Dobio sam potpuno besmislen odgovor o mojoj žalbi na FOS:
Poštovani gospodine Mekven
Hvala vam na imejlu i dodatnim poentama koje sam sada pogledao.
Što se tiče vašeg pominjanja Masterkarda, mogu samo da pogledam vašu žalbu i ono što ste pokrenuli kada ste tražili od Revoluta da pokrene povraćaj sredstava. Nažalost, informacije koje ste dali nisu bile dovoljne da pokrenu povraćaj sredstava koji je imao izglede za uspeh. Povraćaj sredstava nije automatsko pravo ili obaveza da izdavalac kartice pokrene povraćaj sredstava kada potrošač to zatraži. Ali smatrali bismo dobrom praksom da se pokuša povraćaj sredstava tamo gde pravo postoji i postoje neki izgledi za uspeh.
Kockarske transakcije za koje ste tražili povraćaj sredstava ste vi odobrili, bili ste svesni svrhe transakcije i niste dostavili dovoljno dokaza koji bi pokazali da bi povraćaj sredstava mogao biti uspešan.
Iz informacija za druge banke koje ste dali, čini se da su povraćaji sredstava bili uspešni samo zato što trgovac nije odgovorio, a napominjem da je bilo uspešno kada je trgovac odgovorio. Eventualni izostanak odgovora od strane trgovca ne bi bio razlog zašto bi se moglo reći da je Revolut mogao da pokrene povraćaj sredstava jer nije izgledalo da ima izgleda na uspeh. Reći im da su trebali da ga pokrenu u svakom slučaju, za svaki slučaj ako trgovac ne odgovori, ne bi bio valjan razlog da ih zamolite da to urade.
Što se tiče zatvaranja naloga, iako automatizovani čet nije mogao da pomogne oko zatvaranja naloga, Revolut je uradio ono što smo očekivali da urade savetujući vas kako možete da nastavite i zatvorite nalog, tako da ne možemo reći da su postupili nepravedno.
Žao mi je što ovo nije bio ishod koji si očekivao/la.
S poštovanjem
Got a total nonsense reply about my FOS appeal:
Dear Mr Mcewan
Thank you for your email and additional points which I've now looked int.
With regards to your reference to Mastercard, I can only look at your complaint and what you raised when you asked Revolut to raise chargebacks. Unfortunately, the information you supplied was insufficient for them to raise a chargeback which had a prospect of success. And a chargeback is not an automatic right or obligation that a card issuer raise a chargeback when a consumer asks for one. But we would consider it good practice for a chargeback to be attempted where the right exists and there is some prospect of success.
The gambling transactions you asked for chargebacks on were authorised by you, you were aware what the purpose of the transaction was and you supplied insufficient evidence to show that a chargeback could be successful.
From the information for other banks you have supplied it appears the chargebacks which were successful were only because the merchant failed to respond, and I note that it was successful when a merchant did respond, possible failure to respond from a merchant wouldn't be a reason would could say that Revolut could have used to raise a chargeback because the chargeback didn't appear to have a prospect of success. Telling them they should have raised one anyway just in case a merchant failed to respond would not be a valid reason to have asked them to do so.
With regards to the closure of the account, although the automated chat couldn't help with the account closure, Revolut did do what we would have expected them to do in advising you on how you could go ahead and close the account so we couldn't say they acted unfairly.
I'm sorry that this was not the outcome you had hoped for.
Yours sincerely
Automatski prevedeno: