QVC refusing refund of £399.00

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Alderbank said:

Over at the Consumer Action Group https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/183-postal-and-delivery-services/
there are many interesting and very relevant posts about this issue.
They say that EVRi (Hermes) and others seek to deny consumers' legal rights by telling them when they complain about 'lost' parcels that by entering into a contract with EVRi their entitlement to any damages is limited to EVRi's restrictive T&Cs.
However they say that when, with the assistance of CAG, claimants have submitted properly worded LBAs, EVRi have paid up rather than face court challenge.

CAG give very detailed and experienced assistance to their members to enable them to claim successfully.

I would say it's something that should be tested in a higher court to get an answer once and for all but look at what happened with private parking tickets.... 

If you look at a service like Royal Mail Special Delivery it shows parcels can be handled in a way that significantly reduces problems, of course the problem is price. That said RM Tracked is pretty decent as well and the price isn't that expensive.  

MalMonroe

teresa7272 said:

I returned a Dyson hair straightener using Hermes / Evri as it was under the max weight to use this service - which is heavily promoted as a helpful QVC partner. I didn’t notice that I shouldn’t have used this service for any items which cost over £200. I got the tracking info from Hermes but it seems to be lost somewhere. Hermes say to contact QVC as it’s their problem and QVC say to contact Hermes & they are refusing a refund as they say I shouldn’t have used Hermes. I’ve contacted both Hermes/Evri & QVC CEOs by email but both keep saying to contact the other -   So I’ve lost £399 and I’m devastated. was my first ever purchase from QVC and will most definitely be my last. Any advice on how I might get my money back? 

Hi, how did you pay for the hair straightener? 

Can you claim via Section 75 if you paid by credit card or a chargeback if you paid by debit card?

Info about Section 75 - https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/
Scroll down to the section about escalating to the financial ombudsman and if you're in doubt, it's worth making a claim. 

Here's information about chargeback too - https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/

Have you tried emailing the Hermes/Evri support line?

returnssupport@evri.com

It would also not cost you anything to write to Anna Tims at the Guardian/Observer. 

your.problems @observer.co.uk

My daughter did that as a last resort when she had a dispute with PayPal that seemed to go on for ever and she thought was impossible to solve. I know it sounds like a long shot, writing to a newspaper (even online) but they DID help her and she did get her money back. Also, it costs nothing, you could just copy and paste your original post into an email and send it off.

I feel your devastation and think that QVC, with all the great profits they make, could easily refund you, even if you DID 'get it wrong'. That's a lot of money to lose and I hope you manage to get it back.

You could also send them a message on Twitter and Facebook. Yes, you did it wrong but you aren't the first and you won't be the last. They have your money and you don't have the goods and they MUST have some kind of insurance that protects them against loss and theft.

Please don't give up. It's worth fighting for.      x

MarvinDay

MalMonroe said:

Hi, how did you pay for the hair straightener? 

Can you claim via Section 75 if you paid by credit card or a chargeback if you paid by debit card?

Info about Section 75 - https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/
Scroll down to the section about escalating to the financial ombudsman and if you're in doubt, it's worth making a claim. 

Here's information about chargeback too - https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/visa-mastercard-chargeback/

Have you tried emailing the Hermes/Evri support line?

returnssupport@evri.com

It would also not cost you anything to write to Anna Tims at the Guardian/Observer. 

your.problems @observer.co.uk

My daughter did that as a last resort when she had a dispute with PayPal that seemed to go on for ever and she thought was impossible to solve. I know it sounds like a long shot, writing to a newspaper (even online) but they DID help her and she did get her money back. Also, it costs nothing, you could just copy and paste your original post into an email and send it off.

I feel your devastation and think that QVC, with all the great profits they make, could easily refund you, even if you DID 'get it wrong'. That's a lot of money to lose and I hope you manage to get it back.

You could also send them a message on Twitter and Facebook. Yes, you did it wrong but you aren't the first and you won't be the last. They have your money and you don't have the goods and they MUST have some kind of insurance that protects them against loss and theft.

Please don't give up. It's worth fighting for.      x

Both chargebacks and S75 claims are only applicable where there has been a breach of contract between the consumer and the retailer of the goods or services and in this case, QVC have done nothing wrong so it's pointless attempting to reclaim the money this way.

QVC will have insurance to cover them for loss and theft but their goods have not been lost or stolen. It's the OP's goods that are missing and this is nothing to do with QVC or their insurers.

Yes, QVC might well make a good annual profit but this might not be the case if they were to simply hand over large sums of money for something that was neither their fault nor their responsibility.

jon81uk

Manxman_in_exile said:

p00hsticks said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

user1977 said:

I suspect the main difference between couriers and many other areas of business is that they don't really know what risk they are taking on unless you declare the type/value of the contents - does your parcel contain a Ming vase, or are you just sending your dirty laundry home to your mum?

Well if the courier has asked the customer to declare the value of the parcel contents and the customer has lied, then that is at the customer's risk - they can't expect greater compensation than they have declared.

But where the courier hasn't asked or where the customer has truthfully declared the value, why should the customer have to pay to insure against the courier's carelessness, incompetence, negligence or the outright dishonesty of their staff?

I'm not familiar with sending stuff by courier, but do they generally charge the same to send (e.g) a 20 kg box of dirty laundry as they do to send a 20k box of the same size containing a Ming vase ?

If so, it makes sense to me that they'd suggest insurance on top to cover the potential differnce in value if the item is lost or damaged, whether it's the couriers fault or not.

