Fact: there *wasn't* any 'fix' put in with the arbitrator.
Fact: Ms. Plowman *DID*NOT*SHOW*UP* at the arbitration hearing.
Fact: In any legal (or quasi-legal) proceeding, the task of the presiding officer is to resolve any matters that are "in dispute".
Fact: If one of the parties fails to show up, and, thus fails to contest the 'facts' presented by the other side, there are _no_ matters 'in dispute', and the side that *did* show up gets a 'default judgement' in their favor. Pure and simple, _their_ version of the 'facts' of the matter is better than what the other side presented -- since the other side presented "nothing". This is a "no brainer" decision in _any_ judicial/quasi-judicial proceeding.
The credit card company was > Marcus Didius Falco wrote:
Does a statutory limit in UNITED STATES LAW apply to transactions that occur _outside_ the USA, for a credit-card with a 'billing address' that is also *outside* the United States, "cleared" by a company outside of the United States? That company may be a subsidiary of a U.S. company, but that does not necessarily mean that U.S. law automatically applies.
Doesn't the $50 limit apply only *after* you have _reported_ the card stolen? Which Ms. Plowman did _not_ do? [ I believe that there is a U.S. statutory limit of $250, if the card has -not- been reported as stolen. ]
In the case of 'unauthorized charges', don't you have to notify the card company "promptly" after the monthly billing has gone out? Was the _credit- card_company_ *ever* told that the charges were bogus? Ms. Plowman was, apparently, dealing *only* with the collection agency.
Did Ms. Plowman present *any* evidence -- either 'circumstantial' or 'hard facts' -- at the arbitration hearing, to substantiate the claim that the charges were the result of a "stolen" card (or identity)?