• Pika@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    I fully agree it’s sometimes a self created issue(although payment processors screw stuff up all the time as well so depending on the flow it might not be) but it’s not one that is their responsibility to resolve, they have canceled the transaction on their end, its on the payment processor to realize this and give the money back.

    The only responsibility they have in this is investigating the issue on their end(which considering that trying again sometimes fixes it it may not even be on their end) to fix the payment flow, there’s no further obligation to the customer. They can’t give back money they don’t have, what ends up happening is like what the above described where the company takes a financial loss due to someone elses problem. Our old SOP for wireless deposits in the store I was at(we did a lot of second party contracting with Verizon and ATT) was informing the customer that the transaction has been cancelled/returned and should appear in the next 5-7 business days. If they complained we would state if they need the money sooner they could try contacting the payment provider, but it was out of our hands at this point. Us providing them money would end up giving the customer back the money twice, which was in no circumstance going to happen.

    You could make the argument that it’s good customer service but like… at the end of the day, theres no obligation and the company needs to run. It’s a price analysis. Will giving this credit eventually give a net profit on this customer? At a potential $2600 loss unless they are a frequent flyer I’m guessing no.

    I felt bad for customers that did a credit check for a phone, just to have it fail during processing, because it likely would fail the next retry due to a recent credit check, but we were out of options at that point, the store didn’t have a local payment scheme to set the customer up on, and they couldn’t just make it work without fully eating the cost of the device, which also the company wouldn’t be willing to do. It sucks for both parties.