I wouldn't use a courier whose pricing structure makes no commercial sense.

I'm a strong believer that providers of services in the private sector should charge a proper market rate for the services they provide and that there shouldn't be any cross-subsidies that may distort or hide the true costs* of providing those services.

Obviously, if a courier is going to transport a wide range of items of widely varying values, they must price their services accordingly.  If they willingly accept high value items to transport, then they should stand the risk of doing so and price their services accordingly.  They shouldn't be asking the customer to take out insurance against them - the courier - being negligent.  That's daft.  The courier should be buying the insurance.  (And that makes more economic sense anyway, as they'd get a better deal for it unless they were completely incompetent.  Oh - hang on...      )

On the other hand, if they don't want to take that risk and they have a policy of refusing to transport high value items, then I don't have a problem with that policy so long as the customer is aware of it.

*I'm by no means a green activist or supporter, but there's no doubt in my mind that not pricing services and goods appropriately inevitably leads to misallocation and misuse of valuable resources.  These sort of courier charging structures are small fry and relatively insignificant in comparison to global warming etc, but they are symptomatic on a small scale of the sort of behaviour that have led us into the mess we are in today.  But I'm beginning an uncharacteristic rant, so I'll stop...

I don’t think asking customers to pay for a service to cover the value of the item is the same as buying insurance. Royal Mail only cover up to £20 as standard as well and most people understand if the item is worth more they need to pay more for a different service.

But in the OPs case has it been made clear who paid Hermes and therefore who has the contract, the OP or QVC?

born_again

How easy is it for a courier to lose a parcel.
Very in my experience. Taking dogs out for a walk & picked up a package in the gutter just by our house. It had been picked up from a company 2 miles away & I can only assume it must have dropped out of the UPS truck when making a delivery on our street.
Safe to say that the company were happy to get the package back the next day.

lisyloo

Manxman_in_exile said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm interested in the law here as well, and you raise a good point.

I don't know what limits the liability of the Post Office/RM, but given the history I wouldn't be surprised if it's by statute.

What really annoys me is that you can enter into a contract with a courier - or whatever - and then they can say to you "Oh - by the way, you will need to take out insurance at an additional cost if you want your item to be covered against us damaging it or losing it because we haven't exercised reasonable skill or taken reasonable care of it whilst it's in our possession".

Why should the customer have to insure against the service provider breaching the contract?  That should be the provider's concern and at their risk - not the customer's.

And I'm not sure the CRA permits service providers to do that anyway.  (Although I'm more than happy for it to be demonstrated that I'm wholly wrong on this generally)

This led to a change of precedent - the carrier had to be 'negligent', meaning the owner of the goods had to package the goods reasonably well and the carrier merely had to show reasonable care and skill.

I guess it begs the question how do you lose a well packaged, clearly addressed parcel if you’ve been taking reasonable care of it?

Perhsps OP can confirm whether they were returning under QVCs 60 day return policy or had cancelled their contract within 14 days of receipt? 

It could have been destroyed in a traffic accident which wasn’t the fault of the Hermes driver or something like that, ...

lisyloo said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm interested in the law here as well, and you raise a good point.

I don't know what limits the liability of the Post Office/RM, but given the history I wouldn't be surprised if it's by statute.

What really annoys me is that you can enter into a contract with a courier - or whatever - and then they can say to you "Oh - by the way, you will need to take out insurance at an additional cost if you want your item to be covered against us damaging it or losing it because we haven't exercised reasonable skill or taken reasonable care of it whilst it's in our possession".

Why should the customer have to insure against the service provider breaching the contract?  That should be the provider's concern and at their risk - not the customer's.

And I'm not sure the CRA permits service providers to do that anyway.  (Although I'm more than happy for it to be demonstrated that I'm wholly wrong on this generally)

This led to a change of precedent - the carrier had to be 'negligent', meaning the owner of the goods had to package the goods reasonably well and the carrier merely had to show reasonable care and skill.

I guess it begs the question how do you lose a well packaged, clearly addressed parcel if you’ve been taking reasonable care of it?...

My point exactly.  I can't think of a more apt example of res ipsa locquitur in operation...

The burden of proof shifts to Hermes to show they had taken proper care of it - which I doubt they could.

This does raise a point I’ve been wondering about.

is it possible to “lose” items without negligence.
i believe it is - for example there can be theft (even if someone is taking care and not negligent), accidents etc.
so the question is whose responsibility are those cases where negligence is not involved...

so I am questioning the position of loss = negligence...

Yes.  Of course it is possible for items to be lost or damaged while in transit and that loss or damage not be caused by the courier's negligence or lack of reasonable care.

However, I would argue that the mere fact that the courier has lost the item (so long as the customer has complied with all the courier's requirements) is prima facie evidence that the courier has been negligent which then switches the burden of proof back onto the courier to demonstrate that in fact they did take all reasonable care of the item - even though they lost it.

I'm not suggesting that would be impossible for the courier to do, but I would suggest they might find it difficult.

In any case, my argument is that the OP has nothing to lose by suing or threatening to sue.  But if they do nothing they will certainly lose c. £400.  It's a no-brainer.

I am interested in this principle of negligence being assumed (you may well know more than me about the law).

in other scenarios I’ve come across on these forums e.g. water leak, falling roof tiles, then then burden of prof falls on the complainant to prove negligence.

can you help me understand why this is the other way round?

Don’t get me wrong, some of these companies are atrocious so I’m not seeking to defend then - just trying to understand the legal principle.