's I've got setup say that in the event of an unsuccessful payment attempt they will try again for X days or try again in X days, never tested that and I assume all providers have different T&C's. Not to mention the possible black mark on the credit score.

OP also says he banks with Nationwide - IIRC I'm sure it says you can't dispute a pending transaction although phoning up and telling them what happened might yield a different result. You can definately do a charge back though with a Nationwide Debit Card payment as I used it once when I bought something and it never arrived and the supplier was being funny about it.

Anyway, more importantly, why are you buying stuff from Amazon with a debit card and not a rewards based Credit/Charge Card? Get an Amex man

 

[Armageus]

Anyway, more importantly, why are you buying stuff from Amazon with a debit card and not a rewards based Credit/Charge Card? Get an Amex man

I'm sure that had already been said a couple of times, and is good advice especially for purchases of larger amounts, however you need to be careful making suggestions that would make assumptions about the ops credit rating (or existing credit card balances)

 

[Thekwango]

lol grow up. petulance in an adult is not a nice trait.

 

[moogle]

It's crazy how much people get on their high horse about the OPs finances.

If I had 600 quid disposable left a week before my next bills were due I would treat myself to something. If an unplanned payment disappeared from my bank in that time I would also be a bit miffed.

You don't need to have £1200 in your bank to cover £600 disposable. Where do you draw the line? Before any of us purchase anything do we need to make sure we have double the funds available incase they charge us twice?

I'll get a 30k loan out for a 15k car just so I'm not short if they make an admin error.

If that £600 was all you had spare though and you spent it then you'd be financially irresponsible imo. Isn't part of being financially responsible also having some money for a rainy day?

I can see both sides of the argument in the thread. It's totally Amazon's fault for re-charging, I don't think anyone's disputing that. I guess people are blaming @OP because he's living close to the wire (in terms of bills) and splashing out on a £600 phone (I know it was returned, but it seems if you don't have any savings to cover an error, it seems like you're open to being screwed).

@OP should have totally used a credit card though. You could dispute it as soon as it was back on and you wouldn't have to pay it, plus it's also not your money so less hassle in terms of going overdrawn.

 

[Haggisman]

For all the apparent financial advisers in this thread, how many erroneous payments worth of spare funds is considered responsible before you're allowed to buy anything except the bare necessities?

 

[Werewolf]

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.

IIRC one of the reasons it takes as long as it does is because it's relying on the CC systems to do it and they usually do a lot of their processing/double checking over night to prevent duplication. Think about how something can show as "pending" on your online account when you've bought an item, the bank has earmarked the money to go out but hasn't fully processed it and received confirmation the transaction has gone ahead.

Any other system such as BACS requires manual intervention via a method that is far more open to fraud (or a mistake such as transposing two numbers so it goes to completely the wrong account) so normally will only be able to be authorised by someone far higher up the organisational tree than a phone operator in a call centre, and they don't tend to get involved unless the situation has been going on for a while, or it's a far larger amount.
I think there are also anti fraud and money laundering regulations that mean that most retailers will try and refund via the same method payment was taken because it means the money is going back to the same account, especially for larger sums.

Effectively refund via card processor is the sane, simple and foolproof way of issuing a refund for something like this, the downside is that you're at the mercy of the banking systems checks and delays, but normally when I've been told it could be "3-5 days" it's been back in my account the next working day.

 

[Hedge]

If that £600 was all you had spare though and you spent it then you'd be financially irresponsible imo. Isn't part of being financially responsible also having some money for a rainy day?

I can see both sides of the argument in the thread. It's totally Amazon's fault for re-charging, I don't think anyone's disputing that. I guess people are blaming @OP because he's living close to the wire (in terms of bills) and splashing out on a £600 phone (I know it was returned, but it seems if you don't have any savings to cover an error, it seems like you're open to being screwed).

@OP should have totally used a credit card though. You could dispute it as soon as it was back on and you wouldn't have to pay it, plus it's also not your money so less hassle in terms of going overdrawn.

Why not just be financially irresponsible then when the rainy day comes you can use the credit cards that you recommend. No point in having cash sat in the bank doing nothing .

To be honest the whole thread is daft really. The op just needs to phone his bank and explain the situation without subjecting himself to this level of scrutiny.

 

[Mekrel]

It's crazy how much people get on their high horse about the OPs finances.

If I had 600 quid disposable left a week before my next bills were due I would treat myself to something. If an unplanned payment disappeared from my bank in that time I would also be a bit miffed.

You don't need to have £1200 in your bank to cover £600 disposable. Where do you draw the line? Before any of us purchase anything do we need to make sure we have double the funds available incase they charge us twice?

I'll get a 30k loan out for a 15k car just so I'm not short if they make an admin error.

That's completely up to you, personally I find the thought of taking my accessible cash down to net zero a completely irresponsible thing to do. I consider myself to be in a secure job but even that could change quickly, e.g. should the business be bought by venture capitalists who want to milk the business for profit by stripping out headcount.
You're right, you don't need to have £1,200 to cover £600 - the question is should you spend it in the first place? Treating yourself is absolutely fine, nobody is questioning that, treating yourself and putting yourself at risk of financial burden is what's being questioned. £600 when you have a comfortable cash nest is nothing, £600 when that's all you have to your name is a different matter.

This Amazon error could have easily been another unexpected cost.

And that’s what it all boils down to. You and a couple of others came in, read the op and decided they were an idiot worthy of scorn. You’ll likely disagree but that is what you’ve done. and now you’re twisting and grasping to make the situation fit or it justify your stance. So yea, you got on a high horse for no reason other than your own assumptions and your reading of the op as you wanted to in order to justify that. maybe the op is a bit of a dunder head, maybe not. I don’t know but either way it’s irrelevant to what they asked.

