DPD Investigation

TQred

Hi all, first time poster, so if I’ve made any errors, please tell me and I’ll correct.

I ordered something online and selected a safe place for it to be left. The safe place is secure. The DPD driver didn’t leave it in the safe place, instead leaving it in open view and access for anyone. The item is high value, sold out at most retailers and the packaging was plastered in the product logo. DPD’s own photo provides evidence that it wasn’t delivered as instructed. 

On returning home,  the parcel wasn’t there. I reported this to the seller who then reported it to DPD. The seller said that I could not have a replacement or refund until DPD had done their investigation. 

DPD’s behaviour has been in my opinion harassment. The driver has vitiated my home on four occasions that I know of asking if I’ve seen the parcel. Am I sure I haven’t seen the parcel. If this isn’t an accusation then I don’t know what is. I’ve had phone calls from managers asking the same question. 

Now I recieved a letter from a company called Moratorium, claiming to be working on behalf of DPD. The letter is asking me to sign to confirm that I haven’t received the item. I don’t have a problem signing one of these form. Although, I would rather the form be from the seller seen as I am their customer and my contract is held with them. The problem with this form from Moratorium is, there are no contact details, I can’t find the company online, there’s no return address (just a PO Box) the letter is not signed by anyone. Just Moratorium. The form even contains a mistake. The delivery date they reference is incorrect. In most cases I would just contact them to query this, by there’s no contact details. Has anyone ever experienced this Moratorium before? 

I strongly suspect that is DPD posing as a bogus company, trying to smoke out any false claim. Maybe I’m wrong. However, I would like the for to be corrected before I sign it. When I made the seller aware, they said that it legit, so sign it anyway. 

Aylesbury_Duck

TQred said:

Hi all, first time poster, so if I’ve made any errors, please tell me and I’ll correct.

I ordered something online and selected a safe place for it to be left. The safe place is secure. The DPD driver didn’t leave it in the safe place, instead leaving it in open view and access for anyone. The item is high value, sold out at most retailers and the packaging was plastered in the product logo. DPD’s own photo provides evidence that it wasn’t delivered as instructed. 

On returning home,  the parcel wasn’t there. I reported this to the seller who then reported it to DPD. The seller said that I could not have a replacement or refund until DPD had done their investigation. 

DPD’s behaviour has been in my opinion harassment. The driver has vitiated my home on four occasions that I know of asking if I’ve seen the parcel. Am I sure I haven’t seen the parcel. If this isn’t an accusation then I don’t know what is. I’ve had phone calls from managers asking the same question. 

Now I recieved a letter from a company called Moratorium, claiming to be working on behalf of DPD. The letter is asking me to sign to confirm that I haven’t received the item. I don’t have a problem signing one of these form. Although, I would rather the form be from the seller seen as I am their customer and my contract is held with them. The problem with this form from Moratorium is, there are no contact details, I can’t find the company online, there’s no return address (just a PO Box) the letter is not signed by anyone. Just Moratorium. The form even contains a mistake. The delivery date they reference is incorrect. In most cases I would just contact them to query this, by there’s no contact details. Has anyone ever experienced this Moratorium before? 

I strongly suspect that is DPD posing as a bogus company, trying to smoke out any false claim. Maybe I’m wrong. However, I would like the for to be corrected before I sign it. When I made the seller aware, they said that it legit, so sign it anyway. 

I'll take a guess that this is a console?

Anyway, who is the retailer?  As you say, your contract is with them, so you could decide to deal with them and them only.  However, that will probably delay things further, so I don't see you losing anything by cooperating with DPD and this Moratorium outfit.  Presumably you paid by credit or debit card?  In which case, you have another avenue to pursue there if needs be.

Put the alleged harassment matter to one side.  It doesn't sound like an accusation, and so what if it is?  DPD are entitled to ask if it's turned up.

TQred

Aylesbury_Duck said:

TQred said:

Hi all, first time poster, so if I’ve made any errors, please tell me and I’ll correct.

I ordered something online and selected a safe place for it to be left. The safe place is secure. The DPD driver didn’t leave it in the safe place, instead leaving it in open view and access for anyone. The item is high value, sold out at most retailers and the packaging was plastered in the product logo. DPD’s own photo provides evidence that it wasn’t delivered as instructed. 

On returning home,  the parcel wasn’t there. I reported this to the seller who then reported it to DPD. The seller said that I could not have a replacement or refund until DPD had done their investigation. 

DPD’s behaviour has been in my opinion harassment. The driver has vitiated my home on four occasions that I know of asking if I’ve seen the parcel. Am I sure I haven’t seen the parcel. If this isn’t an accusation then I don’t know what is. I’ve had phone calls from managers asking the same question. 

Now I recieved a letter from a company called Moratorium, claiming to be working on behalf of DPD. The letter is asking me to sign to confirm that I haven’t received the item. I don’t have a problem signing one of these form. Although, I would rather the form be from the seller seen as I am their customer and my contract is held with them. The problem with this form from Moratorium is, there are no contact details, I can’t find the company online, there’s no return address (just a PO Box) the letter is not signed by anyone. Just Moratorium. The form even contains a mistake. The delivery date they reference is incorrect. In most cases I would just contact them to query this, by there’s no contact details. Has anyone ever experienced this Moratorium before? 

