Problem with beelivery and inadequate refund - what can I do?

Hannimal

ThisnotThat said:

Hannimal said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm a bit confused?  (Don't do this shopping by delivery thing).

Are you saying you ordered particular items at a particular price, but they replaced some of those items with cheaper or smaller/lighter items, yet still charged you for the more expensive items they did not deliver?  If their T&Cs allow them to do that I'd steer well clear of them.

Also - when you say "the driver picks up the shop", do they only collect it or do they select it too?

Sorry if these are stupid questions but as I say, I'm not really at all familiar with this.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Across the whole shop, around half the items were replaced by smaller packaging size. 

The drivers select the shop from the grocery store. The concept is good if drivers are honest as you can do an "emergency" shop without going to the supermarket. I don't drive so this would be ideal for me but the dishonesty makes the service not worthwhile.

Your questions are not stupid, I was probably being a bit unclear. 

The packaging sizes are barely different and so this smells a lot like the retailer in question stocking smaller sizes than a deliberate attempt by the delivery driver to pick smaller sizes to get one up on you.

Seems like the issue is that their page hasn't been updated to take this into account, but if the retailer didn't stock those sizes it's a moot point.

That's not how this service works. They don't have a shop. Their drivers do a shop in whichever grocery store they decide and then deliver to you. This shop was carried out in a large ASDA store. I don't want to blame anyone for anything as I cannot be sure, but I really suspect that there are larger packs of salad at the ASDA but the driver gets to keep a part of the difference between what I am charged and they pay for the items. 

The pack sizes are substantiall different. For example, the chicken, stir fry veg and the salad packages were ~75% of what I ordered, therefore providing one fewer meal for our family. That's a quarter of each of those items missing. The Bailey's chocolate was 138g, so on top of being unacceptable to substitue an alcohol free product, it was also nearly 50% smaller. Now if this was just 1-2 products on a large shop this would be imho very much acceptable. Any single one of these alone would be okay, but we are now talking about more than half of my shop being substituted to smaller products. 

A part of the business model is that the prices are already inflated so that you're paying extra for the products. The stir fry for example cost me £1.50, the stir-fry that was delivered retails at £1. There are larger packets of 320g that also retail at £1 in Asda and a 600g for £1.50. I paid £1.90 for the salad. The same salad at Asda retails at £1.50 but the smaller packet size is £0.90. This is going on throughout the shop when I look at the prices. It would be understandable and reasonable for one or two items, but this was the case for over half of my grocery shop, making it seem deliberate. This "adjustment" in packaging size was not reflected on what I had been charged and I very much doubt the larger package sizes were all sold out at Asda. 

Hannimal

Diamandis said:

Hannimal said:

Diamandis said:

If you didnt want substitutions then you select that when you're checking out. Its probably a bit unreasonable to expect them to know you were buying Belgian chocolate for a child. Is the actual value of all the items £19.50 on their site? So its £2.50 you're looking for?

I understand that they didn't think I was looking for Belgian chocolate but to substitute with alcohol for an order that contained no alcohol is weird. 

I would be happy with £15 to cover the items I couldn't use and the inconvenience. The substitutions across the shop were smaller and cheaper, which makes me feel like I have been conned. 

I paid £19.50 for the items where I was unhappy with substitutions (e.g. fruit replaced with peas and carrot and smaller packet sizes). I don't know where the £2.50 is coming from.

You said "The overall value of substituted items was around £25, the value of susbtituted items listed above is around £19.50." You also said they are giving you £3.

Can you clarify what this actually means?

What is the £15 you want for exactly?

Sorry if I am not being clear. So Overall the value of the items I ordered but received a substitute for was £25. Of these, some of the substitutions I thought were reasonable. However, of the value of £19.50 of things I ordered were substituted for smaller packaging sizes or products that do not serve the same purpose (fruit to peas and carrots, alcohol in a product when we do not use alcohol). 

The £15 reflects a reasonable adjustment to my overall bill, as I did receive some things but in smaller pack sizes. It is just a figure I think is reasonable as some of those items I could use - I could use the veg but I had to buy more - some of them I don't know what to do with, like the chocolates and the peas and carrots, so I will probably just give them away on our neighbourhood group. That £15 would cover the cost of the items I will not use and reflect the reduction in package size for the other items. 

kazwookie

Well you will know for next time not to order from them.

Hannimal

kazwookie said:

Well you will know for next time not to order from them.

Ditto! Shame it's not helping me now. 

It's not even as much the money, it's the principle. Feeling like I have been conned. 

ThisnotThat

Hannimal said:

ThisnotThat said:

Hannimal said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm a bit confused?  (Don't do this shopping by delivery thing).

Are you saying you ordered particular items at a particular price, but they replaced some of those items with cheaper or smaller/lighter items, yet still charged you for the more expensive items they did not deliver?  If their T&Cs allow them to do that I'd steer well clear of them.

Also - when you say "the driver picks up the shop", do they only collect it or do they select it too?

Sorry if these are stupid questions but as I say, I'm not really at all familiar with this.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Across the whole shop, around half the items were replaced by smaller packaging size. 

The drivers select the shop from the grocery store. The concept is good if drivers are honest as you can do an "emergency" shop without going to the supermarket. I don't drive so this would be ideal for me but the dishonesty makes the service not worthwhile.

Your questions are not stupid, I was probably being a bit unclear. 

The packaging sizes are barely different and so this smells a lot like the retailer in question stocking smaller sizes than a deliberate attempt by the delivery driver to pick smaller sizes to get one up on you.

Seems like the issue is that their page hasn't been updated to take this into account, but if the retailer didn't stock those sizes it's a moot point.

