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

turnitround

I really fee for the OP, its a no win situation, if she gets a refund they will probably close her account.

Like the OP my sister orders lots from Next, for her, the house and the kids and like the Op spends a lot of money with them. 

She has been lucky in that she has not yet ever had anything go missing but she orders several things, often the same item in different colours and returns probably three quarters of it.  

I know online shopping is the thing now but it must push up prices for everyone. I dont understand how these companies can afford to do all these returns when shoppers do like my sister and buy knowing a lot is going to be returned.

Manxman_in_exile

turnitround said:

I really fee for the OP, its a no win situation, if she gets a refund they will probably close her account.

Like the OP my sister orders lots from Next, for her, the house and the kids and like the Op spends a lot of money with them. 

She has been lucky in that she has not yet ever had anything go missing but she orders several things, often the same item in different colours and returns probably three quarters of it.  

I know online shopping is the thing now but it must push up prices for everyone. I dont understand how these companies can afford to do all these returns when shoppers do like my sister and buy knowing a lot is going to be returned.

You are right.

While I can't say that I don't do any online shopping at all I do prefer to buy in person from a physical bricks and mortar store if I can.

My wife doesn't buy a lot online but she buys significantly more than I do - and most of it seems to get returned!

As I posted on another thread, if you buy anything online there's a pretty good chance somebody else has already returned it...

Proseccogal

Well interesting you say that the rules on the Unlimited free delivery and returns are changing. Mine autorenewed in November but seems they have probably realised its not affordable to do returns as they have been especially if they have factored in parcel losses too. They also encourage parcels to be amalgamated into one large parcel which increases the risk.

"Returns with nextunlimited - 

For new subscriptions from 26/01/2023 & auto-renewing subscriptions from 23/03/2023:
Should you wish to return items using a courier collection, this will be charged at £2.50. Returns to stores remain free. Please see the returns section of our terms and conditions for further information.

For customers with existing subscriptions purchased on or before 25.01.2023:

Standard returns made via courier collection with a nextunlimited subscription are free of charge. "

I will await the Complaints Department feedback but I won't accept anything other than a cancellation of charges otherwise that's admitting I am a thief and I am not!

Manxman_in_exile

Are you referring to this?

Next Unlimited no longer providing free returns - including to some who already subscribe — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Manxman_in_exile

Proseccogal said:

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.

I think I would generally say to people returning distance purchases to make sure they tell the supplier they are exercising their statutory right to cancel a distance contract under Part 3 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) rather than using a trader's own returns policy, UNLESS the trader's own returns policy promises them a better deal.

You have a window of 14 days after delivery to exercise your statutory right, and a further 14 days after that to return the goods.

Under the statutory right you may have to pay to send the goods back (check the trader's T&Cs) and the trader might be able to make a deduction from your refund for any loss of value in the goods caused by your "excessive handling".

Under the statutory right to cancel you might have better protection if returned goods get "lost" before getting back to the trader.  (But that point might be contentious  )

If you want to continue buying a lot of stuff online, you might find it worthwhile to read the regulations I've linked to above and compare them to online trader's own returns policies.

tightauldgit

If the downside is they close my account I'd personally be happy with that as no way I would continue to buy from a company who try to impose an absolute BS investigation fee on me anyway. 

Proseccogal

Oh yes I am definitely an ex-customer of Next now, which is a shame as have used them all my working life and to clothe my kids when they were young etc and especially now as they do branded items that they like as they are older but that's it from me with my business.

I detest instore shopping and like to shop online as it suits me being non driver and for speed and can order when it suits and get gifts delivered directly but now I will be looking elsewhere.  Never did I expect this to happen when I remember excitedly buying from the catalogue with the samples of the material to feel all those years ago!

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

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)

I agree it is not technically her responsibility but the more I think about this the more incredible it all becomes....

This is not the classic expensive item stolen and something worthless of similar weight substituted. If Next are to be believed they got the right type (or very similar) trainers but in a poor second-hand condition! So if somebody in the Evri chain is to blame it seems amazing that they knew the parcel contained the trainers they wanted and they substituted them with their old ones! Presumably the parcel didn't say what was in it on the outside?  

To me that is stretching credibility to breaking point?

Manxman_in_exile

I understand what you're saying.

In my view (assuming it got as far as court) unless the judge forms the opinion that the OP was actually lying and hadn't returned the Nike trainers, and all the judge has to go on is a "he said/she said" stalemate, then the OP would probably win.

In my opinion

(I'd quite happily accept that my opinion might be subtly biased by my belief that I suspect a court in this sort of situation might itself be biased in favour of the consumer over the trader, rather than the other way round...)

cymruchris

Undervalued said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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)

I agree it is not technically her responsibility but the more I think about this the more incredible it all becomes....

This is not the classic expensive item stolen and something worthless of similar weight substituted. If Next are to be believed they got the right type (or very similar) trainers but in a poor second-hand condition! So if somebody in the Evri chain is to blame it seems amazing that they knew the parcel contained the trainers they wanted and they substituted them with their old ones! Presumably the parcel didn't say what was in it on the outside?  

To me that is stretching credibility to breaking point?

 Trainer boxes being returned in plastic bags (the usual way to return them) are fairly easy to identify due to their shape and size. A 'little tear' in the plastic would reveal what was inside. It wouldn't take that long for someone in a parcel return centre to have a sneak peak inside a few packages until they found something better than they were wearing, particularly if a common size. So I wouldn't agree with 'stretching credibility to breaking point' - definitely not a walk in the park, but neither stretching credibility.