Company claim item not received, won't refund

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

custardy said:

Undervalued said:

The normal presumption in English civil law is that correctly addressed mail is delivered.

So, assuming you have proof of posting, if this went to court they would have a devil of a job to persuade the judge (on the balance of probabilities) that they didn't receive it.

Its beyond that. OP has proof of Tracked return for a label supplied by the business. All they had to do is post it,arrival is not on them.

Given the tracking doesn't demonstrate specifically where the item was delivered (I'm aware GPS data can be available but the OP advises they've left it a week) and a pre-paid return label can be amended I would hope both the small claims or chargeback process would follow the cancellation regs to the letter and not take vague tracking information as certain proof of the retailer having received the goods:

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34/made

(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.

It is a civil matter, the OP doesn't need "certain proof". They only need evidence to convince a court (if it gets that far) "on the balance of probabilities" ( i.e 51% ). Evidence that a correctly addressed item was posted is normally sufficient for that purpose.

Which would be proof of posting?

It's semantics, the tracking doesn't provide 51% proof either. 

DoaM

It provides proof that something was posted ... it even provides proof that this something was received at the address. Either way it provides what the OP needs in terms of a civil claim to meet the 51% bar. Furthermore, the fact that the shipping label was supplied by the seller is a bonus as the seller cannot accuse the consumer of sending the goods to the wrong address.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DoaM said:

It provides proof that something was posted ... it even provides proof that this something was received at the address. Either way it provides what the OP needs in terms of a civil claim to meet the 51% bar. Furthermore, the fact that the shipping label was supplied by the seller is a bonus as the seller cannot accuse the consumer of sending the goods to the wrong address.

It's possible to commit fraud with a returns label and more common with a high risk item such as a phone (FYI I'm not passing any judgement on the OP). 

Royal Mail tracking doesn't provide proof the item was delivered to a specific address, typically only that it was delivered from a certain delivery office. 

Also worth noting, the advice here when a buyer says tracking shows delivery yet they haven't got the goods is ultimately to take the retailer to small claims as the passing of risk hasn't occurred, which would be a pointless action if the tracking alone met 51% probability. 

Regarding small claims it may well depend on the day but I don't think the tracking alone proves the retailer has received the return at all. 

DoaM

As the seller engaged the returns process then the risk still lies with the seller ... the tracking shows that something was sent per the engaged returns process. The balance of probabilities is that the consumer returned the noted goods; the seller would need to prove that the consumer returned something else - or nothing at all - to be able to pass the risk back to the consumer.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

DoaM said:

As the seller engaged the returns process then the risk still lies with the seller ... the tracking shows that something was sent per the engaged returns process. The balance of probabilities is that the consumer returned the noted goods; the seller would need to prove that the consumer returned something else - or nothing at all - to be able to pass the risk back to the consumer.

The burden of responsibility regarding return is placed upon the retailer (regardless of who arranges the return) and so the caveat is given that the retailer must refund within 14 days of the consumer supplying evidence of having sent the goods back (to prevent a retailer from passing responsibility by simply stating they haven't received them) but the consumer is bound to return them in accordance with:


www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/35/made

(3) The address to which goods must be sent under paragraph (2)(a) is—

(a)any address specified by the trader for sending the goods back;

(b)if no address is specified for that purpose, any address specified by the trader for the consumer to contact the trader;

(c)if no address is specified for either of those purposes, any place of business of the trader.

The only way* the consumer can demonstrate this with Royal Mail is proof of posting which will show the postcode and house number (or similar), otherwise there is nothing stopping the consumer from sending something to any old address under the same delivery office area.

 *There can be GPS data which would typically give a definitive answer but that won't apply now in this specific instance.

I agree the seller supplying the label gives weight to the consumers stance but it is open to abuse. 

The OP should have a COP any way but it's important to note for anyone reading that the seller giving a label doesn't mean it isn't prudent to obtain evidence the goods have gone back to the correct address, otherwise I don't see how the consumer can demonstrate with certainty (or rather 51%) that they have complied with the above clause from the legislation given that 51% is subject to someone's view and the retailer may make a well formed argument against the consumer.

mr.red

Spoke to the shop owner over the phone today from Boxed Tech, to be fair couldn't have asked for a more approachable chap.  We've managed to get it sorted and it turned up. Went to a forwarding unit further down the street for some reason.

Thank you again for all the advice. I've book marked it for future reference.