Retailer claim returned parcel not received
Discussion
MrJuice said:
you have proof the items were delivered. you have proof they were posted to the correct address
just do a small claims claim. it will cost you a bit but I cannot see how they could contest it
He has proof it was delivered somewhere, not that it was delivered to the correct address. just do a small claims claim. it will cost you a bit but I cannot see how they could contest it
That's the problem with "sign here mate". It proves nothing.
WhyNotEh said:
Thanks for all replies chaps
The reason I ordered 8 pairs was because my holiday was imminent and I needed a few pairs - my intention was to keep more pairs, but the pictures online and how they looked in real life were v different!
The retailer has an online presence only, there is no physical shop which I could have visited to try them on.
The return cost me £55 in total, with ~£38 of that being the extra level of cover.
I contacted Parcelforce yesterday to query the parcel tracking, and was initially told that the parcel had been loaded onto the van, taken on the route, and then returned to the depot on the same day. I told a search request would be raised to locate the parcel at the depot, and I could collect it once found.
A few minutes later the call was returned, and I was told that the parcel had in fact been delivered correctly, and that I should raise a Parcelforce claim if it had not been received by the retailer. I requested photo, GPS coordinates of delivery, and written confirmation that the parcel was delivered to the right place, but this couldn't be provided due to GDPR (17 other parcels were delivered at the same time). The lady on the phone advised me to make an online Parcelforce claim several times during the call.
I contacted retailer again with this information who replied with:
As the online tracking did not contain much information, we phoned Parcel force customer services and they advised they did not have an electronic POD but contacted the Manchester depot on our behalf. The response from the Manchester Depot was that the parcel was delivered along with a number of others to the fulfilment centre on XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. However after they reviewed the tracking numbers of the other parcels delivered at the same time they were addressed to Company X, 2 XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. Our address is Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*. Therefore it has become apparent that the carrier has mis-delivered the parcel and we have indeed not received the return."
My parcel was addressed to Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*
It sounds like you may need to take this up with ParcelFarce - in the future I'd always ask the retailer to arrange the collection of a return, as it shifts responsibility to them the moment the parcel is collected!The reason I ordered 8 pairs was because my holiday was imminent and I needed a few pairs - my intention was to keep more pairs, but the pictures online and how they looked in real life were v different!
The retailer has an online presence only, there is no physical shop which I could have visited to try them on.
The return cost me £55 in total, with ~£38 of that being the extra level of cover.
I contacted Parcelforce yesterday to query the parcel tracking, and was initially told that the parcel had been loaded onto the van, taken on the route, and then returned to the depot on the same day. I told a search request would be raised to locate the parcel at the depot, and I could collect it once found.
A few minutes later the call was returned, and I was told that the parcel had in fact been delivered correctly, and that I should raise a Parcelforce claim if it had not been received by the retailer. I requested photo, GPS coordinates of delivery, and written confirmation that the parcel was delivered to the right place, but this couldn't be provided due to GDPR (17 other parcels were delivered at the same time). The lady on the phone advised me to make an online Parcelforce claim several times during the call.
I contacted retailer again with this information who replied with:
As the online tracking did not contain much information, we phoned Parcel force customer services and they advised they did not have an electronic POD but contacted the Manchester depot on our behalf. The response from the Manchester Depot was that the parcel was delivered along with a number of others to the fulfilment centre on XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. However after they reviewed the tracking numbers of the other parcels delivered at the same time they were addressed to Company X, 2 XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. Our address is Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*. Therefore it has become apparent that the carrier has mis-delivered the parcel and we have indeed not received the return."
My parcel was addressed to Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*
The last Parcel Force delivery I had (just a couple of weeks ago), shows a picture of my parcel, right outside my front door, with the door open, so it's impossible for me to deny it was delivered to me.
But I suppose when they deliver multiple parcels from multiple senders to a company at the same time, they are not going to take a seperate picture of each consignment.
But I suppose when they deliver multiple parcels from multiple senders to a company at the same time, they are not going to take a seperate picture of each consignment.
WhyNotEh said:
I contacted retailer again with this information who replied with:
As the online tracking did not contain much information, we phoned Parcel force customer services and they advised they did not have an electronic POD but contacted the Manchester depot on our behalf. The response from the Manchester Depot was that the parcel was delivered along with a number of others to the fulfilment centre on XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. However after they reviewed the tracking numbers of the other parcels delivered at the same time they were addressed to Company X, 2 XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. Our address is Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*. Therefore it has become apparent that the carrier has mis-delivered the parcel and we have indeed not received the return."
