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

Proseccogal

 totally agree that Next are telling the truth.  They have posted to me the totally different make/size/condition trainers they received.  So whilst I believe Next are telling the truth and hasn't made a mistake in as far as what they received is not what they sent and their employees didn't swap at the Returns department, it's the lack of investigation or onus at the courier level that astounds me.

I refuse to accept being called a thief when I haven't and my history with the company is not taken into account yet a temporary xmas courier or Evri as a whole is not subject to the same accusations.  I doubt this employee only did it once and there may be other incidents but they haven't contacted Evri at all.

At this rate, I have no issue closing my account or they close it.  It has totally destroyed my loyalty for the company.

Aylesbury_Duck

Write to their head office, point out how much custom you put their way, and ask them to remove the incorrect charges to your account.  Tell them that if they don't want to do so, to please close your account.

Manxman_in_exile

Proseccogal said:

Hi just to clarify a few things:

I have a family of 5 plus homeware and gifts, ...

[Edited for brevity]

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

Make as much of this argument as you can with Next to try to persude them to change their mind.

Point to your account and say "Look how much money I spend with you each year!"

If you've some history of making trouble-free returns, that might help.  On the other hand, it might make them wonder if you are worth keeping as a customer...

And yes, if you recently had problems with another return, that might have flagged you up for closer inspection...

tightauldgit

Undervalued said:

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?

I

Well that would be a problem for NEXT to solve in conjunction with the agent acting on their behalf collecting goods. It's certainly not the consumer's problem. 

Manxman_in_exile

Proseccogal said:

 totally agree that Next are telling the truth.  They have posted to me the totally different make/size/condition trainers they received.  So whilst I believe Next are telling the truth and hasn't made a mistake in as far as what they received is not what they sent and their employees didn't swap at the Returns department, it's the lack of investigation or onus at the courier level that astounds me.

I refuse to accept being called a thief when I haven't and my history with the company is not taken into account yet a temporary xmas courier or Evri as a whole is not subject to the same accusations.  I doubt this employee only did it once and there may be other incidents but they haven't contacted Evri at all.

At this rate, I have no issue closing my account or they close it.  It has totally destroyed my loyalty for the company.

I've no doubt Next are telling the truth.

But if you're telling the truth as well, then if I were in your position and it got to court, I'd expect a judge to side with me unless I came across as incredibly shifty and dishonest, and was obviously lying.

If it's just a 50:50 case of one person's word against another's, I'd honestly expect a court to come down on the side of the consumer rather than the trader in the absence of any other evidence.

But that's just my view.

Proseccogal

I have written to their Complaints team and awaiting a response. I will take it further if there isn't a satisfactory response. I just won't accept the inference that I have stolen goods.   I have parcel deliveries from various companies on a daily basis -  this now makes me reconsider my rights and returns processes with all companies I order from.

Manxman_in_exile

Undervalued said:

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. 

... 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.

Whilst I think I agree with your four possibilities, if it got to court I don't think a judge would find it necessary to decide what had actually happened to the shoes, and I also don't think they'd need to find any fault on Next's part

I think all a judge would need to decide would be whether the OP was a credible witness or not.  If they couldn't say the OP wasn't telling the truth, I think the OP would win - if it got to court.

It's not for the OP to explain what might have happened after she'd entrusted the shoes to EVRI.  (Although I'm sure it wouldn't do her any harm to try to point out that it appears to be common knowledge that some couriers seem to have somewhat "dodgy" reputations in this respect... )

But however it's sorted out, I agree that it's a possibility that Next might decide decide to close the account.

(I'm assuming for the above purposes that Next paid for the return and that EVRI is their chosen courier)

cymruchris

If you've sent back the trainers and they've been switched in transit by the courier, then a crime has been committed. Not exactly the heist of the century, but a crime all the same. As much as the Police really do have better things to do, I would be inclined to go along to your local Police station, inform them of the facts, and obtain a Police crime reference number. I would then complain in the strongest terms enclosing the detail of the crime reference number for Next to progress their enquiry with the courier. (They won't - but what it will demonstrate is that you're less likely to be a chancer, and that on the balance of probabilities you're telling the truth, and likely they'll reverse their decision).

tightauldgit

cymruchris said:

If you've sent back the trainers and they've been switched in transit by the courier, then a crime has been committed. Not exactly the heist of the century, but a crime all the same. As much as the Police really do have better things to do, I would be inclined to go along to your local Police station, inform them of the facts, and obtain a Police crime reference number. I would then complain in the strongest terms enclosing the detail of the crime reference number for Next to progress their enquiry with the courier. (They won't - but what it will demonstrate is that you're less likely to be a chancer, and that on the balance of probabilities you're telling the truth, and likely they'll reverse their decision).

The item was stolen from Next though. So I'm not sure the OP would have much benefit in reporting the crime. It's not the consumer's responsibility to find out what happened to the shoes. That's Next's problem. 

cymruchris

tightauldgit said:

cymruchris said:

If you've sent back the trainers and they've been switched in transit by the courier, then a crime has been committed. Not exactly the heist of the century, but a crime all the same. As much as the Police really do have better things to do, I would be inclined to go along to your local Police station, inform them of the facts, and obtain a Police crime reference number. I would then complain in the strongest terms enclosing the detail of the crime reference number for Next to progress their enquiry with the courier. (They won't - but what it will demonstrate is that you're less likely to be a chancer, and that on the balance of probabilities you're telling the truth, and likely they'll reverse their decision).

The item was stolen from Next though. So I'm not sure the OP would have much benefit in reporting the crime. It's not the consumer's responsibility to find out what happened to the shoes. That's Next's problem. 

They were stolen in transit before arrival, and the OP has been charged financially for that loss. The benefit is that the OP would be taken more seriously. If one was a serial refunder fraudster, one would be less likely to keep getting police crime reference numbers to get refunds, as the police themselves might start getting a bit suspicious of someone rocking up three times a week for repeated lost/stolen returns. From the retailers perspective, it will demonstrate that the OP will be seeking resolve, and won't be going quietly. It would also help should a court claim be warranted at a later date.