Retailer refusing to refund lost order even though I didn’t specify a safe place & no signature

KxMx

Have you tried inputting the tracking number into the Royal Mail app, usually but not always this will also give a GPS location

RM don't do photo proof of delivery. 

If it was a Tracked 24/48 item a signature (post person signing on your behalf) wouldn't have been done either as the basic Tracked doesn't obtain a signature. 

Jenni_D

photome said:

Littlejennar said:

sheramber said:

Littlejennar said:

Alderbank said:

Apologies if I have missed it but how did you pay? Did you pay by credit card?

I paid for it with debit; but have checked with my bank and they can still reverse it. 

And Zara can, and probably will,  dispute the reversal and the money will be returned to them. 

sheramber said:

Littlejennar said:

Alderbank said:

Apologies if I have missed it but how did you pay? Did you pay by credit card?

I paid for it with debit; but have checked with my bank and they can still reverse it. 

And Zara can, and probably will,  dispute the reversal and the money will be returned to them. 

Possibly, but possibly not. As it seems it’s the only thing I can do, I may as well try!

Why go that route where it’s likely to fail rather than a LBA where it’s likely to win

Why not do both? Chargeback followed by LBA/court if they challenge it - it's not as if the OP has any pressing timescale for the court route (6 years).

custardy

Alderbank said:

That's interesting, Custardy. I can see that GPS would show if has been delivered to the wrong address.

My experience is that my postie always waits for me to open the door for a parcel, otherwise he leaves a card if he leaves it next door or takes it back to the sorting office, but does what you say mean he could leave a parcel on the doorstep and click his device button to say it had been delivered? Do the rules say he must see it actually accepted?

safeplace is an official grey area.
however for your purpose there is no official safeplace instruction so it doesnt matter.
There can be many reasons for a delivered scan with no package. 
a common one is sliced address labels so you live at 33 but its sliced and shows just 3.
Compounded in Zara case as they did (probably still do) reverse surname/forename on their address labels so an unfamiliar postie wouldnt spot the error so easily.

Alderbank

Custardy's useful reply:

There can be many reasons for a delivered scan with no package. 

I would think therefore that if this were to go to MCOL that unless Zara has additional evidence that they would lose on balance of probabilities?
OP, if the case does get to court, before any hearing you would be able to study all the evidence that Zara claims to have.

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:
How difficult these days is it to take a photo of actual delivery to the consumer?  It's in the retailer's interest to insist on their courier doing this.

With GDPR? A lot more difficult than just pressing the shutter button. 

Sandtree

Alderbank said:

Custardy's useful reply:

There can be many reasons for a delivered scan with no package. 

I would think therefore that if this were to go to MCOL that unless Zara has additional evidence that they would lose on balance of probabilities?

Why would they lose on the balance of probability? 

You have a courier that says they gave it to the OP and the OP saying they never got it. Who is more likely to benefit out of the parcel "going missing"? This is RM so not a self employed courier paid per successful delivery and even it were the OP is probably waiting for goods worth more than a couple of quid the courier may get (or a random sized/style garment of clothing if you think they are stealing them for themselves)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Sandtree said:

Alderbank said:

Custardy's useful reply:

There can be many reasons for a delivered scan with no package. 

I would think therefore that if this were to go to MCOL that unless Zara has additional evidence that they would lose on balance of probabilities?

Why would they lose on the balance of probability? 

You have a courier that says they gave it to the OP and the OP saying they never got it. Who is more likely to benefit out of the parcel "going missing"? This is RM so not a self employed courier paid per successful delivery and even it were the OP is probably waiting for goods worth more than a couple of quid the courier may get (or a random sized/style garment of clothing if you think they are stealing them for themselves)

Worth noting Royal Mail deliver to an address rather than a person so the courier tracking doesn't guarantee the goods came into physical possession of the consumer. 

The online track and trace will just show as delivered from a certain DO which doesn't really provide anything. Sometimes on the track and trace there is a map showing where the parcel was scanned. I might have missed it but I'm not sure if the OP actually has the tracking number? 

My understanding it that the GPS location is fairly accurate but whether it's close enough to pin point exactly between say 2 small terraced houses I'm not sure. @custardy may know.  

The system, even with Royal Mail who are better than average, is open to issues, scans in the wrong place or parcels being delivered to the wrong address in error. 

IMHO the retailer really needs more than just a standard delivered scan to defend such a claim. 

Alderbank

I think I've added 2 and 2 to get 5.
The defendant will contend that as 99% of RM parcels are delivered correctly the balance of probability is in their favour.

We do now though know that there are many reasons for a delivered scan with no package. The OP knows the individual circumstances of this case and might be able to show that the specifics of one or more of these grounds could reasonably account for the scan being incorrect.
I concede it's by no means as easy as I first thought

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Alderbank said:

I think I've added 2 and 2 to get 5.
The defendant will contend that as 99% of RM parcels are delivered correctly the balance of probability is in their favour.

We do now though know that there are many reasons for a delivered scan with no package. The OP knows the individual circumstances of this case and might be able to show that the specifics of one or more of these grounds could reasonably account for the scan being incorrect.
I concede it's by no means as easy as I first thought

I don't think that's a sound argument, based on that random figure off 99%, in just a single day in 2020 Royal Mail delivered 11.7 million parcels so 1% misdelivered that day would be 117,000, which is highly doubtful.

Statistics at such volumes don't really offer much to individual cases. 

Sandtree

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

I think I've added 2 and 2 to get 5.
The defendant will contend that as 99% of RM parcels are delivered correctly the balance of probability is in their favour.

We do now though know that there are many reasons for a delivered scan with no package. The OP knows the individual circumstances of this case and might be able to show that the specifics of one or more of these grounds could reasonably account for the scan being incorrect.
I concede it's by no means as easy as I first thought

I don't think that's a sound argument, based on that random figure off 99%, in just a single day in 2020 Royal Mail delivered 11.7 million parcels so 1% misdelivered that day would be 117,000, which is highly doubtful.

Statistics at such volumes don't really offer much to individual cases. 

The normal estimate is 99.9% with the actual loss rate below 0.1% however its easier to estimate parcels than letters given probably over half of all letters sent the recipient doesnt expect them coming to be able to raise a complaint for non delivery.

Whatever the rate however the legal system does generally consider it reliable enough to have created the "posting law" in that for contracts etc, post is considered delivered after 2 days unless the recipient can prove otherwise. Thankfully the OP this doesnt apply in this scenario but does indicate the general view of RM by the legal system and hence the challenge that if it went to court (which it never will) that it'd be a slam dunk for the OP.