TV lost in transit

theonlywayisup

AndyMc..... wrote: »

That is correct, however it hasn’t been returned to the seller.

Not quite. The Consumer Contracts Regs state that as Amazon didn't offer to collect the goods then section 34(5)(b) should apply:

Reimbursement by trader in the event of withdrawal or cancellation

34.—(1) The trader must reimburse all payments, other than payments for delivery, received from the consumer, subject to paragraph (10).

(2) The trader must reimburse any payment for delivery received from the consumer, unless the consumer expressly chose a kind of delivery costing more than the least expensive common and generally acceptable kind of delivery offered by the trader.

(3) In that case, the trader must reimburse any payment for delivery received from the consumer up to the amount the consumer would have paid if the consumer had chosen the least expensive common and generally acceptable kind of delivery offered by the trader.

(4) Reimbursement must be without undue delay, and in any event not later than the time specified in paragraph (5) or (6).

(5) If the contract is a sales contract and the trader has not offered to collect the goods, the time is the end of 14 days after—

(a)the day on which the trader receives the goods back, or
(b)if earlier, the day on which the consumer supplies evidence of having sent the goods back.

theonlywayisup

That said. You will probably lose your Amazon account if you try to challenge Amazon.

Ultimately you did a few things wrong. Firstly you should have persevered with Amazon and ensured they handled the return. It matters not if it was a warehouse deal or standard purchase. The item was faulty beyond that as advertised.

Secondly, if you were intent on handling the return you know you should have used a service that ensured it was fully covered/compensated and you didn't. Morally I think you should be taking the blame for this and learning an expensive lesson.

munchpot

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Read the OP, the item was faulty, not "damaged".

All this is moot now. The item is lost.

Wow! I did read the OP and it didn't state anything about what they told Amazon, which is why I thought I'd ask.

Obviously that either offended you or you decided it was too dumb a question to ask to provoke your response.

unholyangel

flashbang24 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, MI, never again!

Transpires that TV's are an "excluded item" and can't be insured anyway. I do wonder just how a 49" TV goes missing though...

You should be able to claim for negligence/breach of contract.

Having insurance in case the item gets damaged through no fault of the couriers own is one thing, but losing a flipping 49" tv? They cannot have disclaimers/terms that allow them to be negligent with impunity.

Crazy_Jamie

unholyangel wrote: »

You should be able to claim for negligence/breach of contract.

Having insurance in case the item gets damaged through no fault of the couriers own is one thing, but losing a flipping 49" tv? They cannot have disclaimers/terms that allow them to be negligent with impunity.

I agree. There will be an implied term in the contract that they have to undertake their duties with reasonable skill and care, which I cannot imagine was been complied with given that they have lost a television. That's the contractual route, but the nature of the contract is such that they would also become a bailee of the television whilst it is in transit, and they owe equivalent duties as a bailee under the law of bailment. Either way, they cannot blankly limit their liability for such negligence as has already been said. I'd pursue this directly with the courier company.

pinkshoes

I also agree with unholyangel, and remember a case on here a couple of years ago where someone got a payout for negligence on a lost item.

You are not asking them to pay out for a broken item. It was broken already, but they have failed to deliver it so have negligently lost it.

On the other hand, the lack of sufficient insurance might (probably will) go against you here. I'm not sure if higher insured items are treated differently to cheap items, but regardless of whether it was an excluded item or not, it was insufficiently insured for its value.

AndyMc.....

pinkshoes wrote: »

I also agree with unholyangel, and remember a case on here a couple of years ago where someone got a payout for negligence on a lost item.

You are not asking them to pay out for a broken item. It was broken already, but they have failed to deliver it so have negligently lost it.

On the other hand, the lack of sufficient insurance might (probably will) go against you here. I'm not sure if higher insured items are treated differently to cheap items, but regardless of whether it was an excluded item or not, it was insufficiently insured for its value.

Why? Insurance status should have no bearing.

flashbang24

Thank you all for your input this evening. I'll ensure I keep the thread alive with updates in due course.

Thanks again.

wesleyad

I agree, firstly amazon should have sorted returns for a faulty item (but probably too late now to pursue this).

Secondly the courier an't just shrug and so whoops. If insurance can't even be taken on a TV whats to stop every tv the courier ships "going missing" and they only having to pay £25.

swabaxter

Amazon warehouse items are generally fully functional but I have experienced a minority of items that are defective. As an Amazon Prime customer I always have the option of a free return with pickup organised by Amazon. I don't recall you stating if you have Prime or not.

It is imperative to have an item adequately covered for loss or damage and I would recommend ParcelForce for a large item like a TV which they offer a pickup service for.