Patagonia does not normally withhold return credits or ask
customers to dispute charges for returned items. This case is extremely
unusual. The person making the complaint suggests we have associated him or her
with past customers. This is not accurate. The connection is with current
customers. In addition to the order in question, there were three other orders.
They all shipped to this exact address and apartment number in July 2015. All
three were returned to a retail store for credit to the purchasers’ credit cards,
and all three purchasers attempted to obtain additional credits from
patagonia.com by claiming that the packages went missing. Two of those double
credit attempts were successful and resulted in losses exceeding $1000.00. The
person who makes this complaint claims no connection, but all available
information indicates that he or she is involved. The shared apartment number
is one link. The back-to-back orders are another. There are also many more ties
between this customer and the other people using his or her address
simultaneously for fraud. This person feels money is owed for a return. On the
other hand, we are owed for false “missing package” credits involving his or
her apartment and occurring with days of his or her order. This person shows no
alarm about the reported use of his or her address for fraud, and he or she is
reluctant to report the issue to the credit card company. This concerns us. If
the customer were to file a police report about the activity at his or her
address, we could then release further details about the situation to the
authorities. If the customer were to report the issue to the credit card
company by disputing the charge, it would help establish the identity of the
card holder and secure reimbursement for him or her. We are withholding the
credit for the returned item because we are owed money in excess of its value
and because by withholding the credit we are helping to ensure that a key
stakeholder, the credit card company, becomes involved in the conversation. We
hope this explains Patagonia's perspective, and we are willing to work with this
customer, as with all our customers to resolve these discrepancies so we can ensure we have collaboration on future transactions.
Patagonia does not normally withhold return credits or ask
customers to dispute charges for returned items. This case is extremely
unusual. The person making the complaint suggests we have associated him or her
with past customers. This is not accurate. The connection is with current
customers. In addition to the order in question, there were three other orders.
They all shipped to this exact address and apartment number in July 2015. All
three were returned to a retail store for credit to the purchasers’ credit cards,
and all three purchasers attempted to obtain additional credits from
patagonia.com by claiming that the packages went missing. Two of those double
credit attempts were successful and resulted in losses exceeding $1000.00. The
person who makes this complaint claims no connection, but all available
information indicates that he or she is involved. The shared apartment number
is one link. The back-to-back orders are another. There are also many more ties
between this customer and the other people using his or her address
simultaneously for fraud. This person feels money is owed for a return. On the
other hand, we are owed for false “missing package” credits involving his or
her apartment and occurring with days of his or her order. This person shows no
alarm about the reported use of his or her address for fraud, and he or she is
reluctant to report the issue to the credit card company. This concerns us. If
the customer were to file a police report about the activity at his or her
address, we could then release further details about the situation to the
authorities. If the customer were to report the issue to the credit card
company by disputing the charge, it would help establish the identity of the
card holder and secure reimbursement for him or her. We are withholding the
credit for the returned item because we are owed money in excess of its value
and because by withholding the credit we are helping to ensure that a key
stakeholder, the credit card company, becomes involved in the conversation. We
hope this explains Patagonia's perspective, and we are willing to work with this
customer, as with all our customers to resolve these discrepancies so we can ensure we have collaboration on future transactions.