My parcel was addressed to Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*
One of two things need to happen hereAs the online tracking did not contain much information, we phoned Parcel force customer services and they advised they did not have an electronic POD but contacted the Manchester depot on our behalf. The response from the Manchester Depot was that the parcel was delivered along with a number of others to the fulfilment centre on XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. However after they reviewed the tracking numbers of the other parcels delivered at the same time they were addressed to Company X, 2 XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. Our address is Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*. Therefore it has become apparent that the carrier has mis-delivered the parcel and we have indeed not received the return."
My parcel was addressed to Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*
1. Parcelforce acknowledge that they have delivered to the wrong address.
2. The retailer acknowledges they have received the parcel, based on a POD.
Based on the above, the retailer is intimating that PF are accepting they've delivered to the wrong place and you should make a claim. You're insured, so this will cover your losses.
But you need PF to confirm this. If they don't, you can simply revert to your original signed POD and the retailer has to suck up this story of being delivered to the wrong place, or go to company X themselves and get their goods back.
Shouldn't be any need for small claims, unless both parties shirk you off.
pavarotti1980 said:
I did go to a shop, they didn't stock them so ordered direct from the manufacturer.
The original point of it somehow being the OPs fault stands for the reason you state. If the retailer allows it then that's their business model
But it is the OP's problem, not the retailer. The retailer is refusing to accept returns, or complaining that the OP has somehow breached T&C or some moral code. It is quite happy to refund when it gets the shoes back.The original point of it somehow being the OPs fault stands for the reason you state. If the retailer allows it then that's their business model
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 16th May 10:06
The problem is that the company says it hasn't got the shoes, and therefore won't refund them. It is now down to the OP to sort out who is responsible.
Is a charge-back even a possibility? The credit card was used to purchase shoes, which were successfully delivered by the company. It's not the CC company's fault that the OP then posted them off again.
As to the "that's how shopping is done these days" brigade, I totally get it, and I buy specialist running shoes online regularly. But there are downsides to exposing yourself to a large loss of money when it goes pear-shaped for some reason, as are being amply illustrated by the OP's situation.
vaud said:
Crudeoink said:
You lot are really showing your age lol. Buying lots of sizes and fits and sending the rest back (usually free of charge) is how a lot of online shopping is done nowadays.
And it's a model that is going to be slowly withdrawn or as the returns are hurting margins.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/10/m...
It might be at odds with our laws however laws can change.
A mate has already been banned from either buying clothes from or returning clothes to Amazon UK after she had a busy few months of buying and returning clothes. Knowing her, it was a genuine "these joggers don't fit well" rather than "here is a posh frock that definitely wasn't worn to a wedding last week".
boyse7en said:
But it is the OP's problem, not the retailer. The retailer is refusing to accept returns, or complaining that the OP has somehow breached T&C or some moral code. It is quite happy to refund when it gets the shoes back.
The problem is that the company says it hasn't got the shoes, and therefore won't refund them. It is now down to the OP to sort out who is responsible.
Is a charge-back even a possibility? The credit card was used to purchase shoes, which were successfully delivered by the company. It's not the CC company's fault that the OP then posted them off again.
As to the "that's how shopping is done these days" brigade, I totally get it, and I buy specialist running shoes online regularly. But there are downsides to exposing yourself to a large loss of money when it goes pear-shaped for some reason, as are being amply illustrated by the OP's situation.
The retailer could easily be lying.The problem is that the company says it hasn't got the shoes, and therefore won't refund them. It is now down to the OP to sort out who is responsible.
Is a charge-back even a possibility? The credit card was used to purchase shoes, which were successfully delivered by the company. It's not the CC company's fault that the OP then posted them off again.
As to the "that's how shopping is done these days" brigade, I totally get it, and I buy specialist running shoes online regularly. But there are downsides to exposing yourself to a large loss of money when it goes pear-shaped for some reason, as are being amply illustrated by the OP's situation.
I had a similar issue. The goods were never actually delivered but were returned to the seller. The tracking showed this. The seller refused to refund on the basis they never received it back. Credit Card refunded me within a couple of days.
snuffy said:
He has proof it was delivered somewhere, not that it was delivered to the correct address.
That's the problem with "sign here mate". It proves nothing.
He has proof it was sent to the correct address and he has proof it was signed for. Usually parcels are signed for at the address they are posted to. That's the problem with "sign here mate". It proves nothing.
I think he has done all he can. He's used tracking, he's posted to the correct address, there's a signature to say it was received.
I think he has enough to win at small claims court.
WhyNotEh said:
Thanks for all replies chaps
The reason I ordered 8 pairs was because my holiday was imminent and I needed a few pairs - my intention was to keep more pairs, but the pictures online and how they looked in real life were v different!
The retailer has an online presence only, there is no physical shop which I could have visited to try them on.
The return cost me £55 in total, with ~£38 of that being the extra level of cover.
I contacted Parcelforce yesterday to query the parcel tracking, and was initially told that the parcel had been loaded onto the van, taken on the route, and then returned to the depot on the same day. I told a search request would be raised to locate the parcel at the depot, and I could collect it once found.