I strongly suspect that is DPD posing as a bogus company, trying to smoke out any false claim. Maybe I’m wrong. However, I would like the for to be corrected before I sign it. When I made the seller aware, they said that it legit, so sign it anyway. 

I'll take a guess that this is a console?

Anyway, who is the retailer?  As you say, your contract is with them, so you could decide to deal with them and them only.  However, that will probably delay things further, so I don't see you losing anything by cooperating with DPD and this Moratorium outfit.  Presumably you paid by credit or debit card?  In which case, you have another avenue to pursue there if needs be.

Put the alleged harassment matter to one side.  It doesn't sound like an accusation, and so what if it is?  DPD are entitled to ask if it's turned up.

Hi and thanks for your reply. The whole thing has taken a month before I even received the form from moratorium. That is with me cooperating with DPD. All I’ve really said is that I won’t sign the form with incorrect info. I have no way of contacting them to correct this and the seller didn’t acknowledge this when I reported it to them. 

I paid via PayPal and I already opened a case. Unfortunately, PayPal sided with the seller because they provided a tracking number. Even though I was able to provide evidence showing detailed photographic evidence of where DPD left it and where it should of been left. According to PayPal, a tracking number is sufficient enough to prove the seller has fulfilled their contract with me. 

In regards to DPD’s behaviour. I don’t expect the driver to visit my home and become confrontational with me on numerous accessions. Although, I can put this to one side like you suggest  

Aylesbury_Duck

I had hoped you hadn't payed by PayPal...

I suggest a letter before action, sent to the retailer, setting out your expectation of a refund for non-delivery and that if you don't get a response within 14 days, you will take them to small claims court.

TQred

I’ve learnt my lesson. I’ll be using my CC for future purchases. I am shocked at PayPal’s way of investigating. 

Ive started that process. Ive issued a letter asking if they are part of a ADR scheme. Next step will be a letter before action 

ItsComingRome

TQred said:

I’ve learnt my lesson. I’ll be using my CC for future purchases. I am shocked at PayPal’s way of investigating. 

Ive started that process. Ive issued a letter asking if they are part of a ADR scheme. Next step will be a letter before action 

To be fair a chargeback would have the same result, as may S75 given the photographic evidence it was delivered to your address.

born_again

TQred said:

I’ve learnt my lesson. I’ll be using my CC for future purchases. I am shocked at PayPal’s way of investigating. 

Ive started that process. Ive issued a letter asking if they are part of a ADR scheme. Next step will be a letter before action 

Just on your point.
Card regulations work in the same way. It's all about proof of delivery. Which the photo shows they have, It makes no difference where it has been delivered, only that the seller can prove it was delivered.
So even if you have used debit or credit card the outcome would be the same.

Jenni_D

But the law is quite specific about what constitutes delivery ... I'm sure this has been discussed a few times before with you.

mattyprice4004

Jenni_D said:

But the law is quite specific about what constitutes delivery ... I'm sure this has been discussed a few times before with you.

This would need to be enforced against the seller and not PayPal though - PayPal offer additional protection but it's on their terms. 
If they see proof of delivery as being enough, then they can close the case - recourse lies with the seller. 

To the OP, the DPD driver will be getting some stick from head office or the depot manager - I ditched DPD (as a sender) earlier this year as their treatment of both us and customers was absolutely dire. 
No idea who the Moratorium outfit are though, I was quite regularly in touch with DPD for claims and I've never heard of them. Maybe they've been instructed by the seller?

Jenni_D

mattyprice4004 said:

Jenni_D said:

But the law is quite specific about what constitutes delivery ... I'm sure this has been discussed a few times before with you.

This would need to be enforced against the seller and not PayPal though - PayPal offer additional protection but it's on their terms. 
If they see proof of delivery as being enough, then they can close the case - recourse lies with the seller. 

I was replying to the previous post which talked about card regulations, and specifically about S75. Under an S75 claim the credit provider can't blithely decline a claim simply because of a supposed proof of delivery. Consumer law says that goods must be delivered to the named person, or some other person (or perhaps place) as identified by the named person. Failure to do so leaves the goods remaining at the seller's risk. As S75 makes the credit provider jointly and severally liable for the performance of the contract then they can't simply discount other legislation if it doesn't suit their purpose.

wesleyad

Jenni_D said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Jenni_D said:

But the law is quite specific about what constitutes delivery ... I'm sure this has been discussed a few times before with you.

This would need to be enforced against the seller and not PayPal though - PayPal offer additional protection but it's on their terms. 
If they see proof of delivery as being enough, then they can close the case - recourse lies with the seller. 

I was replying to the previous post which talked about card regulations, and specifically about S75. Under an S75 claim the credit provider can't blithely decline a claim simply because of a supposed proof of delivery. Consumer law says that goods must be delivered to the named person, or some other person (or perhaps place) as identified by the named person. Failure to do so leaves the goods remaining at the seller's risk. As S75 makes the credit provider jointly and severally liable for the performance of the contract then they can't simply discount other legislation if it doesn't suit their purpose.

Yes we had exactly the same problem as the OP. The CC denied the S75 on delivery proof. We pointed out it wasn't delivered to anyone, it was left in a non secure location (which hadn't been previously agreed) as proven from the delivery companies own photo. After some to and fro they agreed contract had not been fulfilled as goods had never technically become our responsibility and reversed their decision.