A nasty one.

Hatamoto

Thank you again.

Well aware of the possibility of shooting myself in the foot.

The courier are not disputing anything, they are open to the idea that they may have damaged it, but they have actually read the emails and have said that they have escalated matters to their investigation department and very clearly do not like what they've read from the retailer.

They have in fact been very kind and supportive.

Hatamoto

Just to add that I've sent the photo they've sent me to the product manufacturers and asked about the level of visible damage, because the product does look as if it has been carefully dismantled in the picture. I'm hoping that will help, but it may not.

unholyangel

Hatamoto wrote: »

Thank you again.

Well aware of the possibility of shooting myself in the foot.

The courier are not disputing anything, they are open to the idea that they may have damaged it, but they have actually read the emails and have said that they have escalated matters to their investigation department and very clearly do not like what they've read from the retailer.

They have in fact been very kind and supportive.

My question I guess is what purpose do you think that will serve?

Hatamoto

I suppose you'd need to read what I've been sent to answer that and I simply do not know what might happen.

Let's suppose I did what the retailer suggested. I make a claim. The courier would know that they were used to send me the product too, and who it was from. They'd surely ask me why I was returning it, and at that point I'd surely have to lie to get my money, by NOT saying that the product was originally problematic.

I'm not comfortable with that and in relation to the kind of things I've been sent by the retailer. So, I simply don't trust anyone.

So, as a first action, telling the courier honestly is the least worst thing I can do.

How's that for bad logic?

I can't rule out the possibility of the courier still paying out for a claim and I can't rule out the possibility of nothing happening.

I'm taking a considerable risk in telling them when I could have lied, so maybe that could work in my favour, maybe not.

naedanger

Hatamoto wrote: »

I suppose you'd need to read what I've been sent to answer that and I simply do not know what might happen.

Let's suppose I did what the retailer suggested. I make a claim. The courier would know that they were used to send me the product too, and who it was from.

They'd surely ask me why I was returning it, and at that point I'd surely have to lie to get my money, by NOT saying that the product was originally problematic.

I'm not comfortable with that anyway and in relation to the kind of things I've been sent by the retailer. So, I simply don't trust anyone.

So, as a first action, telling the courier honestly is the least worst thing I can do.

How's that for bad logic?

You certainly needed to be honest with the courier, so for example you needed to tell them the item that was alleged damaged by them was a faulty [widget] and not a working [widget]. I also think you were right to be fully open with them regarding the facts that you knew. (But I would not have shared any speculation or judgements you might have come to.)

I also think you were correct to bear in mind the fault might be with the recipient. So that if the courier denies responsibility you can deny liability to the recipient without appearing to change your position as to what happened. (If you had agreed with the recipient that the courier was at fault, and the courier denied liability, the recipient could rightly say whether the courier admitted liability to you or not, was not their concern.)

Hatamoto

Thanks for following on naedanger yes, it's very tricky.

What bugs me the most, is that the first thing I did was tell the retailer about the fault and that's how I was offered a refund and it is infuriating that those very words of mine are STILL sat there right at the start of one long email exchange with them in which they claim I did not tell them, several times.

I've even said, "please read the first email at x date and x time and you will see that I told you about the original problem right way, before I sent it back" and I just get a rather pig headed and defiant response that I did not each time.

naedanger

Hatamoto wrote: »

Thanks for following on naedanger yes, it's very tricky.

What bugs me the most, is that the first thing I did was tell the retailer about the fault and that's how I was offered a refund and it is infuriating that those very words of mine are STILL sat there right at the start of one long email exchange with them in which they claim I did not tell them, several times.

I've even said, "please read the first email at x date and x time and you will see that I told you about the original problem right way, before I sent it back" and I just get a rather pig headed and defiant response that I did not each time.

I hope it all works out for you. But it sounds like you may need to take further action to force them to compensate you.

I suggest you also read the following as a possible option if the retailer denies liability, although I am not certain it covers your situation:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/visa-mastercard-chargeback

unholyangel

Didn't mean to imply you were using bad logic if thats the way you took my question. As I said, I understand why you feel its unfair and even why you might be suspicious but to look at it another way, you originally said they were happy to help. They even advised you how to make a complaint with the courier (something they didn't have to do). If they wanted to pull a fast one, they only needed to say the unit showed signs of excessive handling or that they had inspected the unit and the fault was the result of physical damage. They could have even asked you to prove the fault was inherent given you were requesting a refund and not a repair/replacement.

The position of the law is usually first and foremost to put you into the same position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. Had this breach not occurred, you would have received a full refund for faulty goods therefore they are the cause of your loss (following the but for princple used to establish causation) even if they are not liable for the fault in the goods.

I am not in any way suggesting to lie about anything. But theres definitely no benefit (only detriment) to "suggesting that certain things do not add up" as you put it. The courier is on the opposite side of the table from you in this. You're expected to comply with reasonable requests (as part of civil procedure rules on pre-action protocol with discovery etc to try and avoid court action) but not to actually prepare their defence for them iyswim?

Hatamoto

I know you didn't imply that, no worries.

I understand what you're saying, I understand the dangers of what you are saying.

Things actually do not add up though.

1 - I receive a product which has a problem inside it (very clearly) and advise the retailer of it.

2 - They offer me a refund if I send it back.

3 - I do that. They change their mind and tell me that the product was damaged externally during the return and it is unrelated to the problem I told them about.

4 - They presume I will claim insurance, advise me how and provide a photo.

5 - I tell them that I won't claim because the item originally arrived with a different problem anyway.

6 - They tell me in the exact same email exchange that I did not ever tell them.

7 - I pin what I said to them down to a date and time and advise them to read it.

8 - They accuse me of causing the damage they found before sending it ( this does not add up because it makes their suggestion that I should claim and that it was damaged during the return very odd indeed)

9 - I remind them of my consumer rights.

10 - They remind me that i do not have long to claim. (this makes their accusation that I damaged it seem odd because I can't claim for that)

Why would they say those things to me?

Why would they not stick to one story?

I understand why you are advising me to keep away from he said and she said, but you must surely see how that is odd?

Hatamoto

I suppose a good question is, how useful is an email exchange as evidence?

The courier seemed very happy that I had the complete exchange and advised me that often people do not have it all.