A few minutes later the call was returned, and I was told that the parcel had in fact been delivered correctly, and that I should raise a Parcelforce claim if it had not been received by the retailer. I requested photo, GPS coordinates of delivery, and written confirmation that the parcel was delivered to the right place, but this couldn't be provided due to GDPR (17 other parcels were delivered at the same time). The lady on the phone advised me to make an online Parcelforce claim several times during the call.
I contacted retailer again with this information who replied with:
As the online tracking did not contain much information, we phoned Parcel force customer services and they advised they did not have an electronic POD but contacted the Manchester depot on our behalf. The response from the Manchester Depot was that the parcel was delivered along with a number of others to the fulfilment centre on XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. However after they reviewed the tracking numbers of the other parcels delivered at the same time they were addressed to Company X, 2 XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. Our address is Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*. Therefore it has become apparent that the carrier has mis-delivered the parcel and we have indeed not received the return."
My parcel was addressed to Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*
Based on that, the issue would seem to lie with Parcelforce. A couple of things:The reason I ordered 8 pairs was because my holiday was imminent and I needed a few pairs - my intention was to keep more pairs, but the pictures online and how they looked in real life were v different!
The retailer has an online presence only, there is no physical shop which I could have visited to try them on.
The return cost me £55 in total, with ~£38 of that being the extra level of cover.
I contacted Parcelforce yesterday to query the parcel tracking, and was initially told that the parcel had been loaded onto the van, taken on the route, and then returned to the depot on the same day. I told a search request would be raised to locate the parcel at the depot, and I could collect it once found.
A few minutes later the call was returned, and I was told that the parcel had in fact been delivered correctly, and that I should raise a Parcelforce claim if it had not been received by the retailer. I requested photo, GPS coordinates of delivery, and written confirmation that the parcel was delivered to the right place, but this couldn't be provided due to GDPR (17 other parcels were delivered at the same time). The lady on the phone advised me to make an online Parcelforce claim several times during the call.
I contacted retailer again with this information who replied with:
As the online tracking did not contain much information, we phoned Parcel force customer services and they advised they did not have an electronic POD but contacted the Manchester depot on our behalf. The response from the Manchester Depot was that the parcel was delivered along with a number of others to the fulfilment centre on XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. However after they reviewed the tracking numbers of the other parcels delivered at the same time they were addressed to Company X, 2 XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. Our address is Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*. Therefore it has become apparent that the carrier has mis-delivered the parcel and we have indeed not received the return."
My parcel was addressed to Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*
- I'd ask for the correspondence the company are referencing between themselves and Parcelforce to be sent to you. Normally, a courier will not discuss a delivery with the recipient. If you've ever had to deal with something coming through Yodel or Evri (who are shocking) you'll know that if things go missing and there's a dispute they'll tell you to contact the sender for info as that's who their contract is with. So I find it odd that PF have apparently told the company all about your parcel, but maybe because they deal with all the other returns for them.
- I appreciate you are technically out of time for a claim with the insurance, but I'd be raising the issue that they have actually marked the items as delivered to the correct address and provided your correspondence with the company, along with whatever PF have said to confirm that they did mark it as correctly delivered and now they've realised it's not. They may try and wriggle out on a technicality but it should be pretty clear you've acted in good faith and they've inadvertently given the wrong info out.
MrJuice said:
snuffy said:
He has proof it was delivered somewhere, not that it was delivered to the correct address.
That's the problem with "sign here mate". It proves nothing.
He has proof it was sent to the correct address and he has proof it was signed for. Usually parcels are signed for at the address they are posted to. That's the problem with "sign here mate". It proves nothing.
I think he has done all he can. He's used tracking, he's posted to the correct address, there's a signature to say it was received.
I think he has enough to win at small claims court.
WhyNotEh said:
I contacted retailer again with this information who replied with:
As the online tracking did not contain much information, we phoned Parcel force customer services and they advised they did not have an electronic POD but contacted the Manchester depot on our behalf. The response from the Manchester Depot was that the parcel was delivered along with a number of others to the fulfilment centre on XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. However after they reviewed the tracking numbers of the other parcels delivered at the same time they were addressed to Company X, 2 XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. Our address is Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*. Therefore it has become apparent that the carrier has mis-delivered the parcel and we have indeed not received the return."
My parcel was addressed to Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*
That's infuriating that "wrong company at correct postcode " didn't think to flag it up to the courier as misdelivered. Or maybe send one of their staff to walk around the corner to hand it over.As the online tracking did not contain much information, we phoned Parcel force customer services and they advised they did not have an electronic POD but contacted the Manchester depot on our behalf. The response from the Manchester Depot was that the parcel was delivered along with a number of others to the fulfilment centre on XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. However after they reviewed the tracking numbers of the other parcels delivered at the same time they were addressed to Company X, 2 XYZ St, Manchester, *correct postcode*. Our address is Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*. Therefore it has become apparent that the carrier has mis-delivered the parcel and we have indeed not received the return."
