Refused Delivery - Royal Mail Claimed It was delivered

tightauldgit

DullGreyGuy said:

But this is the problem in both cases... the records are confused. In the OPs case RM say they delivered the parcel and then several hours later it marked as refused but no further tracking on the parcel until 4 months later when again its marked as delivered. They are now saying the much later notes are operator errors but still leaves the conflicting records from the date of delivery and the fact the parcel was never scanned again. 

This was also the problem in the other case, conflicting courier scans and a parcel that just disappeared. The Ombudsman in that case ultimately said that on the balance of probability the complainer had failed to demonstrate that he hadnt received the goods

The consumer has no control over the record keeping of the courier though - it's up to the sender to ask their agent where the blooming parcel is and what evidence they have of that and then show that the parcel has been delivered.

The ruling of the ombudsman is lunacy in my opinion - it's more likely in their opinion that the complainer received the goods and claimed not to and it just so happens to have coincided with a mess up in record keeping at the courier that agrees with their story that the recipient couldn't possibly have known about and that the courier has no evidence of it being delivered? Or that there was some conspiracy between the recipient and the postie? That's more likely on the balance of probabilities according to the ombudsman than someone refusing a delivery and the courier losing it? 

Chippyshell

Just spoke to bank regarding S75 and they awaiting a response from the trader, when i initially spoke them a few weeks ago they were adamant S75 DOESNT apply since i didnt follow the returns procress, the trader has until the 13th to reply before a finial decision is made.

I will put together an email tonight with the stuff you guys/girls helped produce and send that across and hopefully it gets resolved though the S75 but im doubtful.

DullGreyGuy

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

But this is the problem in both cases... the records are confused. In the OPs case RM say they delivered the parcel and then several hours later it marked as refused but no further tracking on the parcel until 4 months later when again its marked as delivered. They are now saying the much later notes are operator errors but still leaves the conflicting records from the date of delivery and the fact the parcel was never scanned again. 

This was also the problem in the other case, conflicting courier scans and a parcel that just disappeared. The Ombudsman in that case ultimately said that on the balance of probability the complainer had failed to demonstrate that he hadnt received the goods

The consumer has no control over the record keeping of the courier though - it's up to the sender to ask their agent where the blooming parcel is and what evidence they have of that and then show that the parcel has been delivered.

The ruling of the ombudsman is lunacy in my opinion - it's more likely in their opinion that the complainer received the goods and claimed not to and it just so happens to have coincided with a mess up in record keeping at the courier that agrees with their story that the recipient couldn't possibly have known about and that the courier has no evidence of it being delivered? Or that there was some conspiracy between the recipient and the postie? That's more likely on the balance of probabilities according to the ombudsman than someone refusing a delivery and the courier losing it? 

You think you have the chicken and egg the right way round there? Playing devils advocate... I take receipt of my £2k parcel and start setting up my new phones/laptops. 3 hours later the RM/Evri app flashes up a new notification on the parcel tracking saying they've changed it from delivered to refused/returned to sender.

Not saying this is what the OP or the Ombudsman case did do, but for some they may then think they've got the perfect excuse to say they never received the goods. Its therefore not a coincidence that a fraudster gets messed up tracking but messed up tracking gives someone the idea of becoming a fraudster.

Its equally coincidental that something was accidentally scanned as delivered 3 hours before it was actually refused and that the same parcel was never seen again. 

Chippyshell said:

Just spoke to bank regarding S75 and they awaiting a response from the trader, when i initially spoke them a few weeks ago they were adamant S75 DOESNT apply since i didnt follow the returns procress, the trader has until the 13th to reply before a finial decision is made.

I will put together an email tonight with the stuff you guys/girls helped produce and send that across and hopefully it gets resolved though the S75 but im doubtful.

Thats most likely a chargeback not S75... a chargeback money is clawed back from the merchants account and they have 45 days to respond else they lose. S75 its paid out of your banks own pocket and wont typically involve the merchant at all and timescales is normally measured in months.

Chippyshell

DullGreyGuy said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

But this is the problem in both cases... the records are confused. In the OPs case RM say they delivered the parcel and then several hours later it marked as refused but no further tracking on the parcel until 4 months later when again its marked as delivered. They are now saying the much later notes are operator errors but still leaves the conflicting records from the date of delivery and the fact the parcel was never scanned again. 

This was also the problem in the other case, conflicting courier scans and a parcel that just disappeared. The Ombudsman in that case ultimately said that on the balance of probability the complainer had failed to demonstrate that he hadnt received the goods

The consumer has no control over the record keeping of the courier though - it's up to the sender to ask their agent where the blooming parcel is and what evidence they have of that and then show that the parcel has been delivered.

The ruling of the ombudsman is lunacy in my opinion - it's more likely in their opinion that the complainer received the goods and claimed not to and it just so happens to have coincided with a mess up in record keeping at the courier that agrees with their story that the recipient couldn't possibly have known about and that the courier has no evidence of it being delivered? Or that there was some conspiracy between the recipient and the postie? That's more likely on the balance of probabilities according to the ombudsman than someone refusing a delivery and the courier losing it? 

You think you have the chicken and egg the right way round there? Playing devils advocate... I take receipt of my £2k parcel and start setting up my new phones/laptops. 3 hours later the RM/Evri app flashes up a new notification on the parcel tracking saying they've changed it from delivered to refused/returned to sender.

Not saying this is what the OP or the Ombudsman case did do, but for some they may then think they've got the perfect excuse to say they never received the goods. Its therefore not a coincidence that a fraudster gets messed up tracking but messed up tracking gives someone the idea of becoming a fraudster.

Its equally coincidental that something was accidentally scanned as delivered 3 hours before it was actually refused and that the same parcel was never seen again. 

Chippyshell said:

Just spoke to bank regarding S75 and they awaiting a response from the trader, when i initially spoke them a few weeks ago they were adamant S75 DOESNT apply since i didnt follow the returns procress, the trader has until the 13th to reply before a finial decision is made.

I will put together an email tonight with the stuff you guys/girls helped produce and send that across and hopefully it gets resolved though the S75 but im doubtful.

Thats most likely a chargeback not S75... a chargeback money is clawed back from the merchants account and they have 45 days to respond else they lose. S75 its paid out of your banks own pocket and wont typically involve the merchant at all and timescales is normally measured in months.

Chargeback was refused because the tracking didnt move and was still "returned to sender" then they opened a s75

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP I think you should ask the bank (by email or the like so you have a record of their response) whether Section 75 applies to the transaction.

If they say yes then what's been discussed in general on the thread should hopefully help you.

If they say no you'd have to ask why and either challenge that or accept it.

If you challenge it and win the argument then go back to what's been discussed in general.

If you challenge it and lose or simply accept it then you have to look at the reality that even if you win against the site you purchased from actually seeing payment might be very difficult.

Obviously it's much better for you if Section 75 applies.

OP still has not said who the debit is on their statement, despite being asked several times.
Is very important as far a S75 goes.

Chippyshell

born_again said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP I think you should ask the bank (by email or the like so you have a record of their response) whether Section 75 applies to the transaction.

If they say yes then what's been discussed in general on the thread should hopefully help you.

If they say no you'd have to ask why and either challenge that or accept it.

If you challenge it and win the argument then go back to what's been discussed in general.

If you challenge it and lose or simply accept it then you have to look at the reality that even if you win against the site you purchased from actually seeing payment might be very difficult.

Obviously it's much better for you if Section 75 applies.

OP still has not said who the debit is on their statement, despite being asked several times.
Is very important as far a S75 goes.

Literally just says “VENDI” Sorry I missed this request.