May 03, 2025·8 min
How to Build a Web App to Manage Refunds & Chargebacks End-to-End
Learn how to design and build a web app to track refunds and chargebacks: data model, workflows, integrations, security, reporting, and testing.
Learn how to design and build a web app to track refunds and chargebacks: data model, workflows, integrations, security, reporting, and testing.
Before you design screens or pick tools, get precise about what you’re building. “Refunds” and “chargebacks” sound similar, but they behave differently across payment providers—and confusion here creates messy queues, wrong deadlines, and unreliable reporting.
Write down what counts as a refund (a merchant-initiated reversal) versus a chargeback (a bank/card-network dispute initiated by the cardholder). Capture provider-specific nuances that affect workflow and reporting: partial refunds, multiple captures, subscription disputes, “inquiry” vs. “chargeback” phases, representment steps, and time limits.
Identify who will use the system and what “done” means for them:
Talk to the people doing the work. Common issues include missing evidence, slow triage, unclear statuses (“is this submitted or not?”), duplicated work across tools, and back-and-forth between support and finance.
Choose a small set you’ll track from day one:
A practical MVP usually includes a unified case list, clear statuses, deadlines, evidence checklists, and audit trails. Save advanced capabilities—automation rules, suggested evidence, multi-PSP normalization, and deeper risk/fraud signals—for later phases once the workflow is stable.
Your app will live or die by whether the workflow feels predictable to support and finance teams. Map two separate but related journeys (refunds and chargebacks), then standardize states so people don’t have to “think in provider terms.”
A practical refund flow is:
request → review → approve/deny → execute → notify → reconcile
“Request” may originate from a customer email, a helpdesk ticket, or an internal agent. “Review” checks eligibility (policy, delivery status, fraud signals). “Execute” is the provider API call. “Reconcile” confirms settlement/payout entries match what finance expects.
Chargebacks are deadline-driven and often multi-step:
alert → gather evidence → submit → representment → outcome
The key difference is that the issuer/card network drives the timeline. Your workflow should make it obvious what’s due next and by when.
Avoid surfacing raw provider statuses like “needs_response” or “won” as your primary UX. Create a small, consistent set across both flows—e.g., New, In Review, Waiting on Info, Submitted, Resolved, Closed—and store provider-specific statuses separately for debugging and reconciliation.
Define timers: evidence due dates, internal reminders, and escalation rules (e.g., escalate to a fraud lead 48 hours before a dispute due date).
Document edge cases upfront: partial refunds, multiple refunds on one order, duplicate disputes, and “friendly fraud” where a customer disputes a legitimate purchase. Treat these as first-class paths, not footnotes.
A refunds and chargebacks app lives or dies on its data model. Get this right early and you’ll avoid painful migrations when you add providers, automate rules, or scale support operations.
At minimum, model these objects explicitly:
Include fields that support reconciliation and provider integrations:
Common relationships are:
For change tracking, separate immutable events from editable content. Keep provider webhooks, status changes, and audit entries append-only, while allowing notes and internal tags to be edited.
Handle multi-currency from day one: store currency per transaction, record FX rates only if you truly convert, and define rounding rules per currency (JPY has no minor unit). This avoids mismatches between your totals and provider settlement reports.
Your UI determines whether disputes get resolved calmly or spiral into missed deadlines and duplicated work. Aim for a small set of screens that make the “next best action” obvious.
Map roles to what they can see and do:
Keep permissions granular (e.g., “issue refund” separate from “edit amounts”), and hide actions users can’t perform to reduce mistakes.
Design around a small set of core views:
Add one-click actions where users work:
Place these actions consistently (e.g., top-right on case pages; inline on queue rows).
Standardize filters across the app: status, provider, reason, deadline, amount, risk flags. Add saved views (e.g., “Due in 48h,” “High amount + risk”).
For accessibility: ensure clear contrast, full keyboard navigation (especially in tables), readable row density, and explicit focus states.
Your refund management web app will touch money movement, deadlines, and sensitive customer data. The best stack is the one your team can build and operate confidently—especially in the first 90 days.
For an MVP, a modular monolith is often the fastest path: one deployable app, one database, clear internal modules. You can still design boundaries (Refunds, Chargebacks, Notifications, Reporting) so you can split into services later if you truly need independent scaling, strict isolation, or multiple teams releasing daily.
Move to services only when you can name the pain you’re solving (e.g., webhook spikes causing outages, separate ownership boundaries, or compliance-driven isolation).
A common, practical combination:
If you want to accelerate the first iteration, consider starting with a build-and-export workflow using Koder.ai. It’s a vibe-coding platform that lets you create web apps via chat (React on the frontend, Go + PostgreSQL on the backend under the hood), then export the source code when you’re ready to take full ownership. Teams often use it to validate queues, case pages, role-based actions, and “happy path” integrations quickly, then harden security, monitoring, and provider adapters as requirements mature.
