Next charging for swapped out parcel goods scam and fee on top - CONSUMER 2 NEXT 0!!

Proseccogal

2 returned as they weren't comfortable 
3 the returns slip was enclosed as usual and you don't select the reason for return.

Proseccogal

Have since found a news article on an Evri courier tampering with parcels and taking Nike trainers being caught so there is a precedent set.

But basically Next’s attitude is inferring that I am responsible for the return parcels contents collected from my doorstep until they reach them which of course I can't be. Neither can I prove what I put in the box to start with!

powerful_Rogue

Proseccogal said:

Have since found a news article on an Evri courier tampering with parcels and taking Nike trainers being caught so there is a precedent set.

But basically Next’s attitude is inferring that I am responsible for the return parcels contents collected from my doorstep until they reach them which of course I can't be. Neither can I prove what I put in the box to start with!

That sets no precedent. Consider how many parcels Evri handle, and how many of them will be Nike trainers if that is Nikes retailer of choice. This is one solo reported incident.

Proseccogal

Well there's certainly no precedent set on my side of returning incorrect items.  There have also been 3 or 4 parcels gone missing in being returned to Next that I have experienced but as I have been able to give my returns receipt proving return and Next have refunded those items easily.  

Undervalued

Proseccogal said:

Have since found a news article on an Evri courier tampering with parcels and taking Nike trainers being caught so there is a precedent set.

But basically Next’s attitude is inferring that I am responsible for the return parcels contents collected from my doorstep until they reach them which of course I can't be. Neither can I prove what I put in the box to start with!

Morally maybe, legally no I'm afraid.

A news article about one particular dishonest courier employee, even assuming that was proved in court, doesn't in any way prove the same thing happened to your parcel. They would no doubt point to the vast majority of parcels where this doesn't happen.

Ultimately if it goes to court and in the absence of any hard evidence the judge would have to decide, on the balance of probabilities, who he believes.

Undervalued

Proseccogal said:

Well there's certainly no precedent set on my side of returning incorrect items.  There have also been 3 or 4 parcels gone missing in being returned to Next that I have experienced but as I have been able to give my returns receipt proving return and Next have refunded those items easily.  

I don't know what proportion "3 or 4 parcels gone missing" represents of your purchases from Next. Also I don't know what percentage of your purchases you have returned without courier problems?

What I would say though is that all large online sellers monitor returns etc and they will have triggers in their system to flag up suspicious or just uneconomic customers. Sadly sometimes a run of bad luck with faulty products and / or genuine courier problems can mean that a genuine and honest customer can fall foul of this.

tightauldgit

Undervalued said:

Proseccogal said:

Have since found a news article on an Evri courier tampering with parcels and taking Nike trainers being caught so there is a precedent set.

But basically Next’s attitude is inferring that I am responsible for the return parcels contents collected from my doorstep until they reach them which of course I can't be. Neither can I prove what I put in the box to start with!

Morally maybe, legally no I'm afraid.

A news article about one particular dishonest courier employee, even assuming that was proved in court, doesn't in any way prove the same thing happened to your parcel. They would no doubt point to the vast majority of parcels where this doesn't happen.

Ultimately if it goes to court and in the absence of any hard evidence the judge would have to decide, on the balance of probabilities, who he believes.

It wouldn't just be as simple as that though. It's not just a case of whether the judge believes one party or another. They also would look at the actions of both sides and determine if they were reasonable and/or negligent. 

Next hired a courier to act as their agent to collect the items - what steps did they take to ensure the correct items were received?
Next claim to have carried out an investigation - what was the outcome of that investigation, is there a report? What have EVRI said? How have they determined the customer is to blame?
Are Next's policies and processes fit for purpose in handling returns?

If it went to court it's going to cost Next a load more than £80 to defend the action and depending on the outcome could be pretty embarassing for them. 

Manxman_in_exile

@Proseccogal -  OK, it's perhaps a pity that you didn't return them by exercising your statutory right to cancel the contract under The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) as that might have left you in a better position.  (I say "might" because when you cancel under those regulations and the goods are never received back by the trader there's always a vigourous debate on here about what the law actually says and nobody here is 100% certain what the law means.  But that's irrelevent here because you didn't exercise your right to cancel under the regulations).

So if you returned them under Next's own retruns policy, you need to check very carefully what Next's T&Cs* actually say about returns.  (eg if I've understood previous posts correctly you missed the fact that their T&Cs appear to allow them to charge you an "inspection" fee*).

Without knowing more detail I'd suggest that unless you can either persuade Next to back down (eg you need to make the most to of you being a long-standing and loyal customer etc etc) or you can reach a mutually acceptable resolution, then you'll have to send a Letter Before Claim and threaten to sue them.