Well yes, in my view he's a numpty - financial troubles are often, but not always, avoidable. Especially in this case considering that, based on the OPs own version of events, he had enough savings for this to be a completely non-issue. If anything, covering the red balance with his savings he claims to have would have been better for him as Amazon will have most likely given the £50 good will and he wouldn't be at risk of defaulting on a credit card payment.

Telling someone they're being irresponsible isn't getting on a high horse either in my view. At no point have I said "What? You don't have £x amount in your account, you peasant", simply pointing out it's not advisable to be spending close to every penny you have.
I've seen it before plenty of times on this forum where people have hit financial issues and only weeks/months before they're dropping £1K on the latest GPU. Madness.

 

[Janesy B]

You can keep calling it grasping, but a lot of what the OP is posting makes absolutely zero sense and that's even if you exclude the whole phone issue.

For example (and I'll actually quote the OP here):

• "That is my issue as I have direct debits coming out and that £600 they took is gonna make me short." <-- this confirms that direct debits are >= £600
• "Now I have 2 direct debits for my credit card companies going out tonight" <-- they're credit card payments, meaning there's interest to pay for being short and potential implications for credit file
• "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!" <-- Confirms he has savings, but out of some weird principle, decides he shouldn't use them to ensure his credit card payments actually go through. I.e. purposely choosing not to mitigate additional cost and risk to his credit file/score

I don't think anyone can be blamed for thinking the OP isn't the sharpest tool in the shed by coming to the conclusion that's the best course of action.

Triggered.

 

[Diddums]

That's completely up to you, personally I find the thought of taking my accessible cash down to net zero a completely irresponsible thing to do. I consider myself to be in a secure job but even that could change quickly, e.g. should the business be bought by venture capitalists who want to milk the business for profit by stripping out headcount.
You're right, you don't need to have £1,200 to cover £600 - the question is should you spend it in the first place? Treating yourself is absolutely fine, nobody is questioning that, treating yourself and putting yourself at risk of financial burden is what's being questioned. £600 when you have a comfortable cash nest is nothing, £600 when that's all you have to your name is a different matter.

This Amazon error could have easily been another unexpected cost.



Well yes, in my view he's a numpty - financial troubles are often, but not always, avoidable. Especially in this case considering that, based on the OPs own version of events, he had enough savings for this to be a completely non-issue. If anything, covering the red balance with his savings he claims to have would have been better for him as Amazon will have most likely given the £50 good will and he wouldn't be at risk of defaulting on a credit card payment.

Telling someone they're being irresponsible isn't getting on a high horse either in my view. At no point have I said "What? You don't have £x amount in your account, you peasant", simply pointing out it's not advisable to be spending close to every penny you have.
I've seen it before plenty of times on this forum where people have hit financial issues and only weeks/months before they're dropping £1K on the latest GPU. Madness.

You are aware that from where anyone else on this forum is sitting, you're just a random bloke on the internet who gets angry about other peoples' finances, none of whom care about your opinion, right?

 

[Mekrel]

Triggered.

Or also known as a logical breakdown of why the OPs stance doesn't make any sense.

 

[Pudney]

To be honest the whole thread is daft really. The op just needs to phone his bank and explain the situation without subjecting himself to this level of scrutiny.

The issue has already been dealt with by Amazon in the way you'd expect, refund plus an extra amount to cover any interest/charges.

 

[DarrenM343]

It's crazy how much people get on their high horse about the OPs finances.

If I had 600 quid disposable left a week before my next bills were due I would treat myself to something. If an unplanned payment disappeared from my bank in that time I would also be a bit miffed.

You don't need to have £1200 in your bank to cover £600 disposable. Where do you draw the line? Before any of us purchase anything do we need to make sure we have double the funds available incase they charge us twice?

I'll get a 30k loan out for a 15k car just so I'm not short if they make an admin error.

If I had 600 quid disposable I'd save it unless I needed something tbh.
Just brief comment on the thread, as not read in detail and OP should have put all the detail in the first post, IMO. If OP had not returned the phone he would have had to pay £600 for the item so would be in the same predicament anyway?
Amazon made a mistake but as part of personal finance we all need to take take responsibility to ensure we're covered in case of mistakes, ours or others. I don't think going overdrawn because Amazon made a mistake is their fault, personally.
There's no excuse for not learning about good personal financial management.

Lets see. Okay, £600 invested in Amazon in 2004 when the share price was like $4 or so (now $3100) would probably be worth something daft like £300,000 today. I haven't done the maths so read that as "a lot of money". Hopefully the point is obvious.

 

[Kenai]

If I had 600 quid disposable I'd save it unless I needed something tbh.
Just brief comment on the thread, as not read in detail and OP should have put all the detail in the first post, IMO. If OP had not returned the phone he would have had to pay £600 for the item so would be in the same predicament anyway?
Amazon made a mistake but as part of personal finance we all need to take take responsibility to ensure we're covered in case of mistakes, ours or others. I don't think going overdrawn because Amazon made a mistake is their fault, personally.
There's no excuse for not learning about good personal financial management.

Lets see. Okay, £600 invested in Amazon in 2004 when the share price was like $4 or so (now $3100) would probably be worth something daft like £300,000 today. I haven't done the maths so read that as "a lot of money". Hopefully the point is obvious.

To be blunt, he wasn't asking for advice on whether he can afford a phone. If anything he should have put less detail in the OP so he didn't attract the attention of the vultures.

If he'd said "I've had a retailer make a mistake and take money they weren't owed, it's left me short for a couple of imminent direct debits, will the bank be able to do anything to sort this out for me?" he might have actually had an answer to his question before post 15 and avoided all the 'lol you can't afford your phone m8' posts