By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 29/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
Chargebacks on Tide Payment Links usually follow a predictable “message chain” between the payer’s bank (issuer), the card network, the acquiring side, and the merchant – so the practical question is less “can it happen?” and more “which stage is it at, what deadline applies, and what proof is being asked for right now?”.
The evidence requests tend to repeat across schemes: clear proof of what was sold, what the customer agreed to, what was delivered (or provided), and what the customer was told about refunds/cancellations – plus fraud/authorisation signals for “card not present” payments.
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What a “chargeback” is in Tide Payment Links terms
When a customer disputes a card payment, the dispute is processed under card-scheme rules (for example, Visa and Mastercard). A chargeback is not the same thing as a refund: a refund is initiated by the merchant, while a chargeback is initiated through the cardholder’s bank and then routed through scheme processes.
Visa’s consumer-facing overview also emphasises that a chargeback request is not guaranteed to succeed and is distinct from a merchant-issued refund (Visa chargeback overview).
For businesses using Tide Payment Links, the important operational reality is that the “front end” (the payment link) and the “back end” (scheme dispute rails) are separate systems.
The link is simply how the payer authorises a card payment; the dispute is then handled through issuer/scheme/acquirer workflows, with Tide typically acting as the interface where the merchant sees dispute status, deadlines, and evidence requests.
If you need a plain-English refresher on what the payer sees at checkout, start with Tide Payment Links explained: how they work and what the payer sees.
The stages you’ll usually see (names vary by scheme)
Card schemes use different labels, but most Tide Payment Links chargebacks map to a similar set of stages.
Stage 0: Customer contacts their card provider (pre-scheme)
Before a formal “chargeback” exists, the payer may first contact their card issuer. UK Finance notes that card providers often require supporting details from the customer before progressing a chargeback request (UK Finance chargeback guidance).
What the merchant often sees: nothing yet – until the dispute is raised into the scheme process.
Stage 1: Information request / retrieval-style questions
Some disputes begin with an information request rather than an immediate debit. This is a “prove the transaction” moment: what was sold, what was agreed, and what evidence exists.
What the merchant often sees: a case opened with a response deadline and a list of requested documents (the “evidence pack”).
Stage 2: First chargeback / provisional debit
If the issuer progresses the dispute, the case may move to a chargeback where the transaction amount is reversed (provisionally) and the case becomes evidence-led.
What the merchant often sees: a debit (or pending debit) against settlements and an opportunity to respond with evidence.
Stage 3: Representment (merchant challenges the chargeback)
“Representment” is the merchant-side response where evidence is submitted to challenge the chargeback and explain why the original transaction should stand.
Mastercard’s merchant documentation describes the need for supporting documentation with enough detail to understand the dispute and the underlying conditions being met (Mastercard Chargeback Guide – Merchant Edition).
What the merchant often sees: a firm deadline, specific document formats, and a requirement to match evidence to the dispute reason code/condition.
Stage 4: Further cycles (pre-arbitration / second chargeback-style steps)
Depending on scheme and dispute type, there can be a further back-and-forth cycle. This is where small evidence gaps become expensive: missing policy wording, unclear delivery proof, or inconsistent customer communications can tip outcomes.
What the merchant often sees: escalated status, tighter timelines, and more prescriptive evidence requests.
Stage 5: Final decision / closure
The case is closed – either the chargeback stands, or the merchant wins and the funds are returned (subject to scheme rules and fees).
How this affects cash availability depends on how and when funds settle through the payment chain; if you’re reconciling timing, see Tide Payment Links settlement times: when funds become available and Tide Payment Links fees and statement labels.
What evidence is usually requested (and why it repeats)
Evidence requests are repetitive because disputes are assessed against a small number of factual questions:
Was the customer correctly informed (terms, cancellation, delivery, refunds)?
Was the customer correctly authenticated/authorised (especially for online payments)?
Was the product/service delivered as described and on time?
Was a refund already issued (full/partial), and how is it evidenced?
UK Finance’s consumer guidance also highlights that a chargeback request typically needs evidence submitted to the retailer’s bank (UK Finance chargeback guidance).
For merchants, the mirror image is: the acquirer/scheme needs evidence from the merchant that directly addresses the dispute reason.
Common “evidence pack” items (typical examples)
Transaction and order record
Invoice/receipt showing date, amount, goods/services description, and customer details (as applicable).
Order confirmation and itemised basket (including quantities and variants).