My parcel was addressed to Company A, 40-42 XYZ Street, Manchester *correct postcode*
postman pat delivered me a very expensive inlet manifold. Delivered, photographed draped over my garden gate. Peculiar how a cast aluminium manifold can drape over a gate..
In the package was a pair of secondhand ikea curtains.
That one took weeks of sorting out and a card chargeback. Delivered, signed for, photographs are all evidence but rarely proof.
In the package was a pair of secondhand ikea curtains.
That one took weeks of sorting out and a card chargeback. Delivered, signed for, photographs are all evidence but rarely proof.
donkmeister said:
In the US a lot of companies now have a third party monitor/approve/decline returns both online and in-store. They use personal information and monitor trends to see if you are someone who very occasionally returns something for reasons deemed reasonable or if you, for instance, buy 8 pairs of £150+ trainers then return 7 pairs. If the latter, then they start to do things like charge restocking fees, and eventually give you a blanket FRO.
It might be at odds with our laws however laws can change.
A mate has already been banned from either buying clothes from or returning clothes to Amazon UK after she had a busy few months of buying and returning clothes. Knowing her, it was a genuine "these joggers don't fit well" rather than "here is a posh frock that definitely wasn't worn to a wedding last week".
I did a couple of contracts at a 'large online-only clothes retailer' and it was great fun working out which people were effectively renting their wardrobe and which ones were personal shoppers / stylists dressing their clients. Their profile looked basically the same .. £10000 of product out over the year, £9999 returned but one of them is a cheeky toe-rag and the other is generating free(ish) marketing on the company's behalf.It might be at odds with our laws however laws can change.
A mate has already been banned from either buying clothes from or returning clothes to Amazon UK after she had a busy few months of buying and returning clothes. Knowing her, it was a genuine "these joggers don't fit well" rather than "here is a posh frock that definitely wasn't worn to a wedding last week".
They're still doing wedding dresses despite a return rate of well over 95%, the financial loss is pretty large but you have to be in the market, apparently..
bigandclever said:
They're still doing wedding dresses despite a return rate of well over 95%, the financial loss is pretty large but you have to be in the market, apparently..
I'm sure I remember my Mum telling me that few used to actually buy wedding dresses, most women rented them and the bride would only keep the veil. My parents were married in 1970 so a long time ago, but if people just want to "rent" a dress it is so dumb to go through the moral dilemma of buying and returning! That's just me, I wouldn't have the brazenness to do it.
snuffy said:
MrJuice said:
snuffy said:
He has proof it was delivered somewhere, not that it was delivered to the correct address.
That's the problem with "sign here mate". It proves nothing.
He has proof it was sent to the correct address and he has proof it was signed for. Usually parcels are signed for at the address they are posted to. That's the problem with "sign here mate". It proves nothing.
I think he has done all he can. He's used tracking, he's posted to the correct address, there's a signature to say it was received.
I think he has enough to win at small claims court.
One is obliged to get a signature of someone on site, not a particular person (unless specified otherwise)
If one is going to refute a signed POD, it’s up to the receiver to have a good reason (with evidence) why, otherwise the sender with the POD will be sided with.
snuffy said:
MrJuice said:
you have proof the items were delivered. you have proof they were posted to the correct address
just do a small claims claim. it will cost you a bit but I cannot see how they could contest it
He has proof it was delivered somewhere, not that it was delivered to the correct address. just do a small claims claim. it will cost you a bit but I cannot see how they could contest it
That's the problem with "sign here mate". It proves nothing.
Muzzer79 said:
In transport claims, PODs are everything.
One is obliged to get a signature of someone on site, not a particular person (unless specified otherwise)
If one is going to refute a signed POD, it’s up to the receiver to have a good reason (with evidence) why, otherwise the sender with the POD will be sided with.
In the Curious Case of the Missing Trainers, the shoe shop is disputing the POD, because they are saying no one by the name on the POD works for them. And if Pat delivered it to the wrong address, and some other gadgy signed for it when accepting a load of other parcels, then they may will be correct.One is obliged to get a signature of someone on site, not a particular person (unless specified otherwise)
If one is going to refute a signed POD, it’s up to the receiver to have a good reason (with evidence) why, otherwise the sender with the POD will be sided with.
Simpo Two said:
Technical point - what's to stop the OP keeping all 8 pairs of shoes but sending the retailer a box of rubbish instead? He'll get a POD but all that proves is that *something* was delivered. The contents could be anything.
This happens, a surprising amount of times.Cameras are used to show carton opening, in some advanced operations.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff