"Failed verification" is one phrase covering four different findings, with four different consequences. The gap between them is the gap between resubmitting straight away and not being paid at all, so they are worth separating.
All four arrive the same way. An operator has checked the code with the issuer, as described in how a voucher is verified with its issuer, and the issuer's record says something other than "live, full balance, nothing attached".
The code has already been redeemed
The issuer's record shows the value has been spent. There is nothing left to buy.
There are innocent explanations. People spend part of a voucher and forget. A voucher bought months ago may have been used with the slip kept anyway. Somebody else in the household may have used it.
There is also the explanation nobody wants: the code reached a third party who spent it. That happens in minutes rather than days. A code read out over the telephone can be drained before the call ends, which is why prepaid vouchers are a favoured instrument for people running scams. If the voucher never left your hands and the balance is gone, that is worth understanding rather than shrugging at.
The order is rejected, the reason is given, and the encrypted code is purged. No settlement happens, so no commission is charged — the 5% applies to a completed conversion, never to an attempt.
The balance is lower than the face value declared
The voucher is live, but partly spent. A voucher with a figure printed on the front may hold less than that figure.
The order cannot settle at the declared amount, because the declared amount is what the payout was calculated from. There are two ways out: re-price the order to the balance the issuer confirms and settle at that, or reject it and leave the voucher where it is. The customer chooses. Nothing settles at a lower figure without being put to them first.
The code does not exist, or is not valid for that brand
Most often a transcription error. Each brand's codes have a characteristic length and structure, and a code that cannot belong to the brand is caught before an issuer is contacted at all. Check the transcription and submit again.
Two other causes deserve naming. A voucher can fail to activate at the till: the slip prints, the payment does not complete, and the buyer walks out holding a receipt for nothing. That is a known retail failure and also a known deception, where a reseller sells slips for vouchers that were never paid for. The till receipt is the only useful evidence in that situation, which is the argument for keeping it.
And codes are sometimes fabricated. A single nonexistent code is a mistake. A pattern of them, on one account or across several, is somebody testing what the system accepts, and it is treated as a compliance matter rather than as a retry.
The code is blocked, or a fraud report is attached
This is the uncomfortable one, and it should be stated plainly rather than buried at the bottom of a terms page.
The issuer's record may show that a voucher has been frozen, or that a report has been filed against it — by the person who bought it, by the retailer, or by a police force acting for a victim. A report can also reach the exchange directly, from the person who lost the money, after an order has already been submitted.
When that happens the order is not rejected and closed. It is frozen. No settlement is released, and the code is not returned to the person who presented it. A compliance case is opened against the order and the account, and the matter is handled as a case rather than as a support query.
A voucher reported as obtained by deception is not handed back to the person presenting it. Returning it would put a stolen instrument straight back into circulation and end the only realistic chance the person who paid for it has.
That rule is uncomfortable precisely because, at the moment it applies, it cannot distinguish between somebody who defrauded a stranger and somebody who accepted a stolen voucher without knowing. Both look identical at the counter. The rule is written for the outcome rather than for the intention.
If you are an innocent holder of a reported voucher
Vouchers are bought second-hand at a discount, accepted as payment for goods, given as gifts, and sent by employers who turn out not to exist. If a voucher you obtained in good faith turns out to be reported, there is a route, and it is a real one:
- Say how you obtained it, with as much detail as you can give: where, when, from whom, at what price.
- Provide what you hold. A till receipt. A marketplace listing. A chat log. A record of the payment you made for it, or the transfer you sent to the person who sold it.
- Do it early. A case that receives a full explanation on the first day sits in a different position from one that receives it after a month of silence.
This is the second reason a name is collected before any payout, set out in why no KYC is required here. A hold on an identified account is a situation containing a person who can explain themselves and be believed. A hold on an anonymous account is a dead end for everybody in it, the innocent holder included.
What cannot happen is the voucher going back while the report stands. If the report is withdrawn or resolved with the issuer, the position changes.
The part that cannot be explained
Some cases involve a report to a financial intelligence unit. Where that obligation applies, the same law that requires the report prohibits telling the customer it has been made. These are the tipping-off rules, they exist in essentially every anti-money-laundering regime, and they carry criminal penalties for the person who breaks them.
The practical consequence is that in a narrow set of cases the answer to "what is happening with my order" will be less detailed than either side would like. That is better said in advance than discovered later and mistaken for evasiveness. In the ordinary run, a rejection arrives with its reason attached.
What happens to your money and your record
No settlement means no commission. The 5% is charged on conversions that complete.
The encrypted code is purged when an order is rejected, in the same way it is purged when an order settles. What survives is the record: the order, its status, the reason, the last four characters of the code, the fingerprint that prevents the same voucher being presented again, and the audit trail of who did what and when. Where a compliance case exists, its record is retained for the period anti-money-laundering rules require.
If you are the person who lost the money
If you are reading this because you were persuaded to buy a voucher and hand over the code — by somebody claiming to be technical support, a tax office, a bank's fraud team, a romantic interest, or an employer asking for a training payment — the timing matters more than anything else you do today.
- Telephone the issuer's fraud line straight away with the code and the receipt. While a code is unredeemed, the issuer can block it. That window is short.
- Report it to your local police and get a reference number.
- If you believe the code was presented here, contact support with the code, the time and the circumstances. A report that arrives before an order settles can stop the settlement. One that arrives afterwards cannot.
You sent someone a voucher code: what to do now goes through this in order, including what to say on the call.
Disagreeing with an outcome
A rejection can be wrong. Issuers make mistakes, portals show stale balances, and a support agent can misread a code back over a bad line.
Ask for the check to be repeated, and say why you believe it was wrong: a receipt showing an unspent balance, a balance-check you ran yourself, a reference the issuer gave you. A second check against the issuer is not a large thing to ask for.
If that goes nowhere, the complaints procedure is the next step. Include the order reference, the date, the reason you were given, and what you say the correct position is.
One thing to note about all of the above: voucher intake is not open yet and the licence application is in progress. These are the rules orders will be handled under, not an account of orders that have been handled.