Policy disclosure and customer agreement
Refund/returns/cancellation policy in force at the time of purchase.
Proof the customer was shown the policy (checkout screenshot, acceptance tick-box log, timestamped terms).
Fulfilment / delivery / service performance
Proof of delivery (carrier tracking + delivery confirmation, signature where available).
Digital delivery logs (download/access logs, account creation timestamps, IP/device signals where relevant).
Service completion evidence (booking attended, work signed off, service report).
Customer communications
Emails/messages with the customer showing issue handling, offered remedies, and timelines.
Complaint record, if the dispute follows a failed resolution attempt.
Refund trail
Refund confirmation, amount (full/partial), and date processed.
Any correspondence agreeing a partial refund or alternative remedy (tie-in to Tide Payment Links refunds: full vs partial and timelines).
Fraud/authorisation signals (card-not-present disputes)
Evidence of authentication and verification checks supported by your payments stack.
Address and contact consistency, delivery vs billing information, and risk screening notes (where available).
Why “more documents” often get requested late: if evidence doesn’t clearly match the dispute reason code (for example, providing delivery proof for a “cancelled subscription still billed” dispute), the scheme workflow often triggers follow-up questions rather than making assumptions.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Customer says “I didn’t authorise this online payment” | Often assessed as fraud/authorisation dispute | Funds may be reversed while evidence is reviewed; fraud-focused proof becomes central |
| Customer says “goods not received” | Delivery proof becomes decisive | Weak tracking evidence often leads to the chargeback standing |
| Customer says “service not provided / cancelled” | Policy + cancellation timeline tested | Outcome can hinge on whether terms were disclosed and whether cancellation was handled as stated |
| Customer says “not as described” | Quality/description evidence reviewed | Clear product descriptions, photos, and communications matter more than payment authentication |
| Partial refund already issued | Dispute may be reduced or re-framed | Reconciliation depends on precise refund timing and matching references |
| Merchant misses the response deadline | Chargeback commonly stands by default | Cash impact can be immediate; fees and reporting risk can follow |
| Multiple disputes cluster in a short period | May trigger extra monitoring | Operational friction can rise, including increased holds/reserve behaviour in some payment chains |
Scenario Table
| Scenario-level | Process-level | Outcome-level |
|---|---|---|
| Cardholder disputes a single transaction | Case opened with a response window and evidence list | Case closed as “merchant wins” or “chargeback stands” |
| Cardholder disputes recurring billing | Terms disclosure and cancellation handling tested | Outcome reflects whether billing authority and cancellation evidence align |
| “Goods not received” with third-party courier | Delivery evidence validated (dates, address match, confirmation) | Strong proof supports reversal; weak proof often leaves reversal in place |
| Digital goods / online services | Access logs and proof of usage examined | Usage proof can be persuasive, but must map to the dispute reason precisely |
| Refund promised but not processed | Refund trail requested | Outcome may depend on whether the refund was completed within stated timeframes |
| Multiple related disputes | Pattern review across cases | Increased scrutiny; may affect settlement flow and monitoring triggers |
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide positions its business accounts around app-based account management, with features that can include invoicing and payment collection tools.
Payment Links sit within that broader setup, so chargeback outcomes often need to be understood alongside how settlements and fees land in the account. For a broader, non-advisory overview of Tide’s offering and typical trade-offs, see our hub page: Tide business account overview.
Frequently Asked Questions
No.
- A refund is initiated by the merchant and is part of normal customer service and reconciliation.
- A chargeback is initiated via the cardholder’s bank and is handled through card-scheme dispute processes, meaning evidence and deadlines are assessed under scheme rules rather than the merchant’s preferred process.
In practice, disputes can start because a customer couldn’t obtain a refund, didn’t recognise the transaction, or believed goods/services were not delivered as agreed. Visa’s overview distinguishes refunds from chargebacks and notes a chargeback outcome is not guaranteed (Visa chargeback overview).
Representment is the merchant-side challenge to a chargeback: the merchant submits evidence intended to show the transaction was valid under the relevant dispute category (for example, delivered, correctly described, properly authorised, or refunded).
It isn’t a generic “send everything you have” step – schemes typically expect evidence that directly matches the dispute condition.
Mastercard’s merchant documentation emphasises that supporting documentation must be sufficiently detailed to understand how the dispute conditions are met (Mastercard Chargeback Guide – Merchant Edition).
