#erangalp
1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
:question: erangalp Have a non-technical question, account issue, or need one-on-one support?
We wish we could help, but this community is focused on developers and technical discussions. Our support team will be able to assist you better than we can: https://support.stripe.com/contact
Is there a reason why I'm getting the bot instead of a person? this is a technical question. We need to be able to resolve this via the API
The reason field provided in the dispute.created event is vague and we need clarification on that
I suggested you to ask for support as this related to disputes and not an integration Question. Sorry may be I miss understand your question so at the begining
is saying that certain disputes are actually payment failures (due to insufficient
Can you provide an related Object Id for this ?
Yes, let me pull it up
payment intent pi_3Lt1YoJsOXZ2yI0i1IfX6WR1
acct_1LRbEdJsOXZ2yI0i
This one shows "customer_initiated" as the reason
thanks for sharing, let me check please
For comparison, payment intent pi_3M2SvFJsOXZ2yI0i19ViN8ME shows "general" as the dispute reason
If there's documentation somewhere of those reasons so we can be certain that "general" is in fact initiated by the bank and not the customer, that would be a big help
So for both the user initiated a Dispute after the Payment being successfully.
For the first one pi_3Lt1YoJsOXZ2yI0i1IfX6WR1 the user claimed that they were unsatisfied with the product. and for the second one pi_3M2SvFJsOXZ2yI0i19ViN8MEthey didn't provide a reson, that's why you are having a general reason
But is both case, the Payment went throw successfully, then the customer disputed it
So "general" is also customer initiated? are you 100% sure about that? the merchant is claiming this is the case of the bank charging back the funds due to insufficient funds
Note that this is for SEPA payments in Germany, which appear to be a special case according to the docs
You can confirm this in the payment timeline history
Yes, the payment timeline does show that
the merchant is claiming this is the case of the bank charging back the funds due to insufficient funds
Where did they found that ?
However, the merchant is disputing the correctness of this and asking us to look at the reason in the webhook to differentiate
The merchant actually communicates with his customers
You can see in this event when the PaymentIntent went successfully
https://dashboard.stripe.com/events/evt_3M2SvFJsOXZ2yI0i1xYHyuvt
You can refer to the Events and logs section in the related PaymentIntent pi_3M2SvFJsOXZ2yI0i19ViN8ME page details and follow its lifecycle
Yes, we can see all of that. I'm reaching out due to the claims from this merchant that when the reason is "general" it means in this case that it's initiated by the bank and not the customer. They're claiming only "customer_initiated" means it's been initiated by the customer. I was hoping to get clarification on the reasons provided in the webhook
So you're saying it's always customer initiated?
AFAIK, bank can't dispute payments. The customer who always disputes payments. Did they check why the bank may dispute a Payment ?
What they're saying is that it's not an actual dispute, but rather a charge back by the bank since the customer could not make good on the payment (due to insufficient funds or otherwise). He says this is a common occurrence in Germany
From our end, we just want to be able to display the correct status of the payment in our platform through the webhooks we receive from Stripe
For Stripe Point of view that's a dispute initiated by the customer. And disputed payments in Germany do not provide additional information for privacy reasons.
https://stripe.com/docs/sources/sepa-debit#disputed-payments:~:text=disputed payments in Germany do not provide additional information for privacy reasons
So having a general as a reason is normal for Germany Payments is expected. But for sure the Payment went throw, and if the customer hasn't sufficent funds then the Payment won't have successful status
Yes, I was reviewing this page. Got it - thanks for clarifying - I just wanted to see if there's additional info that's not documented that would help answer the concerns this merchant has
Appreciate you look into it!
Happy to help, don't hesitate to come back if you have any follow up Questions 🙂