Does a failed chargeback affect my credit score?
If this chargeback failed then would it negatively affect my credit score? A credit score is a measure of how dependable of a borrower you are. Requesting a refund for not receiving goods not delivered as promised, whether it is successful or it fails, should not impact your credit score since it has no implications on the likelihood that you will pay back debts. The last time I used that gym was the 13th January 2017, and I rejoined on the 20th December, so I have used it for less than a month. Therefore I do not think I should have to pay for two months Keep in mind that you purchased a membership to the gym. Whether or not you actually use the gym you are liable to pay for every month that you retain the membership. Although it probably won't hurt to try to get a refund for the period where you didn't take advantage of your gym membership, you weren't actually charged for a service that you never received (like in the last case where they charged you after you cancelled your membership). "I think your confusion comes from the negative impact when a creditor writes off your bad credit and ceases attempting to collect it. ""Chargebacks"" as you call them are an attempt to undo fraudulent charges on your card, whether from stolen credit card info or from a merchant who is using shady business practices. For what it's worth, if you joined on December 20, January 20 seems like a reasonable date for the next billing cycle, with the December 31 date reflecting the fact that their system couldn't automatically bill you the day you joined. I also think it's reasonable for you to ask them to refund the bill for the second month if you do not plan to use their gym further. So the dispute seems like a reasonable one on both sides. Good luck." Credit scores in the U.S. are entirely based on information contained in your credit report.  The details of your credit card transactions, such as where your individual purchases are from, the amount of individual purchases, refunds, chargebacks (successful or failed), etc. do not appear on your credit report.  Therefore, they can have no impact on your credit score. According to creditsavvy.com.au, credit scores in Australia are based on similar information: the information in your credit history, credit profile, and credit applications.  I don't see anything that would suggest that the details of your transactions would affect your credit score.
"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age.  This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years).   Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders.  Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before.  So if you want to have a more ""solid"" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future).   Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs).  There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation.   You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees.  You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is.  The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account.  So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured).  Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening.   Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees.  There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers.  Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options.  I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could ""cash in"" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability.   Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service.   As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:" "Mortgage agreements usually have a clause in which the mortgagor warrants that all the statements and information which they have provided to the mortgagee are correct. In your case, this probably included your credit score. Since your ""statement"" concerning your credit score is no longer accurate, they want you to update the agreement with the new information before the final version is prepared. Credit scores change for many random reasons. The agencies re-calibrate formulas constantly. It is unlikely that your mortgage negotiations affected your credit score. The bank will only start reporting the facts of mortgage to a credit agency when you start paying (or not paying) the loan. Credit agencies don't care whether you have a loan or not. They only care whether you have paid your debts, or not paid them." First, before we talk about anything having to do with the credit score, we need the disclaimer that the exact credit score formulas are proprietary secrets that have not been revealed.  Therefore, all we have to go on are broad generalities that FICO has given us. That having been said, the credit card debt utilization portion of your score generally has at least two components: an overall utilization, and a per-card utilization. Your overall utilization is taken by adding up all your credit card debt and all your credit limits and dividing.  Using your numbers above, you are sitting at about 95%.  The per-card utilization is the individual utilization of each card.  Your five cards range in utilization from 69% to 100%. Paying one card over another has no affect on your overall utilization, but obviously will change the per-card utilization of the one you pay first.  So, to your question: Is it better on the credit score to have one low-util card and one high-util card, or to have two medium-util cards?  I haven't read anything that definitively answers this question. Here is my advice to you: The big problem you have is the debt, not the credit score.  Your credit card debt should be treated like an emergency that needs to be taken care of as quickly as you possibly can.  Instead of trying to optimize your credit score, you should be trying to minimize the number of days until all of your credit cards are completely paid off.  The credit score will take care of itself once you get your financial situation back on track. There is debate about the order in which one should pay off their debts, but the fact of the matter is that the order is not as significant as the intensity at which you pay them all off.  Dedicate yourself to getting rid of the debts as fast as possible, and it won't matter much which order they get paid off in. Finally, to answer your question, I recommend that you attack the card debt one at a time instead of trying to pay them off evenly.  Not because it will optimize your credit score, but because it will help you focus your debt-reduction energy as you work on resolving your debt emergency.  Fortunately, the credit utilization portion of the credit score has no history, so once you pay all of these off, the utilization portion of your score will get better immediately, and the path you took to get there will be irrelevant. After the credit cards are completely paid off, and you have resolved never to spend money that you don't have again, it is time to work on the student loans.... When you initiate a chargeback, the merchant has the right to dispute the chargeback.  If they can provide proof that the purchase actually took place, the chargeback will fail. We don't know all the details of your situation, of course, but it appears from what you have said that the tax chain probably has documents that you signed agreeing to the charges.  They prepared your return (even if they did a poor job), and so from their perspective, they have decided that they deserve to be paid.  Whether or not they did a good job is a matter of opinion, of course; their position might be that they did it correctly, and the second business did it poorly.   