Typically, no. Outcomes are determined by the issuer/scheme/acquiring dispute process. Tide is usually the interface where the merchant receives case notifications, evidence requests, and status updates for payments taken via the product.
This division of roles matters because it explains why evidence requests can feel “non-negotiable”: even if a merchant believes a dispute is straightforward, scheme workflows often require specific artefacts (terms, delivery confirmation, communications) to close the case on the record.
For “goods not received”, the dispute often turns on fulfilment proof: tracking data, delivery confirmation, address consistency, and timing.
Evidence is generally strongest when it clearly links the disputed transaction to the exact delivery event (matching dates, order reference, delivery address, and confirmation).
Edge cases include partial shipments, redelivery, and collection points. In those cases, generic courier screenshots without references can fail to connect the payment to the fulfilment.
Where a third party fulfilled delivery, proof that the merchant’s records align with the courier’s records becomes important.
For services, the dispute often turns on whether the service was actually provided (or made available) and whether cancellation/refund terms were disclosed and followed.
The “what was agreed” record (booking confirmation, scope of service, delivery date) and the “what happened” record (attendance logs, completion notes, communications) typically carry more weight than generic statements.
Edge cases include rescheduling, customer no-shows, and force majeure style cancellations. In these situations, scheme reviewers usually look for contemporaneous communication – what was offered, when, and how the customer responded – rather than retrospective summaries.
Timelines vary widely because they depend on the dispute type, scheme, issuer actions, and whether the case escalates beyond the first cycle.
Some cases close quickly when evidence is clear and aligns to the dispute reason; others extend over multiple stages where new information triggers additional review steps.
It’s also common for different parts of the timeline to be measured differently: a merchant response deadline can be short even when the overall case runs longer.
For cashflow planning, the practical lens is often “when do funds become available or get reversed?”, which links closely to Tide Payment Links settlement timing rather than the final decision date alone.
Where a chargeback results in a debit, the immediate impact is usually felt as a reduction in payable settlement or a negative adjustment, depending on how the acquiring chain applies debits and fees. The precise mechanics depend on the payment chain and how settlements are netted.
If there’s an account-level constraint (for example, restricted access or delayed settlement), the operational impact can compound – especially if multiple disputes arrive close together. For broader context on withholding and payment-chain roles, see who can withhold funds in EMI-style settlement chains.
A single dispute is not automatically a trigger, but dispute patterns can feed into risk monitoring across payment stacks. In many ecosystems, higher dispute rates or sudden changes in activity can lead to additional friction: delayed payouts, reserves, or enhanced review requests.
That’s not unique to Tide; it’s a general feature of how processors and account providers manage operational and fraud risk. For related mechanics, see bank restriction triggers and processor holds/reserves and, if the account enters an internal review stage, Tide account under review: stages, timelines, outcomes.
If a payment is not a card transaction, card-scheme chargeback rules may not apply in the same way. “Pay by bank” style payments are typically bank transfer-based, and dispute pathways depend on the payment type, bank processes, and the nature of the complaint (for example, error vs scam vs non-performance of a contract).
Tide’s Payment Links ecosystem can include different rails; if you’re specifically dealing with a non-card rail, it’s useful to separate “card dispute rules” from “bank payment dispute handling”. For background on how pay-by-bank links appear and settle, see Tide pay by bank payment links: when it appears and how it settles.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is generally relevant when a consumer complains that their bank or card provider has handled a dispute unfairly or hasn’t followed an appropriate process.
FOS publishes general information on chargeback and what it considers when looking at complaints (FOS guidance on goods/services bought on credit, including chargeback).
From a merchant perspective, it’s important not to conflate “scheme dispute outcome” with “complaint about a bank’s process”.
A merchant can still be affected operationally by disputes and reversals even when a consumer complaint is ultimately between the consumer and their provider.
Chargebacks feel messy at the edges, but the underlying mechanism is rigid: dispute systems are built to route decisions using standardised categories, tight deadlines, and documentable facts.
That design is deliberate – schemes need repeatable processes that can be applied across millions of transactions, often without speaking to the merchant or customer directly.
In a Tide Payment Links context, that rigidity shows up as “evidence pack” repetition. The same core artefacts keep returning because they answer the same core questions:
- What was agreed
- What was delivered/provided
- What was disclosed
- What was refunded
- What signals exist that the payer genuinely authorised the payment
When those artefacts don’t map cleanly to the dispute category, cases tend to escalate into additional cycles – not because the facts are necessarily complex, but because the system can’t safely infer missing facts.
Related Content
