• Report: #278445

Complaint Review: Innovative Merchant Solutions

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Thu, October 11, 2007
  • Updated: Wed, November 05, 2008

  • Reported By:San Francisco California
Innovative Merchant Solutions
26541 Agoura Road, Calabasas, CA 91302 Calabasas, California U.S.A.

Innovative Merchant Solutions, Quickbooks Chargebacks rebuttal not accepted for 1) non-existant 2) approved charges Calabasas California

*Consumer Comment: Sinister code 4808 chargebacks

*UPDATE Employee: Visa and MasterCard Regulate Chargebacks

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

After almost 10 years in business with less than 1 chargeback per year, we just had two chargebacks (from the same bank/customer).

The claim was that we did not enter the authorization code when the charge went through (that customer got from the bank and gave out verbally).

We *did* get authorization codes both times, it was captured, bank sent "transaction approved", and our transaction record shows both the authorization number and the "transaction approved" response.

After we received the chargeback notices (about 1.5 months after the fact), I filed (faxed) rebuttals with all the necessary information with Intuitive Merchant Solutions.

This is where the circus started.

First, when I called them about a week later, a rep claimed that they never received the faxes. She gave me her name and fax number to fax everything over again. I faxed it over again.

Called a few days later, and another rep couldn't find one of the rebuttals AGAIN. After I gave the name and fax number I sent the info to the second time, the story changed.

Rep claimed that both of the chargebacks stand, and gave a fairly outlandish explanation -

-First chargeback stands because we tried to run the charge several times before we run it with authorization code - didn't know one was needed until later. Now, all those times the transaction was DECLINED, and the one time it actually went through was WITH the valid authorization code, as captured in the report.

-Second chargeback stands because we didn't actually charge the card!! For some reason, unfathomable by me, the Quickbooks interface only marked a "ticket" the second time, did not actually charge the card. (We did everything the same as hundreds of other times...) It didn't matter that we had the authorization code, or even that the charge didn't actually exist!

So, in summary- chargeback reason given was code 4808 - Requested/required autorization not obtained. We did have authorization code, and were able to prove it.

When we did, Innovative gave me different reasons of upholding the chargebacks, one of them being that card was declined several times (no charge was made), and the other that only the ticket was run (no charge was made). So, we have two chargebacks for charges that according to them didn't happen in the first place?!

I'm about to try to get to a higer-up on the food chain in this company. I'm not so upset about the lost money, or even the fee charged by Intuitive for each one, but I'm really furious about having 2 chargebacks we didn't earn on our record!

S.
San Francisco, California
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 10/11/2007 01:38 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Innovative-Merchant-Solutions/Calabasas-California-91302/Innovative-Merchant-Solutions-Quickbooks-Chargebacks-rebuttal-not-accepted-for-1-non-exi-278445. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Innovative Merchant Solutions

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 2Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

Sinister code 4808 chargebacks

AUTHOR: Klastov - (Germany)

I found the employee rebuttal to be less than satisfactory. According to the Mastercard Chargeback Guide, only 2 pieces of information are needed to contest an incorrect code 4808 chargeback: the original date of transaction and the original authorization code. No supporting documents are needed. In fact if this is a card-not-present transaction, there are no documents that can be submitted. The merchant only gets a transaction number and a authorization code as a blip on a computer screen. The top poster clearly had both and had submitted this information to IMS. So it should have been straight forward to process the second presentment.

I don't use IMS. But I do get code 4808 chargebacks from time to time via a different card processor. What concerns me is how the customer knows nothing about these stealth 4808 chargebacks. They are initiated by the card issuer's bank and not the paying customer. When I contact the credit card customer directly and ask about the chargeback they have no knowledge of it. The customer still pays the charge on their credit card bill, it is not refunded! Someone else in the loop is keeping the money from code 4808 chargebacks.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 UPDATE Employee

Visa and MasterCard Regulate Chargebacks

AUTHOR: Leanne - (U.S.A.)

Although it may seem that IMS makes up the rules as they go along, it's simply not that way. IMS does not govern chargebacks. When a customer has a charge on their credit card that they want to dispute for any reason, they have 6+ months to contact their bank to do so. Then, their bank must follow certain rules in the issuance and classification of the chargeback and this goes out to the merchant's processor (i.e. IMS). Once received we are required to respond in a certain fashion and timeframe with whatever documentation we can obtain.

However, if this documentation does not conform to Visa/MC regulations, the merchant loses the chargeback. Additionally, electronic records generated by Visa/MC are used in the dispute process and indicate such things as multiple authorizations. These are not created or generated by IMS and are electronic records generated by the interchange for Visa/MC on behalf of the card issuing bank.

If this merchant lost a chargeback, it was due to the rules created by the associations, using electronic records as supporting evidence. IMS is required to comply with the regulations when interacting with the cardholder bank in this dispute process. However we do not govern them or create them. It's an unfortunate part of doing business with credit cards.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory