Parcel has not been delivered, Amex refuses charge back as DPD sent pic of wrong house as proof

jon81uk

David713 said:

jon81uk said:

marlot said:

I had a similar issue with DPD, but fortunately the resident of the other house was out, so the parcel wasn't delivered.
It was really, really hard to get in touch with DPD to get them to deliver to the right house.

If you are the recipient you shouldn't get in touch with DPD. The contract is between the sender and DPD and it is up to the sender to ensure the goods reach the recipient.

I've never understood why some people are so adamant that people expecting packages shouldn't try to get in touch with the delivery agent simply because it's the retailers job to do this.
Yes, you can insist on the retailer sorting everything out but getting hold of them then waiting for them to get the right people to contact the courier could well take far longer then you going directly to the courier yourself and asking if the delivery can be attempted again.

IMO, it's not really that different to having faulty goods and you want to exercise your CRA rights but when contacting the retailer, they want you to get hold of the manufacturer to arrange for those goods to be repaired or collected.
Yes, you could refuse to do this and insist that the retailer arranges everything or you could make a phone call or e-mail the manufacturer yourself, something that may speed up the process.

If it’s just a simple requesting a redelivery as you were out the first time then yes makes sense for the recipient to sort it. But if something has gone wrong then it is the retailers responsibility to fix it. You pay for the goods to be delivered to you and they need to come through with that.

pbartlett

.... plus the fact that it takes your eye off the ball chasing DPD etc - you should be concentrating on the retailer asking where your purchase is. Leave DPD to the retailer - they are DPD's customer, not you.

Manxman_in_exile

born_again said:

Chargeback's work on the basis that the goods were not delivered. They were. The fact that it was the wrong address makes no difference. 
Retailer has contested on the basis they have proof of delivery, from courier.

Plain and simple. Chargebacks are over and above your consumer rights and based on card issuers terms. 

So sadly all of you saying to prove it was wrong address are barking up the wrong tree. Even a complaint will make no difference, as chargeback is based on card providers regulations.

OP has to chase retailer.

So are you saying that chargeback is not applicable so long as the goods have been "delivered" - even though the retailer (or their agent) has clearly "delivered" the goods to the wrong recipient and wrong address?

"Chargeback's work on the basis that the goods were not delivered..."  I would think it was stretching the definition of "delivered" to say that leaving it at some address not connected with the addressee qualified as a delivery.

It's an interesting contrast with that other case last month(?) where someone bought something online but inadvertantly gave the wrong address.  The goods were apparently (it wasn't 100% clear what happened) left outside the front door of the wrong address, which was the one the purchaser had supplied, and then went AWOL.

Most posters here thought it was clearly the OP's fault for supplying the wrong address in the first place but, IIRC, unholy_angel said that the statutory position was quite clear and that the retailer was obliged to deliver the goods to the correct purchaser/recipient even if they had given the wrong address.  (I think most people here were surprised by that view - I was - but unholy_angel was quite clear that it was still the retailer's responsibility to deliver the goods into the possession of the addressee, and delivering it to anyone else - not nominated by the addressee - did not meet that obligation).

I'm not disagreeing that chargeback terms are set by the banks (or card issuers) but if they are using the meaning of "delivery" as you suggest, it seems a bit perverse to me.  If I was buying something and the terms were "payment on delivery" I don't think I'd be obliged to pay up if the goods in question were wrongly left with an unknown third party at an unknown address.  "Delivery" implies a sense of completion in that it has been delivered to the correct recipient at the correct address - not just "left" somewhere else.

(Prompted to post this having just listened to an incessant and really annoying radio advert paid for by Visa extolling the virtues of chargeback as being the best banking product since... well - everything really... )

Manxman_in_exile

bjaich said:

• DPD driver phoned, explained that he delivered to wrong address and enquired, if item has in the meantime been received, which unfortunately has not the case.

...

I'm a bit puzzled that the driver would 'phone the OP and ask if the "delivery" had turned up.

It seems a bit of a pointless thing to ask.  I mean, what did he intend to say (and what did he actually say!) when the OP replied "What do you mean - you left it at the wrong house?!  No - it's not been received!  What are you doing to put this right?!"

If he knew it was the wrong address, why leave it there?

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

Chargeback's work on the basis that the goods were not delivered. They were. The fact that it was the wrong address makes no difference. 
Retailer has contested on the basis they have proof of delivery, from courier.

Plain and simple. Chargebacks are over and above your consumer rights and based on card issuers terms. 

So sadly all of you saying to prove it was wrong address are barking up the wrong tree. Even a complaint will make no difference, as chargeback is based on card providers regulations.

OP has to chase retailer.

So are you saying that chargeback is not applicable so long as the goods have been "delivered" - even though the retailer (or their agent) has clearly "delivered" the goods to the wrong recipient and wrong address?