That's not how this service works. They don't have a shop. Their drivers do a shop in whichever grocery store they decide and then deliver to you. This shop was carried out in a large ASDA store. I don't want to blame anyone for anything as I cannot be sure, but I really suspect that there are larger packs of salad at the ASDA but the driver gets to keep a part of the difference between what I am charged and they pay for the items. 

The pack sizes are substantiall different. For example, the chicken, stir fry veg and the salad packages were ~75% of what I ordered, therefore providing one fewer meal for our family. That's a quarter of each of those items missing. The Bailey's chocolate was 138g, so on top of being unacceptable to substitue an alcohol free product, it was also nearly 50% smaller. Now if this was just 1-2 products on a large shop this would be imho very much acceptable. Any single one of these alone would be okay, but we are now talking about more than half of my shop being substituted to smaller products. 

A part of the business model is that the prices are already inflated so that you're paying extra for the products. The stir fry for example cost me £1.50, the stir-fry that was delivered retails at £1. There are larger packets of 320g that also retail at £1 in Asda and a 600g for £1.50. I paid £1.90 for the salad. The same salad at Asda retails at £1.50 but the smaller packet size is £0.90. This is going on throughout the shop when I look at the prices. It would be understandable and reasonable for one or two items, but this was the case for over half of my grocery shop, making it seem deliberate. This "adjustment" in packaging size was not reflected on what I had been charged and I very much doubt the larger package sizes were all sold out at Asda. 

I'm well aware how the system works thank you.

Do you really believe that Asda stock both 190g and 170g packs of Haribo Supermix?  There's barely any difference in size, it's utterly pointless to stock both sizes.

The delivery driver is obviously going to pick a substitution that costs less than the original item or they're potentially going to be out of pocket.  It's unreasonable to expect them to foot the bill because the shop hasn't got a particular item in a particular size.

The driver did as requested, it appears you didn't understand what you were agreeing to.

Next time order home delivery from Asda themselves, at least that way you'll get to reject their substitutions.

Hannimal

No I wouldn't expect them to foot the bill but this is accounted for in the business model. As I said, 1 or 2 of these substitutions would be absolutely okay - as is with the haribo sweets or the spread. But this is 50% of my shop deducted in size without adjusting what I have been charged. Some items being 50% smaller than what I ordered, like the chocolates. In case of the Haribo for example, I paid more than 2x what the cost of the actual product in Asda is. So while I am okay with the substitution, I could be reimbursed for a percentage of the cost. I do agree with you though that the Haribo isn't a problem per se, it is just that this is a problem across almost my entire shop. Not just one or two items. 

Hannimal

Also in several instances a bigger size product would still not have either matched what I paid on the website in price or cost less than I paid for the driver. I also paid for delivery. They should either charge more on their website and make sure they can meet the order or they should reimburse when they under deliver. 

Undervalued

With some of the substitutions you list e.g.

- 1 x HARIBO Supermix Bag 190g was substituted to 175g

- 1 x Lotus Biscoff Spread 400g was substituted to 380g

It seems hard to believe that any shop would stock both of each item given how small the weight difference is? 

So is this a substitution problem at all or more an issue with the information on a website?

Are you really saying that, had you been in the shop, you would have noticed and agonised over the difference between a 400g jar of spread and a 380g one?

Errors happen, for example "subsituted" (sic) is spelt wrongly six times in your original post!

ThisnotThat

Hannimal said:

No I wouldn't expect them to foot the bill but this is accounted for in the business model. As I said, 1 or 2 of these substitutions would be absolutely okay - as is with the haribo sweets or the spread. But this is 50% of my shop deducted in size without adjusting what I have been charged. Some items being 50% smaller than what I ordered, like the chocolates. In case of the Haribo for example, I paid more than 2x what the cost of the actual product in Asda is. So while I am okay with the substitution, I could be reimbursed for a percentage of the cost. I do agree with you though that the Haribo isn't a problem per se, it is just that this is a problem across almost my entire shop. Not just one or two items. 

It's not. The delivery driver is the one footing the bill, not the company.  They don't have the time to start balancing out the shop so you get roughly the equivalent value to what you paid, nor the inclination.

You paid someone to get you certain items with the caveat they could substitute them if they were not available. They did exactly what you paid them for.  The substitutions are hardly unreasonable either

Hannimal

Undervalued said:

With some of the substitutions you list e.g.

- 1 x HARIBO Supermix Bag 190g was substituted to 175g

- 1 x Lotus Biscoff Spread 400g was substituted to 380g

It seems hard to believe that any shop would stock both of each item given how small the weight difference is? 

So is this a substitution problem at all or more an issue with the information on a website?

Are you really saying that, had you been in the shop, you would have noticed and agonised over the difference between a 400g jar of spread and a 380g one?

Errors happen, for example "subsituted" (sic) is spelt wrongly six times in your original post!

Sorry, I am not a native speaker. I did not realise that I would be scrutinised so harshly for my spelling. I have not conned anyone just because I didn't know how this word is spelled. I have no googled it. Sorry that my inadequate English is causing you agony.

As I have said several times, the biscoff spread and haribo bag would have been acceptable substitutions. However, in the context of over half my shop having been substituted and vast majority of the shop being substituted for smaller packaging, it is a little disingenious. You have picked these two products but as you can see from the others, some of them are nearly 50% smaller than what I ordered. For some products to be changed this would be okay and understandable but downgrading almost all substitutions without reflecting this in the price I pay is not okay. 

Again, I apologise if I am spelling something to a standard of English you are not happy with. I hope this doesn't upset you too much. I know how difficult it is for some people to accept the diversity now in this country and I know a lot of people on this forum do not like us foreigners being here. I did not mean to upset you with this nor did I intend for it to be relevant to this post.