Sent Nintendo switch for repair - nintendo said they received empty box and refusing to help

System

What you are doing would provide zero proof should there be a claim.

What would stop me filming myself putting something in a box then as soon as I stop filming, open the box, take the item out, reseal it and then post it off?

Because the recorded/pictured weight of the item on the scales would match/approximate the weight received on a Royal Mail receipt. I got the idea of doing it when reading a Guardian Consumer Champions story about an eBayer who sold an expensive guitar and whose recipient said "they had received an empty box".

System

Further to that, by the way, I always tape up all sides of the box and take photos/videos of that. Bit excessive but only, as noted, for high value items.

Labsuper

vsman1 wrote: »

Because the recorded/pictured weight of the item on the scales would match/approximate the weight received on a Royal Mail receipt. I got the idea of doing it when reading a Guardian Consumer Champions story about an eBayer who sold an expensive guitar and whose recipient said "they had received an empty box".

Did the OP send it by Royal Mail?


There was no weight on the receipt.


The receiver of the parcel has filmed the 'empty' parcel being opened.


How would EU consumer law help here in this case?

DoaM

Labsuper wrote: »

How would EU consumer law help here in this case?

Ouch .

powerful_Rogue

vsman1 wrote: »

Because the recorded/pictured weight of the item on the scales would match/approximate the weight received on a Royal Mail receipt. I got the idea of doing it when reading a Guardian Consumer Champions story about an eBayer who sold an expensive guitar and whose recipient said "they had received an empty box".

But you could fill it with a load of newspapers/bricks to match the weight.

DoaM

Whilst the actions mentioned are somewhat overkill, the intention (video evidence) is still valid. Any claim in relation to the goods would be a civil claim, not criminal. Therefore a judge would decide "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e. more likely than not). Such video evidence may be sufficient to persuade a judge to find in your favour.

In other words ... vsman1's advice in the other thread may be "mince", but it's perfectly OK here.

Labsuper

DoaM wrote: »

Whilst the actions mentioned are somewhat overkill, the intention (video evidence) is still valid. Any claim in relation to the goods would be a civil claim, not criminal. Therefore a judge would decide "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e. more likely than not). Such video evidence may be sufficient to persuade a judge to find in your favour.

In other words ... vsman1's advice in the other thread may be "mince", but it's perfectly OK here.

..it proves zilch though and that's the real point that is/should be made?

System

In other words ... vsman1's advice in the other thread may be "mince", but it's perfectly OK here

.

Why was my advice "mince"? Are you also under the impression that the UK isn't in the EU? I think I may have ruffled quite a few Brexiter feathers today eh

System

.it proves zilch though and that's the real point that is/should be made?

To you maybe, not to me. Have a lovely evening

powerful_Rogue

vsman1 wrote: »

To you maybe, not to me. Have a lovely evening

In fairness, i've just read that thread and you have posted nothing but nonsense. Luckily there are a lot of clued up people on here that have corrected your ramblings.