"Chargeback's work on the basis that the goods were not delivered..."  I would think it was stretching the definition of "delivered" to say that leaving it at some address not connected with the addressee qualified as a delivery.

It's an interesting contrast with that other case last month(?) where someone bought something online but inadvertantly gave the wrong address.  The goods were apparently (it wasn't 100% clear what happened) left outside the front door of the wrong address, which was the one the purchaser had supplied, and then went AWOL.

Most posters here thought it was clearly the OP's fault for supplying the wrong address in the first place but, IIRC, unholy_angel said that the statutory position was quite clear and that the retailer was obliged to deliver the goods to the correct purchaser/recipient even if they had given the wrong address.  (I think most people here were surprised by that view - I was - but unholy_angel was quite clear that it was still the retailer's responsibility to deliver the goods into the possession of the addressee, and delivering it to anyone else - not nominated by the addressee - did not meet that obligation).

I'm not disagreeing that chargeback terms are set by the banks (or card issuers) but if they are using the meaning of "delivery" as you suggest, it seems a bit perverse to me.  If I was buying something and the terms were "payment on delivery" I don't think I'd be obliged to pay up if the goods in question were wrongly left with an unknown third party at an unknown address.  "Delivery" implies a sense of completion in that it has been delivered to the correct recipient at the correct address - not just "left" somewhere else.

(Prompted to post this having just listened to an incessant and really annoying radio advert paid for by Visa extolling the virtues of chargeback as being the best banking product since... well - everything really... )

As I said Chargebacks are over & above your legal rights. 
So they are fair to both parties. If retailer can prove delivery, then that is the end of the matter & you are down to you legal rights

Which is why I posted this, as I could see the OP raising a complaint and wasting yet more time & stress in the wrong direction.

Card protection has changed a lot in the last years. From the old Maestro days with 3 chargebacks (non of which would have covered this) to now with so many. But they are no substitute for your legal consumer rights.

Jenni_D

I think the point being raised is the interpretation of "delivered" ... a parcel being left at an address with no connection whatsoever to the intended recipient cannot in any way have been delivered - in fact a closer definition would be "dumped".

I guess we're just surprised that the chargeback process accepts dumped as a valid definition of delivered. 🤷‍♀️

born_again

Jenni_D said:

I think the point being raised is the interpretation of "delivered" ... a parcel being left at an address with no connection whatsoever to the intended recipient cannot in any way have been delivered - in fact a closer definition would be "dumped".

I guess we're just surprised that the chargeback process accepts dumped as a valid definition of delivered. 🤷‍♀️

A picture of a package on a doorstep is standard now. Even before it used to be a picture of a door, once passed to someone. So it is not just "Dumped"
I know from DPD deliveries. When I go out to get them from the driver, they place them at my feet and take a pick of package & my feet.

People need to remember that a chargeback is not a god given right to their money back when the other party can prove their point.

Manxman_in_exile

Jenni_D said:

I think the point being raised is the interpretation of "delivered" ... a parcel being left at an address with no connection whatsoever to the intended recipient cannot in any way have been delivered - in fact a closer definition would be "dumped".

I guess we're just surprised that the chargeback process accepts dumped as a valid definition of delivered. 🤷‍♀️

Yeah - that is my point - although I'd prefer "left" to "dumped".

On that basis, the courier could leave goods at their own address and that would mean that chargeback would not apply as the goods had been "delivered".  It seems to me to be twisting both the english language and the natural meaning of the word to suggest that leaving a parcel at the wrong address could equate to being "delivered" - especially when the courier knows it's the wrong address.

Manxman_in_exile

Well the site guide needs to be clarified then as amongst the items covered by chargeback it includes:

"Non-delivery – the goods you've paid for were not received as promised and the company refuses to refund you."

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/

That certainly seems to say that chargeback applies if the goods are "not received as promised... "   Surely part of that promise is to deliver goods to the right person at the right address?

mikb

born_again said:

Jenni_D said:

I think the point being raised is the interpretation of "delivered" ... a parcel being left at an address with no connection whatsoever to the intended recipient cannot in any way have been delivered - in fact a closer definition would be "dumped".

I guess we're just surprised that the chargeback process accepts dumped as a valid definition of delivered. 🤷‍♀️

A picture of a package on a doorstep is standard now. Even before it used to be a picture of a door, once passed to someone. So it is not just "Dumped"

Hmmm. A picture of a package on a doorstep you say? That's not useful if it's not my package on my doorstep.

Otherwise, following that logic, one "proof of delivery" picture is all that is needed for everything posted, forever

My package on someone else's doorstep: Not delivered. Misdelivered. Abandoned. Generously gifted to stranger. Dumped.