Proving my innoncence

George_Michael

Saints2011 wrote: »

Assuming the watch was inside of the package when it was sent. Is it possible to hold the Royal Mail accountable?

Unlikely.
The first thing that RM will want to see before they consider any claim is the packaging that the shipment was delivered in to see if there was any signs of tampering.
Without this I would expect them to refuse any possible claim outright.
The seller not paying for RM insurance above the £500 offered as standard isn't a problem in itself as they state on the listing:
"My company insurance will ensure that it is fully insured and delivery will be by Royal Mail Special Delivery" so it looks like they self insure.

hollydays

At this point there is no obvious proof of at which point the watch went awol. It could indeed have happened in the postal system for example.

Nodding_Donkey

So we have a high value item on eBay and the seller immediately wants to complete the transaction off eBay.

Did that not make alarm bells ring OP?

ETA I would expect that Royal Mail would deny any claim under this

http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/RM_SpecialDelivery_Terms_Jan13_4.pdf

Section 4.4

4.4 You must not give us any single item whose contents have a total value of more
than £2,500.

pendragon_arther

If you want to pm me I will send you another empty box.

SimonSays

wealdroam wrote: »

I expect Barclaycard to reject any claim you might make because you paid via Worldpay... thus removing any link between the credit card company and the seller.

That does not mean you should not make that claim.

Why? Worldpay is a payment processor like Barclaycard EDQ IE Merchant Services not like Paypal. A chargeback or S75 would be accepted as there is a direct link

vuvuzela

dacouch wrote: »

Have you asked the seller for the serial number of the Rolex?

I would assume he would have noted it down...

There's a central register where you can check if the number is correct and whether the watch is stolen or the subject of an insurance claim (Lost)

There used to be. Now only authorised dealers can check this, they don't deal with the public any more.

Hintza

Who videos themselves opening a package?

Hermione_Granger

Hintza wrote: »

Who videos themselves opening a package?

I also wondered about that.
It's not as if this would be any proof in the event of a claim such as this one because there is no way of telling if the opening ceremony that was videoed was the first one or if it had been opened and resealed prior to getting the camera out.


The OP may well be totally genuine but IMO, getting a package that should contain an £8000 item then not completely opening it for a few days (and only after discarding the outer packaging), along with conveniently having video "evidence" of the box being empty just doesn't ring true to me.

hollydays

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

I also wondered about that.
It's not as if this would be any proof in the event of a claim such as this one because there is no way of telling if the opening ceremony that was videoed was the first one or if it had been opened and resealed prior to getting the camera out.


The OP may well be totally genuine but IMO, getting a package that should contain an £8000 item then not completely opening it for a few days (and only after discarding the outer packaging), along with conveniently having video "evidence" of the box being empty just doesn't ring true to me.

I did this once when I ordered a £700 item off ebay for a friend-I did on the doorstep with the postman there

hollydays

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

I also wondered about that.
It's not as if this would be any proof in the event of a claim such as this one because there is no way of telling if the opening ceremony that was videoed was the first one or if it had been opened and resealed prior to getting the camera out.


The OP may well be totally genuine but IMO, getting a package that should contain an £8000 item then not completely opening it for a few days (and only after discarding the outer packaging), along with conveniently having video "evidence" of the box being empty just doesn't ring true to me.

I think if the op is genuine, I can really see why the sellers is suspicious. We have no particular reason to believe the seller isn't genuine either at this point.
At the very least it would have made sense to open the whole thing on video, before you have taken the outside wrapper off, as that would have indicated no tampering.