Keep code and tables organized around:
Plan background jobs for deadline reminders, provider sync, and webhook retries (with dead-letter handling).
For evidence files, use object storage (S3-compatible) with encryption, virus scanning, and short-lived signed URLs. Keep the database storing metadata and permissions—not file blobs.
A refunds and disputes app is only as accurate as the data it receives from payment providers. Decide which providers you’ll support and define a clean integration boundary so adding the next provider doesn’t require rewriting core logic.
Common providers to plan for: Stripe, Adyen, PayPal, Braintree, Checkout.com, Worldpay, and relevant local PSPs.
At minimum, most integrations need:
Document these as provider “capabilities” so your app can gracefully hide unsupported actions.
Use webhooks to keep cases current: dispute opened, dispute won/lost, evidence due date changed, refund succeeded/failed, and reversal events.
Treat webhook verification as non-negotiable:
Providers will retry webhooks. Your system must safely process the same event multiple times without double-refunding or double-submitting evidence.
Provider terms differ (“charge” vs. “payment”, “dispute” vs. “chargeback”). Define an internal canonical model (case status, reason code, amounts, deadlines) and map provider-specific fields into it. Keep the original provider payload for auditing and support.
Build a manual path for:
A simple “sync now” action plus an admin-only “force status / attach note” option keeps operations moving without corrupting your data.
Case management is where your refund management web app stops being a spreadsheet and becomes a reliable payment disputes system. The goal is simple: keep every case moving forward, with clear ownership, predictable next steps, and zero missed deadlines.
Start with a dispute tracking dashboard that supports multiple prioritization modes. Deadline-first is the safest default for chargebacks, but high-amount-first can reduce exposure quickly. A risk-based view is useful when fraud signals should influence ordering (repeat customers, mismatched shipping, suspicious patterns).
Automate assignment as soon as cases arrive. Common strategies include round-robin, skill-based routing (billing vs. shipping vs. fraud specialists), and escalation rules when a case nears its due date. Make “overdue” visible in the queue, on the case page, and in notifications.
Automation isn’t only about APIs—it’s also about consistent human work. Add:
This reduces variance and speeds up training.
For chargebacks, build a one-click evidence pack generator that assembles receipts, shipping proof, order details, and communication logs into a single bundle. Pair it with clear deadline tracking and auto-reminders so agents know exactly what to do next and when.
Evidence is what turns a “he said / she said” dispute into a winnable case. Your app should make it easy to gather the right artifacts, organize them by dispute reason, and produce a submission package that matches each provider’s rules.
Start by pulling together evidence you already have so agents don’t waste time hunting. Typical items include order and refund history, fulfillment and delivery confirmation, customer communications, and risk signals such as IP address, device fingerprint, login history, and velocity flags.
Where possible, make evidence attachable with one click from the case page (e.g., “Add tracking proof” or “Add customer chat transcript”) rather than requiring manual downloads.
Different chargeback reasons require different proof. Create a checklist template per reason code (fraud, not received, not as described, duplicate, canceled recurring, etc.) with:
Support uploads for PDFs, screenshots, and common document types. Enforce size/type limits, virus scanning, and clear error messages (“PDF only, max 10MB”). Store originals immutably, and generate previews for quick review.
Payment providers often have strict requirements for naming, formats, and required fields. Your system should:
If you later add a self-serve dispute submission flow, keep it behind the same packaging logic so behavior stays consistent.
Record every submitted artifact: what was sent, to which provider, when, and by whom. Store final “submitted” packages separately from drafts, and surface a timeline on the case page for audits and appeals.
A refunds and disputes tool touches money movement, customer data, and often sensitive documents. Treat security as a product feature: it should be easy to do the right thing and hard to do the risky thing.
Most teams do best with SSO (Google Workspace/Okta) or email/password.
For high-impact roles (admins, finance approvers), add MFA and require it for actions like issuing refunds, exporting data, or changing webhook endpoints. If you support SSO, still consider MFA for “break glass” local accounts.
Role-based access control (RBAC) defines what a user can do (e.g., Support can draft responses; Finance can approve/issue refunds; Admin can manage integrations).
But RBAC alone isn’t enough—cases are often scoped by merchant, brand, region, or team. Add object-level checks so users can only view and act on cases assigned to them or their business unit.
A practical approach is:
Chargebacks require clear accountability. Record an immutable audit log entry for actions such as:
Each entry should include: actor (user/service), timestamp, action type, case/refund ID, before/after values (diff), and request metadata (IP, user agent, correlation ID). Store logs append-only and protect them from deletion in the UI.
Design screens so users see only what they need:
If you offer exports, consider field-level controls so analysts can export dispute metrics without customer identifiers.
If any endpoints are public-facing (customer portals, evidence uploads, inbound webhook receivers), add:
A refunds/chargebacks app lives or dies on timing. Chargeback response windows are strict, and refunds involve handoffs. Good notifications reduce missed dates, keep ownership clear, and cut down on “what’s the status?” messages.
Use both email and in-app notifications for events that require action—not every status change. Prioritize:
Keep in-app notifications actionable: link to the case page and pre-fill the next step (e.g., “Upload evidence”).
Each case should have an activity timeline that combines system events (webhook updates, status changes) with human notes (comments, file uploads). Add internal comments with @mentions so specialists can loop in finance, shipping, or fraud without leaving the case.
If you support external stakeholders, keep them separate: internal notes should never be visible to customers.
A lightweight customer status page can reduce support tickets (“Refund initiated”, “Processing”, “Completed”). Keep it factual and timestamped, and avoid promising outcomes—especially for chargebacks where the decision sits with the card network and issuer.
If your support team uses a helpdesk, link or sync the case rather than duplicating conversations. Start with simple deep links (e.g., /integrations) and expand to bi-directional syncing once your workflow is stable.
Use consistent templates and neutral language. Say what happened, what’s next, and when you’ll update again—without guarantees.
Good reporting turns refunds and disputes from “support noise” into something finance, ops, and product can act on. Build analytics that answer three questions: what is happening, why it’s happening, and whether the numbers match payment providers.
Start with a disputes and refunds overview dashboard that can be understood quickly:
Make every chart clickable so teams can jump to a filtered queue (e.g., “open chargebacks older than 7 days”).
Refunds and chargebacks have different cost profiles. Track:
This helps quantify the impact of prevention work and workflow automation.
Provide drill-down reports by reason code, product/SKU, payment method, country/region, and provider. The goal is to spot patterns quickly (e.g., one product driving “item not received,” or one country driving friendly fraud).
Finance teams often need CSV exports and scheduled reports (daily/weekly) for close and reconciliation. Include:
Add a “data health” view that flags missing fields, unmatched provider events, duplicate cases, and currency mismatches. Treat data quality as a first-class KPI—bad inputs create bad decisions and painful month-end closes.
A refunds and disputes app touches money movement, customer communication, and strict provider deadlines—so treat “it works on my machine” as a risk. Combine repeatable tests, realistic environments, and clear signals when something breaks.
Start with unit tests for decision rules and state transitions (e.g., “refund allowed?”, “chargeback status can move from X to Y”). These should be fast and run on every commit.
Then add integration tests focused on the edges:
Use sandbox environments for each provider, but don’t rely on them alone. Build a library of recorded webhook fixtures (realistic payloads, including out-of-order events and missing fields) and replay them in CI to catch regressions.
Instrument three things from day one:
A simple dashboard for “webhooks failing” + “jobs behind” prevents silent SLA misses.
Deploy with feature flags (e.g., enable chargeback ingestion first, then refunds automation). Roll out in phases: internal users → a small support team → all users.
If you’re using a platform that supports snapshots and rollback (for example, Koder.ai includes snapshot/rollback workflows for shipped iterations), align that with your feature-flag strategy so you can revert safely without losing audit integrity.
If you’re migrating existing data, ship migration scripts with dry-run mode and reconciliation checks (counts, totals, and spot-audited cases).
If you’re drafting the full guide, a readable target length is ~3,000 words—enough to cover the end-to-end workflow without turning into a textbook.
Start by writing down your business definitions:
Then list provider-specific variants you’ll support (inquiry vs. chargeback stages, representment steps, subscription disputes, partial captures) so your workflow and reporting don’t collapse into ambiguous “reversal” states.
A typical MVP includes:
Use a small provider-neutral set that works for both flows (and store raw provider states separately). A practical taxonomy is:
This prevents teams from having to “think in Stripe/Adyen terms” while still letting you debug with provider payloads when needed.
Model both journeys explicitly:
Then add timers (SLA targets, evidence due dates) and exception paths (partial refunds, duplicate disputes, friendly fraud) as first-class states—not ad hoc notes.
At minimum, treat these as first-class objects:
Key fields that save you later: amounts in minor units, currency per transaction, provider IDs, reason codes (internal + provider), deadlines, outcomes, and fees.
Assume events arrive late, duplicated, or out of order.
This prevents double-refunds and makes “safe reprocessing” possible during incidents.
Design around the daily operational views:
Add consistent one-click actions (issue refund, request info, assign owner) and standard filters (status, provider, reason, deadline, amount, risk flags).
Evidence should be easy to assemble and hard to mess up:
Treat security as a product feature:
This reduces risk and makes compliance reviews easier.
Pick metrics tied to operations and money:
For reconciliation, support exports with provider-matching IDs and views that compare provider payout totals vs your internal ledger, with filters for event date vs settlement date.
Defer advanced automation (auto-routing, suggested evidence, multi-PSP normalization, fraud signals) until the base workflow is stable.
This improves win rates and reduces last-minute scramble before deadlines.