A nasty one.

naedanger

Hatamoto wrote: »

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.

I don't see any harm in disclosing your itemised summary (e.g. to a court if the matter goes to court) with the actual email exchange in an appendix. In my view your summary sets out a clear timeline of what steps were taken to resolve the matter. The email exchange is evidence of what each party said and when. (Of course it does not prove what each party said was true.)

What I wouldn't do (if I was you) is to go further and speculate regarding the questions you have stated.

Currently I think you just need to wait and see what happens next with both the courier and retailer.

Fosterdog

I don't quite understand why you have bothered to waste your time and effort on this one, you are making this a lot more difficult for yourself than it needs to be.

You received an item with an "internal" fault, you didn't plug it in or use it but knew it had a fault just by looking at it, you reported said fault to the retailer who were happy to refund as soon as it was sent back.

You then send it back using your own courier (regardless of if it was the same one they originally used or not) and it arrives with them with more damage than it arrived with you, they have sent you a photo as proof of thisand you are not disputing that it is true. This now overrides any fault it may or may not have had originally, they may not even be able to test for the original fault because of the damage, as you arranged the courier instead of getting them to arrange collection it is up to you to claim.

If it arrived to them with more damage than it arrived to you the are only three possible scenarios I can think of that can cause it.

1: You damaged it and are trying to pull a fast one (I don't believe this is true)
2: The courier you hired failed to carry out their service with reasonable care and they caused the damage, you need to make a claim from them.
3: It was inadequately packed when you sent it back meaning the courier had no way of minimising the damage that occurerred.

I genuinely can't think of any other possibilities for the item being more damaged by the time it arrived back with them, especially as it was outward physical damage I can't see how the original faulty internal component could cause it. Although maybe if we knew what the item was and what the original fault was it may make more sense how this could happen.

Out of the three scenarios above, none are the fault of the retailer, one and three would both be your fault and neither the courier nor the retailer are liable, two it is the courier and only the courier who is liableand you should have just claimed from them.

All you have done by sending everything off to the courier is muddy the waters and made it more difficult for you to claim, they could now reject any claim you make as it sounds like you are basically blaming the retailer and making sure the courier knows this.

arcon5

So basically you received goods with a loose internal part which potentially could have been fixed for resale.
You sent it back where the courier you instructed caused damage to the item.

You therefore haven't returned the goods in the same condition as you received them.

You need to make a claim from the courier to cover your losses - which is the price of the item.

Quite simple really. No need to make a big deal out of it

hollydays

If I ever dealt with a company who claimed I'd not sent them a particular email, the argument wouldn't go much further. " Here's the email" and the replies.
I don't get how they can disagree.

lush_walrus

Maybe you aren't explaining clearly but are you saying there are two faults with the product. One fault when it arrived with you and then a further fault when it arrived with the retailer?

And in both directions it was sent via the same courier company. So one fault may or may not have been caused by the original journey to you and then a second fault you have been sent photographic evidence by the retailer and both you and the retailer are agreeing this was not caused by you and therefore must have been caused by the courier?

If I am understanding that right I can not see why you are obstructing the claim against the courier - it is clear is it not that the second fault was caused by them?

The first fault is surely by the by now it's been damaged by the courier? Just because there was already an issue does not mean the courier can cause further damage. Arguably the retailer was in a position to fix the first fault or might have even been about to claim against the courier for the first fault. But it's arrived back with them in an unexpected comdition at the hands of you and the courier.

No idea why you would want to obstruct that.

takman

Hatamoto wrote: »

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?

Let's look at this from the point of view of the retailer.

They send you an item which you then tell them is internally broken and want a refund. So you send them it back and they receive it with damage on the outide. So because you never mentioned damage on the outside they think it's caused by the courier so ask you to make a claim.

You refuse to make a claim and say it would be "fraud". Well if your not willing to make a claim then it's fair to assume you have broken it. So I'm not surprised they said that to you!.

You then stupidly go and tell the courier that they wanted you to make a fraudulent claim. So this has thrown away any chance you have to get your money back!.

All you had to do was send the photos provided to the courier and tell them the item arrived with external damage. If they asked why you were sending the item back you just say "I was sending it back because it was internally faulty for a full refund, but the external damage has meant they will not be able to determine the cause of the fault and can't refund me".

So there would have been no fraud and all you had to do was be honest with the courier.

But instead you have just thrown away hundreds of pounds by being difficult!

Hatamoto

Thanks for all the excellent comments again, this is exactly why I love this forum.

Views appear to be mixed and balanced, which is as I thought they would be.