The chargeback is a powerful tool, but it is not a magic button that makes a charge disappear.  If the merchant can show that a sale did indeed take place and show that the proper amount was charged, the chargeback will fail.  For a service, it isn't enough usually to simply state that you were unsatisfied; if you received the service at the agreed-upon price, the charge is valid. A chargeback is sort of a nuclear option when it comes to getting a refund.  There are negative ramifications and expenses every time a merchant gets a chargeback (even if they ultimately win), and so often they will be willing to work something out to avoid a chargeback.  You should go to the merchant first, if you can, and ask for a refund before considering the chargeback option.  If you file a chargeback without even giving them the opportunity to work it out with you, the merchant will usually want to fight back. "The fee structures are different for PIN-based transactions versus ""credit"" style transactions. Usually there is a fixed fee (around $0.50) for PIN-based transactions and a varying fixed fee plus a percentage for credit transactions (something like $0.35 + 2.5%). There are also value limits for PIN-based transactions... I believe that you cannot exceed $400 in most places. The signature feature of credit transactions isn't there to protect you, it signifies your agreement to comply with the contract you and the credit card issuer, protecting the merchant from some types of chargeback. Some merchants waive the signature for low dollar value transactions to increase convenience and speed up the lines. All of your other questions are answered elsewhere on this site." "You say your primary goal is to clean up your credit report, and you're willing to spend some cash to do it.   OK.  But beware: the law in this area is a funhouse mirror, everything works upside down and backwards. To start, let's be clear: Credit reports are not extortion to force you into paying. They are a historical record of your creditworthiness, and almost impossible to fix without altering history.  Paying on this debt will affirm the old data was correct, and glue it to your report.  Here's how credit reporting works for R-9 (sent to collections) amounts.  The data is on your credit report for 7 years.  The danger is in this clock being restarted.  What will not restart the clock?  Ignoring the debt, talking casusally to collectors, and the debt being sold from one collector to another.  What will restart the clock? Acknowledging the debt formally, court judgment, paying the debt, or paying on the debt (obviously, paying acknowledges the debt.)  Crazy!  You could have a debt that's over 7 years old, pay it because you're a decent person, and BOOM! Clock restarts and 7 more years of bad luck.  Even worse-- if they write-off or forgive any part of the debt, that's income and you'll need to pay income tax on it.  Ugh!  Like I say, the only way to remove a bad mark is to alter history. Simple fact:   The collector doesn't care about your bad credit mark; he wants money. And it costs a lot of money, time and/or stress for both of you to demand they research it, negotiate, play phone-tag, and ultimately go to court.  So this works very well (this is just the guts, you have to add all the who, what, where, signature block, formalities etc.):   1 Company and Customer absolutely disagree as to whether Customer owes   Company this debt: (explicitly named debt with numbers and amount) 2 But Company and Customer both eagerly agree that the expense, time, and   stress of research, negotiation, and litigation is burdensome for both of us.    We both strongly desire a quick, final and no-fault solution.  Therefore:  3 Parties agree Customer shall pay Company (acceptable fraction here).    Payment within 30 days.  To be acknowledged in writing by Company.  4 This shall be absolute and final resolution.  5 NO-FAULT.  Parties agree this settlement resolves the matter in good faith.   Parties agree this settlement is done for practical reasons, this bill has not been established as a valid debt, and any difference between billed and settled amount is not a canceled nor forgiven debt.  6 Neither party nor its assigns will make any adverse statements to third parties relating to this bill or agreement.  Parties agree they have a continuous duty to remove adverse statements, and agree to do so within seven days of request.  7 Parties specifically agree no adverse mark nor any mark of any kind shall be placed on Customer's credit report; and in the event such a mark appears, Parties will disavow it continuously.  Parties agree that a good credit report has a monetary value and specific impacts on a customer's life.  8 Jurisdiction of law shall be where the effects are felt, and that shall be (place of service) regarding the amounts of the bill proper.  Severable, inseparable, counterparts, witness, signature lines blah blah. A collector is gonna sign this because it's free money and it's not tricky.  What does this do?  1, 2 and 5 alter history to make the debt never have existed in the first place.  To do this, it must formally answer the question of why the heck would you pay a debt that isn't real and you don't owe: out of sheer practicality; it's cheaper than Rogaine.  This is your ""get out of jail free"" card both with the credit bureaus and the IRS.   Of course, 3 gives the creditor motivation to go along with it.  6 says they can't burn your credit. 7 says it again and they're agreeing you can sue for cash money.  8 lets you pick the court.  The collector won't get hung up on any of these since he can easily remove the bad mark. (don't be mad that they won't do it ""for free"", that's what 3 is for.)  The key to getting them to take a settlement is to be reasonable and fair.  Make sure the agreement works for them too.  6 says you can't badmouth them on social media. 4 and 5 says it can't be used against them. 8 throws them a bone by letting them sue in their home court for the bill they just settled (a right they already had).  If it's medical, add ""HIPAA does not apply to this document"" to save them a ton of paperwork.  Make it easy for them. You want the collector to take it to his boss and say ""this is pretty good. Do it.""  Don't send the money until their signed copy is in your hands.  Then send promptly with an SASE for the receipt.  Make it easy for them.  This is on you.  As far as ""getting them to send you an offer"", creditors are reluctant to mail things especially to people they don't think will pay, because it costs them money to write and send.  So you may need to be proactive about running them down with your offer.  Like I say, it's a funhouse mirror." It costs money to pull credit information, and there's a record of who requested the info. And hard pulls are only a temporary, short-term ding on your score. Basically, if someone wants to make trouble,  there are better ways to do so. "Basically, these guys break all your eggs then try to make an omelet.  Your lender(s) must really believe that you have no ability to pay before they'll settle, which generally entails not paying them until your creditworthiness is in the tank.  Bankruptcy laws exist for a reason.  If your credit is in the tank, you can't make your payments and you're shopping to settle your debts, it's not likely a bankruptcy would worsen your situation; in fact, quite the opposite.  But, people have hugely negative feelings toward bankruptcy and don't want to be called a ""deadbeat"", these services prey on those people."