If Next are basically funding the cost of returning the items back to them, then unless there is something in their T&Cs* making the consumer liable for the goods until they've actually been physically delivered to Next, then if it got to court I think a judge would say that Next were legally liable for the return.

However, in your case I don't think it's a legal problem you face.  The problem you face is a question of fact and it's persuading a judge to believe your version of events rather than Next's version.

If you can persuade a judge that you put the correct Nike trainers in the box, and that those were what you returned to Next, then I'd expect you to win.  So long as the judge believes (on the balance of probabilities) that you returned the correct shoes, I don't think it matters what happened to them after you dropped them off (or sent them) and I don't think it matters that something different was actually delivered to Next.

So if it got as far as court I think your case would likely boil down to a "he said... she said" situation and who the judge was most likely to believe.

But that's just my opinion.  I suspect others on here may have differing opinions...

[Edit:  Apologies if I've missed it but I don't think you said how much you paid and how you paid?  You might have a s75 or chargeback claim if you can persuade your card provider to accept your version of events]



*There may also be issues in your favour that some of Next's T&Cs might be considered "unfair".  For example, some might argue that trying to charge you an "inspection" fee on returns was unfair because its effect could be seen as discouraging you from exercising your statutory right to cancel a distance contract.  Similarly, a condition making the consumer liable for returned goods even though Next are organising and paying for the return might be considered unfair.  All depends how these things are worded...

Undervalued

tightauldgit said:

Undervalued said:

Proseccogal said:

Have since found a news article on an Evri courier tampering with parcels and taking Nike trainers being caught so there is a precedent set.

But basically Next’s attitude is inferring that I am responsible for the return parcels contents collected from my doorstep until they reach them which of course I can't be. Neither can I prove what I put in the box to start with!

Morally maybe, legally no I'm afraid.

A news article about one particular dishonest courier employee, even assuming that was proved in court, doesn't in any way prove the same thing happened to your parcel. They would no doubt point to the vast majority of parcels where this doesn't happen.

Ultimately if it goes to court and in the absence of any hard evidence the judge would have to decide, on the balance of probabilities, who he believes.

It wouldn't just be as simple as that though. It's not just a case of whether the judge believes one party or another. They also would look at the actions of both sides and determine if they were reasonable and/or negligent. 

Next hired a courier to act as their agent to collect the items - what steps did they take to ensure the correct items were received?
Next claim to have carried out an investigation - what was the outcome of that investigation, is there a report? What have EVRI said? How have they determined the customer is to blame?
Are Next's policies and processes fit for purpose in handling returns?

If it went to court it's going to cost Next a load more than £80 to defend the action and depending on the outcome could be pretty embarassing for them. 

How could they possibly do that?

If I understand correctly what happened here is that the OP says she returned the trainers because they were "uncomfortable", presumably only having tried them on in much the same way as she would have done in a shop?

Next claim they received a very secondhand pair of similar or identical trainers?

So, there are only four possibilities....

Next are not telling the truth.

Next have made an innocent but incompetent mistake.

The OP is not telling the truth.

The courier swapped the contents of the parcel.

I would assume that Next have CCTV over the area where returns are opened. If so, providing it is clear enough quality to identify the particular parcel and show what was in it then that would "prove" that Next were not at fault.

If so, that means that either the courier or the OP is at fault but doesn't help in identifying which.

I agree with you that they may well choose not to fight a claim but they would most likely close the OP's account.

Proseccogal

Hi just to clarify a few things:

I have a family of 5 plus homeware and gifts, I don't drive so I spend several thousand every year with Next as it is convenient.  I order a lot and I return a lot, especially in their sales.  The Next Credit agreement means you order items and have 14 days to keep or return them.  So originally the items were credited as a return on December 7th.  Then I presume the worn trainers were flagged and sent to Quality Control Team who have raised the trainers as being worn and the wrong item and so the Accounts Investigation Team have now put a £35 investigation fee on my account as well as the cost of the NIke trainers £45 nearly 5 months later.  This £80 is on my online account to be paid by 17th May so hasn't been paid as yet.

I pay £22.50  annually for Next Unlimited Home Delivery scheme where I can order and return via Evri (collection from my door) as many items as I like.

Next have only investigated regarding the item not being correct and not accepting the return.  They have not investigated the courier or contacted them to investigate as one Next employee stated there is a significant elapsed time to raise it with Evri.

In the 3 or 4 parcels this year that have gone missing one was a huge bag with probably 12 or so items but I had proof of returns  collection receipt and they accepted that it had gone missing as could track it with the Evri collection system.  I couldn't prove what was in the bag they accepted my word for it.  Would this have flagged me up I wonder?

But as I say I do spend a significant amount over the years.